The application of graphene-based biomaterials in biomedicine

Abstract

Graphene-based nanocomposites have attracted more and more attention recently in the field of biology and biomedicine. Graphene and its derivatives have been integrated with drugs, nucleic acids, antibodies, and other molecules. And these materials could be use as nanocomposite carriers or scaffold materials taking advantages of their enormous specific surface area, good elasticity and ductility, excellent biocompatibility, and outstanding mechanical strength. In addition, these composites have strong near-infrared absorbance and can act as photothermal agents to kill target cells through physical or chemical mechanisms. Along with significant advances in cell and organ transplantation, many of these materials have been explored in recent years for use in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Tissue engineering includes bone, nerve, heart, and muscle tissue engineering based on two-dimensional and three-dimensional graphene-based matrices or scaffolds possessing certain mechanical strengths and electrical conductivities, and the aim is to produce bioactive tissues to replace or repair natural tissue by promoting osteogenic, neuronal, and myogenic differentiation and myocardial cell growth. In this review, the basic properties of graphene-based complexes are systematically described and the biomedical applications of graphene-based materials in vivo and in vitro are summarized. This review first discusses the safety of graphene-based materials in terms of their biocompatibility and toxicity, and then it discusses these materials' applications in biosensing, photothermal therapy, stem cell culture, and tissue engineering. This review therefore provides a comprehensive understanding of graphene and its derivatives and their present and future applications.

Keywords: Graphene; biocompatibility; biomedical; tissue engineering; toxicity.

Figure 1

The primary applications of graphene-based nanomaterials in biomedicine.

Figure 2

Fluorescence images of MC3T3-E1 cells on 3D rGO/PPY (A, D), 3D rGO/PPY/CPP10 (B, E), and 3D rGO/PPY/CPP20 (C, F) at Day 2 (A-C), and Day 4 (D-F) of culture, respectively.

Figure 3

Immunostaining images of SH-SY5Y cells growing on the arranged directional matrix of nanofibers with staining for DAPI (blue), β3-tubulin (green), and Nestin (red). The upper row of images shows the differentiated cells that were supported on randomly oriented silk nanofiber-reduced graphene oxide paper (RS-rGOP) after electrospinning for 1, 3, and 5 min, with rGOP as the control. The lower row of images shows the differentiated cells growing on AS-rGOP after different electrospinning for 1, 3, and 5 min, with tissue culture plate as the control. The neuron-specific marker β3-tubulin was expressed to the greatest extent on AS-rGOP with an electrospinning time of 1 min.

Figure 4

Immunofluorescence of MHCs indicative of C2C12 differentiation. Differentiation of C2C12 grown on bare GF (A-C) for 2, 4, and 6 days and on laminin-coated GF (D-F) for 2, 4, and 6 days. The scale bars are all 20 μm.

Figure 5

Characterization of the electrophysiological properties and compatibility of the graphene-based material. (A) Spontaneous beating rates of cardiomyocytes seeded on GelMA incorporated with different amounts of rGO (0, 1, 3, 5 mg/ml) plotted against incubation time. (B) Stability of cells (in terms of DNA content) cultured on GelMA alone and on rGO-GelMA hydrogels. Phase contrast images of cells cultured on (C) GelMA and (D) rGO-GelMA hydrogels at 6 days after seeding.