4.7 Article

In vitro cytotoxicity of unsaturated oligo[poly(ethylene glycol) fumarate] macromers and their cross-linked hydrogels

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 552-560

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bm020121m

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [R01 DE13031] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, oligo[poly(ethylene glycol) fumarate] (OPF) hydrogels are being investigated as an injectable and biodegradable system for tissue engineering applications. In this study, cytotoxicity of each component of the OPF hydrogel formulation and the resulting cross-linked network was examined. Specifically, OPF synthesized with poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) of different molecular weights (MW), the cross-linking agent [PEG-diacrylate (PEG-DA)], and the redox initiator pair [ammonium persulfate (APS) and ascorbic acid (AA)] were evaluated for cytotoxicity at 2 and 24 h using marrow stromal cells (MSCs) as model cells. The effect of leachable byproducts of OPF hydrogels on cytotoxicity was also investigated. Upon exposure to various concentrations of OPF for 2 h, greater than 50% of the MSCs were viable, regardless of OPF molecular weight or concentration in the media. After 24 h, the MSCs maintained more than 75% viability except for OPF concentrations higher than 25% (w/v). When examining the cross-linking agent, PEG-DA of higher MW (3400) demonstrated significantly higher viability compared to PEG-DA with MW 575 at all concentrations tested. Considering initiators, when MSCs were exposed to AA and APS, as well as the combination of AA and APS, higher viability was observed at lower concentrations. Once cross-linked, the leachable products from the OPF hydrogels had minimal adverse effects on the viability of MSCs (percentage of live cells was higher than 90% regardless of hydrogel types). The results suggest that, after optimization of cross-linking parameters, OPF-based hydrogels hold promise as novel injectable scaffolds or cell carriers in tissue engineering.

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