| Literature DB >> 35047925 |
Binbin Z Molino1,2, Junji Fukuda1,2, Paul J Molino3, Gordon G Wallace3.
Abstract
This review will focus on the targeted design, synthesis and application of redox polymers for use in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. We define redox polymers to encompass a variety of polymeric materials, from the multifunctional conjugated conducting polymers to graphene and its derivatives, and have been adopted for use in the engineering of several types of stimulus responsive tissues. We will review the fundamental properties of organic conducting polymers (OCPs) and graphene, and how their properties are being tailored to enhance material - biological interfacing. We will highlight the recent development of high-resolution 3D fabrication processes suitable for biomaterials, and how the fabrication of intricate scaffolds at biologically relevant scales is providing exciting opportunities for the application of redox polymers for both in-vitro and in-vivo tissue engineering. We will discuss the application of OCPs in the controlled delivery of bioactive compounds, and the electrical and mechanical stimulation of cells to drive behaviour and processes towards the generation of specific functional tissue. We will highlight the relatively recent advances in the use of graphene and the exploitation of its physicochemical and electrical properties in tissue engineering. Finally, we will look forward at the future of organic conductors in tissue engineering applications, and where the combination of materials development and fabrication processes will next unite to provide future breakthroughs.Entities:
Keywords: biofabrication; conducting polymer; graphene; poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene); polyaniline; polypyrrole; tissue engineering
Year: 2021 PMID: 35047925 PMCID: PMC8757887 DOI: 10.3389/fmedt.2021.669763
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med Technol ISSN: 2673-3129
Figure 1(A) Chemical structures of the common OCPs polypyrrole, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) and polyaniline. (B) Schematic illustrating the incorporation of a dopant anion during oxidation of monomeric species to form the OCP conjugated backbone (PPy). (B) Reproduced with permission from Gilmore et al. (27).
Figure 2Structures of garaphene (G), graphene oxide (GO), and reduced graphene oxide (rGO). Reproduced with permission from Tadyszak et al. (38).
Commonly used fabrication approaches for biomaterials incorporating OCPs and graphene.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Films (2D) | Chemical vapour deposition | Graphene ( |
| Electrochemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Vapour phase polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Spin coating | OCPs ( | |
| Chemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Composite | OCPs ( | |
| Films (3D template) | Chemical vapour deposition | Graphene ( |
| Vapour phase polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Electrospun nanofibrous mats | Composite | OCPs ( |
| Graphene ( | ||
| Vapour phase polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Chemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Micron scale fibres | Wet spinning – composite | OCPs ( |
| Graphene ( | ||
| Moulding | Graphene ( | |
| Aerogels | Composite | Graphene ( |
| Vapour phase polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Chemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Hydrogel | Composite | Graphene ( |
| OCPs ( | ||
| Electrochemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| Chemical polymerisation | OCPs ( | |
| 3D Extrusion Printed Scaffolds | Composite ink | OCPs ( |
| Graphene ( |
Summary of studies describing conducting polymer biomaterial application for tissue engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neural tissue | PEDOT-PSS | Spin coated film | 5.8 Ωm−1 | ReNcellVM cells | ( |
| PEDOT doped with Ulvan, DS, CS, ALG or DBSA | Electrochemical polymerised film | – | PC12 cells | ( | |
