4.1 Article Proceedings Paper

Inhibition of cell proliferation by mitomycin C incorporated into P(HEMA) hydrogels

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLAUCOMA
卷 15, 期 4, 页码 291-298

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ijg.0000212236.96039.9c

关键词

glaucoma surgery; wound heating; slow release mitomycin C device

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The technique of mitomycin C (MMC) drug delivery and its application in glaucoma surgery are not standardized with resultant inconsistencies in the results. Also, one time application of MMC does not seem to have the same efficacy after glaucoma drainage device surgeries compared with trabeculectomies. This preliminary study examined the efficacy of a slow release form of MMC for its ability to inhibit cell proliferation in vitro. Methods: MMC was incorporated into 1% P(HEMA) hydrogels using a redox polymerization method. For some experiments, unreacted low molecular weight components were removed from the hydrogels before the MMC was incorporated. Sterile disks (8mm) of each polymer sample were affixed to 60mm tissue culture dishes, and the dishes were inoculated with COS-1 cells or early passage human conjunctival fibroblasts. After 7 days in culture, the number of cells in each dish was determined. Cell morphology was assessed in replicate cultures after fixation and staining. Results: Hydrogels with unreacted low molecular weight components slowed cell proliferation and induced morphologic changes. Early passage human conjunctival fibroblasts were more sensitive than COS-1 cells both to intrinsic contaminants in the hydrogels and to incorporated MMC. Once contaminants had been removed, MMC-loaded hydrogels inhibited conjunctival fibroblast proliferation in a dose-dependent fashion, with an IC50 of similar to 0.15mg/g polymer. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a slow release form of MMC can inhibit cell proliferation in vitro. Future experiments will focus upon the efficacy of this polymer-bound form during in vivo wound heating.

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