4.4 Article

The influence of poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate on the structural, physical, and biological properties of collagen fibers

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.33445

关键词

collagen fibers; collagen crosslinking; starPEG; mechanical properties; cytocompatibility

资金

  1. European Union [263289, 251385]
  2. Teagasc Walsh Fellowship [2014045]
  3. ReValueProtein project [11/F/043]
  4. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) under the National Development Plan - Irish Government

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various chemical, natural, or synthetic in origin, crosslinking methods have been proposed over the years to stabilise collagen fibers. However, an optimal method has yet to be identified. Herein, we ventured to assess the potential of 4-star poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate, as opposed to glutaraldehyde (GTA), genipin and carbodiimide, on the structural, physical and biological properties of collagen fibers. The 4-star poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate induced an intermedium surface smoothness, denaturation temperature and swelling. The 4-star poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate fibers had significantly higher stress at break values than the carbodiimide fibers, but significantly lower than the GTA and genipin fibers. With respect to strain at break, no significant difference was observed among the crosslinking treatments. The 4-star poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate fibers exhibited significantly higher cell metabolic activity and DNA concentration that all other crosslinking treatments, promoted consistently cellular elongation along the longitudinal fiber axis and by day 7 they were completely covered by cells. Collectively, this work clearly demonstrates the potential of 4-star poly(ethylene glycol) ether tetrasuccinimidyl glutarate as collagen crosslinker. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 104B: 914-922, 2016.

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

4.4
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