| PPy-CS-Collagen | Electrochemical polymerised film | – | PC12 cells | ( | |
| PPy doped with pts, DBSA, CS, PSS, hyaluronic acid and poly(2- methoxyaniline-5-sulfonic acid) – with NT-3 drug co-dopant | Electrochemical polymerised film | – | SNG | ( | |
| PPy-PSS-NGF | Electrochemical polymerised film | 9.3 ± 2 S cm−1 | PC12 cells | ( | |
| Poly(glycerol sebacate)—aniline pentamer polymer | Drop casting on micropatterned polyurethane | 8.2–8.5 × 10−5 S/cm | Schwann cells, PC12 Cells | ( | |
| PPy modified PLGA | Electrospun PLGA modified | – | PC12 and hippocampal cells | ( | |
| PPy coated PLCL/SF | Electrospun PLCL/SF modified | 1.36 × 10−4 to 8.52 × 10−6 S/cm | PC12 and Schwann cells | ( | |
| PANI/PCL/Gelatin | Electrospun mat | 0.02 × 10−6 S | Nerve stem cells | ( | |
| PANI/PLL | Electrospun mat | 3 × 10−9 S | Nerve stem cells | ( | |
| PPy-pts modified PLCL/SF | Electrospun nerve conduit | – |
| ( | |
| PEDOT/chitosan/gelatin | Hydrogel | 3.44 × 10−2 to 1.72 × 10−1 S cm−1 | PC12 | ( | |
| PEDOT-CMC | Hydrogel | 4.68 ± 0.28 × 10−3 S cm−1 | PC12 | ( | |
| Aniline – Genepin hydrogel (loaded with dexamethasone) | Hydrogel | 3–7 × 10−4 S/cm | PC12 | ( | |
| PPy-cellulose aerogel | Aerogel | 1 × 10−5 to 0.08 S cm−1 | PC12 | ( | |
| PPy-Collagen | Micron-fibres | – | hMSC | ( | |
| PEDOT/agarose | Conduit | – | ( | ||
| Cardiac tissue | PANI | Drop cast Film (Conductive and non-conductive form) | 2 kΩ resistivity | H9c2 | ( |
| PANI-phytic acid | Film on chitosan | 35.85 ± 9.40 kilohms per square | ( | ||
| PPy-PCL | Composite film | 1.00 ± 0.40 kohms cm | HL-1 atrial myocytes | ( | |
| PPy/PCL/Gelatin | Electrospun mat | 0.013–0.37 mS/cm | Primary cardiac myocytes | ( | |
| PANI-PLGA | Electrospun mat | 3.1 × 10−3 S/cm | Neonatal cardiomyocytes | ( | |
| PANI-PLA | Electrospun mat | 3.6 ± 0.7 × 10−6 S/m to 2.1 ± 0.3 × 10−5 S/m | H9c2 | ( | |
| PPy-chitosan | Hydrogel | – | Neonatal rat cardiomyocytes, | ( | |
| Chitosan- | Hydrogel | ~23 × 10−5 S/cm | C2C12 and H9c2 cells, | ( | |
| Skin tissue | PPy-pts | Electrochemical polymerised film | 4.9 × 10−1 to 1.5 × 10−3 S/cm | Schwann cells and fibroblasts | ( |
| Poly(terthiophene) – RGD | Electrochemical polymerised film | 1.22 ± 0.15 S cm−1 | Human dermal fibroblasts | ( | |
| PPy modified PET fa bric | Chemical polymerisation on fabric | – | Human dermal fibroblasts | ( | |
| PPy/PLA | Composite film | 10−3 S/cm | Human cutaneous fibroblasts | ( | |
| PPy/Heparin/PLLA | Composite film | Resistivity 102–103 ohms per square | Human dermal fibrolasts | ( | |
| PANI/CPSA/PLCL | Electrospun mat | 0.0015–0.0138 S.cm−1 | Human dermal fibroblasts and NIH-3T3 fibroblasts | ( | |
| PANI-chitosan | Electrospun mat | ~2.6 × 10−5 S/m | Fibroblast cells | ( | |
| Skeletal muscle tissue | PPy doped with pts, HA, DS, CS, PMAS and DBS | Electrochemical polymerised film | – | Rosa primary myoblasts | ( |
| MWCNT-PPy-pts | Electrochemical polymerised film | – | Rosa primary myoblasts | ( | |
| Amino capped aniline trimer/PCL | Co-polymer film | – | C2C12 cells | ( | |
| PPy/polyurethane | Composite film | 9.95 × 10−11 ± 8.03 × 10−11 to 2.32 × 10−6 ± 2.97 × 10−7 S/cm | C2C12 cells | ( | |
| Aniline trimer/polyurethane-urea co-polymer | Composite film | 10−6 S/cm | C2C12 | ( | |
| PANI/PLCL | Electrospun mat | 0.160–0.296 S/cm | C2C12 | ( | |
| PANI/PCL | Electrospun mat | 63.6 ± 6.6 mS cm−1 | C2C12 | ( | |
| Bone tissue engineering | PANI modified Ti nanotubes | Electrochemical polymerised film | Charge transfer resistance of 172.26 Ohms | MC3T3-E1 cells | ( |
| PANI interdigitated electrodes | Film – interdigitated electrodes | 5 × 10−2 s/cm | BMSC and MC3T3-E1 cells | ( | |
| Aniline trimer/PLA | Composite film | – | C2C12 | ( | |
| PPy/He/PLLA | Composite membrane | – | Osteoblast-like Saos-2 cells | ( | |
| PANI/PLA | Electrospun scaffold | 0.004–0.032 S/cm | Bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells | ( | |
| PPy/SiO2/gelatine/hydroxyapatite | Porous scaffold | – | K7M2WT osteoblast cells | ( | |
| PEDOT/PCL | Scaffold | – | MSC | ( |
Summary of studies describing graphene and graphene oxide biomaterial application for tissue engineering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neural tissue | CVD grown graphene on polyethylene terephthalate | Flat film | – | SHSY5Y cells | ( |
| CVD graphene | Flat film on glass | – | hNSC | ( | |
| CVD graphene | Flat film on PMMA | – | hMSC | ( | |
| CVD graphene on porous nickel template | Porous scaffold (foam) and 2D films | – | NSC | ( | |
| Fluorinated graphene sheets | Graphene sheets on PDMS with microchannels | – | MSC | ( | |
| rGO-chitosan composite | rGO-chitosan film | – | hMSC | ( | |
| GO-SiO2 NP | Film | – | NSC | ( | |
| rGO-collagen | 3D acellular dermal matrix – rGO composite | – | MSC | ( | |
| rGO | Porous rGO scaffold | ~10−3 S cm−1 | ( | ||
| Graphene-PVA:alginate | Electrospun mat | Impedance ~25 Ω | PC12 | ( | |
| rGO modified PVC | rGO modified PVC electrospun mat | 12.5 ± 1.2 S cm −1 | Primary motor neurons | ( | |
| rGO | Micron fibre | 4.64 ± 0.90 S cm−1 | Embryonic neural progenitor cells, | ( | |
| GO/PCL composite | Tubular scaffold | 4.55 × 10−4 S/cm−1 | Schwann cells, | ( | |
| Graphene/PLG composite | Extrusion printed scaffold | ~800 S m | hMSC, | ( | |
| Cardiac tissue | rGO modified silk/fibroin | rGO modification of electrospun mat | Resistance 4.3 MΩ | Rat cardiomyocytes | ( |
| Graphene/PCL | Electrospun mat | – | Mouse embryonic stem cell derived cardiomyocytes | ( | |
| rGO - silver/polyurethane | Electrospun mat | ~105 μS/cm | Human cardiac progenitor cells | ( | |
| rGO coating on collagen | Porous scaffold | 9.1 ± 0.9 × 10−6 to 1.2 ± 0.4 × 10−4 S/m | HUVEC | ( | |
| GO-GelMA | Hydrogel | – | H9c2 cardiomyocytes, | ( | |
| rGO/GelMA | Hydrogel | Impedance ~ 4 kΩ | Rat cardiomyocytes | ( | |
| Bone tissue | Graphene or GO on PDMS | Film | – | MSC | ( |
| rGO modified titanium | Film | – | MC3T3-E1, | ( | |
| nGO/starch composite | Electrospun mat | – | MG63 | ( | |
| GO/PLA/nHydroxyapatite | Electrospun mat | – | Saos-2 | ( | |
| GO-hydroxyapatite composite | Porous scaffold | – | Rat bone mesenchymal stem cells, | ( | |
| GO-chitosan composite | Porous scaffold | – | MC3T3-E1 | ( | |
| GO/strontium NPs/PCL | Porous scaffold | – | MC3T3-E1 | ( | |
| Skeletal muscle tissue | Thermally reduced GO and GO | Film | – | C2C12 | ( |
| Graphene | Film (crumpled) | – | C2C12 | ( | |
| GO/PCL | Electrospun mat | – | hMSC | ( | |
| rGO-polyacrylamide | Hydrogel | 1.4 ± 0.4 × 10−4 S/cm | C2C12 | ( | |
| rGO/polydopamine | Aerogel | 13.289 S m−1 | C2C12 | ( | |
| Skin tissue | Reduced claisen graphene (rcG) – peptide modified | Film | – | NIH-3T3 fibroblasts, RAW macrophages | ( |
| GO/PLGA or GO/PLGA/collagen | Electrospun mat | – | HDF | ( | |
| CVD graphene on Ni | Foam | – | MSC, | ( | |
| GO modified genipin crosslinked ECM | Sponge | – | L929, | ( | |
| Cartilage tissue | Graphene or porous graphene oxide/cell biocomposite | Cell – material composite | – | MSC | ( |
| GO/chitosan | Porous scaffold | – | Human articular chondrocytes | ( | |
| GO/methacrylated chondroitin sulphate/poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether-ϵ-caprolactone-acryloyl chloride) | Porous scaffold | ~0.73 S/m | 3T3, | ( | |
| GO/collagen/chitosan | Printed hydrogel scaffold | – | Chondrocytes, | ( | |
| GO/GelMA/ PEGDA | Printed hydrogel scaffold | – | MSC | ( |
Figure 3Response of auditory nerve tissue to electrically-controlled NT-3 release from PPy films grown with different dopants. All polymers were grown with 2 mg/mL NT-3 in the polymerisation solution, and 7.2 C of charge were passed in the polymerisation of all films. (a–f) Show representative images of explants growing on various PPy films after electrically stimulated release of NT-3 from the PPy. (a) Explants on PPy/pTS, (b) PPy/DBS, (c) PPy/PSS, (d) PPy/PMAS (e) PPy/HA and (f) PPy/CS. (g) The average number of neurites extending from explants grown on electrically-stimulated and unstimulated films over six experiments. The error bars show one standard error of the mean of 6–60 explants on each polymer. Reproduced with permission from Thompson et al. (64).
