Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine

, Volume 23, Issue 9, pp 2203–2215

Biointerface: protein enhanced stem cells binding to implant surface

  • W. Chrzanowski
  • A. Kondyurin
  • Jae Ho Lee
  • Megan S. Lord
  • M. M. M. Bilek
  • Hae-Won Kim
Article

Abstract

The number of metallic implantable devices placed every year is estimated at 3.7 million. This number has been steadily increasing over last decades at a rate of around 8 %. In spite of the many successes of the devices the implantation of biomaterial into tissues almost universally leads to the development of an avascular sac, which consists of fibrous tissue around the device and walls off the implant from the body. This reaction can be detrimental to the function of implant, reduces its lifetime, and necessitates repeated surgery. Clearly, to reduce the number of revision surgeries and improve long-term implant function it is necessary to enhance device integration by modulating cell adhesion and function. In this paper we have demonstrated that it is possible to enhance stem cell attachment using engineered biointerfaces. To create this functional interface, samples were coated with polymer (as a precursor) and then ion implanted to create a reactive interface that aids the binding of biomolecules—fibronectin. Both AFM and XPS analyses confirmed the presence of protein layers on the samples. The amount of protein was significant greater for the ion implanted surfaces and was not disrupted upon washing with detergent, hence the formation of strong bonds with the interface was confirmed. While, for non ion implanted surfaces, a decrease of protein was observed after washing with detergent. Finally, the number of stem cells attached to the surface was enhanced for ion implanted surfaces. The studies presented confirm that the developed bionterface with immobilised fibronectin is an effective means to modulate stem cell attachment.

References

  1. 1.
    Shabalovskaya S, Anderegg J, Van Humbeeck J. Critical overview of Nitinol surfaces and their modifications for medical applications. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(3):447–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shabalovskaya SA, et al. The electrochemical characteristics of native Nitinol surfaces. Biomaterials. 2009;30(22):3662–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shabalovskaya SA, et al. The influence of surface oxides on the distribution and release of nickel from Nitinol wires. Biomaterials. 2009;30(4):468–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andreasen GF, Morrow RE. Laboratory and clinical analyses of nitinol wire. Am J Orthod. 1978;73(2):142–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duerig T, Pelton A, Stöckel D. An overview of nitinol medical applications. Mater Sci Eng A. 1999;273–275:149–60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sachdeva RCL, Miyazaki S. Nitinol as a biomedical material. In: Buschow KHJ, et al., editors. Encyclopedia of materials: science and technology. Oxford: Elsevier; 2001. p. 6155–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chu PK. Enhancement of surface properties of biomaterials using plasma-based technologies. Surf Coat Technol. 2007;201(19–20):8076–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Effect of surface treatment on the bioactivity of nickel–titanium. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(6):1969–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Chemical, corrosion and topographical analysis of stainless steel implants after different implantation periods. J Biomater Appl. 2008;23(1):51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Tailoring cell behavior on polymers by the incorporation of titanium doped phosphate glass filler. Adv Eng Mater. 2010;12(7):B298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beyersmann D, Hartwig A. Carcinogenic metal compounds: recent insight into molecular and cellular mechanisms. Arch Toxicol. 2008;82(8):493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu H, et al. Carcinogenic effect of nickel compounds. Mol Cell Biochem. 2005;279(1):45–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Es-Souni M, Es-Souni M, Fischer-Brandies H. Assessing the biocompatibility of NiTi shape memory alloys used for medical applications. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2005;381:557–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denkhaus E, Salnikow K. Nickel essentiality, toxicity, and carcinogenicity. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2002;42(1):35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryhanen J. Biocompatibility evaluation of nickel–titanium shape memory metal alloy. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Oulu University Library, Oulu; 1999. ISBN: 951-42-5206-3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Assad M, et al. Comparative in vitro biocompatibility of nickel–titanium, pure nickel, pure titanium, and stainless steel: genotoxicity and atomic absorption evaluation. Biomed Mater Eng. 1999;9(1):1–12.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ryhänen J, et al. Biocompatibility of nickel–titanium shape memory metal and its corrosion behavior in human cell cultures. J Biomed Mater Res. 1997;35(4):451–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wever DJ, et al. Cytotoxic, allergic and genotoxic activity of a nickel–titanium alloy. Biomaterials. 1997;18(16):1115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Influence of the anodic oxidation on the physicochemical properties of the Ti6Al4V ELI alloy. J Mater Process Technol. 2005;162–163:163–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Surface preparation of bioactive Ni–Ti alloy using alkali, thermal treatments and spark oxidation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19(4):1553–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Role of surface nickel content on human cell cytoskeleton formation on Nitinol. Eur Cell Mater. 2009;18(Suppl. 2):54.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bogdanski D, et al. Easy assessment of the biocompatibility of Ni–Ti alloys by in vitro cell culture experiments on a functionally graded Ni–NiTi–Ti material. Biomaterials. 2002;23(23):4549–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Nanomechanical evaluation of nickel–titanium surface properties after alkali and electrochemical treatments. J R Soc Interface. 2008;5(26):1009–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan L, Dodd RA, Crone WC. Corrosion and wear-corrosion behavior of NiTi modified by plasma source ion implantation. Biomaterials. 2003;24(22):3931–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bansiddhi A, et al. Porous NiTi for bone implants: a review. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(4):773–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roy RK, et al. Improvement of adhesion of DLC coating on nitinol substrate by hybrid ion beam deposition technique. Vacuum. 2009;83(9):1179–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bilek M, McKenzie D. Plasma modified surfaces for covalent immobilization of functional biomolecules in the absence of chemical linkers: towards better biosensors and a new generation of medical implants. Biophys Rev. 2010;2(2):55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lord MS, Foss M, Besenbacher F. Influence of nanoscale surface topography on protein adsorption and cellular response. Nano Today. 2010;5(1):66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. Impaired bacterial attachment to light activated Ni–Ti alloy. Mater Sci Eng C. 2010;30(2):225–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kondyurin A, Nosworthy NJ, Bilek MMM. Attachment of horseradish peroxidase to polytetrafluorethylene (teflon) after plasma immersion ion implantation. Acta Biomater. 2008;4(5):1218–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bilek MMM, et al. Free radical functionalization of surfaces to prevent adverse responses to biomedical devices. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(35):14405–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kondyurin A, Bilek MMM. Ion beam treatment of polymers. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 205–41. ISBN: 9780080446929.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chrzanowski W, et al. In vitro studies on the influence of surface modification of Ni–Ti alloy on human bone cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;93A(4):1596–608.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hallab NJ, et al. Evaluation of metallic and polymeric biomaterial surface energy and surface roughness characteristics for directed cell adhesion. Tissue Eng. 2004;7(1):16.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abou Neel EA, et al. Structure and properties of strontium-doped phosphate-based glasses. J R Soc Interface. 2009;6(34):435–46.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schrader B. Infrared and Raman spectroscopy. Weinheim: Wiley; 2008.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Höök F, et al. A comparative study of protein adsorption on titanium oxide surfaces using in situ ellipsometry, optical waveguide lightmode spectroscopy, and quartz crystal microbalance/dissipation. Colloids Surf B. 2002;24(2):155–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lord MS, et al. Monitoring cell adhesion on tantalum and oxidised polystyrene using a quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation. Biomaterials. 2006;27(26):4529–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Liu LY, et al. Reduced foreign body reaction to implanted biomaterials by surface treatment with oriented osteopontin. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2008;19(6):821–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ratner BD. A paradigm shift: biomaterials that heal. Polym Int. 2007;56(10):1183–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ratner BD, Bryant SJ. Biomaterials: where we have been and where we are going. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004;6:41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Soon-Shiong P, et al. Insulin independence in a type 1 diabetic patient after encapsulated islet transplantation. Lancet. 1994;343(8903):950–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anderson JM. Inflammation, wound healing, and the foreign body responses. In: Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE, editors. Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. London: Elsevier; 2004. p. 296–304. ISBN: 9780125824637.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ratner BD. Perspectives and possibilities in biomaterials science. In: Biomaterials science: an introduction to materials in medicine. 2004. p. 465–71.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Richards RG. Implant surfaces in fracture fixation: in vitro & in vivo. Eur Cell Mater. 2007;14(Suppl. 1):44.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richards RG. The role of implant surfaces in fracture fixation. Eur Cell Mater. 2008;16(Suppl. 2):9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dalby MJ, et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater. 2007;6(12):997–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lim JY, Donahue HJ. Cell sensing and response to micro- and nanostructured surfaces produced by chemical and topographic patterning. Tissue Eng. 2007;13(8):1879–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Neel EA, et al. Control of surface free energy in titanium doped phosphate based glasses by co-doping with zinc. J Biomed Mater Res. 2009;89B(2):392–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    LeBaron RG, Athanasiou KA. Extracellular matrix cell adhesion peptides: functional applications in orthopedic materials. Tissue Eng. 2000;6(2):85–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yongli C, et al. Conformational changes of fibrinogen adsorption onto hydroxyapatite and titanium oxide nanoparticles. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1999;214(1):38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roach P, Farrar D, Perry CC. Surface tailoring for controlled protein adsorption: effect of topography at the nanometer scale and chemistry. J Am Chem Soc. 2006;128(12):3939–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Roach P, et al. Surface strategies for control of neuronal cell adhesion: a review. Surf Sci Rep. 2010;65(6):145–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Chrzanowski
    • 1
  • A. Kondyurin
    • 2
  • Jae Ho Lee
    • 3
  • Megan S. Lord
    • 5
  • M. M. M. Bilek
    • 2
  • Hae-Won Kim
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.The Faculty of PharmacyThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.School of Physics University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of Tissue Regenerative Engineering (ITREN)Dankook UniversityCheonanRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Nanobiomedical Science and WCU Nanobiomedical Science Research CenterDankook UniversityCheonanRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Graduate School of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations