Human monocyte adhesion and activation on crystalline polymers with different morphology and wettability in vitro

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of crystalline polyamide (Nylon-66), poly(ethylene-co-vinyl alcohol) (PEVA), and poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) polymers with nonporous and porous morphologies on the ability of monocytes to adhere and subsequently activate to produce IL-1␤, IL-6, and tumor necrosis factor ␣. The results indicated monocyte adhesion and activation on a material might differ to a great extent, depending on the surface morphology and wettability. As the polymer wettability increases, the ability of monocytes to adhere increases but the ability to produce cytokines decreases. Similarly, these polymers, when prepared with porous surfaces, enhance monocyte adhesion but suppress monocyte release of cytokines. Therefore, the hydrophobic PVDF with a nonporous surface stimulates the most activity in adherent monocytes but shows the greatest inhibition of monocyte adhesion when compared with all of the other membranes. In contrast, the hydrophilic Nylon-66, which has a porous surface, is a relatively better substrate for this work. Therefore, monocyte behavior on a biomaterial may be influenced by a specific surface property. Based on this result, we propose that monocyte adhesion is regulated by a different mechanism than monocyte activation. Consequently, the generation of cytokines by monocytes is not proportional to the number of cells adherent to the surface.

Cytocompatibility of aliphatic polyesters—In vitro study on fibroblasts and macrophages

“…For example, it was already shown that, on clean glass or polyethylene oxide modified glass surfaces, adherent monocytes/macrophages densities were high, but negligible IL‐4‐induced FBGC formation was observed 16. A similar phenomenon was observed on hydrophilic Nylon‐66, which promoted cell adhesion, but inhibited release of cytokines 37. However, it should always be kept in mind that macrophages also play an important role in the termination of the inflammatory response and tissue repair.…”

“…Therefore, our results suggest that both high hydrophobicity and surface roughness may influence adhesion phenomena of serum proteins from culture medium or secreted by the cells, thus reducing adhesion of fibroblasts and macrophages on PGCL. Previous studies of Young et al on adhesion and activation of monocytes on crystalline polymers showed the greatest inhibition of monocyte adhesion on hydrophobic poly(vinylidene fluoride) compared to hydrophilic polyamide and poly(ethylene‐ co ‐vinyl alcohol) 37. However, the adherent cells showed the greatest secretion of proinflammatory cytokines (IL‐1β, IL‐6, and TNF‐α produced per activated monocyte 37.…”

“…Previous studies of Young et al on adhesion and activation of monocytes on crystalline polymers showed the greatest inhibition of monocyte adhesion on hydrophobic poly(vinylidene fluoride) compared to hydrophilic polyamide and poly(ethylene‐ co ‐vinyl alcohol) 37. However, the adherent cells showed the greatest secretion of proinflammatory cytokines (IL‐1β, IL‐6, and TNF‐α produced per activated monocyte 37. The hypothesis that the lowest T g and deformability reduced adhesion and viability of cells on PGCL cannot be ruled out.…”

In vitro hemocompatibility and cytocompatibility of a three-layered vascular scaffold fabricated by sequential electrospinning of PCL, collagen, and PLLA nanofibers

“…31 Jenney et al and Young et al found that macrophage adhesion decreases with increasing hydrophobicity. 33,34 In contrast, Brodbeck et al demonstrated that macrophage adhesion is decreased on hydrophilic and anionic surfaces. 35 These findings suggest that while adhesion is somewhat dependent on surface charge and hydrophilicity, macrophages are capable of adhering to a variety of surface chemistries.…”

Characterization of microglial attachment and cytokine release on biomaterials of differing surface chemistry

“…While numerous studies have characterized the interactions of monocytes and macrophages, the peripheral analogs of activated microglial cells, with various materials [46][47][48][49], little is currently known regarding the interactions of microglial cells with various material surfaces.…”