| Literature DB >> 35181608 |
Wenbo He1, Jiaxiang Bai2, Xu Chen1, Di Suo3, Shenghao Wang2, Qianping Guo2, Weiling Yin1, Dechun Geng2, Miao Wang1, Guoqing Pan4, Xin Zhao5, Bin Li6,7,8.
Abstract
Dynamic biomaterials excel at recapitulating the reversible interlocking and remoldable structure of the extracellular matrix (ECM), particularly in manipulating cell behaviors and adapting to tissue morphogenesis. While strategies based on dynamic chemistries have been extensively studied for ECM-mimicking dynamic biomaterials, biocompatible molecular means with biogenicity are still rare. Here, we report a nature-derived strategy for fabrication of dynamic biointerface as well as a three-dimensional (3D) hydrogel structure based on reversible receptor-ligand interaction between the glycopeptide antibiotic vancomycin and dipeptide d-Ala-d-Ala. We demonstrate the reversible regulation of multiple cell types with the dynamic biointerface and successfully implement the dynamic hydrogel as a functional antibacterial 3D scaffold to treat tissue repair. In view of the biogenicity and high applicability, this nature-derived reversible molecular strategy will bring opportunities for malleable biomaterial design with great potential in biomedicine.Entities:
Keywords: biomimicry; cell regulation; dynamic biomaterial design; natural receptor–ligand interaction; tissue repair
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35181608 PMCID: PMC8872741 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2117221119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ISSN: 0027-8424 Impact factor: 12.779
Fig. 1.Schematics showing the mechanism of dynamic biointerface and 3D ECM mimics based on a reversible dougong-structured natural receptor–ligand recognition. (A) The Van–AA molecular recognition on bacterial cell wall in nature. (B) Schematic illustration of the dynamic biointerface based on the reversible Van–AA interaction. Reversible bioligand presentation and controllable cell behaviors could be readily realized through the Van–AA interaction. (C) Schematic illustration of the dynamic hydrogels with remoldable network structure and its application in tissue repair.
Fig. 2.Design of dynamic biointerfaces with reversible RGD presentation and dynamic cell adhesion. (A) The multiple Van–AA interactions between the Van-containing polymer brush and cell-adhesive molecule AA–RGD. (B) Reversible presentation of bioactive AA–RGD on the dynamic biointerface. (C) XPS of the quartz slides before and after Van grafting Peak at 400.08 eV indicated the N1 signal. (D) Real-time QCM-D frequency (f) shifts of the Van-containing surface incubated with different solutions. (E) The bright-field and fluorescence images of L929 cells after culture for 4 h on the surfaces without (AA–RGD−) and with AA–RGD (AA–RGD+). (F) Quantitative result of the cell adhesion efficiency. (G) Quantitative result of the average cell-spreading area. (H) Time-dependent L929 cell detachment on the AA–RGD-bound surface after adding 20 mM AA dipeptide. The cell 1 and cell 2 images show a dramatic shrinking in 30 min. (I) The changes of average cell-spreading area during AA-triggered cell detachment. (J) Programmed manipulation of reversible cell adhesion on the dynamic biointerface. ***Statistically significant difference is indicated by P < 0.001 as compared with others.
Fig. 3.The general applicability and biocompatibility of the Van–AA-based dynamic biointerface for cell regulation. (A) Representative micrographs of HUVECs after culture for 4 h on the surfaces without (AA–RGD−) and with AA–RGD (AA–RGD+). Insets are representative fluorescence images of adhered HUVECs. (B) Quantitative result of the cell adhesion efficiency. (C) Quantitative result of the average cell-spreading area. (D) Time-dependent HUVEC detachment on the AA–RGD-bound surface after adding 20 mM AA dipeptide. (E) The change of the average HUVEC-spreading area during AA-triggered cell detachment. (F) The change of the cell 1–spreading area during the detachment. (G) Programmed manipulation of reversible HUVEC adhesion on the dynamic biointerface. (H and I) The live/dead cell-staining images of L929 and HUVECs. (J and K) The proliferation profile of the original (control) and recovered cells after one cycle of dynamic adhesion. OD, optical density. ***Statistically significant difference is indicated by P < 0.001 as compared with others.
Fig. 4.Dynamic hydrogels based on reversible Van–AA interactions. (A) Structural formula of the Van-M and AA-M. (B) Schematic illustration of the Van–AA dynamic hydrogels. (C) The sol-to-gel transition after photo-initiated polymerization of Van-M (20 mM) and AA-M (10 mM). (D) The healing process of a scratched Van–AA hydrogel surface. (E) The self-healing ability of Van–AA hydrogel enables the integration of small hydrogel blocks. Block sizes: 0.5 × 1.0 cm. (F) The injectability of the Van–AA hydrogel. (G) Injection of Van–AA hydrogels for the formation of letter patterns. Teflon molds: 2.0 × 2.0 cm. (H) The dynamic oscillatory frequency sweeps (strain = 1%) of the Van–AA hydrogel. (I) The strain amplitude sweeps (frequency = 1 rad s−1) of the Van–AA hydrogel. (J) The step-strain sweeps (strain = 1 or 100%, frequency = 1 rad s−1) of the Van–AA hydrogel. Temperature: 25 °C. G′, storage modulus; G″, loss modulus. (K) The in vitro degradation profile. (L) Photos of agar plates after 24 h of incubation of S. aureus with different materials. (M) Quantitative analysis of the in vitro antibacterial efficiency of the Van–AA hydrogels. (N) The live/dead cell-staining images of L929 and HUVECs after incubation with Van–AA hydrogel for 12 h. (O) The 24-h proliferation efficiency of hydrogel-incubated cells. Cell viability of original cells was 100%. All of the above results were based on the hydrogel prepared with 20 mM Van-M and 10 mM AA-M (Van-M/AA-M = 2:1).
Fig. 5.Dynamic antibacterial hydrogel for infected skin wound repair. The hydrogel was prepared with a molar ratio of Van-M and AA-M at 2:1. (A) Schematic illustration of the repair mechanism of the Van–AA hydrogel (composed of 20 mM Van-M and 10 mM AA-M) for infected skin wound healing. (B) Gross observation of S. aureus–infected wound healing in a Sprague–Dawley rat model. Wound size: 1.5 cm. (C) Quantitative analysis of the wound size on days 3, 7, 10, and 14. Insets show the traces of wound-bed closure. (D) The wound closure time. (E) Representative Immunofluorescence-staining images on day 3 using S. aureus antibodies (green) and DAPI counterstaining (nucleus; blue). (F) Quantitative analysis of the staining intensity indicating the significant bacterial inhibition of the Van–AA hydrogel in vitro. (G and J) Micrographs of H&E- and Masson’s trichome–stained tissue slices on days 7 and 14 (boundary of epithelium: red lines; hair follicle: green arrows). (H) Quantification of epidermis thickness in each group on day 7. (I, K, and L) Quantification of hair follicles, granulation length, and collagen deposition in each group on day 14 (n = 5). ***Statistically significant difference is indicated by P < 0.001 as compared with others.