Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Ecomaterials pp 1–28Cite as

Biomaterials Degradation and Bioabsorbability: Biomedical Potentials of Marine Enzymes

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 901 Accesses

Abstract

Biomaterials are most commonly recognized as scaffolds potentially able to perform useful functions such as (i) promoting cell attachment, survival, proliferation, and differentiation while possessing minimum toxicity in the original and biodegraded/bioabsorbed forms; (ii) allowing the transport or delivery of gases, nutrients, and growth factors; and (iii) offering sufficient structural support while being degradable/absorbable at appropriate rates for tissue regeneration.

Biodegradable/Bioabsorbable materials intended to be used as implantable drug eluting scaffolds must fulfill several requirements in order to be considered for clinical integration. They must not elicit abnormal responses in local tissues and should neither produce local nor systemic toxic or carcinogenic side effects. First and foremost, biodegradable/bioabsorbable platforms should serve their intended scaffolding and cell-signaling functions while degrading/absorbing into nontoxic metabolites. Breakdown of artificially manufactured scaffolds requires rigorous toxicological evaluation of each constituent component. Particularly when ambitious strategies involving the use of composite materials with integrated trophic factors are concerned, the importance of material biocompatibility evaluation rises significantly. The desired notion of effecting synergistic actions of GF (growth factor) and other incorporated component requires careful consideration of factor concentrations and release mechanisms in order to avoid potentially harmful overdosing. It therefore remains a priority to conduct systematic and rigorous toxicological studies – both in vitro and in vivo – to (1) eliminate grossly ineffective or toxic delivery platforms in order to (2) narrow down on potentially suitable candidate technologies as well as (3) ascertain any dose or time-dependencies which may influence the materials’ suitabilities.

Actually, the performance of many biomaterials depends largely on their degradation/absorbability behavior since the degradation/absorbability process may affect a range of events, such as cell growth, tissue regeneration, drug release, host response, and material function.

Biodegradable/Bioabsorbable medical materials are materials with the ability of functioning for a temporary period and subsequently degrade/absorb in physiological conditions, under a controlled mechanism, into products easily eliminated in the body’s metabolic pathways.

The demands for biomaterials with above-mentioned characteristics (controlled, predictable degradation/absorbability kinetics) included a wide range of biomedical applications (such as resorbable surgical sutures, matrices for the controlled release of drugs, and scaffolds for tissue engineering) are becoming more and more crucial and urgent.

Therefore, aim to provide promising potentials of marine enzymes for biomedical materials degradation/absorbability, the relevant potential marine enzymes such as amylases, esterases, cellulases, and laccases are reviewed. It indicates that strategies developed to obtain biomaterials with a controlled degradation/absorbability rate should be based on molecular design principles, such as the introduction of hydrolysable bonds into polymer backbones, copolymerization and blending techniques, crosslinking and surface modification methods, and inclusion of certain additives into polymeric matrices (e.g., excipients, drugs, salts).

Meanwhile, controlled degradation/absorbability of biomedical materials by potential marine enzymes will have several advantages considering the high specificity of enzymes for their substrates and also because enzyme activity can be regulated by environmental conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, the presence of certain substances, like metal ions). In addition, the degradation/absorbability kinetics can be adjusted by the amount of encapsulated enzyme into the matrix.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  1. Crapo PM, Gilbert TW, Badylak SF (2011) An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials 32:3233–3243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ott HC, Matthiesen TS, Goh SK, Black LD, Kren SM, Netoff TI et al (2008) Perfusion-decellularized matrix: using nature’s platform to engineer a bioartificial heart. Nat Med 14:213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Petersen TH, Calle EA, Zhao L, Lee EJ, Gui L, Raredon MB et al (2010) Tissue engineered lungs for in vivo implantation. Science 329:538–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Uygun BE, Soto-Gutierrez A, Yagi H, Izamis ML, Guzzardi MA, Shulman C et al (2010) Organ reengineering through development of a transplantable recellularized liver graft using decellularized liver matrix. Nat Med 16:814–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Grayson WL, Frohlich M, Yeager K, Bhumiratana S, Chan ME, Cannizzaro C et al (2010) Engineering anatomically shaped human bone grafts. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:3299–3304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Quint C, Kondo Y, Manson RJ, Lawson JH, Dardik A, Niklason LE (2011) Decellularized tissue-engineered blood vessel as an arterial conduit. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:9214–9219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baino F, Vitale-Brovarone C (2011) Three-dimensional glass-derived scaffolds for bone tissue engineering: current trends and forecasts for the future. J Biomed Mater Res A 97:514–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Collier JH, Segura T (2011) Evolving the use of peptides as components of biomaterials. Biomaterials 32:4198–4204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gasiorowski JZ, Collier JH (2011) Directed intermixing in multicomponent self-assembling biomaterials. Biomacromolecules 12:3549–3558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. DiMarco RL, Heilshorn SC (2012) Multifunctional materials through modular protein engineering. Adv Mater 24:3923–3940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Werkmeister JA, Ramshaw JA (2012) Recombinant protein scaffolds for tissue engineering. Biomed Mater 7:012002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang X, Zauscher S, Klitzman B, Truskey GA, Reichert WM, Kenan DJ et al (2010) Peptide interfacial biomaterials improve endothelial cell adhesion and spreading on synthetic polyglycolic acid materials. Ann Biomed Eng 38:1965–1976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Stabenfeldt SE, Gourley M, Krishnan L, Hoying JB, Barker TH (2012) Engineering fibrin polymers through engagement of alternative polymerization mechanisms. Biomaterials 33:535–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Soon AS, Smith MH, Herman ES, Lyon LA, Barker TH (2013) Development of self-assembling mixed protein micelles with temperature-modulated avidities. Adv Healthc Mater 2:1045–1055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wojtowicz AM, Shekaran A, Oest ME, Dupont KM, Templeman KL, Hutmacher DW et al (2010) Coating of biomaterial scaffolds with the collagen-mimetic peptide GFOGER for bone defect repair. Biomaterials 31:2574–2582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim TG, Park TG (2006) Biomimicking extracellular matrix: cell adhesive RGD peptide modified electrospun poly(d, l-lactic-co-glycolic acid) nanofiber mesh. Tissue Eng 12:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang PY, Wu TH, Tsai WB, Kuo WH, Wang MJ (2013) Grooved PLGA films incorporated with RGD/YIGSR peptides for potential application on skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 110:88–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Markowski MC, Brown AC, Barker TH (2012) Directing epithelial to mesenchymal transition through engineered microenvironments displaying orthogonal adhesive and mechanical cues. J Biomed Mater Res A 100:2119–2127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chaisri P, Chingsungnoen A, Siri S, Repetitive RGD (2013) Peptide as cell-stimulating agent on electrospun PCL scaffold for tissue engineering. Biotechnol J 8(11):1323–1331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carson AE, Barker TH (2009) Emerging concepts in engineering extracellular matrix variants for directing cell phenotype. Regen Med 4:593–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Barker TH (2011) The role of ECM proteins and protein fragments in guiding cell behavior in regenerative medicine. Biomaterials 32:4211–4214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Athanasiou KA, Niederauer GG, Agrawal CM (1996) Sterilization, toxicity, biocompatibility and clinical applications of polylactic acid/polyglycolic acid copolymers. Biomaterials 17:93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lotz AS, Havla JB, Richter E, Frolich K, Staudenmaier R, Hagen R et al (2009) Cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of matrices for cartilage tissue engineering. Toxicol Lett 190:128–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chlapanidas T, Tosca MC, Faragò S, Perteghella S, Galuzzi M, Lucconi G et al (2013) Formulation and characterization of silk fibroin films as a scaffold for adipose-derived stem cells in skin tissue engineering. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 26:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee KH, Chu CC (2000) The role of superoxide ions in the degradation of synthetic absorbable sutures. J Biomed Mater Res 49:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Park JS, Yang HN, Woo DG, Jeon SY, Park KH (2012) SOX9 gene plus heparinized TGF-β 3 coated dexamethasone loaded PLGA microspheres for inducement of chondrogenesis of hMSCs. Biomaterials 33:7151–7163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Losi P, Briganti E, Errico C, Lisella A, Sanguinetti E, Chiellini F et al (2013) Fibrin-based scaffold incorporating VEGF- and bFGF-loaded nanoparticles stimulates wound healing in diabetic mice. Acta Biomater 9:7814–7821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zeugolis DI, Paul GR, Attenburrow G (2009) Cross-linking of extruded collagen fibers – a biomimetic three-dimensional scaffold for tissue engineering applications. J Biomed Mater Res A 89:895–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Seedevi P, Moovendhan M, Vairamani S, Shanmugam A (2017) Evaluation of antioxidant activities and chemical analysis of sulfated chitosan from Sepia prashadi. Int J Biol Macromol 99:519–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Duan X, Sheardown H (2006) Dendrimer crosslinked collagen as a corneal tissue engineering scaffold: mechanical properties and corneal epithelial cell interactions. Biomaterials 27:4608–4617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Park SN, Park JC, Kim HO, Song MJ, Suh H (2002) Characterization of porous collagen/hyaluronic acid scaffold modified by 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodiimide crosslinking. Biomaterials 23:1205–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Coste O, Malta EJ, López JC, Fernández-Díaz C (2015) Production of sulfated oligosaccharides from the seaweed Ulva sp. using a new ulvan-degrading enzymatic bacterial crude extract. Algal Res 10:224–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yoshizawa K, Mizuta R, Taguchi T (2015) Enhanced angiogenesis of growth factor-free porous biodegradable adhesive made with hexanoyl group-modified gelatin. Biomaterials 63:14–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Yanto DHY, Hidayat A, Tachibana S (2017) Periodical biostimulation with nutrient addition and bioaugmentation using mixed fungal cultures to maintain enzymatic oxidation during extended bioremediation of oily soil microcosms. Int Biodeter Biodegr 116:112–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Gorczyca G, Tylingo R, Szweda P, Augustin E, Sadowska M, Milewski S (2014) Preparation and characterization of genipin cross-linked porous chitosan–collagen–gelatin scaffolds using chitosan–CO2 solution. Carbohydr Polym 102:901–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang X, Chen X, Yang T, Zhang N, Dong L, Ma S et al (2014) The effects of different crossing-linking conditions of genipin on type I collagen scaffolds: an in vitro evaluation. Cell Tissue Bank 15:531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chuang CH, Lin RZ, Tien HW, Chu YC, Li YC, Melero-Martin JM, Chen YC (2015) Enzymatic regulation of functional vascular networks using gelatin hydrogels. Acta Biomater 19:85–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Azizi N, Najafpour G, Younesi H (2017) Acid pretreatment and enzymatic saccharification of brown seaweed for polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production using Cupriavidus necator. Int J Biol Macromol 101:1029–1040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Berthod F, Hayek D, Damour O, Collombel C (1993) Collagen synthesis by fibroblasts cultured within a collagen sponge. Biomaterials 14:749–754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Nidheesh T, Kumar PG, Suresh PV (2015) Enzymatic degradation of chitosan and production of d-glucosamine by solid substrate fermentation of exo-β-d-glucosaminidase (exochitosanase) by Penicillium decumbens CFRNT15. Int Biodeter Biodegr 97:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Suginta W, Sirimontree P, Sritho N, Ohnuma T, Fukamizo T (2016) The chitin-binding domain of a GH-18 chitinase from Vibrio harveyi is crucial for chitin-chitinase interactions. Int J Biol Macromol 93(A):1111–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Younes I, Hajji S, Rinaudo M, Chaabouni M, Jellouli K, Nasri M (2016) Optimization of proteins and minerals removal from shrimp shells to produce highly acetylated chitin. Int J Biol Macromol 84:246–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Young T, Kesarcodi-Watson A, Alfaro AC, Merien F, Nguyen TV, Mae H, Le DV, Villas-Bôas S (2017) Differential expression of novel metabolic and immunological biomarkers in oysters challenged with a virulent strain of OsHV-1. Dev Comp Immunol 73:229–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gunatillake PA, Adhikari R (2003) Biodegradable synthetic polymers for tissue engineering. Eur Cell Mater 5:1–16. discussion

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cutright DE, Beasley JD, Perez B (1971) Histologic comparison of polylactic and polyglycolic acid sutures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 32:165–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mayer MH, Hollinger JO (1995) Biodegradable bone fixation devices. In: Hollinger JO (ed) Biomedical applications of synthetic biodegradable polymers. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 173–195

    Google Scholar 

  47. Thomson RC, Yaszemski MJ, Powers JM, Mikos AG (1995) Fabrication of biodegradable polymer scaffolds to engineer trabecular bone. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 7:23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bergsma EJ, Rozema FR, Bos RR, de Bruijn WC (1993) Foreign body reactions to resorbable poly(l-lactide) bone plates and screws used for the fixation of unstable zygomatic fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:666–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Böstman OM (1991) Osteolytic changes accompanying degradation of absorbable fracture fixation implants. J Bone Joint Surg 73:679–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Böstman O, Hirvensalo E, Vainionpää S, Mäkelä A, Vihtonen K, Törmälä P et al (1989) Ankle fractures treated using biodegradable internal fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res:195–203

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sollazzo V, Lucchese A, Palmieri A, Zollino I, Iaccarino C, Carnevali G et al (2011) Polylactide-polyglycolide resorbable plates stimulates adipose tissue-derived stem cells towards osteoblasts differentiation. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 24:59–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Spivak JM, Ricci JL, Blumenthal NC, Alexander H (1990) A new canine model to evaluate the biological response of intramedullary bone to implant materials and surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 24:1121–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tang YW, Labow RS, Santerre JP (2003) Isolation of methylene dianiline and aqueous-soluble biodegradation products from polycarbonate–polyurethanes. Biomaterials 24:2805–2819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Yildirimer L, Thanh NTK, Loizidou M, Seifalian AM (2011) Toxicology and clinical potential of nanoparticles. Nano Today 6:585–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Agrawal CM, Athanasiou KA (1997) Technique to control pH in vicinity of biodegrading PLA-PGA implants. J Biomed Mater Res 38:105–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Pryde CA, Kelleher PG, Hellman MY, Wentz RP (1982) The hydrolytic stability of some commercially available polycarbonates. Polym Eng Sci 22:370–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Labow RS, Meek E, Matheson LA, Santerre JP (2002a) Human macrophage-mediated biodegradation of polyurethanes: assessment of candidate enzyme activities. Biomaterials 23:3969–3975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Labow RS, Tang Y, McCloskey CB, Santerre JP (2002b) The effect of oxidation on the enzyme catalyzed hydrolytic biodegradation of poly(urethane)s. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 13:651–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tokiwa Y, Calabia BP, Ugwu CU, Aiba S (2009) Biodegradability of plastics. Int J Mol Sci 10:3722–3742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ahmed M, Ghanbari H, Cousins BG, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM (2011) Small calibre polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane nanocomposite cardiovascular grafts: influence of porosity on the structure, haemocompatibility and mechanical properties. Acta Biomater 7:3857–3867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kannan RY, Salacinski HJ, De Groot J, Clatworthy I, Bozec L, Horton M et al (2006a) The antithrombogenic potential of a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) nanocomposite. Biomacromolecules 7:215–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Kannan RY, Salacinski HJ, Odlyha M, Butler PE, Seifalian AM (2006b) The degradative resistance of polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane nanocore integrated polyurethanes: an in vitro study. Biomaterials 27(9):1971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Xie X, Eberhart A, Guidoin R, Marois Y, Douville Y, Zhang Z (2010) Five types of polyurethane vascular grafts in dogs: the importance of structural design and material selection. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 21:1239–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. McGill DB, Motto JD (1974) An industrial outbreak of toxic hepatitis due to methylenedianiline. N Engl J Med 291:278–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Spark JI, Yeluri S, Derham C, Wong YT, Leitch D (2008) Incomplete cellular depopulation may explain the high failure rate of bovine ureteric grafts. Br J Surg 95(5):582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen FM, An Y, Zhang R, Zhang M (2011) New insights into and novel applications of release technology for periodontal reconstructive therapies. J Control Release 149:92–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tiruvannamalai-Annamalai R, Armant DR, Matthew HW (2014) A glycosaminoglycan based, modular tissue scaffold system for rapid assembly of perfusable, high cell density, engineered tissues. PLoS One 9:e84287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Cui H, Liu Y, Deng M, Pang X, Zhang P, Wang X et al (2012) Synthesis of biodegradable and electroactive tetraaniline grafted poly(ester amide) copolymers for bone tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 13(9):2881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Yildirimer L, Thanh NTK, Seifalian AM (2012) Skin regeneration scaffolds: a multimodal bottom-up approach. Trends Biotechnol 30(12):638–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. de Mel A, Bolvin C, Edirisinghe M, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM (2008) Development of cardiovascular bypass grafts: endothelialization and applications of nanotechnology. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 6:1259–1277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ghanbari H, Viatge H, Kidane AG, Burriesci G, Tavakoli M, Seifalian AM (2009) Polymeric heart valves: new materials, emerging hopes. Trends Biotechnol 27:359–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Salacinski HJ, Hamilton G, Seifalian AM (2003) Surface functionalization and grafting of heparin and/or RGD by an aqueous-based process to a poly(carbonate-urea)urethane cardiovascular graft for cellular engineering applications. J Biomed Mater Res A 66:688–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Kannan RY, Salacinski HJ, Butler PE, Seifalian AM (2005) Artificial nerve conduits in peripheral nerve repair. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 41:193–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Pabari A, Yang SY, Mosahebi A, Seifalian AM (2011) Recent advances in artificial nerve conduit design: strategies for the delivery of luminal fillers. J Control Release 156:2–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Sedaghati T, Yang SY, Mosahebi A, Alavijeh MS, Seifalian AM (2011) Nerve regeneration with aid of nanotechnology and cellular engineering. Biotechnol Appl Biochem 58:288–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Tan A, Rajadas J, Seifalian AM (2012) Biochemical engineering nerve conduits using peptide amphiphiles. J Control Release 163:342–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Proksch P, Edrada RA, Ebel R (2002) Drugs from the seas – current status and microbiological implications. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 59:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Boettger D, Hertweck C (2013) Molecular diversity sculpted by fungal PKS-NRPS hybrids. Chembiochem 14:28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Debashish G, Malay S, Barindra S, Joydeep M (2005) Marine enzymes. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 96:189–218

    Google Scholar 

  80. Zhang C, Kim SK (2010) Research and application of marine microbial enzymes: status and prospects. Mar Drugs 8:1920–1934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Gribble GW (2004) Amazing organohalogens. Am Sci 92:342–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Butler A, Walker JV (1993) Marine haloperoxidases. Chem Rev 93:1937–1944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Carter-Franklin JN, Butler A (2004) Vanadium bromoperoxidase-catalyzed biosynthesis of halogenated marine natural products. J Am Chem Soc 126:15060–15066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Barindra S, Debashish G, Malay S, Joydeep M (2006) Purification and characterization of a salt, solvent, detergent and bleach tolerant protease from a new gamma-Proteobacterium isolated from the marine environment of the Sundarbans. Process Biochem 41(1):208–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Stoll GH, Nimmerfall F, Acemoglu M, Bodmer D, Bantle S, Muller I, Mahl A, Kolopp M, Tullberg K (2001) Poly(ethylene carbonate)s: part II. Degradation mechanisms and parenteral delivery of bioactive agents. J Control Release 76:209–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kokubo T, Kim HM, Kawashita M (2003) Novel bioactive materials with different mechanical properties. Biomaterials 24:2161–2175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Hu Y, Catchmark JM (2011) In vitro biodegradability and mechanical properties of bioabsorbable bacterial cellulose incorporating cellulases. Acta Biomater 7:2835–2845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Labow RS, Duguay DG, Santerre JP (1994) The enzymatic hydrolysis of a synthetic biomembrane: a new substrate for cholesterol and carboxyl esterases. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 6:169–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Shalaby WSW, Chen M, Park K (1992) Mechanistic assessment of enzyme-induced degradation of albumin-crosslinked hydrogels. J Bioact Compat Polym 7:257–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tang YW, Labow RS, Santerre JP (2003) Enzyme induced biodegradation of polycarbonate-polyurethanes: dose dependence effect of cholesterol esterase. Biomaterials 24:2003–2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Jahangir R, McCloskey CB, McClung WG, Labow RS, Brash JL, Santerre JP (2003) The influence of protein adsorption and surface modifying macromolecules on the hydrolytic degradation of a poly(ether–urethane) by cholesterol esterase. Biomaterials 24:121–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Christenson EM, Patel S, Anderson JM, Hiltner A (2006) Enzymatic degradation of poly(ether urethane) and poly(carbonate urethane) by cholesterol esterase. Biomaterials 27:3920–3926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Finer Y, Jaffer F, Santerre JP (2004) Mutual influence of cholesterol esterase and pseudocholinesterase on the biodegradation of dental composites. Biomaterials 25:1787–1793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Azevedo HS, Reis RL (2009) Encapsulation of α-amylase into starch-based biomaterials: an enzymatic approach to tailor their degradation rate. Acta Biomater 5:3021–3030

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The work is supported by the Strategic Research Grant (SRG) from City University of Hong Kong (Grant No.: 7004453).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Kelvii Wei Guo

Authors
  1. Kelvii Wei Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kelvii Wei Guo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León Instituto de Ingeniería Civil, San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, Mexico

    Leticia Myriam Torres Martínez

  2. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Monterrey, Mexico

    Oxana Vasilievna Kharissova

  3. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León , Monterrey, Mexico

    Boris Ildusovich Kharisov

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Guo, K.W. (2018). Biomaterials Degradation and Bioabsorbability: Biomedical Potentials of Marine Enzymes. In: Martínez, L., Kharissova, O., Kharisov, B. (eds) Handbook of Ecomaterials. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48281-1_160-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48281-1_160-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48281-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48281-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation