4.8 Article

Altering in vivo macrophage responses with modified polymer properties

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 56, 期 -, 页码 187-197

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.03.042

关键词

Macrophage phenotype; In vivo test; Surface modification; Polymer properties; Biocompatibility; Biomedical applications

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET 1227867]
  2. Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust [13-4265]
  3. NSF ARI-R2 [CMMI-0963224]
  4. Directorate For Engineering
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1227867] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophage reprogramming has long been the focus of research in disease therapeutics and biomaterial implantation. With different chemical and physical properties of materials playing a role in macrophage polarization, it is important to investigate and categorize the activation effects of material parameters both in vitro and in vivo. In this study, we have investigated the effects of material surface chemistry on in vivo polarization of macrophages. The library of materials used here include poly(N-iso-propylacrylamide-co-acrylic acid) (p(NIPAm-co-AAc)) nanoparticles (similar to 600 nm) modified with various functional groups. This study also focuses on the development of a quantitative structure activity relationship method (QSAR) as a predictive tool for determining the macrophage polarization in response to particular biomaterial surface chemistries. Here, we successfully use in vivo imaging and histological analysis to identify the macrophage response and activation. We demonstrate the ability to induce a spectrum of macrophage phenotypes with a change in material functionality as well as identify certain material parameters that seem to correlate with each phenotype. This suggests the potential to develop materials for a variety of applications and predict the outcome of macrophage activation in response to new surface chemistries. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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