journal article·2020-12-14Open access

Hydrolytic stability and biocompatibility on smooth muscle cells of polyethylene glycol–polycaprolactone-based polyurethanes

Maria Morales-Gonzalez, Said Arévalo-Alquichire, Luis E. Diaz, Juan Ángel Sans, Guillermo Vilariño-Feltrer, José A. Gómez-Tejedor, Manuel F. Valero

Journal of Materials Research· Volume 35· Issue 23-24

Abstract

Interactions between smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and biomaterials must not result in phenotype changes as this may generate uncontrolled multiplication processes and occlusions in vascular grafts. The aim of this study was to relate the hydrolytic stability and biocompatibility of polyurethanes (PUs) on SMCs. A higher polycaprolactone (PCL) concentration was found to improve the hydrolytic stability of the material and the adhesion of SMCs. A material with 5% polyethylene glycol, 90% PCL, and 5% pentaerythritol presented high cell viability and adhesion, suggesting a contractile phenotype in SMCs depending on the morphology. Nevertheless, all PUs retained their elastic modulus over 120 days, similar to the collagen of native arteries (~10 MPa). Furthermore, aortic SMCs did not present toxicity (viability over 80%) and demonstrated adherence without any abnormal cell multiplication processes, which is ideal for the function to be fulfiledin situin the vascular grafts.
Source: expertdata · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Polymer composites and self-healing · Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications · biodegradable polymer synthesis and properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (39)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2015.07.01410.1016/j.ymeth.2015.07.014 ↗
2. 10.1088/1748-605X/aaa8b610.1088/1748-605X/aaa8b6 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.02.01310.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.02.013 ↗
4. 10.3144/expresspolymlett.2016.4610.3144/expresspolymlett.2016.46 ↗
5. 10.3390/polym1203066610.3390/polym12030666 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.colcom.2018.01.00510.1016/j.colcom.2018.01.005 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.04.01710.1016/j.drudis.2016.04.017 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.polymer.2017.04.00610.1016/j.polymer.2017.04.006 ↗
9. 10.1590/S1516-1439200400040000610.1590/S1516-14392004000400006 ↗
10. 33. Chang, H.-I. and Wang, Y. : Cell response to surface and architecture of tissue engineering scaffolds. Regen. Med. Tissue Eng. – Cells Biomater. (2012), pp. 569–588.
11. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.02310.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.03.023 ↗
12. 10.1039/C7RA07102G10.1039/C7RA07102G ↗
13. 10.1007/s10544-018-0274-810.1007/s10544-018-0274-8 ↗
14. 10.1557/jmr.2015.11710.1557/jmr.2015.117 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.msec.2019.11057110.1016/j.msec.2019.110571 ↗
16. 10.1155/2015/43487610.1155/2015/434876 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.01.05410.1016/j.colsurfa.2017.01.054 ↗
18. 10.1007/978-3-642-34243-1_110.1007/978-3-642-34243-1_1 ↗
19. 10.1002/app.2953810.1002/app.29538 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.05610.1016/j.matdes.2017.04.056 ↗
21. 10.3390/ijms1009403310.3390/ijms10094033 ↗
22. 10.1016/S1369-7021(05)71223-210.1016/S1369-7021(05)71223-2 ↗
23. 10.1007/978-3-319-77932-4_2010.1007/978-3-319-77932-4_20 ↗
24. 10.1039/C4AN02284J10.1039/C4AN02284J ↗
25. 10.1016/j.actbio.2012.03.03210.1016/j.actbio.2012.03.032 ↗
26. 10.1016/S0142-9612(03)00476-910.1016/S0142-9612(03)00476-9 ↗
27. 10.1155/2013/78254910.1155/2013/782549 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.00210.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.002 ↗
29. 10.1002/jrs.498410.1002/jrs.4984 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.12.00310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.12.003 ↗
31. 10.1557/jmr.2017.37110.1557/jmr.2017.371 ↗
32. 10.1016/j.msec.2018.06.04110.1016/j.msec.2018.06.041 ↗
33. 10.1177/088532821876391210.1177/0885328218763912 ↗
34. 10.3390/molecules2402023710.3390/molecules24020237 ↗
35. 10.1039/C6BM00618C10.1039/C6BM00618C ↗
36. 10.1080/00222348.2018.143922310.1080/00222348.2018.1439223 ↗
37. 10.1039/C6RA02486F10.1039/C6RA02486F ↗
38. 10.3390/ma911088710.3390/ma9110887 ↗
39. 10.1089/ten.tea.2008.035510.1089/ten.tea.2008.0355 ↗