4.7 Article

Collagenase-Labile Polyurethane Urea Synthesis and Processing into Hollow Fiber Membranes

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 15, 期 8, 页码 2924-2932

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/bm500552f

关键词

-

资金

  1. PTEI DOD ARM-IV Fellowship
  2. NSF grant [CHE-0130903, CHE-1039870]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As a means to stimulate wound healing, a hollow fiber membrane system might be placed within a wound bed to provide local and externally regulated controlled delivery of regenerative factors. After sufficient healing, it would be desirable to triggerably degrade these fibers as opposed to pulling them out. Accordingly, a series of enzymatically degradable thermoplastic elastomers was developed as potential hollow fiber base material. Polyurethane ureas (PUUs) were synthesized based on 1, 4-diisocyanatobutane, polycaprolactone (PCL) diol and polyethylene glycol (PEG) at different molar fractions as soft segments, and collagenase-sensitive peptide GGGLGPAGGK-NH2 as a chain extender (defined as PUU-CL(x)EG(y)-peptide, where x and y are the respective molar percents). In these polymers, PEG in the polymer backbone decreased tensile strengths and initial moduli of solvent-cast films in the wet state, while increasing water absorption. Collagenase degradation was observed at 75% relative PEG content in the soft segment. Control PUUs with putrescine or nonsense peptide chain extenders did not degrade acutely in collagenase. Conduits electrospun from PUU-CL(25)EG(75)-peptide and PUU-CL(50)EG(50)-peptide exhibited appropriate mechanical strength and sustained release of a model protein from the tube lumen for 7 days. Collapse of PUU-CL(25)EG(75)-peptide tubes occurred after collagenase degradation for 3 days. In conclusion, through molecular design, synthesis and characterization, a collagenase-labile PUU-CL(25)EG(75)-peptide polymer was identified that exhibited the desired traits of triggerable lability, processability, and the capacity to act as a membrane to facilitate controlled protein

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