| Literature DB >> 35049576 |
Fengshi Zhang1,2,3, Meng Zhang1,2,3, Songyang Liu1,2,3, Ci Li1,2,3, Zhentao Ding1,2,3, Teng Wan1,2,3, Peixun Zhang1,2,3.
Abstract
Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) occurs frequently, and the prognosis is unsatisfactory. As the gold standard of treatment, autologous nerve grafting has several disadvantages, such as lack of donors and complications. The use of functional biomaterials to simulate the natural microenvironment of the nervous system and the combination of different biomaterials are considered to be encouraging alternative methods for effective tissue regeneration and functional restoration of injured nerves. Considering the inherent presence of an electric field in the nervous system, electrically conductive biomaterials have been used to promote nerve regeneration. Due to their singular physical properties, hydrogels can provide a three-dimensional hydrated network that can be integrated into diverse sizes and shapes and stimulate the natural functions of nerve tissue. Therefore, conductive hydrogels have become the most effective biological material to simulate human nervous tissue's biological and electrical characteristics. The principal merits of conductive hydrogels include their physical properties and their electrical peculiarities sufficient to effectively transmit electrical signals to cells. This review summarizes the recent applications of conductive hydrogels to enhance peripheral nerve regeneration.Entities:
Keywords: cell proliferation; conductive hydrogel; peripheral nerve regeneration; tissue engineering
Year: 2022 PMID: 35049576 PMCID: PMC8775167 DOI: 10.3390/gels8010041
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gels ISSN: 2310-2861
Figure 1Schematic of conductive hydrogels (CH) for peripheral nerve regeneration. CPs = conductive polymers; CBCM = carbon-based conductive materials; CH = conductive hydrogels.
Representative examples of electroconductive hydrogels for peripheral nerve regeneration. Abbreviations used in the table are found in the table footer.
| Conductive Matrix | In Vitro Studies | In Vivo Studies | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| PEDOT + agarose | - | Rat (10 mm peroneal nerve gap) | [ |
| PEDOT + chitin + CRGD | RSC-96 | Rat (10 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
| PANi + cellulose | RSC-96 | Rat (5 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
| PANi + PAM | Toad Sciatic Nerve, NSC, N2a | Rat (10 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
| PPy + alginate + chitosan | BMMSC, RSC-96, PC-12 | Rat (10 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
| PPy + GelMA + OCS | Rat DRG, PC-12 | Rat (diabetic skin wound) | [ |
| PPy + TA | Rat DRG, RSC-96, PC-12 | Rat (diabetic sciatic nerve crush injury) | [ |
| CNT + Matrigel | Rat DRG | - | [ |
| CNT + SAP | Rat DRG | - | [ |
| reduced (GO/GelMA) | PC-12 | Rat (10 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
| GO + PPy + alginate | BMMSC | Rat (skin nerves removed) | [ |
| Graphene + GelMA + alginate | RSC-96 | Rat (10 mm sciatic nerve gap) | [ |
PEDOT = poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene); CRGD = tetrapeptide Cys−Arg−Gly−Asp; PANi = polyaniline; PAM = polyacrylamide; NSC = neural stem cells; PPy = polypyrrole; GelMA = gelatin methacryloyl; OCS = oxidized chondroitin sulfate; DRG = dorsal root ganglion; TA = tannic acid; CNT = carbon nanotube; SAP = self-assembling peptide; GO = graphene oxide; BMMSC = bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell.
Figure 2New generation of conductive polymers (CPs). (A) polyaniline (PANi); (B) poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT); (C) polypyrrole (PPy).
Figure 3AFM images of the diluted partial deacetylation chitin solution, PEDOT nanoparticles, and chitin blended with PEDOT nanoparticles solution ((A), 1–3) and the corresponding height graphs ((B), 1–3). Schematic model of chitin/PEDOT solution (C), and ζ–potential of PEDOT NPs and chitin (D). Illustration for the preparation of conductive chitin hydrogel used in peripheral nerve regeneration (E): (i) preparation for partial deacetylation of chitin blended with PEDOT NP hydrogel film (ChT–PEDOT); (ii) modification of the cell adhesive peptide CGRD onto the chitin hydrogel film surface (ChT–PEDOT–p); and (iii) implantation of ChT–PEDOT–p in sciatic nerve defect rat to evaluate the recovery ability. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) This figure was published in [48]—copyright, American Chemical Society (2021). Permission to share the material has been granted.
Figure 4The mechanism of conductive hydrogel promoting neurovascular regeneration in vivo. (a) Images of immunofluorescence co-staining for CD31 and αSMA at day 14. (b) Quantitative analysis of the blood vessel number (n = 3). (c) Protein expressions of CD31 and αSMA at the diabetic wound site were measured by western blot assays. (d) Quantitative analysis of protein expression (n = 3). (e) Images of immunofluorescence for NF staining at day 14. (f) Quantitative analysis of the area of neurofilaments (n = 3). (g) Protein expressions of NF at the diabetic wound site were measured by western blot assays. (h) Quantitative analysis of protein expression (n = 3). (i) Schematic illustration of the mechanism conductive hydrogel uses to promote neurovascular regeneration. (j) Protein expressions of MEK, p-MEK, ERK, p-ERK, PI3K, p- PI3K, AKT, and p-AKT were evaluated by western blot. (k) Quantitative analysis of protein expression (n = 3). Statistical analysis was implemented by using One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s test (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001). (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) This figure was published in [52]—copyright, John Wiley and Sons (2021). Permission to share the material has been granted.
Figure 5In vivo implantation of NGCs and functional recovery. (A) NGCs were implanted in a 10 mm gap of the sciatic nerve. (B) SFI of different groups at predetermined time points. (C) Comparison of electrophysiological recordings of compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) for various implanted NGCs and autografts. (D) Onset–to–peak amplitude and (E) NCV of each group. (F) Images of muscles and (G) muscle wet weight ratio in each group. Scale bar: 25 mm. *, p < 0.05 compared to GelMA at the same week. $, p < 0.01 compared to GelMA at the same week. @, p < 0.05 compared to GO/GelMA at the same week. #, p < 0.01 compared to GO/GelMA at the same week. &, p < 0.05 compared to r(GO/GelMA) at the same week. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.) This figure was published in [56]—copyright, John Wiley and Sons (2020). Permission to share the material has been granted.