4.5 Article

Controlled release of growth factors based on biodegradation of gelatin hydrogel

期刊

出版社

VSP BV
DOI: 10.1163/156856201744461

关键词

growth factor; hydrogel; controlled release; gelatin; biodegradation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To develop a carrier for the controlled release of biologically-active growth factors, biodegradable hydrogels were prepared through glutaraldehyde cross-linking of gelatin with isoelectric points (IEP) of 5.0 and 9.0, i.e. 'acidic' and 'basic gelatins, respectively. Radioiodinated growth factors were used to investigate their sorption and desorption from the hydrogel of both types of gelatin. Basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and transforming growth factor-beta1 (TGF-beta1) were well sorbed with time to the acidic gelatin hydrogel, while less sorption was observed for the basic gelatin hydrogel. This could be explained in terms of the electrostatic interaction between the growth factors and the acidic gelatin. However, bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), though their IEPs are higher than 7.0, were sorbed to the acidic gelatin hydrogel to a smaller extent than the two other growth factors. Under in vitro non-degradation conditions, approximately 20% of the incorporated bFGF and TGF-beta1 was desorbed from the hydrogels within the initial 40 min, followed by no further substantial desorption, whereas large initial desorption was observed for BMP-2 and VEGF when implanted in the back subcutis of mice, gelatin hydrogels were degraded over time. Each growth factor was retained in vivo being incorporated in the acidic gelatin hydrogel: the smaller the in vitro desorption amount from the hydrogel, the longer the in vivo retention time. The in vivo profile of bFGF and TGF-beta1 retention was in good accordance with that of the hydrogel. These findings indicate that the growth factor immobilized to the acidic gelatin hydrogel through ionic interaction was released in vivo as a result of hydrogel degradation.

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

4.5
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