Macrophage Inflammatory Response to TiO₂ Nanotube Surfaces

Lisa M. Chamberlain, Karla S. Brammer, Gary W. Johnston, Shu Chien, Sungho Jin

.

DOI: 10.4236/jbnb.2011.23036                

Abstract

It is well known that the native oxide layer on titanium (Ti) implants is responsible for its superior biocompatibility and tissue integration. Recent efforts have targeted titanium dioxide (TiO₂) as a good candidate for surface modification at the nanoscale, leading to improved nanotextures for enhancing host integration properties. Here we explore the in vitro inflammatory response of macrophages to TiO₂ nanotube surface structures with different diameters (30, 50, 70, and 100nm) created by a simple electrochemical anodization process. This work was designed to study the nanosize effect for controlling and optimizing inflammatory response to a Ti implant surface utilizing nanotechnology. Using intracellular staining and flow cytometry for detecting macrophage TNF cytokine expression, we have found that 70nm diameter nanotube surfaces have the bestadvantage in terms of diameter size by producing theweakest inflammatory response, compared to a commercially available Ti surface without oxide modification. We also present cell-freedata on free radical scavenging using the nanotube surfaces with different diameters to test the removal of nitric oxidefrom solution; again, our findings indicate that 70nm titanium dioxide nanotubes exhibit optimal removal of nitric oxide from solution, making them excellent candidates for use in medical devices that would benefit from decreased inflammatory response

Keywords

Macrophage, Inflammation, Nitric Oxide, Nanotube, TiO₂

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Anderson, J.M., A. Rodriguez, and D.T. Chang, Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol, 2008. 20(2): p. 86-100.
[2]	Zaveri, T.D., et al., Contributions of surface topography and cytotoxicity to the macrophage response to zinc oxide nanorods. Biomaterials. 31(11): p. 2999-3007.
[3]	Ainslie, K.M., et al., In vitro inflammatory response of nanostructured titania, silicon oxide, and polycaprolactone. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2009. 91(3): p. 647-55.
[4]	Chen, S., et al., Characterization of topographical effects on macrophage behavior in a foreign body response model. Biomaterials, 2010. 31(13): p. 3479-91.
[5]	Ainslie, K.M., et al., Inflammatory Response to Implanted Nanostructured Materials, in Biological Interactions on Materials Surfaces, D.A. Puleo and R. Bizios, Editors. 2009, Springer New York. p. 355-371.
[6]	Oh, S., et al., Significantly accelerated osteoblast cell growth on aligned TiO2 nanotubes. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2006. 78(1): p. 97-103.
[7]	Brammer, K.S., et al., Improved bone-forming functionality on diameter-controlled TiO(2) nanotube surface. Acta Biomater, 2009. 5(8): p. 3215-23.
[8]	Bauer, S., et al., Size selective behavior of mesenchymal stem cells on ZrO(2) and TiO(2) nanotube arrays. Integr Biol (Camb), 2009. 1(8-9): p. 525-32.
[9]	Park, J., et al., Narrow window in nanoscale dependent activation of endothelial cell growth and differentiation on TiO2 nanotube surfaces. Nano Lett, 2009. 9(9): p. 3157-64.
[10]	Park, J., et al., Nanosize and vitality: TiO2 nanotube diameter directs cell fate. Nano Lett, 2007. 7(6): p. 1686- 91.
[11]	Brammer, K.S., et al., Nanotube surface triggers increased chondrocyte extracellular matrix production. Materials Science & Engineering C-Materials for Biological Applications, 2010. 30(4): p. 518-525.
[12]	Oh, S., et al., Stem cell fate dictated solely by altered nanotube dimension. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009. 106(7): p. 2130-5.
[13]	Ferraz, N., Hong, J., Matteo, S., Karlsson Ott, M., Nanoporosity of Alumina Surfaces Induces Different Patterns of Activation in Adhering Monocytes/Macrophages. International Journal of Biomaterials, 2010. 2010: p. 8.
[14]	Oh, S.H., et al., Growth of nano-scale hydroxyapatite using chemically treated titanium oxide nanotubes. Biomaterials, 2005. 26(24): p. 4938-43.
[15]	Chamberlain, L.M., et al., Phenotypic non-equivalence of murine (monocyte-) macrophage cells in biomaterial and inflammatory models. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2009. 88(4): p. 858-71.
[16]	Rhoades, E.R. and I.M. Orme, Similar responses by macrophages from young and old mice infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Mech Ageing Dev, 1998. 106(1-2): p. 145-53.
[17]	Godek, M.L., et al., Rho GTPase protein expression and activation in murine monocytes/macrophages is not modulated by model biomaterial surfaces in serum-containing in vitro cultures. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed, 2006. 17(10): p. 1141-1158.
[18]	Brammer, K.S., et al., Enhanced cellular mobility guided by TiO2 nanotube surfaces. Nano Lett, 2008. 8(3): p. 786-93.
[19]	Wei, J., et al., Comparison of physical, chemical and cellular responses to nano- and micro-sized calcium silicate/poly(epsilon-caprolactone) bioactive composites. J R Soc Interface, 2008. 5(23): p. 617-30.
[20]	Martinez, E., et al., Effects of artificial micro- and nano-structured surfaces on cell behaviour. Ann Anat, 2009. 191(1): p. 126-35.
[21]	North, R.J., The concept of the activated macrophage. J Immunol, 1978. 121(3): p. 806-9.
[22]	Tatefuji, T., et al., Isolation and identification of compounds from Brazilian propolis which enhance macrophage spreading and mobility. Biol Pharm Bull, 1996. 19(7): p. 966-70.
[23]	Schutte, R.J., A. Parisi-Amon, and W.M. Reichert, Cytokine profiling using monocytes/macrophages cultured on common biomaterials with a range of surface chemistries. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2009. 88(1): p. 128-39.
[24]	Suzuki, R., et al., Reactive oxygen species inhibited by titanium oxide coatings. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2003. 66(2): p. 396-402.
[25]	Maeda, H. and T. Akaike, Nitric oxide and oxygen radicals in infection, inflammation, and cancer. Biochemistry (Mosc), 1998. 63(7): p. 854-65.
[26]	Cromheeke, K.M., et al., Inducible nitric oxide synthase colocalizes with signs of lipid oxidation/peroxidation in human atherosclerotic plaques. Cardiovasc Res, 1999. 43(3): p. 744-54.