Immune Modulation by Design: Using Topography to Control Human Monocyte Attachment and Macrophage Differentiation

Vassey, Matthew; Figueredo, Grazziela P.; Scurr, David J.; Vasilevich, Aliaksei; Vermeulen, Steven; Carlier, Aurélie; Luckett, Jeni; Beijer, Nick R. M.; Williams, Paul; Winkler, David A.; Boer, Jan de; Ghaemmaghami, Amir M.; Alexander, Morgan R.

doi:10.1002/advs.201903392

Cited by 111 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To be specific, many reports have demonstrated that the biophysical clues such as the surface topography which the macrophages grow on is critical for polarization regulation. [4][5][6] Our previous studies also indicate that the micro/nano topography of TiO 2 nanotubular surface with ~30 nm diameter is able to induce M2 polarization and consequently influence the osseointegration in vivo. 7,8 This phenomenon has not only provided a more convenient and safe way to induce M2 polarization, but has also led to the concept of "osteoimmunity" during the designation of bone implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

<p>The Role of Autophagy in M2 Polarization of Macrophages Induced by Micro/Nano Topography</p>

Luo

Meng

et al. 2020

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The proper topography of implant surface can induce macrophages polarization, whereas the regulation mechanism has not been fully deciphered. The study aimed to examine the regulation mechanism of macrophages M2 polarization by titanium (Ti) implant surface micro/nano topography. Results: Firstly, the titanium implant micropits-nanotubular surface with ~30 nm diameters (MNT) can induce the M2 polarization of RAW264.7 spontaneously, as indicated by the spindle-like cell morphological alteration and specific molecular marker arginase-1 (Arg1) expression. Next, the autophagic vacuoles (AVs) number is significantly increased on MNT surface, as confirmed by the monodansylcadaverine (MDC) and CYTO-ID staining as well as the transmission electron microscope (TEM) observation. In addition, increasing or decreasing the autophagosomes number by rapamycin or 3-methyladenine (3-MA) will result in augmentation or attenuation of Arg1. Furthermore, blocking the fusion between autophagosomes and lysosomes by bafilomycin also significantly reduces Arg1, even in the presence of rapamycin. Finally, the ERK phosphorylation is selectively upregulated on MNT surface and the AVs number and Arg1 expression are significantly suppressed by U0126 treatment. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the ERK-Beclin-1-autophagy axis may play a pivotal role in the regulation of M2 polarization induced by nanotopography.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

<p>The Role of Autophagy in M2 Polarization of Macrophages Induced by Micro/Nano Topography</p>

Luo

Meng

et al. 2020

IJN

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Macrophages will express diverse genes and inflammatory cytokines on the surfaces with different roughness and topology, resulting in significant effects on the inflammatory response and the FBR. [ 165–169 ] A biomaterial with a smooth surface usually induce lower inflammatory response, [ 170,171 ] which is a consensus about the design of implantable materials. However, Rosengren et al.…”

Section: Conventional Strategies To Migrate the Fbrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with the Foreign‐Body Response to Implanted Biomaterials: Strategies and Applications of New Materials

Zhang

Chen

Shi

et al. 2020

Adv Funct Materials

176

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foreign‐body response caused by implanted biomaterials seriously impedes the function of implants and is a major obstacle to the development of implantable biomaterials and medical devices. Recent advances in implantable biomaterials and medical devices have provided strategies to resist the foreign‐body response. In this review, the mechanism of the foreign‐body response and conventional strategies to mitigate foreign‐body response is briefly introduced. Then, three types of promising foreign‐body response resisting materials are focused and the advantages, characteristics, and applications of each material are discussed. Finally, prospects are put forward for future development of foreign‐body response resisting materials and current challenges that require in‐depth study.

