The mechanical properties of self-assembled fibrillar networks are influenced by the specific intermolecular interactions that modulate fiber entanglements. We investigate how changing these interactions influences the mechanics of self-assembled nanofiber gels composed of peptide amphiphile (PA) molecules. PAs developed in our laboratory self-assemble into gels of nanofibers after neutralization or salt-mediated screening of the charged residues in their peptide segment. We report here on the gelation, stiffness, and response to deformation of gels formed from a negatively charged PA and HCl or CaCl(2). Scanning electron microscopy of these gels demonstrates a similar morphology, whereas the oscillatory rheological measurements indicate that the calcium-mediated ionic bridges in CaCl(2)-PA gels form stronger intra- and interfiber cross-links than the hydrogen bonds formed by the protonated carboxylic acid residues in HCl-PA gels. As a result, CaCl(2)-PA gels can withstand higher strains than HCl-PA gels. After exposure to a series of strain sweeps with increasing strain amplitude HCl- and CaCl(2)-PA gels both recover 42% of their original stiffness. In contrast, after sustained deformation at 100% strain, HCl-PA gels recover nearly 90% of their original stiffness after 10 min, while the CaCl(2)-PA gels only recover 35%. This result suggests that the hydrogen bonds formed by the protonated acids in the HCl-PA gels allow the gel to relax quickly to its initial state, while the strong calcium cross-links in the CaCl(2)-PA gels lock in the deformed structure and inhibit the gel's ability to recover. We also show that the rheological scaling behaviors of HCl- and CaCl(2)-PA gels are consistent with that of uncross- and cross-linked semiflexible biopolymer networks, respectively. The ability to modify how self-assembled fibrillar networks respond to deformations is important in developing self-assembled gels that can resist and recover from the large deformations that these gels encounter while serving as synthetic cell scaffolds in vivo.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Greenfield et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: