Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-w7rtg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T05:52:47.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Immobilization of Protein on Silanized Orthopedic Biomaterials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

D. A. Puleo*
Affiliation:
Center for Biomedical Engineering, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506
Get access

Abstract

We have begun to examine methods for biochemically modifying orthopedic biomaterials by covalently immobilizing peptides, proteins, and enzymes. The surfaces of Co-Cr-Mo samples were first silanized using γ-aminopropyltriethoxysilane (APS), which interacts with surface hydroxyl moieties. Derivatization of biomaterial samples with solutions of APS in acetone produced a concentration-dependent number of reactive NH2 groups. The silane layers became unstable and were easily disrupted at concentrations above 2% APS. The enzyme, trypsin, was then coupled to the alkylamine-derivatized samples by formation of Schiff's base linkages via glutaraldehyde. Enzymatic activity of trypsin-conjugated Co-Cr-Mo samples was quantified by determining cleavage of the substrate BAEE. Both alkoxysilane-treated and untreated samples bound trypsin in an active state. When treated with 5 M guanidine hydrochloride to elute noncovalently bound protein, however, nearly all of the trypsin was removed from or rendered inactive on samples either not treated with APS or derivatized with low (<0.5%) concentrations. On the contrary, 1 and 2% APS-treated samples retained appreciable enzyme activity. Approximately 27 and 35% residual trypsin activity was measured on the 1 and 2% APSderivatized Co-Cr-Mo samples, respectively. Active trypsin remained immobilized on the APS-derivatized substrates when at least 35 free amino groups per nm2 of nominal surface area were available for protein coupling.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Wilchek, M., Miron, T., and Kohn, J., Meth. Enzymol. 104, 3 (1984).Google Scholar
2. Torchilin, V.P., Maksimenko, A.V., and Mazaev, A.V., Meth. Enzymol. 137, 552 (1988).Google Scholar
3. Bernstein, H., Yang, V.C., Cooney, C.L., and Langer, R., Meth. Enzymol. 137, 515 (1988).Google Scholar
4. Massia, S.P. and Hubbell, J.A., J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 25, 223 (1991).Google Scholar
5. Weetall, H.H., Meth. Enzymol. 44, 134 (1976).Google Scholar
6. Halling, P.J. and Dunnill, P., Biotechnol. Bioeng. 21, 393 (1979).Google Scholar
7. Okuyama, T. and Satake, K., J. Biochem. (Japan) 47, 454 (1960).Google Scholar
8. Rick, W., in Methods of Enzymatic Analysis, edited by Bergmeyer, H.-U. (Verlag Chemie, GmbH, 1963), p. 807.Google Scholar
9. Kasemo, B. and Lausmaa, J., CRC Crit. Rev. Biocomp. 2, 335 (1986).Google Scholar
10. Stroud, R.M., Sci. Am. 231, 74 (1974).Google Scholar
11. Mathews, C.K. and van Holde, K.E., Biochemistry (Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Redwood City, CA, 1990).Google Scholar