PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 9, 2026ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces0 citations

Beyond Porosity: Reframing Metal–Organic Frameworks in Biomedicine as Dynamic, Biologically Active Materials

View Full Paper
JGJeremiah J. Gassensmith

Key Points

  • Investigate how metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) act as dynamic materials in biological settings rather than inert carriers.
  • Reviewed themes of coordinated disassembly, transient protection, and biological activity from MOF components.
  • Analyzed interactions between MOFs and biological environments regarding their structural dynamics and transport characteristics.
  • Discussed implications of framework properties on biomedical applications.
  • Demonstrated that MOFs exhibit biologically active behaviors influenced by their structural and compositional dynamics.
  • Highlighted that traditional metrics like surface area do not adequately predict MOF performance in biological systems.
  • Proposed that actively engaging with MOF bioactivity can enhance their utility in medical applications.

Abstract

Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) entered biomedicine through a simple idea: their permanent porosity made them attractive materials for cargo loading, protection, and release. This perspective argues that, with few exceptions, biomedical MOFs are not biologically inert carriers and should not be developed as though they were. In biological environments, they behave instead as metastable, structurally dynamic, programmable coordination materials whose composition, particle structure, and environmental transformation directly shape biological outcomes. This case is developed through three interconnected themes: coordinated disassembly and transient protection; nonideal particulate transport shaped by size, morphology, and defects; and framework-derived biological activity arising from metals, ligands, and degradation products. Together, these features show why MOF performance in biology is poorly described by surface area, pore volume, and loading capacity alone. The more productive direction is therefore not to ignore or suppress framework bioactivity, but to work with it deliberately, treating the framework itself as part of the mechanism by which a biomedical MOF functions. Viewed this way, the future of the field lies less in approximating passive delivery systems and more in engineering dynamic materials whose disassembly, trafficking, and compositional bioactivity can be used to shape biological responses.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Jeremiah J. Gassensmith (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fececcb9154b0b82876070https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.6c05253
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Metal–Organic Frameworks as Efficient Materials for Drug Delivery2006 · 2,002 citations
  2. 2Biomimetic Encapsulation of Individual Cells with Silica2009 · 221 citations
  3. 3Introduction to “Cellular Metal Homeostasis and Trafficking”2009 · 23 citations
  4. 4The pervasive chemistry of metal–organic frameworks2009 · 2,398 citations
  5. 5Acidic microenvironment responsive polymeric MOF-based nanoparticles induce immunogenic cell death for combined cancer therapy2021 · 55 citations