4.1 Article

Binding and Release Characteristics of Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 from a Collagen-Glycosaminoglycan Scaffold

期刊

TISSUE ENGINEERING PART C-METHODS
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 1439-1448

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/ten.tec.2009.0806

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. Orthomimetics Limited, Byron House, Cambridge Business Park, Milton Road, Cambridge
  3. National Institute for Health Research
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [DT/F006977/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. EPSRC [DT/F006977/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue engineering is a promising technique for cartilage repair, but to optimize novel scaffolds before clinical trials, it is necessary to determine their characteristics for binding and release of growth factors. Toward this goal, a novel, porous collagen-glycosaminoglycan scaffold was loaded with a range of concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) to evaluate its potential as a controlled delivery device. The kinetics of IGF-1 adsorption and release from the scaffold was demonstrated using radiolabeled IGF-1. Adsorption was rapid, and was approximately proportional to the loading concentration. Ionic bonding contributed to this interaction. IGF-1 release was studied over 14 days to compare the release profiles from different loading groups. Two distinct phases occurred: first, a burst release of up to 44% was noted within the first 24 h; then, a slow, sustained release (13%-16%) was observed from day 1 to 14. When the burst release was subtracted, the relative percentage of remaining IGF-1 released was similar for all loading groups and broadly followed t(1/2) kinetics until approximately day 6. Scaffold cross-linking using dehydrothermal treatment did not affect IGF-1 adsorption or release. Bioactivity of released IGF-1 was confirmed by seeding scaffolds (preadsorbed with unlabeled IGF-1) with human osteoarthritic chondrocytes and demonstrating increased proteoglycan production in vitro.

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

4.1
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