Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:34:25.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Increasing the Potential of Bioactive Glass as a Scaffold for Bone Tissue Engineering

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Mohamed Ammar ,
Max Kaplan ,
Therese Quinn  and
Sabrina Jedlicka
Mohamed Ammar
Affiliation:
mma306@lehigh.edu, Lehigh University, United States
Max Kaplan
Affiliation:
mak310@lehigh.edu, Lehigh University, Materials Science & Engineering, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, United States
Therese Quinn
Affiliation:
tmq210@gmail.com, Lehigh University, Materials Science & Engineering, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, United States
Sabrina Jedlicka
Affiliation:
ssj207@lehigh.edu, Lehigh University, Materials Science & Engineering, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, United States
Get access

Abstract

Bioactive glass is known for its potential as a bone scaffold due to its ability to stimulate osteogenesis and differentiation of stem cells into bone cells. In an attempt to investigate if we can increase these potentials, we decorated the structure of the bioactive glass made by the sol-gel technique with 3 peptides sequences from different proteins known for their potentials to stimulate the osteogensis process (fibronectin, BMP-2 and protein kinase CKI). This material was tested with Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells (hMSCs) and MC-3T3 preosteoblasts to see the difference in the effect on uncommitted and committed cells. The bioactive glass sol with and without the peptides was dip coated onto glass cover slips, leading to a film of the material, surface decorated with the peptides of choice. The two cell types were seeded onto the materials in standard proliferation medium without additives for differentiation induction. Cells were also grown on tissue culture treated cover slips with and without differentiation induction media as positive and negative controls, respectively. The cells were grown on the materials for a total of five weeks, and were tested at four time points (weekly from week two) by immunocytochemical assays to investigate the levels of different osteogenic markers (osteopontin, osteocalcin and osteonectin) and by qRT-PCR to investigate the mRNA potential of the same proteins. On the native bioactive glass samples, the hMSCs and the MC-3T3s adhered poorly. On peptide-decorated samples, the hMSC adhered poorly, however, the MC-3T3 cells appear to differentiate at a rate that is equal to or faster than the positive control, indicating that the peptide effect is similar to that achieved by traditional BMP-2 soluble protein techniques. This supports our hypothesis that adding specific peptide sequences known for their effects in cells adhesion, proliferation and differentiation can increase the potential of the bioactive glass as a scaffold for bone tissue engineering. The data, however, leads to some questions regarding the MC-3T3 cell model for use in further studies.

Keywords

biomaterialbiomimetic (chemical reaction)bone
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1236: Symposium SS – Biosurfaces and Biointerfaces , 2009 , 1236-SS08-20
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

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

1 RM, Day. Bioactive Glass Stimulates the Secretion of Angiogenic Growth Factors and Angiogenesis In Vitro. Tissue Eng. 2005; 11: 768–77.Google Scholar
2 ZR, Dominguesa, ME, Cortesb, TE, Gomesa, HF, Dinizb, CS, Freitasb, GB, Gomesb, AMC, Fariac, RD, Sinisterra. Bioactive glass as a drug delivery system of tetracycline and tetracycline associated with b-cyclodextrin. Biomaterials. 2004; 25: 327–33.Google Scholar
3 Bellantone, M, HD, Williams, LL, Hench. Broad Broad-Spectrum Bactericidal Activity of Ag Ag2O-Doped Bioactive Glass. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 2002; 46: 1940–5.Google Scholar
4 Bunting, S, Di Silvio, L, Deb, S, Hall S. Bioresorbable Glass Fibres Facilitate Peripheral Nerve Regeneration. J Hand Surg, British and European Volume. 2005; 30b1:242–7.Google Scholar
5 Naka Nakamura, T, Yamamuro, T, Higashi, S, Kokubo, T, Itoo S. A New Glass Ceramic for Bone mura Replacement. An Evaluation of Its Bonding to Bone Tissue. J Biomed Mater Res. 1985; 19: 685–98.Google Scholar
6 Knabe, C, Stiller, M, Berger, G, Reif, D, Gildenhaar, R, CR, Howlett and Zreiqat, H. The Effect of Bioactive Glass Ceramics on the Expression of Bone Related Genes and Proteins in Vitro. Clin Oral Impl. Res. 2005; 16: 119–27.Google Scholar
7 Zhong, J, DC, Greenspan. Processing and Properties of Sol -Gel Bioactive Glasses. J Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater). 2000; 53: 694–70.Google Scholar
8 Karpov, M, Laczka, M, PS, Leboy, AM, Osyczka. Sol-Gel Bioactive Glasses Support Both Osteoblast and Osteoclast Formation from Human Bone Marrow Cells Cells. J Biomed Mater Res.. 2008; 84A: 718–26.Google Scholar
9 Ma, Z, Kotaki, M., Imai, R and Ramakrishma S. Potential of Nanofibres Matrix as Tissue Engineering Scaffolds. Tissue Eng. 2005; 11: 101–9.Google Scholar
10 Hattar, S, Asselin, A, DO, Greenspan, MO, Boeuf, Berdal, J, Sautier M. Potential of Biomimetic Surfaces to Promote in Vitro Osteoblast like Cell Differentiation. Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 835–48.Google Scholar
11 RC, Flemming, CJ, Murphy, GA, Abrams, SL, Goodman, PF, Nealey. Effects of synthetic micro and nano nano-structured surfaces on cell behavior. Biomaterials. 1999; 20: 573–821.Google Scholar
12 CML, Clokie, Coulson, R, SAF, Peel, SAF, Sandor. Approaches to Bone Regeneration in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. In: Davis JE. Bone Engineering. Em Squared Inc, Canada; 2000. pp. 558–77.Google Scholar
13 Allan, I, Newman, H, Wilson M. Antibacterial Activity of Particulate Bioglass against Supra Supra-and Subgingival Bacteria. Biomaterials. 2001; 22: 1683–87.Google Scholar
14 He, X, Ma, J, Jabbari E. Effect of Grafting RGD and BMP BMP-2 Protein Protein-Derived Peptides to a Hydrogel Substrate on Osteogenic Differentiation of Marrow Stromal Cells. Langmuir. 2008; 24: 12508–16.Google Scholar
15 AJ, Celeste, JA, Iannazzi, RC, Taylor, RM, Hewick, Rosen, V, EA, Wang, JM, Wozney. Identification of Transforming Growth Factor F8 Family Members Present in Bone Bone-Inductive Protein Purified from Bovine Bone. Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA. Biochemistry. 1990; 87: 9843–47.Google Scholar
16 Saito, A, Suzuki, Y, Ogata, SI, Ohtsuki, C, Tanihara, M. Prolonged Ectopic Calcification Induced by BMP BMP-2-Derived Synthetic Peptide. J Biomed Mater Res Res. 2004; 70A: 115–12.Google Scholar
17 SS, Jedlicka, KM, Little, DE, Nivens, Zemlyanov, D, JL, Rickus. Peptide Ormosils as Cellular Substrates. Journal of Material Chemistry. 2007; 17: 5058–67.Google Scholar
18 SS, Jedlicka, JL, Rickus, Zemlyanov D. Surface analysis by X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy of Sol-Gel Modified with Covalently Bound Peptides. Journal of Physical Chemistry. 2007; 111: 11850–57.Google Scholar