4.7 Article

Silicon nanopore membrane (SNM) for islet encapsulation and immunoisolation under convective transport

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep23679

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF)
  2. Larry L. Hillblom Foundation (LLHF) fellowship
  3. Harry Wm. & Diana V. Hind Distinguished Professorship in Pharmaceutical Sciences II
  4. QB3 J&J Bridging-the-Gap Award
  5. UCSF CTSI Catalyst Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Problems associated with islet transplantation for Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) such as shortage of donor cells, use of immunosuppressive drugs remain as major challenges. Immune isolation using encapsulation may circumvent the use of immunosuppressants and prolong the longevity of transplanted islets. The encapsulating membrane must block the passage of host's immune components while providing sufficient exchange of glucose, insulin and other small molecules. We report the development and characterization of a new generation of semipermeable ultrafiltration membrane, the silicon nanopore membrane (SNM), designed with approximately 7 nm-wide slit-pores to provide middle molecule selectivity by limiting passage of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Moreover, the use of convective transport with a pressure differential across the SNM overcomes the mass transfer limitations associated with diffusion through nanometer-scale pores. The SNM exhibited a hydraulic permeability of 130 ml/hr/m(2)/mmHg, which is more than 3 fold greater than existing polymer membranes. Analysis of sieving coefficients revealed 80% reduction in cytokines passage through SNM under convective transport. SNM protected encapsulated islets from infiltrating cytokines and retained islet viability over 6 hours and remained responsive to changes in glucose levels unlike non-encapsulated controls. Together, these data demonstrate the novel membrane exhibiting unprecedented hydraulic permeability and immune-protection for islet transplantation therapy.

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

4.7
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