4.8 Article

Cell-mediated delivery of glucocorticoids from thiol-ene hydrogels

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 612-618

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.08.002

关键词

Hydrogel; Dexamethasone; Mesenchymal stem cells; Glucocorticoid; Poly(ethylene glycol)

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1R21 AR057904]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thiol-ene-based poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) hydrogels provide a unique functional platform for the sustained and localized delivery of bioactive small molecules like glucocorticoids. As a proof of concept, the synthetic glucocorticoid Dexamethasone (Dex) was conjugated to the N-terminus of a matrix metalloproteinase(MMP)-degradable peptide, which was then easily co-polymerized into PEG gel scaffolds by a thiol-ene polymerization mechanism. The conjugated Dex was locally sequestered until released by cleavage of the MMP-degradable peptide tether triggered by cell-secreted MMPs, and was only available for uptake by local co-encapsulated cells. Elevated alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activities and calcium deposition levels were observed for human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) that were encapsulated in PEG hydrogels functionalized with 10 mu M of a Dexamethasone-conjugated peptide (Dex-peptide). The cellular responses stimulated by the tethered Dex lasted for over 21 days. Using co-culture experiments, hMSCs encapsulated in hydrogels with the MMP-degradable Dex-peptides had elevated levels of ALP activity and calcium deposition, whereas no elevated cellular responses were observed in co-cultured hMSCs surrounding the gel. Moreover, modifying the peptide sequence to alter its susceptibility to cleavage and/or changing the Dex-peptide loading further regulated the hMSC response to Dex at different levels and on different time scales. Collectively, these results demonstrate a tunable system for the delivery of glucocorticoids in a localized and cell-dictated manner. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据