4.8 Article

Vanadyl-Catecholamine Hydrogels Inspired by Ascidians and Mussels

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 105-111

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/cm503425d

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of South Korea [2014002855]
  2. Molecular-Level Interface Research Center [20090083525]
  3. Ministry of Health and Welfare [A120170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In general, mechanical properties and gelation kinetics exhibit a positive correlation with the amount of gelation reagents used. Similarly, for catechol-containing hydrogels, which have attracted significant attention, because of their unique dual properties of cohesion and adhesion, increased amounts of cross-linking agents, such as organic oxidants and/or transition metals (Fe3+), result in enhanced mechanical strength and more rapid gelation kinetics. Here, we report a new metalligand cross-linking chemistry, inspired by mussels and ascidians, that defies the aforementioned conventional stoichiometric concept. When a small amount of vanadium is present in the catechol-functionalized polymer solution (i.e., [V] << [catechol]), organic radicals are rapidly generated that trigger the gelation reaction. However, when a large amount of the ion is added to the same solution (i.e., [V] >> [catechol]), the catechol remains chemically intact by coordination that inhibits gelation. Thus, a large amount of cross-linking agent is not necessary to prepare mechanically strong, biocompatible hydrogels using this system. This new chemistry may provide insight into the biological roles of vanadium and its interaction with catechol-containing molecules (i.e., determination of the liquid state versus the solid state). Excess amounts of vanadium ([V] >> [catechol]) coordinate with catechol, which may result in a liquid state for ascidian blood, whereas excess amounts of catechol ([V] << [catechol]) generate an organic radical-mediated chemical reaction, which may result in solid-state conversion of the mussel byssal threads.

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