ПОДХОДЫ К ТЕСТИРОВАНИЮ БИОМАТЕРИАЛОВ С ПОЗИЦИИ СОВРЕМЕННОЙ ПАРАДИГМЫ БИОСОВМЕСТИМОСТИ

С современных позиций биосовместимость представляет собой характеристику всей системы «тканеинженерный трансплантат — организм реципиента», адекватное прогнозируемое функционирование которой определяется в равной степени всеми входящими в ее состав компонентами (организм реципиента, материал, клетки). При этом сам материал, безусловно, влияет на феномен биосовместимости, однако он тесно связан с функциональными характеристиками организма реципиента, его клеток и тканей. Биоматериалы, из которых изготавливают трансплантаты, не должны быть токсичными, иммуногенными и тромбогенными. Однако условия, в которые попадает трансплантат в организме, также могут повлиять на успешность и полноту выполнения изделием желаемой функции. В связи с этим большое значение имеет предварительное тестирование цитотоксичности используемых материалов, а также оценка их влияния на функциональную активность различных типов клеток. В обзоре рассмотрены основные методы, применяемые на данный момент для оценки влияния биоматериалов на жизнеспособность, адгезию и миграцию клеток invitro, а также индукцию окислительного стресса и воспаления.

1. Williams DF. There is no such thing as a biocompatible material. Biomaterials. 2014; 35:10009–14.

2. Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008; 29:2941–2953.

3. Reeve L, Baldrick P. Biocompatibility assessments for medical devices — evolving regulatory considerations. Expert Rev. Med. Devices. 2017; 14:161–167.

4. Bryers JD, Giachelli CM, Ratner BD. Engineering biomaterials to integrate and heal: The biocompatibility paradigm shifts. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2012; 109 (8):1898–1911.

5. Swetha B, Mathew S, Murthy BVS et al. Determination of biocompatibility: A review. Int. Dent. Med. J. Adv. Res. 2015; 1:1–6.

6. Onuki Y, Bhardwaj U, Pharm M et al. A Review of the Biocompatibility of Implantable Devices: Current Challenges to Overcome Foreign Body Response. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2008; 2:1003–1015. Rodina AV, Tenchurin TK, Saprykin VP et al. Proliferative and Differentiation Potential of Multipotent Mesenchymal Stem Cells Cultured on Biocompatible Polymer Scaffolds with Various Physicochemical Characteristics. Bull. Exp. Biol. Med. 2017; 162:488–495.

7. Williams DF. The Williams dictionary of biomaterials. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; 1999.

8. Sevostyanova VV, Elgudin YL, Wnek GE et al. Properties of tissue-engineering polycaprolactone matrices impregnated by VEGF and bFGF growth factors. Cellular Transplantation and Tissue Engineering. 2012; VII:62–67. In Russian [Севостьянова В. В., Elgudin Y. L., Wnek G. E. и др. Свойства тканеинженерных матриксов из поликапролактона, импрегнированных факторами роста VEGF и bFGF. Клеточная трансплантология и тканевая инженерия. 2012; VII:62–67].

9. Antonova LV, Matveyeva VG, Borisov VV et al. Impact of various modifications of biodegradable membranous scaffolds surface on multipotent mesenchimal stromal cells adhesion and viability. Bulletin of Siberian Medicine. 2012; 4:5–13. In Russian [Антонова Л. В., Матвеева В. Г., Борисов В. В. и др. Влияние различных вариантов модификации поверхности биодеградируемых пленочных матриксов на адгезию и жизнеспособность мультипотентных мезенхимальных стромальных клеток. Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2012; 4:5–13].

10. Hadjizadeh A, Doillon CJ. Directional migration of endothelial cells towards angiogenesis using polymer fibres in a 3D co-culture system. J. Tissue Eng. Regen. Med. 2010; 4:524–531.

11. Keong LC, Halim AS. In Vitro models in biocompatibility assessment for biomedical-grade chitosan derivatives in wound management. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009; 10:1300–1313.

12. Bruner LH, Carr GJ, Chamberlain M et al. Validation of Alternative Methods for Toxicity Testing. Toxicol. Vitr. 1996; 479–501.

13. Chiellini F. Perspectives on: In Vitro Evaluation of Biomedical Polymers. J. Bioact. Compat. Polym. 2006; 21:257–271.

14. Kirkpatrick CJ, Bittinger F, Wagner M et al. Current Trends in Biocompatibility Testing. Proc. Instn. Mech. Engrs. 1998;75–84.

15. Pizzoferrato A, Ciapetti G, Stea S et al. Cell Culture Methods for Testing Biocompatibility. Clin. Mater. 1994;173–190.

16. Dekker A, Panfil C, Valdor M et al. Quantitative Methods for In Vitro Cytotoxicity Testing of Biomaterials. Cell Mater. 1994; 4: 101-112.

17. ASTM document F, Standard practice for direct contact cell culture evaluation of materials for medical devices. 1983.

18. Part 5. Tests for cytotoxicity: in vitro methods, International Organisation of Standardisation, Geneva,. ISO Doc. Biol. Compat. Med. devices. 1992.

19. Silva GA, Marques AP, Gomes ME et al. Cytotoxicity Screening of Biodegradable Polymeric Systems. In: Reis RL, San Roman J (eds). Biodegradable Systems in Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2004: 339–349.

20. Ferruti P, Bianchi S, Ranucci EF et al. Novel Agmatine-containing Poly(amidoamine) Hydrogels as Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering. Biomacromolecules. 2005; 2229–2235.

21. Harmand MF. Part I: Toxicological Risk Evaluation Using Cell Culture. In: Braybrook JH (ed). Biocompatibility Assessment of Medical Devices and Materials. London: John Wiley & Sons; 1997: p. 121.

22. Kirkpatrick CJ, Dekker A. Quantitative Evaluation of Cell Interaction with Biomaterials In Vitro. In: Doherty PJ, Kirkpatrick CJ and Dekker A (eds). Biomaterial-Tissue Interfaces. Amsterdam: Elsiever; 1992: p. 31.

23. Signori F, Chiellini F, Solaro R. New Selfassembling Biocompatible-biodegradble Amphiphilic Block Copolymers. Polymers (Basel). 2005; 9642–9652.

24. Cortês JA, Mavropoulos E, Hausen M et al. Methodological Implications on Quantitative Studies of Cytocompatibility in Direct Contact with Bioceramic Surfaces. Key Eng. Mater. 2011; 493–494: 325–330.

25. Tsaryk R, Peters K, Unger RE et al. Improving cytocompatibility of Co28Cr6Mo by TiO 2 coating: gene expression study in human endothelial cells. 2013; 10(86).

26. Kudriavtsev IV, Golovkin AS, Zurochka AV et al. Modern technologies and approaches to apoptosis studies in experimental biology. Medical Immunology. 2012; 14:461–82. In Russian: [Кудрявцев И. В., Головкин А. С., Зурочка А. В. и др. Современные методы и подходы к изучению апоптоза в экспериментальной биологии. Медицинская иммунология. 2012; 14:461–82].

27. Verhoven B, Schlegel RA, Williamson P. Mechanisms of phosphatidylserine Exposure a phagocyte recognition signal on apoptotic T–lymphocytes. J. Exp. Med. 1995; 182:1597–1601.

28. Idziorek T, Estaquier J, De Bels F et al. YOPRO-1 permits cytofluorometric analysis of programmed cell death (apoptosis) without interfering with cell viability. J. Immunol. Methods. 1995; 185:249–258.

29. Glisic-Milosavljevic S, Waukau J, Jana S et al. Comparison of apoptosis and mortality measurements in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) using multiple methods. Cell Prolif. 2005; 38:301–311.

30. Stokes L, Jiang LH, Alcaraz L et al. Characterization of a selective and potent antagonist of human P2X(7) receptors, AZ11645373. Br J Pharmacol. 2006; 149:880–887.

31. Yamamoto A, Mishima S, Maruyama N et al. Quantitative Evaluation of Cell Attachment to Glass, Polystyrene and Fibronectin Shear, or Collagen-coated Polystyrene by Measurement of Cell Adhesive Force and Cell Detachment Energy. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000; 114–124.

32. Ruggiero C, Mantelli M, Curtis A et al. Proteinsurface Interactions: An Energy Based Mathematical Model. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2005; 407–418.

33. Barbucci R, Pasqui D, Wirsen A et al. Microand Nano-structured Surfaces. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2003; 721–725.

34. Owen GR, Meredith DO, Gwynn AP et al. Focal Biocompatibility? Adhesion Quantification — A New Assay of Material: Review. Eur. Cell Mater. 2005; 85–96.

35. Manso M, Ogueta S, Perez-Riguero J et al. Testing Biomaterials by the In-situ Evaluation of cell Response. Biomol. Eng. 2002; 239–242.

36. Musilkova J, Kotelnikov I, Novotna K et al. Cell adhesion and growth enabled by biomimetic oligopeptide modification of a polydopamine-poly(ethylene oxide) protein repulsive surface. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2015; 26:1–13.

37. Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 3. ISO 10993 Tests Genotoxicity, Carcinog. Reprod. Toxicity. ISO Geneva, Switzerland. 1994.

38. Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, “Biological evaluation of medical devices — Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process.” 2016.

39. Butte A. Use and Analysis of Microarray Data. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004; 951–960.

40. Carpenter AE, Sabatini DM. Systematic Genomewide Screens of Gene Function. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2004; 11–22.

41. Washburn MP, Wolters D, Yates 3rd JR. Largescale Identification, Analysis of the Yeast Proteome by Multidimensional Protein Technology. Nat. Biotechnol. 2001; 242–247.

42. Potnis PA, Tesfamariam B, Wood SC. Induction of nicotinamide-adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase and apoptosis by biodegradable polymers in macrophages: implications for stents. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2011; 57:712–720.

43. Haghjooy Javanmard S, Anari J, Zargar Kharazi A et al. In vitro hemocompatibility and cytocompatibility of a three-layered vascular scaffold fabricated by sequential electrospinning of PCL, collagen, and PLLA nanofibers. J Biomater Appl. 2016; 31:438–449.

44. Lakshmanan R, Kumaraswamy P, Krishnan UM et al. Engineering a growth factor embedded nanofiber matrix niche to promote vascularization for functional cardiac regeneration. Biomaterials. 2016; 97:176–195.

45. Wood S, Hancock G, Tesfamariam B. Bioresorbable polymers and paclitaxel impair endothelial regeneration by induction of autophagy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66:15_S.