Advertisement

In vitro degradation of four magnesium–zinc–strontium alloys and their cytocompatibility with human embryonic stem cells

  • Aaron F. Cipriano
  • Tong Zhao
  • Ian Johnson
  • Ren-Guo Guan
  • Salvador Garcia
  • Huinan LiuEmail author
Article

Abstract

Magnesium alloys have attracted great interest for medical applications due to their unique biodegradable capability and desirable mechanical properties. When designed for medical applications, these alloys must have suitable degradation properties, i.e., their degradation rate should not exceed the rate at which the degradation products can be excreted from the body. Cellular responses and tissue integration around the Mg-based implants are critical for clinical success. Four magnesium–zinc–strontium (ZSr41) alloys were developed in this study. The degradation properties of the ZSr41 alloys and their cytocompatibility were studied using an in vitro human embryonic stem cell (hESC) model due to the greater sensitivity of hESCs to known toxicants which allows to potentially detect toxicological effects of new biomaterials at an early stage. Four distinct ZSr41 alloys with 4 wt% zinc and a series of strontium compositions (0.15, 0.5, 1, and 1.5 wt% Sr) were produced through metallurgical processing. Their degradation was characterized by measuring total mass loss of samples and pH change in the cell culture media. The concentration of Mg ions released from ZSr41 alloy into the cell culture media was analyzed using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. Surface microstructure and composition before and after culturing with hESCs were characterized using field emission scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Pure Mg was used as a control during cell culture studies. Results indicated that the Mg–Zn–Sr alloy with 0.15 wt% Sr provided slower degradation and improved cytocompatibility as compared with pure Mg control.

Keywords

Slow Degradation Improve Cell Viability Standard Cell Culture Condition Bioabsorbable Polymer hESC Coloni 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the U.S.A. NSF BRIGE award (CBET 1125801), Burroughs Welcome Fund (1011235), Hellman Fellowship, and the University of California Regents Faculty Fellowship for financial support. The authors also thank National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant 51034002, 50974038 and 51074049) and the Fok Ying Tong Education Foundation (132002) for financial support. The authors thank the Central Facility for Advanced Microscopy and Microanalysis (CFAMM) and the Stem Cell Center (Drs. Prudence Talbot and Duncan Liew) at the University of California, Riverside.

References

  1. 1.
    Witte F, Hort N, Vogt C, Cohen S, Kainer KU, Willumeit R, et al. Degradable biomaterials based on magnesium corrosion. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci. 2008;12:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Staiger MP, Pietak AM, Huadmai J, Dias G. Magnesium and its alloys as orthopedic biomaterials: a review. Biomaterials. 2006;27:1728–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu H. The effects of surface and biomolecules on magnesium degradation and mesenchymal stem cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2011;99:249–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breen DJ, Stoker DJ. Titanium lines: a manifestation of metallosis and tissue response to titanium alloy megaprostheses at the knee. Clin Radiol. 1993;47:274–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beuf O, Briguet A, Lissac M, Davis R. Magnetic resonance imaging for the determination of magnetic susceptibility of materials. J Magn Reson B. 1996;112:111–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ludeke KM, Roschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artefacts in NMR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1985;3:329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petersilge CA, Lewin JS, Duerk JL, Yoo JU, Ghaneyem AJ. Optimizing imaging parameters for MR evaluation of the spine with titanium pedicle screws. Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:1213–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tran N, Webster TJ. Nanotechnology for bone materials. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol. 2009;1:336–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lembeck B, Wulker N. Severe cartilage damage by broken poly-l-lactic acid (PLLA) interference screw after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13:283–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith CA, Tennent TD, Pearson SE, Beach WR. Fracture of Bilok interference screws on insertion during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2003;19:E115–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baums MH, Zelle BA, Schultz W, Ernstberger T, Klinger HM. Intraarticular migration of a broken biodegradable interference screw after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14:865–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shafer BL, Simonian PT. Broken poly-l-lactic acid interference screw after ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2002;18:E35.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sidhu DS, Wroble RR. Intraarticular migration of a femoral interference fit screw. A complication of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 1997;25:268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Takizawa T, Akizuki S, Horiuchi H, Yasukawa Y. Foreign body gonitis caused by a broken poly-l-lactic acid screw. Arthroscopy. 1998;14:329–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bostman O, Hirvensalo E, Makinen J, Rokkanen P. Foreign-body reactions to fracture fixation implants of biodegradable synthetic polymers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:592–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwak JH, Sim JA, Kim SH, Lee KC, Lee BK. Delayed intra-articular inflammatory reaction due to poly-l-lactide bioabsorbable interference screw used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:243–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walton M, Cotton NJ. Long-term in vivo degradation of poly-l-lactide (PLLA) in bone. J Biomater Appl. 2007;21:395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beevers DJ. Metal vs bioabsorbable interference screws: initial fixation. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2003;217:59–75.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Witte F. The history of biodegradable magnesium implants: a review. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:1680–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johnson I, Perchy D, Liu H. In vitro evaluation of the surface effects on magnesium–yttrium alloy degradation and mesenchymal stem cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100:477–85.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guan RG, Johnson I, Cui T, Zhao T, Zhao ZY, Li X, et al. Electrodeposition of hydroxyapatite coating on Mg-4.0Zn-1.0Ca-0.6Zr alloy and in vitro evaluation of degradation, hemolysis, and cytotoxicity. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100:999–1015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cipriano A, Guan RG, Cui T, Zhao ZY, Garcia S, Johnson I, Liu H. In vitro degradation and cytocompatibility of magnesium-zinc-strontium alloys with human embryonic stem cells. 34th Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference Proceeding, 28 August–1 September, 2012, San Diego, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borkar H, Hoseini M, Pekguleryuz M. Effect of strontium on flow behavior and texture evolution during the hot deformation of Mg–1 wt% Mn alloy. Mater Sci Eng A. 2012;537:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xu L, Zhang E, Yin D, Zeng S, Yang K. In vitro corrosion behaviour of Mg alloys in a phosphate buffered solution for bone implant application. J Mater Sci. 2008;19:1017–25.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maeng DY, Kim TS, Lee JH, Hong SJ, Seo SK, Chun BS. Microstructure and strength of rapidly solidified and extruded Mg–Zn alloys. Scripta Mater. 2000;43:385–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Somekawa H, Osawa Y, Mukai T. Effect of solid-solution strengthening on fracture toughness in extruded Mg–Zn alloys. Scripta Mater. 2006;55:593–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gao X, Nie JF. Characterization of strengthening precipitate phases in a Mg–Zn alloy. Scripta Mater. 2007;56:645–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coleman JE. Zinc proteins: enzymes, storage proteins, transcription factors, and replication proteins. Annu Rev Biochem. 1992;61:897–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gu XN, Xie XH, Li N, Zheng YF, Qin L. In vitro and in vivo studies on a Mg–Sr binary alloy system developed as a new kind of biodegradable metal. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dahl SG, Allain P, Marie PJ, Mauras Y, Boivin G, Ammann P, et al. Incorporation and distribution of strontium in bone. Bone. 2001;28:446–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marie PJ, Ammann P, Boivin G, Rey C. Mechanisms of action and therapeutic potential of strontium in bone. Calcif Tissue Int. 2001;69:121–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meunier PJ, Roux C, Seeman E, Ortolani S, Badurski JE, Spector TD, et al. The effects of strontium ranelate on the risk of vertebral fracture in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Laschinski G, Vogel R, Spielmann H. Cytotoxicity test using blastocyst-derived euploid embryonal stem cells: a new approach to in vitro teratogenesis screening. Reprod Toxicol. 1991;5:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Talbot P, Lin S. Mouse and human embryonic stem cells: can they improve human health by preventing disease? Curr Top Med Chem. 2011;11:1638–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seiler AE, Spielmann H. The validated embryonic stem cell test to predict embryotoxicity in vitro. Nat Protoc. 2011;6:961–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    West PR, Weir AM, Smith AM, Donley ELR, Cezar GG. Predicting human developmental toxicity of pharmaceuticals using human embryonic stem cells and metabolomics. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2010;247:18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Davila JC, Cezar GG, Thiede M, Strom S, Miki T, Trosko J. Use and application of stem cells in toxicology. Toxicol Sci. 2004;79:214–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Adler S, Pellizzer C, Hareng L, Hartung T, Bremer S. First steps in establishing a developmental toxicity test method based on human embryonic stem cells. Toxicol In Vitro. 2008;22:200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Eiges R, Schuldiner M, Drukker M, Yanuka O, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Benvenisty N. Establishment of human embryonic stem cell-transfected clones carrying a marker for undifferentiated cells. Curr Biol. 2001;11:514–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hidaka K, Lee JK, Kim HS, Ihm CH, Iio A, Ogawa M, et al. Chamber-specific differentiation of Nkx2.5-positive cardiac precursor cells from murine embryonic stem cells. FASEB J. 2003;17:740–2.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Xin Y, Huo K, Tao H, Tang G, Chu PK. Influence of aggressive ions on the degradation behavior of biomedical magnesium alloy in physiological environment. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:2008–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rettig R, Virtanen S. Composition of corrosion layers on a magnesium rare-earth alloy in simulated body fluids. J Biomed Mater Res. 2009;88:359–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zainal Abidin NI, Martin D, Atrens A. Corrosion of high purity Mg, AZ91, ZE41 and Mg2Zn0·2Mn in Hank’s solution at room temperature. Corros Sci. 2011;53:862–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yang M, Pan F, Cheng R, Tang A. Effect of Mg–10Sr master alloy on grain refinement of AZ31 magnesium alloy. Mater Sci Eng A. 2008;491:440–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Noronha JL, Matuschak GM. Magnesium in critical illness: metabolism, assessment, and treatment. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:667–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fosmire GJ. Zinc toxicity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:225–7.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Feyerabend F, Fischer J, Holtz J, Witte F, Willumeit R, Drücker H, et al. Evaluation of short-term effects of rare earth and other elements used in magnesium alloys on primary cells and cell lines. Acta Biomater. 2010;6:1834–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Winek CL, Buehler EV. Intravenous toxicity of zinc pyridinethione and several zinc salts. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1966;9:269–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kroes R, den Tonkelaar EM, Minderhoud A, Speijers GJ, Vonk-Visser DM, Berkvens JM, et al. Short-term toxicity of strontium chloride in rats. Toxicology. 1977;7:11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Pizzoferrato A, Ciapetti G, Stea S, Cenni E, Arciola CR, Granchi D, et al. Cell culture methods for testing biocompatibility. Clin Mater. 1994;15:173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang Z, Couture A, Luo A. An investigation of the properties of Mg–Zn–Al alloys. Scripta Materialia. 1998;39(1):45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Liu SF, Liu LY, Kang LG. Refinement role of electromagnetic stirring and strontium in AZ91 magnesium alloy. J Alloy Compd. 2008;450:546–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ziats NP, Miller KM, Anderson JM. In vitro and in vivo interactions of cells with biomaterials. Biomaterials. 1988;9:5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aaron F. Cipriano
    • 1
  • Tong Zhao
    • 2
  • Ian Johnson
    • 1
  • Ren-Guo Guan
    • 3
  • Salvador Garcia
    • 4
    • 5
  • Huinan Liu
    • 1
    • 5
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  2. 2.Hospital of Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese MedicineShenyangChina
  3. 3.School of Materials and Metallurgy Northeastern UniversityShenyangChina
  4. 4.Department of BiologyCalifornia State University San BernardinoSan BernardinoUSA
  5. 5.Stem Cell CenterUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA
  6. 6.Materials Science and Engineering ProgramUniversity of California at RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations