Cited by 183Supramolecular Self-Assembly in MaterialsBone Tissue Engineering MaterialsElectrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications

Gel Scaffolds of BMP‐2‐Binding Peptide Amphiphile Nanofibers for Spinal Arthrodesis

Open access
Lee, Sungsoo S., Hsu, Erin L., Mendoza, Marco, Ghodasra, Jason, Nickoli, Michael S., Ashtekar, Amruta, Polavarapu, Mahesh, Babu, Jacob +12 more·2015·Advanced Healthcare Materials

Abstract

Peptide amphiphile (PA) nanofibers formed by self‐assembly can be customized for specific applications in regenerative medicine through the use of molecules that display bioactive signals on their surfaces. Here, the use of PA nanofibers with binding affinity for the bone promoting growth factor BMP‐2 to create a gel scaffold for osteogenesis is reported. With the objective of reducing the amount of BMP‐2 used clinically for successful arthrodesis in the spine, amounts of growth factor incorporated in the scaffolds that are 10 to 100 times lower than that those used clinically in collagen scaffolds are used. The efficacy of the bioactive PA system to promote BMP‐2‐induced osteogenesis in vivo is investigated in a rat posterolateral lumbar intertransverse spinal fusion model. PA nanofiber gels displaying BMP‐2‐binding segments exhibit superior spinal fusion rates relative to controls, effectively decreasing the required therapeutic dose of BMP‐2 by 10‐fold. Interestingly, a 42% fusion rate is observed for gels containing the bioactive nanofibers without the use of exogenous BMP‐2, suggesting the ability of the nanofiber to recruit endogenous growth factor. Results obtained here demonstrate that bioactive biomaterials with capacity to bind specific growth factors by design are great targets for regenerative medicine.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/adhm.201400129

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar work has shown promise in stem cell differentiation and neural regeneration following spinal injury in vivo, further demonstrating the utility of peptide-based materials in cell culture.

    “Similar work has shown promise in stem cell differentiation and neural regeneration following spinal injury in vivo200–202, further demonstrating the utility of peptide-based materials in cell culture.”

    From Towards organoid culture without Matrigel (2021) · cites this paper as [201]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, S. S., Hsu, E. L., Mendoza, M., Ghodasra, J., Nickoli, M. S., Ashtekar, A., Polavarapu, M., Babu, J., Riaz, R. M., Nicolas, J. D., Nelson, D., Hashmi, S. Z., Kaltz, S. R., Earhart, J. S., Merk, B. R., McKee, J. S., Bairstow, S. F., Shah, R. N., Hsu, W. K., & Stupp, S. I.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Baxter (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Stupp, Samuel I.
Venue
Advanced Healthcare Materials
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-04-22
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
131-141
ISSN
  • 2192-2640 (ISSN-L)
  • 2192-2659
OpenAlex
W2041261315
Cited by
183
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advanced Healthcare Materials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE015920)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Supramolecular Self-Assembly in Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Biomaterials › Electrospun Nanofibers in Biomedical Applications
Keywords
peptide amphiphile nanofibers, spinal fusion, bone formation, growth factor delivery, self-assembly, posterolateral lumbar fusion, regenerative medicine
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Line, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Osteogenesis, Peptides, Spinal Diseases, Spinal Fusion, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Implants, Experimental, Mice, Rats, Tissue Scaffolds, Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2, Nanofibers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review