The use of bioactive peptides to modify materials for bone tissue repair

Abstract

It has been well recognized that the modification of biomaterials with appropriate bioactive peptides could further enhance their functions. Especially, it has been shown that peptide-modified bone repair materials could promote new bone formation more efficiently compared with conventional ones. The purpose of this article is to give a general review of recent studies on bioactive peptide-modified materials for bone tissue repair. Firstly, the main peptides for inducing bone regeneration and commonly used methods to prepare peptide-modified bone repair materials are introduced. Then, current in vitro and in vivo research progress of peptide-modified composites used as potential bone repair materials are reviewed and discussed. Generally speaking, the recent related studies have fully suggested that the modification of bone repair materials with osteogenic-related peptides provide promising strategies for the development of bioactive materials and substrates for enhanced bone regeneration and the therapy of bone tissue diseases. Furthermore, we have proposed some research trends in the conclusion and perspectives part.

Keywords: bone repair material; osteogenic activity; peptide.

Figure 1.

(a) Process illustration of covalent immobilization of the RGD peptide on Ti bone repair material by electrodeposition, (b) simple description of the difference between RGD/PEG/Ti and RGD/Ti materials (adapted with permission from ref. [17]. Copyright 2011 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 2.

Preparation of poly(glycidyl methacrylate)-polyurethane acrylate (pGMA-PUA) nanopatterned substrate materials. pGMA was deposited onto the PUA substrates via the initiated chemical vapor deposition (iCVD) polymerization process, which was synthesized with GMA monomer and initiator (TBPO) (adapted with permission from ref. [62]. Copyright 2013 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 3.

Compared to untreated titanium (Ti), GFOGER peptide coated Ti much more significantly promoted specific osteogenic gene expression (a), enhanced ALP activity (B) and biomineralization (C) of the cultured bone marrow stromal cells (adapted with permission from ref. [29]. Copyright 2007 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 4.

Alizarin red staining images of ABM/hy(a) and ABM/P-15/hy (B) cultured with HOS cells for 2 weeks. Bar =500 μm (adapted with permission from ref. [20]. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 5.

ALP Activity of MG-63 cells cultured on pure PAS and peptide-modified PAS with different incorporated concentrations for 7 and 14 days (adapted with permission from ref. [124]. Copyright 2016 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 6.

CT Images of P24/PLGA-(PEG-ASP)_n (a-d), PLGA-(PEG-ASP)n (e), and gelatin sponge (f) after implanted into the dorsal muscle of rats for 12 weeks after operation. Arrows indicated the new bone formation (adapted with permission from ref. [63]. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd)

Figure 7.

The histological images of the implanted materials at two time points: (a) P24/TBC/collagen I, (c) TBC/collagen I, (e) TBC at 8 weeks; (b) P24/TBC/collagen I, (d) TBC/collagen I, and (f) TBC at 12 weeks (magnification: 200×) (adapted with permission from ref. [125]. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd)