Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T08:15:31.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cytocompatibility and Material Properties of Poly-carbonate Urethane/Carbon Nanofiber Composites for Neural Applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Janice L. McKenzie ,
Michael C. Waid ,
Riyi Shi  and
Thomas J. Webster
Janice L. McKenzie
Affiliation:
Departments of Biomedical Engineering
Michael C. Waid
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588
Riyi Shi
Affiliation:
Basic Medical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, U.S.A.
Thomas J. Webster
Affiliation:
Departments of Biomedical Engineering
Get access

Abstract

Carbon nanofibers possess excellent conductivity properties, which may be beneficial in the design of more effective neural prostheses, however, limited evidence on their cytocompatibility properties exists. The objective of the present in vitro study was to determine cytocompatibility and material properties of formulations containing carbon nanofibers to predict the gliotic scar tissue response. Poly-carbonate urethane was combined with carbon nanofibers in varying weight percentages to provide a supportive matrix with beneficial bulk electrical and mechanical properties. The substrates were tested for mechanical properties and conductivity. Astrocytes (glial scar tissue-forming cells) were seeded onto the substrates for adhesion. Results provided the first evidence that astrocytes preferentially adhered to the composite material that contained the lowest weight percentage of carbon nanofibers. Positive interactions with neurons, and, at the same time, limited astrocyte functions leading to decreased gliotic scar tissue formation are essential for increased neuronal implant efficacy.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 774: Symposium O – Materials Inspired by Biology , 2003 , O7.30
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Little, A. R. O'Callaghan, J. P., NeuroToxicology 22, 607–618 (2001).Google Scholar
2. Peduzzi, J. D. Grayson, T. B. Fischer, F. R. Geisert, E. E. Jr , Ex.p Neuro. 160, 460–468 (1999)Google Scholar
3. Krum, J.M. Rosenstein, J. M. Exp. Neuro. 160, 348–360 (1999)Google Scholar
4. Edell, D. J. Toi, V. V. McNeil, V. M. Clark, L. D. IEEE Transactions on Biomed. Eng. 39, 635–643 (1992).Google Scholar
5. Chauhan, N. B. Figlewicz, H. M. Khan, T. Int J Devl Neuroscience 17, 255–264 (1999)Google Scholar
6. Elias, K. E. Price, R. L. Webster, T. J. Biomat. 23, 3279–3287 (2002)Google Scholar
7. Heiduschka, P. Thanos, S. Prog. In Neurobiology 55, 433–461 (1998)Google Scholar
8. Kotwal, A. Schmidt, C. E. Biomat. 22, 1055–1064 (2001)Google Scholar
9. Webster, T. J. Ergun, C. Doremus, R. H. Siegel, R. W. Bizios, R. J. Biomed. Mat. Res.;51, 475–483 (2000).Google Scholar