In vitro study of cell-promoting multiple-armed peptides


  • The abstract of this article was presented as an oral presentation at the 7th World Biomaterials Congress, Sydney, Australia, May 17–21, 2004.


The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of several linear and branch cell-binding peptides to promote cell growth in prosthetic vascular grafts. In this in vitro study, the peptides were covalently immobilized onto expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) vascular grafts. Cell-growth properties were studied using primary human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and primary human umbilical artery smooth muscle cells (HUASMCs). Linear peptides (P15 and P15′) and multiple-armed peptides (MAP4-I and MAP4-II) were covalently bonded onto ePTFE grafts by an atmospheric plasma coating method. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and amino acid analysis were used to analyze the surface characteristics of the peptide-coated samples. Cell adhesion, proliferation, and morphology were evaluated by culturing HUVECs and HUASMCs onto the surfaces of different samples: ePTFE control, chemically activated ePTFE, P15-coated ePTFE, and MAP4-coated ePTFE. The cell culture experiments were repeated several times to obtain statistically reliable cell-growth data. Cell-growth data were statistically analyzed by the two-way statistical analysis of variance. The study showed that multiple-armed MAP4 peptides were significantly more effective in promoting endothelial cells than the structurally similar linear P15 peptides. There were 800% more HUVECs proliferated on the MAP4-coated ePTFE samples compared with the ePTFE control. MAP4 peptides were 80% more effective for promoting HUVECs than P15 peptides. In contrast, MAP4 peptides were significantly less effective for promoting HUASMCs than HUVECs. There were only about 100% more HUASMCs proliferated on the MAP4-coated ePTFE samples compared with the ePTFE control. MAP4 and P15 peptides had similar cell-promoting characteristics for SMCs. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 71A: 134–142, 2004