Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T01:35:05.482Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Osteogenic Cell Attachment to Degradable Polymers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Kevin E. Healy ,
Davis Tsai  and
Jung E. Kim
Kevin E. Healy
Affiliation:
Depts. of Biological Materials and Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Davis Tsai
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Jung E. Kim
Affiliation:
Dept. of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Get access

Abstract

Modifications were made to increase osteogenic cell adhesion to homo and copolymers of lactic and glycolic acid. A synthetic peptide containing the cell attachment signal Arginine-Glycine-Aspartate (RGD) was loaded into the polymers or adsorbed to the polymers' surfaces. Cell attachment was assayed after 24 hours incubation with an osteogenic cell line (ROS 17/2.8). Statistically significant differences in cell adhesion occurred between the polymers with the adsorbed peptides and the other treatment groups. Significant differences were not observed for the peptide loaded polymers and controls. These data indicate that precoating the polymer surface with a RGD-containing peptide prior to exposure to osteogenic cells increased cell attachment. For the current materials tested, the surface modification is preferred to increase osteogenic cell adhesion to degradable polyesters.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 252: Symposium T – Tissue-Inducing Biomaterials , 1991 , 109
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Albelda, S.M., Buck, C.A., FASEB J., 4, 2868–2880 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Ruoslahti, E. and Pierschbacher, M.D., Cell, 44, 517–518 (1986).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Dedhar, S., Ruoslahti, E., and Pierschbacher, M.D., J. Cell Biol., 104, 585–593 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Puleo, D.A. and Bizios, R., Bone, 12, 271–276 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Pierschbacher, M.D., and Ruoslahti, E., Nature, 309, 30–33 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Massia, S.A., and Hubbell, J.A., Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 261–270 (1990).Google Scholar
7. Cutright, D.E., Perez, D., Beasley, J.D., Larson, W.J., and Posey, W.R., Oral. Surg., 37, 142–152 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Miller, R.A., Brady, J.M, and Cutright, D.E., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 11, 711–719 (1977).Google Scholar
9. Nakamura, T., Hitomi, S., Watanabe, S., Shimizu, Y., Jamshidi, K., Hyon, S.-H., and Ikada, Y., J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 23, 1115–1130 (1989).Google Scholar
10. Oliver, M.H., Harrison, N.K., Bishop, J.E., Cole, P.J., and Laurent, G.J., J. Cell Sci., 92, 513–518 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar