10.57647/pibm.2025.1403.36

Graphene Oxide and Quantum Dot-Enhanced Alginate Scaffolds: Structural, Mechanical, and Biological Correlations for Neural Tissue Engineering Applications

PDF
  • Hanieh Shomali1,
  • Hamta Rahmatipour1,
  • Soheila Zamanlui Benisi*1,
  • Salar Mohammadi Shabestari2,
  • Matin Mahmoudifard3,
  1. Department of biomedical engineering, CT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  2. Department of Polymer, School of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
  3. Department of Industrial and Environmental Biotechnology, National Institute for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (NIGEB), Tehran, Iran

Received: 2025-08-09

Accepted: 2025-12-05

Published in Issue 2025-12-31

Copyright (c) 2025 Hanieh Shomali, Hamta Rahmatipour, Soheila Zamanlui Benisi, Salar Mohammadi Shabestari, Matin Mahmoudifard (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Shomali, H., Rahmatipour, H., Zamanlui Benisi, S., Mohammadi Shabestari, S., & Mahmoudifard, M. (2025). Graphene Oxide and Quantum Dot-Enhanced Alginate Scaffolds: Structural, Mechanical, and Biological Correlations for Neural Tissue Engineering Applications. Progress in Biomaterials, 14(04). https://doi.org/10.57647/pibm.2025.1403.36
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

The integration of graphene-based nanomaterials into biopolymeric scaffolds offers a promising route to enhance mechanical, physicochemical, and biological performance for neural tissue engineering. In this work, alginate-based scaffolds incorporating graphene oxide (GO) and graphene quantum dots (GQDs) were fabricated via modified Hummer’s and hydrothermal methods, respectively, at varying concentrations. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis revealed that GO increased surface roughness and formed interconnected porous networks, promoting superior cell adhesion and infiltration, while GQDs enhanced porosity but contributed less to mechanical reinforcement. Compressive strength improved significantly in GOcontaining scaffolds (7 kPa) compared to GQDs (3 kPa), correlating with higher in vitro cell proliferation and adhesion. Attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (ATR-FTIR) confirmed nanomaterial integration into the alginate matrix. Swelling and degradation assays indicated faster degradation for AL-GQDs scaffolds, whereas conductivity testing showed higher electrical performance in GQDs-based scaffolds due to quantum confinement effects. Gene expression analysis revealed significant upregulation of PLCB1 and TRPV1 in AL-GO scaffolds, highlighting microarchitecture-mediated mechanotransduction. The presence of botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A) suppressed gene expression; however, AL-GO scaffolds maintained higher functional expression levels. Overall, scaffold and nanomaterial selection were shown to critically shape cellular responses, making AL-GO
scaffolds promising candidates for neural tissue engineering.

PDF

References

  1. Awonusi A, Morris MD, Tecklenburg MMJ (2007) Carbonate assignment and calibration in the Raman spectrum of apatite. Calcif Tissue Int 81:46–52.
  2. Ballarre J, Desimone P, Chorro M, Baca M (2013) Bone quality around bioactive silica-based coated stainless steel implants: Analysis by Micro-Raman, XRF and XAS techniques. J Struct 184:164–172.
  3. Castellani C, Lindtner RA, Hausbrandt P, et al (2011) Bone–implant interface strength and osseointegration: Biodegradable magnesium alloy versus standard titanium control. Acta Biomater 7:432–440.
  4. Chen H, Wang Y, He L, et al (2025) Surface engineering of biodegradable magnesium alloys as orthopedic implant materials: Recent developments and future prospects. Coatings 2025, Vol 15, Page 191 15:191.
  5. Çehreli M, Şahin S, Akça K (2004) Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. , 32(2), . J Dent 32:123–132
  6. Compston J, Skingle L, Dempster DW (2018) Bone Histomorphometry. In: Feldman D (ed) Vitamin D: Fourth Edition, 4th edn. Academic Press, New York, pp 959–973.
  7. Dziuba D, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Seitz J, Waizy H (2013) Long-term in vivo degradation behaviour and biocompatibility of the magnesium alloy ZEK100 for use as a biodegradable bone implant. Acta Biomater 9:8548–8560.
  8. Esmaily M, Svensson JE, Fajardo S, et al (2017) Fundamentals and advances in magnesium alloy corrosion. Prog Mater Sci 89:92–193.
  9. Gray JE, Luan B (2002) Protective coatings on magnesium and its alloys - A critical review. J Alloys Compd 336:88–113.
  10. Han M, Du J, Chen Y, et al (2024) Influence of ultrasonic shot peening on the microstructure and corrosion behavior of AZ80M magnesium alloy. J Alloys Compd 980:173633.
  11. He T, Liu XH, Xiao ZJ, et al (2025) The mechanisms of varying doses of metal ion implantation (Ag, Ti and Zr) on microstructure and properties of pure magnesium. Rare Met 1–18.
  12. Hermawan H, Dubé D, Mantovani D (2010) Developments in metallic biodegradable stents. Acta Biomater 6:1693–1697.
  13. Hoerth RM, Katunar MR, Gomez Sanchez A, et al (2014) A comparative study of zirconium and titanium implants in rat: osseointegration and bone material quality. J Mater Sci Mater Med 25:411–422.
  14. Huang B, Yang M, Kou Y, Jiang B (2024) Absorbable implants in sport medicine and arthroscopic surgery: A narrative review of recent development. Bioact Mater 31:272–283.
  15. Hulsart-Billström G, Dawson JI, Hofmann S, et al (2016) A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: Results of a multicentre analysis. Eur Cells Mater 31:312–322.
  16. Javed F, Romanos GE (2010) The role of primary stability for successful immediate loading of dental implants. A literature review. J Dent 38:612–620.
  17. Katunar MR, Gomez Sanchez A, Santos Coquillat A, et al (2017) In vitro and in vivo characterization of anodised zirconium as a potential material for biomedical applications. Mater Sci Eng C 75:957–968.
  18. Kawamura N, Nakao Y, Ishikawa R, et al (2020) Degradation and biocompatibility of AZ31 magnesium alloy implants in vitro and in vivo: a micro-computed tomography study in rats. Materials (Basel) 13:473.
  19. Kazanci M, Roschger P, Paschalis EP, et al (2006) Bone osteonal tissues by Raman spectral mapping: Orientation-composition. J Struct Biol 156:489–496.
  20. Khan AR, Grewal NS, Zhou C, et al (2023) Recent advances in biodegradable metals for implant applications: Exploring in vivo and in vitro responses. Results Eng 20:101526.
  21. Kurien BT, Scofield RH (1999) Mouse urine collection using clear plastic wrap. Lab Anim 33:83–86.
  22. Liu W, Guo S, Tang Z, et al (2020) Magnesium promotes bone formation and angiogenesis by enhancing MC3T3-E1 secretion of PDGF-BB. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 528:664–670.
  23. Merlo JL, Katunar MR, Tano de la Hoz F, et al (2021) Short-term in vivo response to anodized magnesium alloy as a biodegradable material for bone fracture fixation devices. ACS Appl Bio Mater 4:7123–7133.
  24. Moreno J, Merlo JL, Renno AC, et al (2023) In vitro characterization of anodized magnesium alloy as a potential biodegradable material for biomedical applications. Electrochim Acta 437.
  25. Morris MD, Mandair GS (2011) Raman assessment of bone quality. In: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. Springer New York LLC, pp 2160–2169.
  26. Nasr Azadani M, Zahedi A, Bowoto OK, Oladapo BI (2022) A review of current challenges and prospects of magnesium and its alloy for bone implant applications. Prog Biomater 2022 111 11:1–26.
  27. Pandey A, Awasthi A, Saxena KK (2020) Metallic implants with properties and latest production techniques: a review. Adv Mater Process Technol 6:405–440.
  28. Ravoor J, Thangavel M, Renold Elsen S (2021) Comprehensive review on design and manufacturing of bio-scaffolds for bone reconstruction. ACS Appl Bio Mater 4:8129–8158.
  29. Ross MH, Pawlina W (2006) Histology: A text and atlas: with correlated cell and molecular biology, 7th edn. Wolters Kluwer, China.
  30. Rougerie P, Silva dos Santos R, Farina M, Anselme K (2021) Molecular mechanisms of topography sensing by osteoblasts: an update. Appl Sci 11:1791.
  31. Saris N-EL, Mervaala E, Karppanen H, et al (2000) Magnesium: an update on physiological, clinical and analytical aspects. Clin Chim Acta 294:1–26.
  32. Schilling T, Mueller M, Minne HW, Ziegler R (1992) Mineral apposition rate in rat cortical bone: physiologic differences in different sites of the same tibia. J Bone Miner Res 7:S429–S432.
  33. Shalabi MM, Gortemaker A, Hof MVT, et al (2006) Implant surface roughness and bone healing: a systematic review. J Dent Res 85:496–500.
  34. Shapiro F (2008) Bone development and its relation to fracture repair. The role of mesenchymal osteoblasts and surface osteoblasts. Eur Cell Mater 15:e76.
  35. Shuai C, Li S, Peng S, et al (2019) Biodegradable metallic bone implants. Mater Chem Front 3:544–562.
  36. Song G (2005) Recent progress in corrosion and protection of magnesium alloys. Adv Eng Mater 7:563–586.
  37. Song G (2007) Control of biodegradation of biocompatable magnesium alloys. Corros Sci 49:1696–1701.
  38. Steele JG, McFarland C, Dalton BA, et al (1994) Attachment of human bone cells to tissue culture polystyrene and to unmodified polystyrene: the effect of surface chemistry upon initial cell attachment. J Biomater Sci 5:245–257.
  39. Tano de la Hoz MF, Katunar MR, González A, et al (2019) Effect of anodized zirconium implants on early osseointegration process in adult rats: a histological and histomorphometric study. Prog Biomater 8:249–260.
  40. Timlin JA, Carden A, Morris MD (1999) Chemical microstructure of cortical bone probed by Raman transects. Appl Spectrosc 53:1429–1435.
  41. Voigt GL (2000) Hematology techniques and concepts for veterinary technicians. John Wiley & Sons, IA, USA.
  42. Wang J, Ma XY, Feng YF, et al (2017) Magnesium ions promote the biological behaviour of rat calvarial osteoblasts by activating the PI3K/Akt signalling pathway. Biol Trace Elem Res 179:284–293.
  43. Wang X, Guo L, Liu X, et al (2024) Enhanced corrosion resistance and cell activity of magnesium alloy by DCPD/MgHPO4·3H2O coating via one-step chemical conversion. Surf Coatings Technol 476:130228.
  44. Witte F, Fischer J, Nellesen J, et al (2010) In vivo corrosion and corrosion protection of magnesium alloy LAE442. Acta Biomater 6:1792–1799.
  45. Witte F, Kaese V, Haferkamp H, et al (2005) In vivo corrosion of four magnesium alloys and the associated bone response. Biomaterials 26:3557–3563.
  46. Xin H, Shi Q, Ning X, et al (2023) Biomimetic mineralized fiber bundle-inspired scaffolding surface on polyetheretherketone implants promotes osseointegration. Macromol Biosci 23:2200436.
  47. Yerramshetty JS, Akkus O (2008) The associations between mineral crystallinity and the mechanical properties of human cortical bone. Bone 42:476–482.
  48. Zhang E, Xu L, Yu G, et al (2009) In vivo evaluation of biodegradable magnesium alloy bone implant in the first 6 months implantation. J Biomed Mater Res A 90:882–893.
  49. Zheng Y, Gu X, Witte F (2014) Biodegradable metals. Mater Sci Eng Reports 77:1–34.