Gurunath Apte1, Annerose Lindenbauer1, Jörg Schemberg1, Holger Rothe1, Thi-Huong Nguyen1. 1. Junior Research Group, Department of Bioprocess Technique, and Department of Biomaterials, Institute for Bioprocessing and Analytical Measurement Techniques (iba), Rosenhof, 37308 Heilbad Heiligenstadt, Germany.
Abstract
Platelet-surface interaction is of paramount importance in biomedical applications as well as in vitro studies. However, controlling platelet-surface activation is challenging and still requires more effort as they activate immediately when contacting with any nonphysiological surface. As hydrogels are highly biocompatible, in this study, we developed agarose and gelatin-based hydrogel films to inhibit platelet-surface adhesion. We found promising agarose films that exhibit higher surface wettability, better controlled-swelling properties, and greater stiffness compared to gelatin, resulting in a strong reduction of platelet adhesion. Mechanical properties and surface wettability of the hydrogel films were varied by adding magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles. While all of the films prevented platelet spreading, films formed by agarose and its nanocomposite repelled platelets and inhibited platelet adhesion and activation stronger than those of gelatin. Our results showed that platelet-surface activation is modulated by controlling the properties of the films underneath platelets and that the bioinert agarose can be potentially translated to the development of platelet storage and other medical applications.
Platelet-surface interaction is of paramount importance in biomedical applications as well as in vitro studies. However, controlling platelet-surface activation is challenging and still requires more effort as they activate immediately when contacting with any nonphysiological surface. As hydrogels are highly biocompatible, in this study, we developed agarose and gelatin-based hydrogel films to inhibit platelet-surface adhesion. We found promising agarose films that exhibit higher surface wettability, better controlled-swelling properties, and greater stiffness compared to gelatin, resulting in a strong reduction of platelet adhesion. Mechanical properties and surface wettability of the hydrogel films were varied by adding magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles. While all of the films prevented platelet spreading, films formed by agarose and its nanocomposite repelled platelets and inhibited platelet adhesion and activation stronger than those of gelatin. Our results showed that platelet-surface activation is modulated by controlling the properties of the films underneath platelets and that the bioinert agarose can be potentially translated to the development of platelet storage and other medical applications.
Platelets
are anucleated and discoid-shaped cells with an average
diameter of 1–3 μm produced from the megakaryocyte cells
in the bone marrow.[1] They play a vital
role in hemostasis by clotting the blood at the sites of ruptured
endothelium.[2] The blood of a healthy human
contains an average of 150 000–400 000 platelets/μL.[3]In blood circulation, the red blood cells,
blood shear rate, immune
system, and coagulation system have a great influence on the activation
and adhesion of platelets. In vitro, platelets tend
to activate immediately after a short contact with artificial surfaces,
which is a drawback for many applications such as platelet storage
and platelet-drug studies.[4] Activated platelets
expose glycoprotein IIb/IIIa, which initiates the binding of fibrinogen
and facilitates platelet aggregation,[5,6] and they also
release prothrombotic substances from their granules.[7] The releasing proteins, on the one hand, cross-link and
activate the surrounding platelets and, on the other hand, enhances
thrombin generation together with plasma clotting factors. In serious
cases, this leads to the formation of a hemostatic plug at the site
of endothelial damage, which eventually results in blood vessel closure.[8,9] In implantation, blood proteins adsorb on the surface of an implant,
thus allowing the adhesion of platelets, which can lead to thrombus
formation or even escalate to stroke or cause extremity ischemia.[10,11] Hence, platelets play a key role in deciding the fate of an implant
in the early stages post implantation.[12]Biomaterials and biopolymers, in particular, are widely used
in
the development of various cardiovascular valves,[13] artificial blood vessels,[14] dialyzers,[15] and implants.[16] Especially,
the aspect of coagulation, which involves protein adsorption followed
by platelet adhesion, is of great relevance when dealing with applications
involving blood purification like hemodialysis, plasmapheresis, or
blood oxygenation.[17] Thus, it is important
to control the biofouling of the surfaces by plasma proteins, which
can ultimately lead to thrombosis.[18] Surface-related
complications from the implant material can be minimized by developing
effective surface coatings.[19] However,
the development of an antithrombotic surface for implant continues
to remain a challenge. Minimal platelet-surface activation has a major
impact not only in implantation but also in platelet storage. Thus,
the development of antithrombogenic surfaces with the aim to reduce
the administration of anticoagulants is of utmost importance. However,
the field of developing an antithrombotic surface, especially for
platelets, requires further investigation. Additionally, the unavailability
of a hemocompatible bulk biomaterial has encouraged the development
of new surface coatings and surface engineering to tackle the problem
of thrombosis.[19]For platelet storage,
the short lifetime (up to 5 days) complicates
the management of the continuous demand for transfusion of platelets.[12] Patients with thrombocytopenia, with platelet
defects, or suffering from bleeding while undergoing chemotherapy
are in severe need of platelet transfusion.[20] Platelets are preserved at 22 °C to sustain their functionality,[12] and are regarded as fresh and young when they
are stored for less than 3 days.[21] Stored
platelets themselves, along with the storage medium, undergo changes
that can cause platelet activation and dysfunction.[22] The short lifespan of the platelets is attributed to the
activation of platelets in some cases and due to bacterial contamination
in others.[23]We have shown previously
that the fabrication of nanotopography
surface together with surface modification with collagen-G or laminin
strongly reduced platelet-surface activation.[4,6] However,
the fabrication of nanostructures requires advanced technologies,[6,24] while the collagen-G coating only allows inhibiting platelet-surface
activation for a short time (∼15 min)[6] and, therefore, these methods are only suitable for research to
understand the fundamental aspects of platelet interactions. These
drawbacks limit many applications in medicine. It is extremely important
to develop a simple and bioinert surface for the inhibition of platelet-surface
activation.Hydrogels are highly hydrated polymers, consisting
of a polar polymer
backbone and an enormous content of bound water.[25] Thus, hydrogels are promising candidates for any biomaterial
and have the potential to mimic the native biological tissue microenvironment.[26] Hydrogels display antifouling activity, especially
in the presence of hydrophilic hydroxyl groups and, therefore, are
good candidates for developing blood-compatible materials.[27] It has been reported that the platelet density
and degree of activation on the surface of synthetic hydrogel films
can be controlled; thus, setting them one step further at being bioinert
for platelet applications.[28]Hydrogels
containing agarose and gelatin find a wide range of applications
in the field of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.[29,30] Their unique properties, i.e., the capability to hold a high amount
of water molecules (up to 40 fold of the dry weight) while maintaining
the structural stability, give hydrogels an edge among other biomaterials.[31] The surface of a biomaterial plays a crucial
role in determining the hemocompatibility of the material.[32] The steric repulsion by the hydrated chains
in hydrogels contributes to their bioinertness.[28] Agarose, a polymer of natural origin, contains hydroxyl
groups that contribute to the overall antifouling properties of the
hydrogel.[33−36] Similarly, gelatin is also a biocompatible biopolymer with hydration
properties and exhibits antimicrobial properties.[37] A reduction of pig platelet adhesion on agarose has been
observed.[38] However, the response of human
platelets on hydrogels, especially formed by agarose, has been insufficiently
investigated. In this study, we filled up this gap by tracking the
behavior of platelets on gels formed by agarose and also gelatin.A novel approach to strengthen the hydrogel networks by incorporating
nanoparticles (NPs) has been recently reported.[39−41] Mixing of the
NPs to the existing polymeric network or blending them with polymers
to cross-link the polymer chains are some of the developed procedures
to fabricate nanocomposite hybrids.[39] Such
hybrids are termed nanocomposite hydrogels. Nanocomposite hydrogels
enhance the existing physical, chemical, and biological properties
of the hydrogels.[31] NPs coated with carboxymethyl
dextran (CMD) consists of a dextran backbone substituted with carboxymethyl
groups that imparts a polyanionic character to the nanoparticle. Furthermore,
the soft polymer coat that surrounds the NPs makes these systems less
likely to aggregate due to the steric repulsions between particles.[42] In our study, we investigated the effect of
Fe3O4 NPs on characteristics of agarose and
gelatin gels and tracked if the nanocomposites reduce platelet-surface
activation. Due to their superparamagnetic properties, Fe3O4 NPs are used for multiple biomedical applications ranging
from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic particle imaging (MPI)
to drug delivery with certain coatings and, hence, are regarded as
biocompatible.[43,44] Importantly, they also have antibacterial
properties[45,46] that may become promising nanocomposites
against bacterial contamination in platelet storage. We hypothesize
that the nanocomposite hydrogels with defined characteristics can
modulate the response of platelets toward a nonphysiological surface.In this study, we fabricated agarose as well as gelatin hydrogels
and extended to nanocomposite hydrogels by incorporating synthesized
CMD-coated Fe3O4 NPs in the respective hydrogels.
The influence of the various physicochemical properties of the gels
on the platelet adhesion was examined. Multiple technologies such
as dynamic light scattering (DLS), contact angle, nanoindentation,
force spectroscopy, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were applied to characterize the
fabricated gels and to study the response of platelets on them. We
found that factors like stiffness, adhesion force, and wettability
play a crucial role in developing a bioinert material. Agarose and
its nanocomposite induced the strongest inhibition of platelet-surface
adhesion and activation, followed by those of gelatin, and the weakest
inhibition was observed on bare glass. Our results showed that agarose
hydrogels have potential applications for material-based implants,
improvement of platelet and blood storage bags, and biotechnology
and pharmaceutical trials.
Results
Experimental
Design
We first tracked
the impact of hydrogels and nanocomposite films on the reduction of
platelet-surface activation by fabricating films using bioinert materials,
including gelatin and agarose, together with their nanocomposite gels
(Figure ). The investigation
of platelet response on gels formed by different concentrations of
the polymer showed that gelatin of 10% and agarose of 1% provided
the highest stability. Furthermore, the hydrogels were fabricated
in the customized silicone molds and needed to be removed from the
molds before characterization. During this process, the thin film
was easy to be damaged. To identify the optimal thickness, we fabricated
gels of different thicknesses and found that the film of 2 mm thickness
is the most stable. Therefore, gelatin of 10%, agarose of 1%, and
film thickness of 2 mm were selected for further investigation in
this study. To form gels, gelatin and agarose were first melted at
60 and 95 °C, respectively, before leaving them to physically
cross-link at 35 and 40 °C, respectively (Figure B–E). A cooling process allows the
molecules to form stable networks of triple and double helix-coil
transition arrangements of their polymer chains.[47,48]
Figure 1
Schematic
representation of the polymer networks without and with
NPs in the hydrogel. (A) Bare glass surface contains multiple hydroxyl
groups and is used as a control. (B) Gelatin hydrogels form a triple
helix-coil through hydrogen bonds. (C) Addition of NPs (green) further
cross-links the negatively charged-carboxy groups of CMD coated on
the particle surface and the amino groups on gelatin chains. (D) Agarose
hydrogels possess the double helix-coil structure of their fibers.
(E) Addition of NPs interferes during the gelation phase, thereby
causing a poor matrix formation compared to the native agarose hydrogels.
Schematic
representation of the polymer networks without and with
NPs in the hydrogel. (A) Bare glass surface contains multiple hydroxyl
groups and is used as a control. (B) Gelatin hydrogels form a triple
helix-coil through hydrogen bonds. (C) Addition of NPs (green) further
cross-links the negatively charged-carboxy groups of CMD coated on
the particle surface and the amino groups on gelatin chains. (D) Agarose
hydrogels possess the double helix-coil structure of their fibers.
(E) Addition of NPs interferes during the gelation phase, thereby
causing a poor matrix formation compared to the native agarose hydrogels.To form the nanocomposite films, different concentrations
of NPs
in the films were tested to determine the threshold beyond which the
particles caused aggregation of platelets on the surface. We observed
that platelets aggregated from 3.2 mM concentration, while no aggregation
was observed at ≤2 mM concentration (Figure S1). To gain the maximal effect of nanoparticles, a high concentration
of particles should be added to the gels. Thus, 2 mM was identified
as the optimum particle for the formation of nanocomposites (Figure S1). The electrostatic interaction between
the carboxylic groups, present in CMD molecules coated on the NPs,
and the amine groups, present in the gelatin, cross-link and stabilize
the nanocomposite gels.
Characterization of Fabricated
Hydrogel Films
Surface Wettability
Next, we determined
the surface wettability of the fabricated films via static water contact
angle measurements using the captive bubble method. For this, glass
slides coated with the layer of hydrogel and the hydrogel nanocomposites
were inverted and submerged in distilled water (Figure A). An air bubble was trapped, and the contact
angle was measured using the ellipse fitting method (Figure B). The lower contact angles
denote that the surface has higher hydrophilic properties. The contact
angle was highest for the bare glass surface (51.1 ± 4.2°),
followed by gelatin (22.6 ± 4.4°), and lowest for agarose
(10.6 ± 6.8°) (Figure C). However, nanocomposites drive surface wettability
differently. The contact angle for gelatin nanocomposites (46.1 ±
12.5°) was higher than that of the gelatin alone (22.6 ±
4.4°), whereas it showed a reverse trend for agarose nanocomposites
(4.8 ± 6.6°) vs agarose (10.6 ± 6.8°). However,
agarose gels showed much lower contact angles than gelatin gels, indicating
higher hydrophilic properties of agarose gels.
Figure 2
Contact angle measurements
using the captive bubble technique.
(A) Schematic experimental setup for the measurement of gels on glass
samples. (B) Optical image of the hydrogel sample and the air bubble
(side view). (C) Graph shows the recorded values of the contact angle
on different samples along with the standard deviation. *Statistically
significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA test (P < 0.05).
Contact angle measurements
using the captive bubble technique.
(A) Schematic experimental setup for the measurement of gels on glass
samples. (B) Optical image of the hydrogel sample and the air bubble
(side view). (C) Graph shows the recorded values of the contact angle
on different samples along with the standard deviation. *Statistically
significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA test (P < 0.05).
Water
Retention Properties
The
stability of the hydrogels and the nanocomposites was studied at room
temperature (RT) by measuring their swelling and water retention properties.
For this, we determined the weights of the fabricated gel (Wo), wet gel (WPBS), which was immersed in PBS, and gel stored in the dry environment
(Wair) at different time points. The percentage
of swelling or degradation at each time point was calculated as WPBS/Wo or Wair/Wo, respectively.
The trends in degradation were almost similar irrespective of the
polymer or the use of the NPs in the case of hydrogel degradation
(Figure A). However,
during swelling, there was a clear difference observed between the
gelatin and agarosepolymers (Figure B). While gelatin films showed a steeper incline in
the weight gain, the increase in the weight of agarose films was nearly
negligible.
Figure 3
Degradation and swelling behavior of the hydrogel and nanocomposite
films. (A) No significant difference in water retention between the
gelatin (green), gelatin nanocomposite (red), agarose (blue), and
agarose nanocomposite (yellow) was obtained. (B) Gelatin (green) and
gelatin nanocomposite (red) exhibited a continuous increase in their
swelling behavior, whereas agarose (blue) and agarose nanocomposite
(yellow) did not show a significant incline in swelling of the gels
and reached equilibrium. n = 3 repetitions.
Degradation and swelling behavior of the hydrogel and nanocomposite
films. (A) No significant difference in water retention between the
gelatin (green), gelatin nanocomposite (red), agarose (blue), and
agarose nanocomposite (yellow) was obtained. (B) Gelatin (green) and
gelatin nanocomposite (red) exhibited a continuous increase in their
swelling behavior, whereas agarose (blue) and agarose nanocomposite
(yellow) did not show a significant incline in swelling of the gels
and reached equilibrium. n = 3 repetitions.
Gel Stiffness
We next determined
the mechanical properties of the fabricated films using the AFM-based
nanoindentation method with a colloidal probe of 3 μm diameter
(Figure A). By applying
an indentation force, the bead indents the underlying surface causing
the cantilever to bend and indentation of the gel is detected in the
force–distance curve. Typical approach curves showed the highest
indentation depth on gelatin, followed by gelatin nanocomposites,
lower indentation depth on the agarose nanocomposite, and lowest on
agarose (Figure B).
Fitting the indentation curve caused by the deformation with the Hertz
model[49] allowed obtaining the Young’s
modulus (E) of the films. Data analysis of F–D curves that were recorded at
different locations on each gel from two independent times of gel
preparation showed the E value of the gelatin film
(Figure C) to be more
than an order of magnitude lower than that of agarose (Figure D). However, NPs enhanced the E value of the gelatin film, whereas they reduced the E value of the agarose film (Figure C,D).
Figure 4
Determination of the stiffness of the
fabricated films by nanoindentation.
(A) Schematic illustration of a probe contacting the hydrogel and
nanocomposite samples. Below: SEM image of the AFM cantilever with
a gold colloidal particle attached. (B) Typical force–indentation
curves on the four different films. (C) Young’s modulus was
recorded on gelatin (green) and gelatin nanocomposites (red), (D)
on agarose (blue), and agarose nanocomposites (yellow). *Significant
difference determined by the one-way ANOVA test (P < 0.05). Note: the scale bar in the y-axis in
(C) differs from (D).
Determination of the stiffness of the
fabricated films by nanoindentation.
(A) Schematic illustration of a probe contacting the hydrogel and
nanocomposite samples. Below: SEM image of the AFM cantilever with
a gold colloidal particle attached. (B) Typical force–indentation
curves on the four different films. (C) Young’s modulus was
recorded on gelatin (green) and gelatin nanocomposites (red), (D)
on agarose (blue), and agarose nanocomposites (yellow). *Significant
difference determined by the one-way ANOVA test (P < 0.05). Note: the scale bar in the y-axis in
(C) differs from (D).
Platelet
Adhesion on the Fabricated Films
We seeded platelets on the
four investigated film types and tracked
the response of the platelets on those surfaces using confocal laser
scanning microscopy (CLMS). The number of adhered platelets was highest
on bare glass (Figure A), followed by gelatin (Figure B,C), and lowest on agarose surfaces (Figure D,E).
Figure 5
Confocal micrographs
showing platelets stained with the anti-CD42a
antibody dye on different surfaces after 2 h incubation time. (A)
On the glass, a higher density of platelets and a higher degree of
platelet activation as compared to (B) gelatin, (C) gelatin nanocomposites,
(D) agarose nanocomposites, and (E) agarose were observed. (F) Average
spreading area of the adherent platelets on the different substrates.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA
test (P < 0.05).
Confocal micrographs
showing platelets stained with the anti-CD42a
antibody dye on different surfaces after 2 h incubation time. (A)
On the glass, a higher density of platelets and a higher degree of
platelet activation as compared to (B) gelatin, (C) gelatin nanocomposites,
(D) agarose nanocomposites, and (E) agarose were observed. (F) Average
spreading area of the adherent platelets on the different substrates.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA
test (P < 0.05).A change in platelet morphology along with the development of filopodia
and lamellipodia was observed on the glass surfaces, whereas no significant
activation of platelets was observed on all other surfaces (Figure B–E). The
calculated spreading area of the platelets on bare glass (7.9 ±
3.0 μm2) was significantly higher than on other surfaces
(Figure F). However,
the size of platelets on gelatin (4.2 ± 1.7 μm2) is slightly higher than that on agarose (3.4 ± 1.6 μm2) in both cases, in the absence and presence of nanoparticles
(Figure F). Adding
NPs showed no change in platelet spreading on both gelatin (3.8 ±
1.7 μm2) and agarose gels (3.5 ± 1.5 μm2) (Figure F). The results indicate that both agarose and its nanocomposite
gels inhibited platelet-surface adhesion and activation more than
gelatin and its nanocomposite gels.
Adhesion
Force between Platelets and Films
Next, we directly determined
the adhesion force between single
platelets and the fabricated gels using FluidFM technology (Figure A). A single platelet
was picked up from the surface with a nanopipette (Figure B) and moved to the desired
gels for measuring the adhesion force. A typical force–distance
curve shows the adhesion events that occurred during the retraction
of the platelet from the surface (Figure C).
Figure 6
(A) Schematic representation of FluidFM for
measuring platelet-gel
adhesion forces. (B) Simplified representation of picking platelets
from a surface. (C) A typical retraction curve was recorded on the
glass surface, showing rupture events that occurred while the adherent
platelet disrupted from the surface. (D) Box plot representation of
variations in adhesion forces at different setpoints (with contact
time 0 s). (E) Box plot comparing the difference between the adhesion
forces on glass surfaces for different contact times (with setpoints
of 10 nN). (F) Typical representation of adhesion forces between single
platelets and different surfaces presented in the form of box plots,
from n = 3 independent platelet donors/conditions.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA
test (P < 0.01) for (E) and (P < 0.05) for (D) and (F). Independent platelet donors for (D)
and (E).
(A) Schematic representation of FluidFM for
measuring platelet-gel
adhesion forces. (B) Simplified representation of picking platelets
from a surface. (C) A typical retraction curve was recorded on the
glass surface, showing rupture events that occurred while the adherent
platelet disrupted from the surface. (D) Box plot representation of
variations in adhesion forces at different setpoints (with contact
time 0 s). (E) Box plot comparing the difference between the adhesion
forces on glass surfaces for different contact times (with setpoints
of 10 nN). (F) Typical representation of adhesion forces between single
platelets and different surfaces presented in the form of box plots,
from n = 3 independent platelet donors/conditions.
*Statistically significant difference determined by the one-way ANOVA
test (P < 0.01) for (E) and (P < 0.05) for (D) and (F). Independent platelet donors for (D)
and (E).To obtain comparable results,
we first determined the dependency
of the results on the chosen measurement parameters to find a parameter
set suitable for comparative analysis. The parameters, with which
the force–distance curves are recorded, can influence the final
adhesion force values. Here, we also investigated the effect of measurement
parameters, such as contact time and applied setpoint, on adhesion
forces of platelets on glass surfaces. Higher setpoints also resulted
in stronger adhesion forces. To overcome electrostatic interactions
between the platelet and the glass surface, a setpoint of ≥5
nN must be applied in our experiment. Therefore, we investigated here
the effect of the setpoint on the adhesion force between platelets
and bare glass in the range from 5 to 20 nN, and an increase in the
final adhesion force with an increasing setpoint was observed. The
lowest adhesion force was observed with a 5 nN setpoint. A four times
higher setpoint led to an almost doubling of the adhesion forces (Figure E). We assume that
a higher applied force (=higher setpoint) forced more area of the
platelets into the adhesion contact with the glass surface, leading
to a larger adhesion force. At setpoints of 10 nN, the lowest variations
(error bars see Figure D) and intermediate adhesion forces were observed. Thus, a 10 nN
setpoint was identified as the best-applied force for our force spectroscopy
measurements.In addition to higher setpoints, longer contact
times also resulted
in stronger adhesion forces. The contact time, which is the time duration
that the platelet stays in contact with the surface, was investigated
between 0 and 7.5 s. The adhesion force increased with the increasing
contact time. With 0 s contact time, a weak adhesion force of around
0.5 nN with small variation was observed, whereas it increased to
about 4 nN with a large variation at 7.5 s contact time (Figure E), indicating a
strong and complex response of the platelet on the glass as also seen
in the CLMS image (Figure A). The variation of the adhesion force between 2.5 and 5
s contact time was low, indicating a stable range of the measured
adhesion force, and we selected 5 s contact time for further experiments.
The successful force curves obtained at 5 s contact time showed a
yield of 91%, which is approximately equal to that at 0 s contact
time. At too long contact time (7.5 s), the yield of successful force
curves significantly reduced due to the strong adhesion of platelets
on the glass as also observed previously.[4] A large variation of adhesion force also results from different
platelet donors and platelet heterogeneity.[50]We then applied the above conditions (10 nN setpoint, 5 s
contact
time) to measure the adhesion forces between platelets and gels. A
clear difference in adhesion forces between glass and hydrogels was
observed (Figure F).
The recorded force values on the glass surface were up to 5 times
higher than the ones recorded on the gels. The adhesion forces measured
on gelatin were significantly higher than that on agarose, while gelatin
nanocomposites showed higher adhesion forces compared to the agarose
nanocomposites. However, no significant difference was induced by
the nanocomposite gel as compared with their respective native hydrogels
(Figure F).
Discussion
In this study, we found that agarose-based
hydrogel and its nanocomposite
are stable, inert, and can strongly reduce platelet-surface adhesion
and activation. Gelatin nanocomposites enhance the gel stiffness as
compared to the native gel but it shows lower stability than agarose
gel. Though the gelatin film shows a significant reduction of platelet
adhesion as compared to the bare glass, the degree of platelet adhesion
and activation is slightly higher than that of the agarose film. Agarose
and gelatin hydrogels as well as their nanocomposites exhibit a dissimilar
effect on platelet adhesion and activation depending on multiple characteristics
such as wettability, gel stiffness, water retention, and chemical
function. The agarose and its nanocomposite gels are the most promising
materials for the inhibition of platelet-surface activation.The wettability of the biomaterials, known as surface hydrophilicity
or hydrophobicity, is important, especially when the material is going
to be in close contact with the blood. Our investigated agarose films
show high hydrophilicity, indicating a surface with high resistance
to unfavorable protein absorbance, which leads to a strong reduction
of platelet adhesion. Consistently, it has been revealed that the
degree of platelet-surface activation decreases with an increase in
hydrophilicity of the surface,[51,52] whereas a hydrophobic
surface facilitates absorbance of proteins and enhances platelet-surface
activation.[53] Furthermore, surface chemistry
is also known to contribute to surface wettability.[54] It is likely that the presence of multiple hydroxyl groups
in agarose molecules makes them highly hydrophilic (Figure ). The degree of hydrophilicity
is highest for agarose, followed by gelatin, and lowest for glass,
indicating a possibility to tune the surface properties of glass or
other hard metal surfaces by coating with these polymers. Our observation
of a higher hydrophilic nature of agarose in comparison with the gelatin
is consistent with the previous study.[55]When adding NPs to the gels, the wettability of agarose did
not
significantly change, whereas gelatin nanocomposites showed a strong
decrease in wettability (Figure C). This is due to the cross-linking of the CMD, coated
on the Fe3O4 nanoparticles, with the gelatin.
This reduces the number of free polar amino groups on the surface
in the gelatin nanocomposite sample as compared to the case of native
gelatin gel. In the case of agarose, the additional availability of
−COOH groups on NPs in addition to the existing −OH
groups contributes to making the gel surface slightly more hydrophilic.
Consistently, our results showed a decrease in the contact angle on
agarose after the addition of NPs, but it increased in the case of
gelatin nanocomposites. The distinct surface characteristics such
as hydrophilicity, among the investigated surfaces, probably control
the degree of platelet adhesion and activation. We observed the highest
contact angle (=lowest hydrophilicity) on bare glass, followed by
the gelatin composites and gelatin, and the lowest on agarose composites
and agarose. These lead to the highest density of platelet adhesion
on the glass surface, followed by gelatin composite and gelatin, and
lowest on agarose composite and agarose. Recently, several types of
nanoparticles showed a potential impact on inhibiting bacterial growth.[56−58] As current platelet storage meets a serious drawback due to bacterial
contamination, our nanocomposite gels may be a powerful tool to not
only stabilize the gels but also provide antibacterial properties.
However, this hypothesis requires further investigation.Water
retention and swelling of hydrogels are important to understand
the stability of the hydrogels. Our results indicated that the evaporation
of water molecules was low and irrespective of the composition of
a hydrogel. The swelling studies for hydrogels performed at RT are
of specific importance for the platelet storage since the storage
itself is also carried out at room temperature.[59] Furthermore, it is reported that the swelling behavior
in hydrogels is also associated with the cell adhesion properties
of the hydrogels[60] and that the hydrogels
with lower swelling degrees exhibit poor cell adhesion.[61] The more controlled-swelling behavior in the
case of agarose-based gels contributes to restricting the platelet
attachment to the surface. In contrast, both gelatin composite and
gelatin show a linear increase in water retention over time that resulted
in a slight increase in the platelet response on these surfaces.The stiffness of the surface is also an important mediator in controlling
the adhesion, activation, and spreading of the platelets on any surface.[62] We found that agarose gels showed higher stiffness
than gelatin. Glycoproteins IIb–IIIa or αIIbβ3
integrins are key platelet adhesion receptors on the platelet surface
and are responsible for platelet aggregation.[63] A stiffer substrate is known to induce higher resistance forces
that lead to stronger platelet adhesion and outside-in signaling of
αIIbβ3, which in turn generates a higher actomyosin mediated
internal balancing force causing platelets to spread more.[62] However, both agarose and its nanocomposite
gels strongly inhibited platelet adhesion and activation. We found
a higher degree of platelet spreading on the glass, which is much
stiffer (GPa range) than the soft hydrogel agarose (E = 181.2 ± 158.5 kPa) and gelatin (E = 1.72
± 0.8 kPa). The mixture of NPs with agarose resulted in a softer
film (E = 53.3 ± 68.4 kPa). Agarose undergoes
gelation due to the extensive intermolecular hydrogen bonds, which
eventually lead to a helix-coil structure.[64,65] Perhaps, the presence of NPs during this transition phase could
have hampered the formation of the bonds and thereby weakened the
polymeric network. However, in the case of gelatin nanocomposites,
there was an increase in the Young’s modulus value (E = 3.84 ± 1.1 kPa) compared to the gelatin alone (E = 1.72 ± 0.8 kPa), indicating the formation of a
tighter compact network. The reason for this is the electrostatic
cross-linking between the amine groups of the gelatin and the carboxyl
groups present within the CMD molecule coated on the NPs. The applied
force for the indentation measurements was in the range of a few hundred
piconewtons to mimic the traction forces generated by platelets on
the surfaces. The indentation measurements are important in this study
since the stiffness of the material can play a decisive role in determining
the outcome of cell adhesion.[66−68]The confocal micrographs
of the platelets on the different surfaces
prove yet again that the gel properties like wettability and surface
stiffness play a crucial role in the development of biocompatible
material. The highly hydrophilic agarose-based surfaces strongly inhibited
the adhesion and activation of platelets. The trend was followed by
less hydrophilic gelatin-based surfaces, which led to a weaker inhibition
of platelet-surface activation. Though the number of platelets adhered
onto the gelatin-based surfaces was slightly higher in comparison
to agarose, it was significantly less when compared to the glass-control
group. Minor activation of platelets was, however, still seen on the
gelatin-based surfaces, which were completely absent in the case of
agarose. It has been previously observed that the presence of certain
functional groups within the polymers, such as hydroxyl, contributes
to the antifouling properties of the hydrogels.[69] The overall results from the micrographs stress the importance
of the antifouling properties of the surfaces since platelet adhesion
is the first step that eventually leads to platelet activation cascades
and aggregation.[70] Consistently, Oss et
al. compared various casting techniques and found that the surface
exposed to air during the casting process showed minimum adhesion
of platelets.[38] The study also states that
agarose, which is derived by removing the sulfate groups from the
agar still shows anticoagulant activity like its source, which structurally
resembles heparin.[38]FluidFM force
spectroscopy is a newly developed element integrated
into the traditional AFM system to determine the adhesion force between
single cells and surfaces. This technique allows picking up of single
cells by applying negative pressure to a hollow cantilever, avoiding
immobilization of cells on a colloid probe via chemical bonds as described
in the traditional protocols, which potentially induce platelet-surface
activation.[4] To date, an optimal protocol
for measuring platelet adhesion using FluidFM is still missing. Here,
we optimized the most important parameters in force spectroscopy measurement,
including contact time and the setpoint, that directly influence the
magnitude of the measured adhesion forces[71] before actually carrying out the force spectroscopy measurements
between platelets and the investigated surfaces. We identified the
most suitable contact time of 5 s and a setpoint of 10 nN for the
platelet-surface adhesion force measurement. Other parameters such
as applied pressure, z-length, and z-speed also influence the value of the measured adhesion forces in
FluidFM, as described previously,[71,72] but we have
kept these mentioned parameters constant throughout for platelet adhesion
measurements.FluidFM force spectroscopy results showed a clear
difference between
the control glass and other hydrogels or hydrogel-nanocomposite samples.
The adhesion forces between single platelets and bare glass are up
to 5-fold higher than their interaction force with the fabricated
gels. The gelatin gel and its nanocomposite induced a higher adhesion
force than those of agarose. These results are consistent with CLMS
images in which only gelatin nanocomposite showed some weak platelet
activation, whereas other gels did not. Thus, it is clear that the
degree of platelet-surface activation strongly correlates with the
adhesion forces between platelets and surfaces. We showed that several
hydrogels, with their own set of properties like wettability, stiffness,
and water content, can inhibit platelet activation substantially.
The agarose hydrogels were able to inhibit the platelet adhesion largely.
The adhesion forces between the platelets and surfaces governed the
degree of platelet-surface activation.The addition of nanoparticles
did not have any significant negative
effects in terms of platelet activation, indicating that these nanocomposites
are safe to be used for platelet applications. Nanocomposites can
be promising materials for antibacterial applications. Many efforts
have been made to identify a suitable material that can inhibit platelet-surface
activation for both fundamental studies and medical applications.
However, to date, a stable and robust material is still missing. Previously,
we found the collagen film to be able to reduce platelet-surface activation.[4] However, this film allows inhibiting platelets
only up to ∼15 min,[4] or a bit longer
on laminin-coated nanopatterns.[6] With agarose,
a very low density of adhered platelets was observed, while we did
not observe any changes in surface morphology of platelets up to 2
h of surface contact. Our present study clearly shows a potential
application of the powerful agarose gel for the inhibition of platelet-surface
activation as the agarose gel is easy to fabricate without the requirement
of additional materials, highly stable, and extremely inert. For improvement
of platelet storage bags and some specific implants, agarose could
become a potential candidate. However, further investigation is still
required, such as the stability of the gels in the presence of platelet
concentrate and storage buffer/condition at longer times.
Methods
Synthesis of Fe3O4 Nanoparticles
Fe3O4 particles were synthesized under microfluidic
conditions with a continuous flow mode. A mixture of FeCl3·6H2O and FeCl2·7H2O at
a ratio of 1:2 was dissolved into deionized water, and a solution
containing a coating agent was added and stirred together. A basic
solution of ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) was prepared in
a different flask. The two solutions were filled in two 25 mL syringes,
and a third one filled with 25 mL of deionized water was added. During
the synthesis, the flow rate of each of the three syringes was set
to 300 μL/min, at 70 °C. After mixing the reactants in
the chamber, magnetite (Fe3O4) particles are
formed. Fe3O4 suspension was transported via
Teflon tubes through a stainless steel heating module, which approximately
takes 20 min, followed by the collection of particles in the sample
collector.The size and the surface zeta potential of the synthesized
NPs were determined by the Zetasizer (Zetasizer Nano ZS, Malvern Instruments
Ltd., Worcestershire, U.K.). Dynamic light scattering (DLS) was used
to determine the size of particles at 25 °C within 30 min in
water using disposal cuvettes (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis). The measured
average hydrodynamic sizes and their respective standard deviation
values were analyzed. To determine the zeta potential, particles were
diluted in water (pH 6.3, conductivity 0.25 mS/cm) to a concentration
of 2 mM and measured in a folded capillary zeta cell at 25 °C
with 10 repetitions, as previously described.[73] The particles are stable with an average size (Savg.)
of approximately 255 nm and a zeta potential of around −56
mV (Figure ). For
nanocomposites, the concentration of 2 mM was selected as the final
concentration. Data analysis was performed using SigmaPlot (version
14.0).
Figure 7
Characteristics of synthesized NPs. Zeta Potential (blue) and the
average size (Savg.) of nanoparticles (red) at 2 mM concentration
measured by dynamic light scattering.
Characteristics of synthesized NPs. Zeta Potential (blue) and the
average size (Savg.) of nanoparticles (red) at 2 mM concentration
measured by dynamic light scattering.
Hydrogel and Nanocomposite Fabrication
Agarose 1% (Lonza, Germany) and Gelatin 10% (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany)
were added to the PBS solution (Thermo Fisher, Germany) at 95 and
60 °C under magnetic stirring, respectively. In the case of nanocomposites,
particles were added to the respective solutions before they could
form stable gels. The samples of the hydrogels or nanocomposites were
prepared by pouring the above solution into the custom-made silicone
molds. The samples with a diameter of 14 mm and a height of 2 mm were
fabricated, and gels with a height less than 2 mm were found to reduce
the stability of films while extracting them from the silicone molds.
The surfaces exposed to air while casting were used for conducting
all of the experiments. The gels were immediately used within 1 h
of their fabrication.
Water Contact Angle
The water contact
angle of the coatings was measured using the OCA 15+ system (DataPhysics
Instruments GmbH, Filderstadt, Germany) by the captive bubble method.
This method is particularly preferred while dealing with surfaces
having high surface free energy and avoiding drying hydrogels during
the measurement. In this method, a bubble of air is injected beneath
the sample placed facing downward. The dosing volume was set to 3
μL, dosing rate as 1 μL/s, and the ellipse fitting method
was chosen to compute the contact angle. The drop phase was selected
as air, while the ambient phase was Milli-Q water (0.055 μS/cm).
All of the surfaces were probed with five air bubbles at different
positions on the coated surfaces. Calculation of contact angles was
done by OCA 15+ software.
Hydrogel Swelling and Degradation
All gels were formed using the molds mentioned above and transferred
to preweighed Petri dishes and weighed (Wo) using the weighing scale (Sartorius, Germany). To determine the
wet weight (WPBS), the gels were immersed
in 2 mL of PBS buffer, and measurements were taken after every hour,
the extra PBS was removed before weighing. To determine the weight
in a dry environment (Wair), the fabricated
gels were dried at RT with the relative humidity level between 15
and 20%, and their weights were measured after every hour. The swelling
at each time point was calculated as WPBS/Wo and degradation as Wair/Wo, as previously described.[74,75]
Nanoindentation
The mechanical properties
of the fabricated hydrogels and nanocomposites were measured using
the nanoindentation technique of atomic force microscopy. A gold bead
is attached at the end of a cantilever (CP-CONT-AU-A, Nanoandmore
GmbH, Germany) with a nominal bead diameter of 1.5–3 μm
and nominal spring constant of 0.02–0.77 N/m. This bead was
brought into contact with the gels to generate force vs displacement
(F–D) curves. The F–D curves were obtained over the
surface from a 10 × 10 μm2 area by subdividing
the area into equal-sized 8 × 8 pixels for acquiring 64 F–D curves at tip velocity of 3
μm/s. After converting the force curve to the force–indentation
curve, the elastic modulus of each sample was evaluated by fitting
the corresponding approach curve to the Hertz model[49]where F is the applied force,
δ is the indentation depth, R is a radius of
the spherical tip, υ is the Poisson ratio, and E is Young’s modulus.Only a single probe was used for
nanoindentation experiments in this study and the bead diameter of
3 μm was determined accurately by SEM imaging. To obtain Young’s
modulus values, the force curves recorded from different locations
on the hydrogels/nanocomposite surfaces were fitted to the Hertz model
using a spherical tip-shaped model. The final number of complete analyzable
curves were 449 for gelatin, 239 for gelatin nanocomposite, 365 for
agarose, and 335 for agarose nanocomposite. For each gel, all calculated
Young’s modulus values from three repetitions were collected
and further analyzed using SigmaPlot (version 14.0).
Isolation of Platelets
Human blood
from healthy donors who were drug-free within the previous 10 days
was collected into a tube of ACD-A 1.5 mL (BD-Vacutainer, Germany).
The blood tube was sealed with the parafilm and rested at room temperature
for 15 min. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was first obtained from the
blood by centrifugation at 120g for 20 min at room
temperature. Platelets were further isolated from PRP in the presence
of 15% acid-citrate dextrose (ACD-A, Fresenius Kabi, Germany) and
2.5 U/mL Apyrase (grade IV SIGMA, Munich, Germany) by centrifuging
at 650g for 7 min. The platelet pellet was resuspended
in 5 mL of suspension buffer at pH 6.3 composed of 137 mM NaCl, 2.7
mM KCl, 11.9 mM NaHCO3, 0.4 mM Na2HPO4, 2.5 U/mL Hirudin and incubated 15 min, 37 °C before recentrifuging
them at 650g for 7 min. Platelet pellets were again
carefully resuspended in 2 mL of suspension buffer and the blood counter
(pocH-100i, SYMEX, Germany) was used to count the platelets. Afterward,
the platelets were incubated for 45 min, 37 °C before use.
Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM)
Platelets were stained at RT in the dark for 30 min with anti-CD42aFITC antibody dye (Dianova GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) with a final concentration
of 0.1 μg/mL. After that, platelets were seeded at a concentration
of 3 × 105 cells/μL on the gels and stored at
room temperature for 2 h. Unbound platelets were removed by rinsing
with PBS. Subsequently, 4% paraformaldehyde was used to fix platelets
for 30 min at RT. The samples were examined using a confocal laser
scanning microscope Zeiss LSM710 (Carl Zeiss, Gottingen, Germany)
at RT in the dark. The red fluorescence signal was acquired using
the excitation wavelength of 488 nm (15 mW argon laser) using a 63×
objective and detection in a range of 500–550 nm. ImageJ software
was used to further process the images and to quantify the spread
area of the platelets. The analysis was performed with SigmaPlot (version
14.0).
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)
To form agarose and gelatin films, round glass coverslips (Plano
GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) of 24 mm were cleaned with 80% ethanol prior
to coating with 100 μL of gels. After that, platelets of 3 ×
105/μL were seeded on the gels at RT for 15 mins
before fixing with 4% paraformaldehyde. The samples were washed with
PBS twice. This was followed by incubation for 10 min each in ascending
isopropanol series (30, 50, 70, 90, and 100%) for dewatering. The
samples were incubated with 50% hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) + isopropanol
100% for 10 min. The final step included submerging the samples with
100% HMDS (Sigma-Aldrich, Germany). The samples were allowed to dry
overnight before sputtering them with gold. SEM Evo LS10 (Carl Zeiss
AG, Jena, Germany) was used to image the samples. Images were taken
with a magnification of 1000× and a working distance of 12.5–14.5
mm.
Single-Platelet Fluid Force Microscopy
Fluid force microscopy measurements were performed with a JPK Nanowizard
4 (Berlin, Germany) assembled with a FluidFM add-on (Cytosurge, Switzerland),
positioned under an acoustic hood, and mounted on an active vibration
isolation system (Micro 40, Halcyonics, Germany) to minimize the effects
of surrounding vibrations. An inverted microscope (Axio Observer,
Zeiss, Germany) was used from beneath to observe the platelets and
to approach the cantilever to the desired location. Force spectroscopy
was performed using a FluidFM nanopipette (Cytosurge, Switzerland)
with an aperture of 300 nm and a nominal spring constant of 2.09 ±
0.15 N/m. The reservoir was filled with suspension buffer, calibrated
by the contact-free thermal noise method, and then approached the
surface. The calibrated spring constant of the nanopipette before
picking the platelet in the liquid environment was 0.42 ± 0.01
N/m. By applying a pressure of −800 mbar on a platelet for
4–8 min, a single platelet was drawn to the aperture of the
cantilever. For subsequent force measurements, the pressure was reduced
to −500 mbar.For measuring the force–distance
curves by the cantilever with a platelet, the cantilever was immersed
in PBS liquid and a setpoint of 10 nN, a z-length
of 3–5 μm, and a z-speed of 2.5 μm/s
was used. A platelet was picked and force map measurements were carried
out on each sample at three different places with 64 force–distance
curves taken from each map (10 × 10 μm2). For
each gel type, three repetitions were performed. The obtained force
maps were then processed with the JPK data processing software (version
6.1.120). The mean values and corresponding error bars were analyzed
with SigmaPlot (version 14.0).
Conclusions
We studied the influence of fabricated hydrogels and hydrogel-nanocomposite
films on the inhibition of platelet-surface activation. We found promising
agarose and agarose nanocomposite materials for human blood platelet
applications. The agarose hydrogel and its nanocomposites exhibit
higher surface wettability, better controlled-swelling properties,
and greater stiffness than gelatin, resulting in a stronger reduction
of platelet adhesion and spread. The observed behavior of platelets
on the fabricated gels indicates how biomimetic surfaces with antifouling
characteristics govern cellular responses. As several types of NPs
have antibacterial properties, agarose nanocomposites have a powerful
application in the fabrication of platelet storage bags that provide
antibacterial functions. The final aim would be to implement such
antithrombotic surfaces in blood-contacting medical devices and medical
procedures. Our results open a new venue in the development of antithrombosis
materials based on agarose hydrogels, which have potential applications
in implantations, platelet/blood storage bags, as well as biotechnological
and pharmaceutical trials.