4.7 Article

Properties of Poly(ethylene glycol) Hydrogels Cross-Linked via Strain-Promoted Alkyne-Azide Cycloaddition (SPAAC)

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 17, 期 3, 页码 1093-1100

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.5b01711

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  2. NSERC Collaborative Research and Training Experience program on the Integrated Development of Extracellular Matrices (CREATE-IDEM)
  3. Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A series of poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) hydrogels was synthesized using strain-promoted alkyne-azide cycloaddition (SPAAC) between PEG chains terminated with either aza-dibenzocyclooctynes or azide functionalities. The gelation process was found to occur rapidly upon mixing the two components in aqueous solution without the need for external stimuli or catalysts, making the system a candidate for use as an injectable hydrogel. The mechanical and rheological properties of these hydrogels were found to be tunable by varying the polymer molecular weight and the number of cross-linking groups per chain. The gelation times of these hydrogels ranged from 10 to 60 s at room temperature. The mass-based swelling ratios varied from 45 to 76 at maximum swelling (relative to the dry state), while the weight percent of polymer in these hydrogels ranged from 1.31 to 2.05%, demonstrating the variations in amount of polymer required to maintain the structural integrity of the gel. Each hydrogel degraded at a different rate in PBS at pH = 7.4, with degradation times ranging from 1 to 35 days. By changing the composition of the two starting components, it was found that the Young's modulus of each hydrogel could be varied from 1 to 18 kPa. Hydrogel incubation with bovine serum albumin showed minimal protein adsorption. Finally, a cell cytotoxicity study of the precursor polymers with 3T3 fibroblasts demonstrated that the azide- and strained alkyne-functionalized PEGs are noncytotoxic.

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