Effects of branching and molecular weight of surface-bound poly(ethylene oxide) on protein rejection

Bergström, Karin; Österberg, E.; Holmberg, Krister; Hoffman, Allan S.; Schuman, Thomas P.; Kozlowski, Antoni; Harris, John H.

doi:10.1163/156856294x00257

Cited by 117 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…14 -16 Similar to other hydrophilic materials tested, this inhibitory effect may be induced by the large number of water molecules attracted to the hydrophilic surface. This "water barrier" has been shown to reduce protein adsorption on the surface of hydrophilic biomaterials, 29,30 therefore limiting monocyte/macrophage adhesion and inducing apoptosis of nonadherent cells. 14,15 Although the cellular response to PAAm surfaces has been fairly consistent in previous studies, the response to surfaces of ionic character has not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monocyte/lymphocyte interactions and the foreign body response: In vitro effects of biomaterial surface chemistry

MacEwan

Brodbeck

Matsuda

et al. 2005

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To determine the effect of biomaterial surface chemistry on leukocyte interaction and activity at the material/tissue interface, human peripheral blood monocytes and lymphocytes were cultured on a series of poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)-based biomaterials. Both monocytes and lymphocytes were isolated from whole human blood and separated by a nonadherent density centrifugation method before being plated on PET disks, surface modified by photograft copolymerization to yield hydrophobic, hydrophilic, anionic, and cationic surface properties. Monocytes and lymphocytes were cultured separately, to elicit baseline levels of activity, in direct coculture, to promote direct cell surface interactions, or in an indirect coculture system with both cell types separated by a -0.02-microm Transwell apparatus, to promote indirect paracrine interactions. Monocyte adhesion, macrophage fusion, and lymphocyte proliferation were measured on days 3, 7, 10, and 14 of culture. Results demonstrated that the presence of monocytes increased the activity of cocultured lymphocytes at the biomaterial/tissue interface, while the corresponding presence of lymphocytes increased the activation and fusion of indirectly cocultured monocytes. Biomaterial surface chemistry was also found to have a significant effect on monocyte adhesion and activation, and lymphocyte activity. Hydrophilic surfaces significantly inhibited both initial and longterm monocyte adhesion, and inhibited lymphocyte proliferation at longer time points. Anionic and cationic surfaces both exhibited mild inhibition of monocyte adhesion at prolonged time points and increased levels of macrophage fusion, while cationic surfaces decreased levels of lymphocyte proliferation and inhibited monocyte activity. These results elucidate the complex role of juxtacrine and paracrine interactions between monocytes and lymphocytes in the foreign body response, as well as promote the consideration of hydrophilic surfaces in future designs of implantable biomedical devices and prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monocyte/lymphocyte interactions and the foreign body response: In vitro effects of biomaterial surface chemistry

MacEwan

Brodbeck

Matsuda

et al. 2005

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whether some modifications of hydrophilic polymers would be effective not only in obtaining blood compatibility but also in reducing protein adsorption was considered. [22][23][24][25] The environment surrounding the biomolecules and polymeric materials used in our bodies is an aqueous medium. The characteristics of the water in the material or on the surface of the material are important in recognizing the interactions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do phospholipid polymers reduce protein adsorption?

Ishihara

Nomura

Mutoh

et al. 1998

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

948

299

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The amount of plasma protein adsorbed on a phospholipid polymer having a 2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) moiety was reduced compared to the amount of protein adsorbed onto poly[2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)], poly[n-butyl methacrylate (BMA)], and BMA copolymers with acrylamide (AAm) or N-vinyl pyrrolidone (VPy) moieties having a hydrophilic fraction. To clarify the reason for the reduced protein adsorption on the MPC polymer, the water structure in the hydrated polymer was examined with attention to the free water fraction. Hydration of the polymers occurred when they were immersed in water. The differential scanning calorimetric analysis of these hydrated polymers revealed that the free water fractions in the poly(MPC-co-BMA) and poly(MPC-co-n-dodecyl methacrylate) with a 0.30 MPC mole fraction were above 0.70. On the other hand, the free water fractions in the poly(HEMA), poly(AAm-co-BMA), and poly(VPy-co-BMA) were below 0.42. The conformational change in proteins adsorbed on the MPC polymers and poly(HEMA) were determined using ultraviolet and circular dichroism spectroscopic measurements. Proteins adsorbed on poly(HEMA) changed considerably, but those adsorbed on poly(MPC-co-BMA) with a 0.30 MPC mole fraction differed little from the native state. We concluded from these results that fewer proteins are adsorbed and their original conformation is not changed on polymer surfaces that possess a high free water fraction.

show abstract

“…PEG is often used for its stealth functions in nanoparticle formulations because it is a hydrophilic (Bolwell et al, 1988;Crom et al, 1994;Wall and Wani, 1995;Clarke and Rivory, 1999;Lobert et al, 2000;Screnci et al, 2000;Hirschfeld et al, 2003;Forrest et al, 2006;Pommier, 2006;Yang et al, 2006;Kelland, 2007;Kreder and Dmochowski, 2007;Cai et al, 2010;Surapaneni et al, 2012;Wilson and Lippard, 2012;Yadav and Khan, 2013;Ferrati et al, 2015;Nirmalanandhan et al, 2015;Saari et al, 2015). and flexible polymer (Bergström et al, 1994). The conjugation of PEG to the surface of the liposomal phospholipid bilayer reduces the interaction of liposomes with plasma proteins through steric hindrance (Allen et al, 1985;Allen and Chonn, 1987;Gabizon and Papahadjopoulos, 1988;Allen et al, 1991b;Papahadjopoulos et al, 1991;Allen et al, 2002).…”

Section: Mt1-mmp (A Member Of Matrix Metalloproteinase)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Systems in Cancer Therapy: What Is Available and What Is Yet to Come

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of branching and molecular weight of surface-bound poly(ethylene oxide) on protein rejection

Cited by 117 publications

References 19 publications

Monocyte/lymphocyte interactions and the foreign body response: In vitro effects of biomaterial surface chemistry

Monocyte/lymphocyte interactions and the foreign body response: In vitro effects of biomaterial surface chemistry

Why do phospholipid polymers reduce protein adsorption?

Lipid-Based Drug Delivery Systems in Cancer Therapy: What Is Available and What Is Yet to Come

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About