show abstract

“…Another example of an available high throughput approach is the TopoChip platform, which allows mathematically defined surface topographies to be screened for their influence on cellular responses. [141,148] As already validated for human macrophages, the combination of this platform with machine learning algorithms can lead to rapid identification of optimal immuneinstructive biomaterial surfaces. [148] Michiel Croes completed his Ph.D. on the use of osteo-immunomodulation to improve the bioactivity of ceramics.…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[141,148] As already validated for human macrophages, the combination of this platform with machine learning algorithms can lead to rapid identification of optimal immuneinstructive biomaterial surfaces. [148] Michiel Croes completed his Ph.D. on the use of osteo-immunomodulation to improve the bioactivity of ceramics. Currently, he is a postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Orthopedics at the University Medical Center Utrecht.…”

Section: Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[ 138 ] Using the TopoChip platform, comprising a library of over two thousand micropatterns to screen for proinflammatory, anti‐inflammatory, or immune regulatory surface topographies, it was found that the pattern area of surface micropillars determines the extent of human macrophage attachment, while a combination of pattern area and density of the micropillars is crucial to instruct their inflammatory phenotype. [ 148 ] In the future, this platform may also help to answer how phenotypic changes in macrophages correlate to their anti‐infective performance, as this is yet unknown.…”

Section: Anti‐infective Surface Modification Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

commensal skin bacteria, Staphylococci, and in particular Staphylococcus aureus, have a strong tendency to colonize foreign bodies and cause IAI. [3,4] Important for the underlying pathophysiology, Staphylococci are highly competent at producing biofilms on implant surfaces, which encapsulate the bacterial niche from the outside environment, [5,6] thereby protecting the bacteria from host defense systems and antibiotics. [7] Antibiotics are administered as a routine procedure. [8] However, as a consequence of widespread antibiotics usage, bacteria are exposed to subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics at a larger scale, driving their development toward antibiotic resistance, [9] as illustrated by the emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). [10,11] As an improvement over current clinically applied local antibiotics delivery systems, [12] the recent developments in implant surface engineering approaches allow better antimicrobial functionalities to be incorporated to allow for more tunable and controlled drug release. [13-15] The "race to the surface" model is popular among biomaterials researchers to predict the biomaterials fate, resulting from the competition between eukaryotic cells and bacteria at the material surface. [16] Using this template, implant antibacterial properties are being stemmed from direct contact killing mechanisms due to implant surface modifications [17,18] or firm immobilization of drugs, [19,20] as they both "shield" the implant from bacterial adhesion. The current anti-infective biomaterials strategies being explored can be categorized as: 1) implant functionalization with antibiotics or antibacterial drugs such as host defense peptides (HDPs), inorganic materials (e.g., chitosan and derivatives), and inorganics (e.g., silver, copper, and zinc metal nanoparticles (NPs)), 2) anti-biofilm surface modification (e.g., coating with antifouling polymers or quorum sensor inhibitors), or 3) physical surface changes for direct contact-killing properties (e.g., nanotubes, nanopillars, and metal implantation). [15,21] Emerging as a serious alternative or adjuvant therapy to antibiotics, bacteriophage (phage) therapy uses viruses responsible for the lysis of specific bacterial strains. [22,23] As a natural predator of bacteria, phages employ different killing mechanisms, making multidrug resistant bacteria susceptible for phages. [24] Moreover, phages are highly specific for pathogenic cells, which can eliminate disastrous off-target effects in the host. [25] As a limitation, the use of phage cocktails is needed for therapeutic efficacy, [26] while there is currently is no conclusive data on possible long-term side effects of phage therapy in The widespread use of biomaterials to support or replace body parts is increasingly threatened by the risk of implant-associated infections. In the quest for finding novel anti-infective biomaterials, there generally has been a one-sided focus on biomaterials with direct antibacterial properties, which leads to excessive use of antibacterial ag...

show abstract

Immune Modulation by Design: Using Topography to Control Human Monocyte Attachment and Macrophage Differentiation

Cited by 111 publications

References 45 publications

<p>The Role of Autophagy in M2 Polarization of Macrophages Induced by Micro/Nano Topography</p>

<p>The Role of Autophagy in M2 Polarization of Macrophages Induced by Micro/Nano Topography</p>

Dealing with the Foreign‐Body Response to Implanted Biomaterials: Strategies and Applications of New Materials

Combating Implant Infections: Shifting Focus from Bacteria to Host

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About