Many chemical routes have been proposed to immobilize peptides on biomedical device surfaces, and in particular, on dental implants to prevent peri-implantitis. While a number of factors affect peptide immobilization quality, an easily controllable factor is the chemistry used to immobilize peptides. These factors affect peptide chemoselectivity, orientation, etc., and ultimately control biological activity. Using many different physical and chemical routes for peptide coatings, previous research has intensely focused on immobilizing antimicrobial elements on dental implants to reduce infection rates. Alternatively, our strategy here is different and focused on promoting formation of a long-lasting biological seal between the soft tissue and the implant surface through transmembrane, cell adhesion structures called hemidesmosomes. For that purpose, we used a laminin-derived call adhesion peptide. However, the effect of different immobilization chemistries on cell adhesion peptide activity is vastly unexplored but likely critical. Here, we compared the physiochemical properties and biological responses of a hemidesmosome promoting peptide immobilized using silanization and copper-free click chemistry as a model system for cell adhesion peptides. Successful immobilization was confirmed with water contact angle and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. Peptide coatings were retained through 73 days of incubation in artificial saliva. Interestingly, the non-chemoselective immobilization route, silanization, resulted in significantly higher proliferation and hemidesmosome formation in oral keratinocytes compared to chemoselective click chemistry. Our results highlight that the most effective immobilization chemistry for optimal peptide activity is dependent on the specific system (substrate/peptide/cell/biological activity) under study. Overall, a better understanding of the effects immobilization chemistries have on cell adhesion peptide activity may lead to more efficacious coatings for biomedical devices.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Acknowledgments: Parts of this work were carried out in the University of Minnesota I.T. Characterization Facility, which receives partial support from NSF through the MRSEC program.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health [R01DE026117 (CA), F30DE029105 (NGF), and T90DE0227232 (NGF)]. Funding was also provided by a 3M Science and Technology Fellowship (NGF). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding bodies had not role in study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
© 2020 by the authors.
- Dental implants