4.5 Article

Comparison of the cytotoxic and inflammatory responses of titanium particles with different methods for endotoxin removal in RAW264.7 macrophages

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10856-012-4574-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2006AA02A137]
  2. Program for the Shanghai Key Laboratory of Orthopaedic Implant [08DZ2230300]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81001529]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is generally accepted that periprosthetic bone resorption is initiated through aseptic inflammation aggravated by wear particles that are generated from artificial joint. However, some studies have demonstrated that endotoxin-free wear particles are almost completely unable to stimulate the macrophage-mediated production of proinflammatory cytokines. Here, we compare the titanium particles with different methods of endotoxin removal. The results indicated that different titanium particle preparation dosages did not significantly change particle size, morphology, and chemical composition. But it could cause variations in the endotoxin concentration of titanium particles and inflammatory responses in RAW264.7 macrophages. The particles with higher endotoxin levels correlated with more extensive inflammatory responses. When testing endotoxins using the supernatant of particle suspensions, it would lead to false negative results compared with testing the particle themselves. And when using the particles themselves, all the particles should be removed by centrifugation to avoid particle interference before the absorbance value was determined. Therefore, we suggest that research concerning wear particles should completely describe the endotoxin testing process, including endotoxin removal from particles and the details of endotoxin testing. Moreover, future research should focus on the surface of wear particles (the potential role of adherent endotoxin) rather than the particles themselves.

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

4.5
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