Harnessing macrophage-mediated degradation of gelatin microspheres for spatiotemporal control of BMP2 release
Open accessAbstract
Biomaterials-based approaches to harnessing the immune and inflammatory responses to potentiate wound healing hold important promise. Bone fracture healing is characterized by an acute inflammatory phase, followed by a transition to a regenerative and repair phase. In this study, we developed genipin-crosslinked gelatin microspheres designed to be preferentially degraded by inflammatory (M1) macrophages. Highly crosslinked (>90%) microspheres allowed efficient incorporation of bioactive bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP2), a potent stimulator of osteogenesis in progenitor cells, via electrostatic interactions. Release of BMP2 was directly correlated with degradation of the gelatin matrix. Exposure of microspheres to polarized murine macrophages showed that degradation was significantly higher in the presence of M1 macrophages, relative to alternatively activated (M2) macrophages and unpolarized controls. Microsphere degradation in the presence of non-inflammatory cells resulted in very low degradation rates. The expression of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and tissue inhibitors of MMP (TIMPs) by macrophages were consistent with the observed phenotype-dependent degradation rates. Indirect co-culture of BMP2-loaded microspheres and macrophages with isolated adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) showed that M1 macrophages produced the strongest osteogenic response, comparable to direct supplementation of the culture medium with BMP2. Controlled release systems that are synchronized with the inflammatory response have the potential to provide better spatiotemporal control of growth factor delivery and therefore may improve the outcomes of recalcitrant wounds.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
M1 macrophages have an egg-shaped morphology, while M2 macrophages exhibit a more spindle-shaped morphology.
“It has been proved that M1 macrophages have an egg-shaped morphology, while M2 macrophages exhibited a more spindle-shaped morphology [31,38].”
From Substrate stiffness modulates bone marrow-derived macrophage polarization through NF-κB signaling pathway (2020) · cites this paper as [38]
The Results (§3.2) describe M2 macrophages as spindle-shaped, as claimed. They describe M1 macrophages as having a ‘broken-egg’ morphology, rather than simply an egg-shaped one. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 67 · Cited by 155
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [34]Shields LBE Raque GH Glassman SD Campbell M Vitaz T Harpring J Shields CB Adverse effects associated with high-dose recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 use in anterior cervical spine fusion Spine 31 5 2006 542 547 16508549
- Authors
- Annamalai, R. T., Turner, P. A., Carson, W. F., Levi, B., Kunkel, S., & Stegemann, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Corresponding author
- Annamalai, Ramkumar T.
- Stegemann, Jan P.
- Venue
- Biomaterials
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 161
- Pages
- 216-227
- ISSN
- 0142-9612 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5831261
- OpenAlex
- W2791827736
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 67
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 11.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 311 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- Biomaterials (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K08GM109105-0)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE026630)
- National Institutes of Health (R01 GM123069, R01 AR071379)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR062636)
- American College of Surgeons
- International Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva Association
- National Science Foundation (DMR 1641065)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Wound Healing and Treatments
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
- Keywords
- gelatin microspheres, genipin crosslinking, BMP-2, M1 macrophages, M2 macrophages, matrix metalloproteinases, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases, spatiotemporal drug release, fracture healing, osteogenic differentiation, adipose-derived stem cells, growth factor delivery, wound healing
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bone and Bones, Gelatin, Macrophages, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Microspheres, Tissue Engineering, Mice, Bone Morphogenetic Protein 2, Drug Liberation
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