“…Hydrogels are 3D cross-linked soft biomaterials that have been used widely in diverse biomedical applications, such as controlled drug delivery, cell encapsulation, and tissue engineering. − Among the countless strategies to cross-link the 3D network structure, chemical ligations have afforded hydrogels with extensive versatility and intelligence. In the past decades, in situ forming hydrogels have attracted widespread attention in the biomedical community owing to their distinctive advantages, such as minimally invasive implantation, which reduces patient’s discomfort, as well as the ease of homogeneous encapsulation of cells and bioactive molecules by mimicking their native extracellular matrix (ECM) microenvironment. , More recently, “click” chemistry has emerged as a powerful and advantageous strategy for the in situ fabrication of hydrogels due to its high selectivity and specificity. − Unfortunately, many common click reactions fail to meet the requirements of a suitable hydrogel cross-linking reaction, such as bioorthogonality, use of safe reagents/triggers, formation of a benign side product, mild temperature, and high reaction efficiency . For example, thiol–ene coupling reactions (Scheme A) require external photoinitiators and long UV exposure time, which could potentially damage cells and tissues; − strain-promoted azide–alkyne cycloadditions (SPAAC) (Scheme B) are still restricted by slow reaction kinetics and a tedious synthesis of reactants; , Diels–Alder reactions (Scheme C) require high temperatures and long reaction times; , tetrazines are sensitive to water and cellular thiols; , and the tetrazine–norbornene inverse-electron demand Diels–Alder cycloaddition (IEDDA) (Scheme D) produces N 2 as side product, which may ultimately affect the material’s mechanical integrity. , Despite all these efforts to eliminate external catalysis/triggers and to improve reaction rates, there is yet no ideal chemical ligation reaction for the preparation of bioorthogonal click hydrogels.…”