Department of Biomaterials, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, 6525 EX Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Biomaterials. 2012 Nov;33(33):8695-703. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.08.024. Epub 2012 Aug 24.
Colloidal gels have recently emerged as a promising new class of materials for regenerative medicine by employing micro- and nanospheres as building blocks to assemble into integral scaffolds. To this end, physically crosslinked particulate networks are formed that are injectable yet cohesive. By varying the physicochemical properties of different particle populations, the suitability of colloidal gels for programmed delivery of multiple therapeutic proteins is superior over conventional monolithic gels that lack this strong capacity for controlled drug release. Colloidal gels made of biodegradable polymer micro- or nanospheres have been widely investigated over the past few years, but a direct comparison between micro- vs. nanostructured colloidal gels has not been made yet. Therefore, the current study has compared the viscoelastic properties and capacity for drug release of colloidal gels made of oppositely charged gelatin microspheres vs. nanospheres. Viscoelastic properties of the colloidal gelatin gels were characterized by rheology and simple injectability tests, and in vitro release of two selected osteogenic proteins (i.e. bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP)) from the colloidal gelatin gels was evaluated using radiolabeled BMP-2 and ALP. Nanostructured colloidal gelatin gels displayed superior viscoelastic properties over microsphere-based gels in terms of elasticity, injectability, structural integrity, and self-healing behavior upon severe network destruction. In contrast, microstructured colloidal gelatin gels exhibited poor gel strength and integrity, unfavorable injectability, and did not recover after shearing, resulting from the poor gel cohesion due to insufficiently strong interparticle forces. Regarding the capacity for drug delivery, sustained growth factor (BMP-2) release was obtained for both micro- and nanosphere-based gels, the kinetics of which were mainly depending on the particle size of gelatin spheres with the same crosslinking density. Therefore, the optimal gelatin carrier for drug delivery in terms of particle size and crosslinking density still needs to be established for specific clinical indications that require either short-term or long-term release. It can be concluded that nanostructured colloidal gelatin gels show great potential for sustained delivery of therapeutic proteins, whereas microstructured colloidal gelatin gels are not sufficiently cohesive as injectables for biomedical applications.
胶体凝胶最近作为一种有前途的再生医学新材料出现,其使用微球和纳米球作为构建块来组装成完整的支架。为此,形成了可注射但具有内聚性的物理交联颗粒网络。通过改变不同颗粒群体的物理化学性质,胶体凝胶用于递多种治疗性蛋白质的适用性优于缺乏这种强大的控释药物释放能力的传统整体凝胶。在过去的几年中,已经广泛研究了由可生物降解聚合物微球或纳米球制成的胶体凝胶,但尚未对微结构与纳米结构胶体凝胶进行直接比较。因此,本研究比较了带相反电荷的明胶微球与纳米球制成的胶体凝胶的粘弹性和药物释放能力。通过流变学和简单的可注射性测试来表征胶体明胶凝胶的粘弹性,使用放射性标记的 BMP-2 和 ALP 评估两种选定的成骨蛋白(即骨形态发生蛋白-2(BMP-2)和碱性磷酸酶(ALP))从胶体明胶凝胶中的体外释放。在严重的网络破坏后,纳米结构胶体明胶凝胶在弹性、可注射性、结构完整性和自修复行为方面显示出优于基于微球的凝胶的优越粘弹性。相比之下,由于颗粒间力不足,微结构胶体明胶凝胶表现出较差的凝胶强度和完整性、不理想的可注射性,并且在剪切后无法恢复。关于药物输送能力,基于微球和纳米球的凝胶均获得了持续的生长因子(BMP-2)释放,其动力学主要取决于具有相同交联密度的明胶球的粒径。因此,仍需要根据需要短期或长期释放的特定临床适应症来确定最佳的明胶载体。可以得出结论,纳米结构胶体明胶凝胶在治疗性蛋白质的持续释放方面具有很大的潜力,而微结构胶体明胶凝胶作为生物医学应用的可注射剂不够内聚。