4.6 Article

Improving biomaterial properties of collagen films by chemical modification

期刊

BIOTECHNOLOGY AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 246-252

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/bit.1057

关键词

collagen; chemical modification; fibroblast cell attachment; endothelial cell attachment; bacterial adhesion; biomaterials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Films of bovine collagen were chemically modified with the goal of improving their biomaterial properties. The modified films were investigated with respect to their affinity to fibroblast and endothelial cells, as well as their antibacterial properties tested by adhesion of Staphylococcus aureus. Modifications that only change the net charge of collagen, such as acetylation, succinylation, and treatment with glutaraldehyde tall increase the negative charge), and amination with ethylenediamine (EDA), N,N-dimethyl-EDA (DMEDA), or butylamine tall increase the positive charge), did not dramatically alter the mammalian cell attachment to the film. In contrast, derivatization of collagen using methoxypoly(ethylene glycol) (PEG] diminished the attachment of fibroblasts by 98 +/- 1% and of endothelial cells by more than 99% compared to unmodified collagen. Moreover, the rate of growth of fibroblasts dropped by 97 +/- 1% and that of endothelial cells by 88 +/- 3% as a result of PEGylation of collagen. Adhesion of S. aureus cells also plummeted by 93 +/- 2% as a result of this PEGylation. With these antifouling properties, PEG-collagen may be a promising coating material for coronary stents. Subsequent derivatization of PEG-collagen with EDA or DMEDA abolished its mammalian cell-repelling ability, whereas bacterial cell repulsion was partially retained: for example, DMEDA-modified PEG-collagen exhibits up to a 5-fold lower bacterial adhesion than collagen. It is worth noting that a material that allows mammalian cell attachment but reduces bacterial adhesion could be useful as an implant or coating. (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

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

4.6
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