Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Biomaterial-mediated complement activation repeatedly has been invoked as a trigger of phagocyte reactions and inflammation. However, a direct correlation between complement activation and inflammatory responses to biomaterial surfaces has yet to be established. Using an animal implantation model and gold surfaces bearing various thiol-linked functionalities, we investigated the potency of different surface groups in prompting complement activation in vitro and surface-mediated accumulation of inflammatory cells in vivo. Among the surfaces tested, mercaptoglycerol- and mercaptoethanol-bearing surfaces engendered the strongest inflammatory responses, as reflected by the accumulation of large numbers of adherent neutrophils and monocytes/macrophages. In contrast, L-cysteine-coated surfaces caused only minor inflammatory responses, and both glutathione-modified and untreated gold implants attracted minimal numbers of inflammatory cells. The accumulation of inflammatory cells on mercaptoglycerol surfaces appears to arise from surface-mediated complement activation because complement-depleted animals failed to exhibit inflammatory responses to mercaptoglycerol-modified implants. Furthermore, there is a close relationship between surface-mediated complement activation (as measured by in vitro iC3b/C5b-9 generation and C3 deposition) and in vivo inflammatory responses. At least in this animal model and with these model surfaces, our results indicate that surface-mediated complement activation can be responsible for the subsequent accumulation of inflammatory cells on implant surfaces.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tang et al. (1998) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: