Increased endothelial cell adhesion on plasma modified nanostructured polymeric and metallic surfaces for vascular stent applications
Authors: Tiffany Miller
Thomas J Webster
Dan Storey
Rajesh A Pareta
Alexander B Reising
Journal: Biotechnology and bioengineering (2009)
Discipline: BIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY
Keywords: vasculature regeneration; vascular materials; endothelial cell adhesion; surface modification; nanostructured surface features
Affiliations: Department of Orthopedics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912, USA.

Abstract:  Techniques to regenerate the vasculature have risen considerably over the last few decades due to the increased clinical diagnosis of artery narrowing and blood vessel blockage. Although initially re-establishing blood flow, current small diameter vascular regenerative materials often eventually cause thrombosis and restenosis due to a lack of initial endothelial cell coverage on such materials. The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate commonly used vascular materials (specifically, polyethylene terephthalate, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinyl chloride, polyurethane, nylon, commercially pure titanium, and a titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V)) modified using an ionic plasma deposition (IPD) process and a nitrogen ion implantation plasma deposition (NIIPD) process. Such surface modifications have been previously shown to create nanostructured surface features which mimic the natural nanostructured surface features of blood vessels. The modified and unmodified surfaces were characterized by scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and surface energy measurements. Furthermore, in vitro endothelial cell adhesion tests (a key first step for vascular material endothelialization) demonstrated increased endothelial cell adhesion on many modified (with IPD and NIIPD + IPD) compared to unmodified samples. In general, endothelial cell adhesion increased with nanoroughness and surface energy but demonstrated a decreased endothelial cell adhesion trend after an optimal coating surface energy value was reached. Thus, results from this study provided materials and a versatile surface modification process that can potentially increase endothelialization faster than current unmodified (conventional) polymer and metallic vascular materials. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper shares some images with another paper by the same authors, i.e. Pareta RA et al., J Biomed Mater Res 92A: 1190u2013 1201, 2010, DOI: 10.1002 jbm.a.32433 ( Pareta JBM ). Both papers were submitted and accepted around the same time: * Pareta JBMR: Received 3 July 2008; revision received 18 December 2008; accepted 30 December 2008 * Pareta BB: Received 10 July 2008; revised 15 October 2008; accepted 31 December 2008 Here is a comparison of Tables II from both papers. ![file] , 
 Here are Figures 1 from both papers compared. Some panels appear to look similar to each other. Boxes of the same color highlight panels that look similar. The panels that look similar might represent the same materials, but it is remarkable that both data sets were submitted around the same time to 2 different journals. Of note, each paper does not cite the other paper. ![file] , 
 Here are Figures 2 from both papers compared. Boxes of the same color highlight panels that look similar. ![file] Here are Figures 3 from both papers compared. Boxes of the same color highlight panels that look similar. Here, the panel marked in purple represents PU-P in Pareta JBMR, and Nylon-P in Pareta BB. ![file] Here are Figures 4 from both papers compared. Boxes of the same color highlight panels that look similar. Here, the panel marked in dark green represents PU-Ti-P in Pareta JBMR, and PTFE-Ti-P in Pareta BB. ![file] , 
 Here is Figure 6 from Pareta JBMR compared to Figure 5 from Pareta BB. Several panels appear to look similar. They represent the same materials in both papers, but there is no reference to the other paper. ![file] Tables IV also appear to be showing similar data in both papers , except for values in the PU row in Pareta BB, which appear to be duplicated (marked in red). ![file] , 
 First published: 07 November 2020 https: doi.org 10.1002 bit.27590 This corrigendum is being published to correct between manuscripts Pareta et al., Biotechnology and Bioengineering 103(3): 459u2010471, 2009, DOI: 10.1002 bit.22276 and Pareta et al., Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 92A: 1190u2013 1201, 2010; in which we inadvertently published similar figures and data without proper citation of the other article. We the authors attest that all of the data are our own and both papers have significantly different conclusions since they focus on different tissue engineering applications. Specifically, a subset of the data in Figure 1u20106 and Tables II and IV for both papers show similar material characterization results. Further, due to inadvertent EDS spectra mislabeling, in Figure 4 in Pareta et al., Biotechnology and Bioengineering 103(3): 459u2010471, 2009, DOI: 10.1002 bit.22276, the EDS spectra from PUu2010Tiu2010P and PTFEu2010Tiu2010P should be switched (see corrected version of the figure below). Again, this does not influence any of the conclusions of the paper. The authors regret the error. ![file] ,