4.7 Article

In vitro and in vivo responses of macrophages to magnesium-doped titanium

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep42707

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars of China [51525207]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31370962, 31670980, 81472109, 81301571]
  3. Shanghai Rising-Star Program [15QA1404100]
  4. Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS [2015204]
  5. State Key Laboratory of Bioelectronics, Southeast University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modulating immune response to biomaterials through changing macrophage polarization has been proven to be a promising strategy to elicit beneficial outcomes in tissue repair. The objective of this study was to evaluate the response of macrophage polarization to titanium doped with magnesium (0.1 similar to 0.35%), which was prepared through the magnesium plasma immersion ion implantation (Mg PIII) technique. The M1/M2 polarization profile of macrophages was investigated using a murine cell line RAW 264.7 in vitro and a murine air pouch model in vivo. Our results demonstrated that the Mg PIII-treated titanium induced a higher percentage of M2 macrophages and higher concentrations of the anti-inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-10. Genes encoding two growth factors, bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were up-regulated, thus indicating the ability of the M2 phenotype to promote wound healing. The nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kappa B) signalling pathway was down-regulated. In vivo the Mg PIII-treated titanium elicited a similar effect on macrophage polarization and induced thinner fibrous capsule formation and a decrease in infiltrated cells. These results indicate that Mg PIII treatment has the immunomodulatory potential to elicit the pro-healing M2-polarized macrophage phenotype, thus providing new insight into the development of immunomodulatory biomaterials.

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