OBJECTIVE: Functionalizing surfaces with specific peptides may aid osteointegration of orthopedic implants by favoring attachment of osteoprogenitor cells and promoting osteoblastic differentiation. This study addressed the hypothesis that implant surfaces functionalized with peptides targeting multiple ligands will enhance osteoblast attachment and/or differentiation. To test this hypothesis, we used titanium (Ti) surfaces coated with poly-l-lysine-grafted polyethylene glycol (PLL-g-PEG) and functionalized with two peptides found in extracellular matrix proteins, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) and lysine-arginine-serine-arginine (KRSR), which have been shown to increase osteoblast attachment. KSSR, which does not promote osteoblast attachment, was used as a control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sandblasted acid-etched titanium surfaces were coated with PLL-g-PEG functionalized with varying combinations of RGD and KRSR, as well as KSSR. Effects of these surfaces on osteoblasts were assessed by measuring cell number, alkaline phosphatase-specific activity, and levels of osteocalcin, transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGF-β1), and PGE(2). RESULTS: RGD increased cell number, but decreased markers for osteoblast differentiation. KRSR alone had no effect on cell number, but decreased levels of TGF-β1 and PGE(2). KRSR and RGD/KRSR coatings inhibited osteoblast differentiation vs. PLL-g-PEG. KSSR decreased cell number and increased osteoblast differentiation, indicated by increased levels of osteocalcin and PGE(2). CONCLUSIONS: The RGD and KRSR functionalized surfaces supported attachment but did not enhance osteoblast differentiation, whereas KSSR increased differentiation. RGD decreased this effect, suggesting that multifunctional peptide surfaces can be designed that improve peri-implant healing by optimizing attachment and proliferation as well as differentiation of osteoblasts, but peptide combination, dose and presentation are critical variables.
OBJECTIVE: Functionalizing surfaces with specific peptides may aid osteointegration of orthopedic implants by favoring attachment of osteoprogenitor cells and promoting osteoblastic differentiation. This study addressed the hypothesis that implant surfaces functionalized with peptides targeting multiple ligands will enhance osteoblast attachment and/or differentiation. To test this hypothesis, we used titanium (Ti) surfaces coated with poly-l-lysine-grafted polyethylene glycol (PLL-g-PEG) and functionalized with two peptides found in extracellular matrix proteins, arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) and lysine-arginine-serine-arginine (KRSR), which have been shown to increase osteoblast attachment. KSSR, which does not promote osteoblast attachment, was used as a control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sandblasted acid-etched titanium surfaces were coated with PLL-g-PEG functionalized with varying combinations of RGD and KRSR, as well as KSSR. Effects of these surfaces on osteoblasts were assessed by measuring cell number, alkaline phosphatase-specific activity, and levels of osteocalcin, transforming growth factor beta-1 (TGF-β1), and PGE(2). RESULTS: RGD increased cell number, but decreased markers for osteoblast differentiation. KRSR alone had no effect on cell number, but decreased levels of TGF-β1 and PGE(2). KRSR and RGD/KRSR coatings inhibited osteoblast differentiation vs. PLL-g-PEG. KSSR decreased cell number and increased osteoblast differentiation, indicated by increased levels of osteocalcin and PGE(2). CONCLUSIONS: The RGD and KRSR functionalized surfaces supported attachment but did not enhance osteoblast differentiation, whereas KSSR increased differentiation. RGD decreased this effect, suggesting that multifunctional peptide surfaces can be designed that improve peri-implant healing by optimizing attachment and proliferation as well as differentiation of osteoblasts, but peptide combination, dose and presentation are critical variables.
Authors: Liping Wang; Ge Zhao; Rene Olivares-Navarrete; Bryan F Bell; Marco Wieland; David L Cochran; Zvi Schwartz; Barbara D Boyan Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: G Zhao; Z Schwartz; M Wieland; F Rupp; J Geis-Gerstorfer; D L Cochran; B D Boyan Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2005-07-01 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Martin Schuler; Gethin Rh Owen; Douglas W Hamilton; Michael de Wild; Marcus Textor; Donald M Brunette; Samuele G P Tosatti Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Alayna E Loiselle; Lai Wei; Muhammad Faryad; Emmanuel M Paul; Gregory S Lewis; Jun Gao; Akhlesh Lakhtakia; Henry J Donahue Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2013-04-25 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Miryam Cuellar-Flores; Laura Susana Acosta-Torres; Omar Martínez-Alvarez; Benjamin Sánchez-Trocino; Javier de la Fuente-Hernández; Rigoberto Garcia-Garduño; Rene Garcia-Contreras Journal: Dent Res J (Isfahan) Date: 2016 Nov-Dec
Authors: Lyudmila V Parfenova; Elena S Lukina; Zulfia R Galimshina; Guzel U Gil'fanova; Veta R Mukaeva; Ruzil G Farrakhov; Ksenia V Danilko; Grigory S Dyakonov; Evgeny V Parfenov Journal: Molecules Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.411
Authors: Julia Günter; Petra Wolint; Annina Bopp; Julia Steiger; Elena Cambria; Simon P Hoerstrup; Maximilian Y Emmert Journal: Stem Cells Int Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 5.443
Authors: Małgorzata K Włodarczyk-Biegun; Marc W T Werten; Urszula Posadowska; Ingeborg M Storm; Frits A de Wolf; Jeroen J J P van den Beucken; Sander C G Leeuwenburgh; Martien A Cohen Stuart; Marleen Kamperman Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.396