Figure 4(i) Fibroblasts on the PPy/PLLA membranes at 2 and 24 h with or without ES. Note the comparable cell distribution and high cell density on the ES membranes (A). (B) Shows a significantly higher cell viability on the membranes with ES (100 mV/mm). (ii) Fibroblasts on the gold-coated tissue culture Petri dish for 96 h with or without ES at various surface current densities, showing that a wide range of DC current density had no effect on cell morphology (A) and viability (B). Reproduced with permission from Shi et al. (103).
Figure 5(i) Surface profile of the biosynthetic cell culture platform. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of (a) a 75:25 PLA:PLGA fibre, and (b,c) hybrid platforms made from 75:25 PLA:PLGA fibres and PPy doped with pTS (b) and HA (c). The broken line separates the area on the PPy substrate where the fibres have been removed (pointed by the arrows). Also shown are profilometry images of the hybrid platform in the (d) presence and (e) absence of PLA:PLGA fibres, and (f) height profile obtained from image (e). (ii) Fluorescence images of differentiated, multinucleated desmin (green) expressing myotubes on PPy/pTS substrate (a,b) with and (c,d) without the presence of PLA:PLGA fibre array. Cell nuclei are shown in blue. Scale bars are 200 mm. Reproduced with permission from Razal et al. (168).
Figure 6(i) Scaffolds surface structure. (a,d,g) Pictures of the uncoated and coated scaffolds and SEM images of the macroporous scaffolds before and after VPP using the two different oxidant solutions. (b,e,h) PPP-PEDOT:Tos scaffolds and (c,f,i) Pyr-PEDOT:Tos. (a–c) scale bar: 1 cm, (d–f) scale bar: 200 μm, (g–i) scale bar: 2 μm). (ii) F-actin staining of foetal mesenchymal stem cells seeded on untreated and coated scaffolds. Z-stack images were taken for cells after 7 and 14 d of proliferation on different scaffolds surfaces. Scale bar: 50 μm. Reproduced with permission from Iandolo et al. (70).
Figure 7(a) Schematic drawing of patterning MSCs by printing PDMS barriers on graphene films directly. (b) Optical microscope image of printed PDMS on fluorinated graphene film (scale bar = 50 μ m). (c–e) The aligned growth of stem cell on graphene, PFG and FG with printed PDMS pattern, respectively (scale bar = 100 μm). (f,g) MSCs preferentially attached on the FG strips and their F-actin aligned (red) and expressed neural specific markers- Tuj1 and MAP2 (green) (scale bar = 50 μ m). (h) Percentage of immunoreactive cells for Tuj1 and MAP2 on unpatterned and patterned FG strips. Note that the patterned FG strips induce higher expression of Tuj1 and MAP2 in the absence of retinoic acid (n = 6, p < 0.05). Reproduced with permission from Wang et al. (117). *signifies statistically significant differences between samples.
Figure 8Photographic and morphologic characterizations on rGO/silk biomaterials. (A) Images of random silk, GO/silk, and rGO/silk materials. (B) Cross-sectional images of rGO/silk materials in the (i) central and (ii) marginal regions in (A) show no distinction in rGO coating thickness. (C) SEM images of the surface and cross-section of silk and rGO/silk scaffolds, showing an integrated rGO layer and a nanofibrous morphology that is controllable based on the coating thickness. (D) Fibre orientation distribution of random and aligned electrospun silk matrices. (E) rGO coating thickness shows a positive relationship with the GO doping mass. (F) Immunofluorescence show α-actinin expression for cardiomyocytes after day 7. Reproduced with permission from Zhao et al. (124). A significant difference is defined as *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 9(A) Schematic illustration for the preparation of rGO-Ti. (B) SEM images of Ti and rGO-Ti (scale bar = 2 μm). (C) AFM images of Ti and rGO-Ti (scale bar = 500 nm). (D) Drug loading (%) on rGO-Ti. (E) Relative cell viability on Ti and rGO-Ti. Confocal microscopic images of F-actin stained preosteoblasts on (F) Ti and (G) rGO-Ti (scale bar = 25 μm). (H) Cell adhesion area determined from the region of F-actin fluorescence (*P ≤ 0.05 and ***P ≤ 0.001). Reproduced with permission from Jung et al. (130).