4.8 Article

Protein binding mediation of biomaterial-dependent monocyte activation on a degradable polar hydrophobic ionic polyurethane

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 33, 期 33, 页码 8316-8328

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.08.014

关键词

Monocyte; Protein adsorption; Wound healing; Surface characterization; alpha(2)-Macroglobulin

资金

  1. NSERC/CIHR [337246/83459]
  2. CIHR [230762, STP-53877]
  3. Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protein adsorption is an important phenomenon influencing the cellular response to biomaterials. Previous studies comparing monocyte activation on a degradable polar hydrophobic ionic polyurethane (D-PHI) indicated a reduced pro-inflammatory monocyte response relative to tissue culture polystyrene (TCPS) and poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) substrates. The present study investigated the influence of protein binding in order to gain further insight into the observed differential monocyte activation. Several proteins, identified in different relative amounts within the bound protein layers on D-PHI vs. PLGA and TCPS, were evaluated for their effect on monocyte activation. It was found that, in general, both non-coated and protein pre-adsorbed D-PHI supported a reduced pro-inflammatory response relative to PLGA, as indicated by lower levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) release. An initial increase in TNF-alpha release occurred when alpha(2)-macroglobulin (A2M) was pre-adsorbed to D-PHI, which was shown to involve the alpha(2)-macroglobulin receptor and was active on D-PHI but not on the two other biomaterials. This response was not observed during competitive protein binding in the presence of fetal bovine serum (FBS), suggesting that a more complex arrangement of the bound proteins and their interactions with one another, as well as with the surface chemistry of the individual biomaterials, resulted in the low-activating character of D-PHI when interacting with human monocytes. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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