A surface-engineered polyetheretherketone biomaterial implant with direct and immunoregulatory antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Liu, Wei; Li, Jinhua; Cheng, Mengqi; Wang, Qiaojie; Qian, Yebin; Yeung, Kelvin Wai Kwok; Chu, Paul K.; Zhang, Xianlong

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.04.008

Cited by 129 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Zhang and co‐workers magnetron‐sputtered the copper NPs on the surface of porous sulfonated polyetheretherketone (SPEEK) to fight MRSA infection. [ 166 ] The bactericidal action involved dual modes of contact killing and trap killing. Released copper ions at low dosage could trigger activation of M1 macrophages and secretion of inflammatory cytokines (including IL‐6 and TNF‐α) and MCP‐1 chemokine to generate inflammatory microenvironment and potentiate phagocytic activity of macrophages for MRSA killing and resolution.…”

Section: Immunoengineering Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tailoring Materials for Modulation of Macrophage Fate

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human immune system acts as a pivotal role in the tissue homeostasis and disease progression. Immunomodulatory biomaterials that can manipulate innate immunity and adaptive immunity hold great promise for a broad range of prophylactic and therapeutic purposes. This review is focused on the design strategies and principles of immunomodulatory biomaterials from the standpoint of materials science to regulate macrophage fate, such as activation, polarization, adhesion, migration, proliferation, and secretion. It offers a comprehensive survey and discussion on the tunability of material designs regarding physical, chemical, biological, and dynamic cues for modulating macrophage immune response. The range of such tailorable cues encompasses surface properties, surface topography, materials mechanics, materials composition, and materials dynamics. The representative immunoengineering applications selected herein demonstrate how macrophage-immunomodulating biomaterials are being exploited for cancer immunotherapy, infection immunotherapy, tissue regeneration, inflammation resolution, and vaccination. A perspective on the future research directions of immunoregulatory biomaterials is also provided.

show abstract

Section: Immunoengineering Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tailoring Materials for Modulation of Macrophage Fate

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both metals, such as zinc and copper, as well as nonmetals, like calcium phosphate and calcium silicate, have been used to coat the surfaces of biomaterials to activate immunomodulation. 173,174,178,179 Another example of a surface coating which has immunomodulatory capabilities is boron incorporated into calcium silicate (B-CS). The B-CS coating decreased the number of M1 macrophages and polarized them to the M2 phenotype.…”

Section: Immune-modulatory Materials For Bone Regenerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The demand for biomaterials that promote the repair, replacement, or restoration of hard and soft tissues continues to grow as the population ages. Traditionally, smart biomaterials have been thought as those that respond to stimuli. However, the continuous evolution of the field warrants a fresh look at the concept of smartness of biomaterials. This review presents a redefinition of the term “Smart Biomaterial” and discusses recent advances in and applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissue restoration and regeneration. To clarify the use of the term “smart biomaterials”, we propose four degrees of smartness according to the level of interaction of the biomaterials with the bio-environment and the biological/cellular responses they elicit, defining these materials as inert, active, responsive, and autonomous. Then, we present an up-to-date survey of applications of smart biomaterials for hard tissues, based on the materials’ responses (external and internal stimuli) and their use as immune-modulatory biomaterials. Finally, we discuss the limitations and obstacles to the translation from basic research (bench) to clinical utilization that is required for the development of clinically relevant applications of these technologies.

show abstract

“…In line with this finding, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants biofunctionalized with Cu using a sulfonation and magnetron sputtering technique, induced proinflammatory macrophage polarization with improved killing of MRSA both in vitro and in vivo. [270] Cu 2+ may also serve a dual role, as biomaterial-mediated delivery of Cu 2+ leads to favorable pro-osteogenic responses. [260,264] Together, this shows advantageous immunomodulatory features of Cu for its use in anti-infective biomaterials.…”

Section: Immunomodulatory Strategies Using Metal Particlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although their utility as immunomodulatory agents still needs to be established with in vivo bone infections models, their established bone-promoting role favors their use for orthopedic implant biofunctionalization. As in vivo bone infection studies evaluating new immunomodulatory biomaterials often do not include control groups with antibiotics, [186,270,278,322] they cannot answer whether immunomodulatory approaches can achieve a similar efficacy as the current clinical standard. To further address the gap in the current literature, carefully designed in vivo studies should also aim at discriminating between direct and host-mediated pathways of bacterial killing by the anti-infective approach.…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

commensal skin bacteria, Staphylococci, and in particular Staphylococcus aureus, have a strong tendency to colonize foreign bodies and cause IAI. [3,4] Important for the underlying pathophysiology, Staphylococci are highly competent at producing biofilms on implant surfaces, which encapsulate the bacterial niche from the outside environment, [5,6] thereby protecting the bacteria from host defense systems and antibiotics. [7] Antibiotics are administered as a routine procedure. [8] However, as a consequence of widespread antibiotics usage, bacteria are exposed to subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics at a larger scale, driving their development toward antibiotic resistance, [9] as illustrated by the emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). [10,11] As an improvement over current clinically applied local antibiotics delivery systems, [12] the recent developments in implant surface engineering approaches allow better antimicrobial functionalities to be incorporated to allow for more tunable and controlled drug release. [13-15] The "race to the surface" model is popular among biomaterials researchers to predict the biomaterials fate, resulting from the competition between eukaryotic cells and bacteria at the material surface. [16] Using this template, implant antibacterial properties are being stemmed from direct contact killing mechanisms due to implant surface modifications [17,18] or firm immobilization of drugs, [19,20] as they both "shield" the implant from bacterial adhesion. The current anti-infective biomaterials strategies being explored can be categorized as: 1) implant functionalization with antibiotics or antibacterial drugs such as host defense peptides (HDPs), inorganic materials (e.g., chitosan and derivatives), and inorganics (e.g., silver, copper, and zinc metal nanoparticles (NPs)), 2) anti-biofilm surface modification (e.g., coating with antifouling polymers or quorum sensor inhibitors), or 3) physical surface changes for direct contact-killing properties (e.g., nanotubes, nanopillars, and metal implantation). [15,21] Emerging as a serious alternative or adjuvant therapy to antibiotics, bacteriophage (phage) therapy uses viruses responsible for the lysis of specific bacterial strains. [22,23] As a natural predator of bacteria, phages employ different killing mechanisms, making multidrug resistant bacteria susceptible for phages. [24] Moreover, phages are highly specific for pathogenic cells, which can eliminate disastrous off-target effects in the host. [25] As a limitation, the use of phage cocktails is needed for therapeutic efficacy, [26] while there is currently is no conclusive data on possible long-term side effects of phage therapy in The widespread use of biomaterials to support or replace body parts is increasingly threatened by the risk of implant-associated infections. In the quest for finding novel anti-infective biomaterials, there generally has been a one-sided focus on biomaterials with direct antibacterial properties, which leads to excessive use of antibacterial ag...

show abstract

A surface-engineered polyetheretherketone biomaterial implant with direct and immunoregulatory antibacterial activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus

Cited by 129 publications

References 60 publications

Tailoring Materials for Modulation of Macrophage Fate

Tailoring Materials for Modulation of Macrophage Fate

On the road to smart biomaterials for bone research: definitions, concepts, advances, and outlook

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About