Peptide Interfacial Biomaterials Improve Endothelial Cell Adhesion and Spreading on Synthetic Polyglycolic Acid Materials
- 390 Downloads
Resorbable scaffolds such as polyglycolic acid (PGA) are employed in a number of clinical and tissue engineering applications owing to their desirable property of allowing remodeling to form native tissue over time. However, native PGA does not promote endothelial cell adhesion. Here we describe a novel treatment with hetero-bifunctional peptide linkers, termed “interfacial biomaterials” (IFBMs), which are used to alter the surface of PGA to provide appropriate biological cues. IFBMs couple an affinity peptide for the material with a biologically active peptide that promotes desired cellular responses. One such PGA affinity peptide was coupled to the integrin binding domain, Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD), to build a chemically synthesized bimodular 27 amino acid peptide that mediated interactions between PGA and integrin receptors on endothelial cells. Quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring (QCMD) was used to determine the association constant (K A 1 × 107 M−1) and surface thickness (~3.5 nm). Cell binding studies indicated that IFBM efficiently mediated adhesion, spreading, and cytoskeletal organization of endothelial cells on PGA in an integrin-dependent manner. We show that the IFBM peptide promotes a 200% increase in endothelial cell binding to PGA as well as 70–120% increase in cell spreading from 30 to 60 minutes after plating.
KeywordsPGA Surface modification IFBM Peptides RGD Biomaterials Scaffolds
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (Grant 5R01EB000501 to MWG) and the North Carolina Biotechnology Center (Collaborative Funding Grant to DJK supporting XH). The authors thank Felix Yap for assistance with image analysis, and Erin Carruthers, PhD, for assistance with QCM-D.
- 3.Barber, T. A., J. E. Ho, A. De Ranieri, A. S. Virdi, D. R. Sumner, and K. E. Healy. Peri-implant bone formation and implant integration strength of peptide-modified p(aam-co-eg/aac) interpenetrating polymer network-coated titanium implants. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 80:306–320, 2007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Chen, R., and J. A. Hunt. Biomimetic materials processing for tissue-engineering processes. J. Mater. Res. 17:3974–3979, 2007.Google Scholar
- 10.Garcia, A. J. Interfaces to control cell-biomaterial adhesive interactions. In: Polymers for Regenerative Medicine, edited by C. Werner. Springer, 2006, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar
- 15.Hook, F., B. Kasemo, T. Nylander, C. Fant, K. Sott, and H. Elwing. Variations in coupled water, viscoelastic properties, and film thickness of a mefp-1 protein film during adsorption and cross-linking: a quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring, ellipsometry, and surface plasmon resonance study. Anal. Chem. 73:5796–5804, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kay, B. K., J. Winter, and J. Mccafferty. Phage Display of Peptides and Proteins. San Diego: Academic Press, 1996.Google Scholar
- 26.Kohn, J., and R. Langer. Bioresorbable and bioerodible materials. In: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine, edited by B. D. Ratner, A. S. Hoffman, F. J. Schoen, and J. E. Lemon. San Diego: Academic Press, 1997, pp. 65–73.Google Scholar
- 43.Ratner, B. D., A. S. Hoffman, F. J. Schoen, and J. E. Lemons. Biomaterials Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine. San Diego: Academic Press, 2000.Google Scholar
- 46.Sanghvi, A. B., K. P. Miller, A. M. Belcher, and C. E. Schmidt. Fabricating novel biomimetic polymers using combinatorial peptide screening technologies. Abstracts of Papers of the American Chemical Society 227:U126, 2004.Google Scholar
- 54.Walsh, E. B., C. Middleton, M. J. Davis, D. J. Kenan, and M. W. Grinstaff. Multifunctional peptides as interfacial biomaterials. ACS Div. Polym. Chem. 43:753, 2002.Google Scholar