Biocompatibility evaluation of N,O-hexanoyl chitosan as a biodegradable hydrophobic polycation for controlled drug release
- 145 Downloads
- 2 Citations
Abstract
N,O-hexanoyl chitosan (HC) displayed unique properties of excellent processibility, solubility in common organic solvents and cationic characteristics, thereby might find versatile applicaions for biomedical engineering. In this study, the biocompatibility of HC was evaluated. The effect of HC on dermal fibroblast attachment, proliferation and viability was examined in vitro, in comparison with poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and chitosan. The in vivo tissue response to HC was compared with PLGA implanted subcutaneously; the weight loss of the implant materials was also measured duing the degradation process. It was found that HC had no deleterious effect on the viability of dermal fibroblast. In vivo, HC displayed a favorable tissue response profile compared with PLGA, with significantly less inflammation and fibrosis. The erosion rate of HC could be modulated by changing the degree of substitution of hexanoyl groups in HC.
Keywords
Chitosan Dermal Fibroblast Chitosan Derivative Chitosan Membrane HexanoylNotes
Acknowledgments
The project was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Project 20304013.
References
- 1.K.E. Uhrich, S.M. Cannizzaro, R.S. Langer, K.M. Shakesheff, Chem. Rev. 99, 3181 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.A. Södergård, M. Stolt, Prog. Polym. Sci. 27, 1123 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.N. Kumar, R.S. Langer, A.J. Domb, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 54, 889 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.M. Leemhuis, J.A.W. Kruijtzer, C.F. Van Nostrurn, W.E. Hennink, Biomacromolecules 8, 2943 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.M. Leemhuis, C.F. Van Nostrum, J.A.W. Kruijtzer, Z.Y. Zhong, M.R. Ten Breteler, P.J. Dijkstra, J. Feijen, W.E. Hennink, Macromolecules 39, 3500 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.A.C. Albertsson, Biomacromolecules 4, 1466 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.N.A. Peppas, P. Bures, W. Leobandung, H. Ichikaw, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 50, 27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.M.N.V. Ravi Kumar, R.A.A. Muzzarelli, C. Muzzarelli, H. Sashiwa, A.J. Domb, Chem. Rev. 104, 6017 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.K.A. Janes, P. Calvo, M.J. Alonso, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 47, 83 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.G. Borchard, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 52, 145 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.S.J.K. Francis, H.W.T. Matthew, Biomaterials 21, 2589 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.H. Ueno, T. Mori, T. Fujinaga, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 52, 105 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.K. Kurita, Prog. Polym. Sci. 26, 1921 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.A. Polnok, G. Borchard, J.C. Verhoef, N. Sarisuta, H.E. Junginger, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 57, 77 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.H. Sashiwa, N. Kawasaki, A. Nakayama, E. Muraki, N. Yamamoto, H. Zhu, H. Nagano, Y. Omura, H. Saimoto, Y. Shigemasa, S.I. Aiba, Biomacromolecules 3, 1120 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.M.E.I. Badawy, E.I. Rabea, T.M. Rogge, C.V. Stevens, G. Smagghe, W. Steurbaut, M. Hofte, Biomacromolecules 5, 589 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.P. Manisara, R. Ratana, S. Pitt, J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Edn. 17, 547 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar