Next Article in Journal
Micro-Addition of Silver to Copper: One Small Step in Composition, a Change for a Giant Leap in Biocidal Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Fabrication and Characterization of Al2O3-Siloxane Composite Thermal Pads for Thermal Interface Materials
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 17
Issue 4
10.3390/ma17040915
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Characterization of hFOB 1.19 Cell Line for Studying Zn-Based Degradable Metallic Biomaterials

by
Eva Jablonská
1,*,
Lucie Mrázková
1,
Jiří Kubásek
2,
Dalibor Vojtěch
2,
Irena Paulin
3,
Tomáš Ruml
1 and
Jan Lipov
1
1
Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic
2
Department of Metals and Corrosion Engineering, University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic
3
Institute of Metals and Technology, Ljubljana, Lepi pot 11, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2024, 17(4), 915; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17040915
Submission received: 29 December 2023 / Revised: 30 January 2024 / Accepted: 8 February 2024 / Published: 16 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Biomaterials)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In vitro testing is the first important step in the development of new biomaterials. The human fetal osteoblast cell line hFOB 1.19 is a very promising cell model; however, there are vast discrepancies in cultivation protocols, especially in the cultivation temperature and the presence of the selection reagent, geneticin (G418). We intended to use hFOB 1.19 for the testing of Zn-based degradable metallic materials. However, the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to zinc ions has not yet been studied. Therefore, we compared the toxicity of zinc towards hFOB 1.19 under different conditions and compared it with that of the L929 mouse fibroblast cell line. We also tested the cytotoxicity of three types of Zn-based biomaterials in two types of media. The presence of G418 used as a selection reagent decreased the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to Zn2+. hFOB 1.19 cell line was more sensitive to Zn2+ at elevated (restrictive) temperatures. hFOB 1.19 cell line was less sensitive to Zn2+ than L929 cell line (both as ZnCl2 and extracts of alloys). Therefore, the appropriate cultivation conditions of hFOB 1.19 during biomaterial testing should be chosen with caution.

1. Introduction

The first important step in the development of any biomaterial is in vitro cytotoxicity testing, although it cannot encompass all of the complexities in the body. In addition to biomaterials intended for permanent bone implants, there is also an increasing interest in degradable metallic biomaterials for temporary bone fixation (reviewed in [1]). Here, we focus on zinc-based biomaterials for orthopedic applications, which have been the subject of interest in the last decade [2,3,4,5]. The corrosion rate and toxicity of in vitro tests often do not correlate with those in vivo (e.g., [5,6,7]). There are probably many reasons for this (e.g., lack of circulation of body fluids, only one cell type used, 2D cell arrangement in vitro [8,9,10]); nevertheless, the appropriate cell model can also play a prominent role [11].
There are two main options for choosing the in vitro model: primary cells or cancer-derived cell lines. The former reliably mimics properties of the tissue in vivo; however, the cells have a limited lifespan and a high variability within donors, which hinders their routine use in experiments. Continuous cell lines represent an unlimited cell source for testing, since they can proliferate indefinitely. However, their behavior differs significantly from that of primary cells, and thus of the cells in tissues. A compromise choice may be cells obtained by so-called gentle cell immortalization, for example, their transfection with a gene coding a temperature-sensitive mutant of the SV40 large T antigen (tsA58), since it can lead to a combination of advantageous properties of both types mentioned above. At a lower (permissive) temperature, tsA58 is active and promotes cell proliferation. At elevated (restrictive) temperature, cells stop dividing and can differentiate into mature cell types [12,13].
The ISO 10993-5 standard [14] mentions the L929 murine fibroblast cell line (ATCC CCL-1) as a possible cell model to be used in in vitro biomaterial testing. Specifically, for the cytocompatibility testing of biomaterials intended for orthopedic applications, osteoblast-like cancer cell lines (e.g., U-2 OS, MG-63, and Saos-2) are used; however, none of them can be considered a reliable substitute for human osteoblasts [15,16].
To date, the biological response of newly prepared Zn alloys has been performed on cell cultures of various origins (reviewed, e.g., in [17]), mainly on L929 and on osteoblast-like cell lines MG-63 and MC3T3-E1 [18]. However, there is a demand to use an appropriate and preferably non-cancerous cell line for the intended application for cytotoxicity evaluation [11]. We have previously shown that the cancerous osteoblast-like cell line U-2 OS is less sensitive than the L929 cell line to zinc ions [19]. Here, we present the conditionally immortalized human fetal osteoblast cell line hFOB 1.19 (ATCC CRL-11372), established by Harris et al. [20], as a suitable model for degradable zinc-based biomaterials, as it is not cancerous and has the characteristics of osteoblasts.
The cell line hFOB 1.19 was derived from biopsies of limb tissues from a spontaneous miscarriage and immortalized by transfection with tsA58. The selection reagent, G418 (geneticin), facilitated the initial selection of transfected cells and, at a reduced concentration (300 μg∙mL−1), it ensures further maintenance of the transgene cells during long-term cultivation [20].
The cell line hFOB 1.19 was further characterized by Subramaniam et al., who showed that this cell line was capable of bone formation in vivo, and the analysis of the karyotype showed only minimal chromosomal changes [21]. Furthermore, Yen et al. observed the multilineal differentiation potential (toward adipocytes or chondrocytes) of hFOB 1.19 cells under appropriate conditions [22]. Marozin et al. even claimed that hFOB 1.19 can serve as a surrogate model for bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells [23].
However, there are also great discrepancies in the cultivation protocols. There is disagreement on the interpretation of the restrictive temperature. ATCC, the cell supplier, states 39.5 °C in their protocols, but some authors choose 37 °C for their experiments for culture differentiation [24,25,26,27]. On the contrary, some authors consider 37 °C to be a permissive temperature [28,29]. It is also not clear whether the G418 selection reagent should be added during osteodifferentiation.
The hFOB 1.19 cell line has already been used in cancer research and osteomyelitis research [25,30] as well as in studies with permanent [31,32] and degradable [24,33] biomaterials. There are also studies that use hFOB 1.19 for testing degradable materials doped with Zn (Table 1). However, the sensitivity of the hFOB 1.19 cell line to Zn2+ has not yet been studied.
Here, we compare the sensitivity of the L929 and hFOB 1.19 cell lines to Zn2+ in different media, as well as the effect of temperature on the metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 and on its sensitivity to Zn2+.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cell Cultivation

hFOB 1.19 cells (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA, CRL-1137) were maintained in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 medium without phenol red (Sigma–Merck, Darmstadt, Germany, D6434) supplemented with 10% FBS (Sigma, F7524), 2.5 mM of L-glutamine (Sigma, G7513), and the selection reagent, G418 (Sigma, G8168), at a final concentration of 0.3 mg·mL−1 at 34 °C, 5% CO2, and 100% relative humidity. Cells were passaged regularly when sub-confluent using a trypsin-EDTA solution without phenol red (Gibco, 15400054, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Murine fibroblasts L929 (ATCC CCL-1) were maintained in an MEM (Sigma, M0446) medium supplemented with 10% FBS (FBS, Sigma F7524) under standard conditions of 37 °C, 5% CO2 and 100% relative humidity. Cells were passaged regularly when sub-confluent using trypsin-EDTA solution (Sigma, T4049).

2.2. Preparation of the ZnCl2 Solution

The 10 mM stock solution of ZnCl2 was prepared in dH2O and sterilized by filtration. Fresh working solutions (from 40 µM up to 360 µM) were prepared in a cultivation medium prior to the experiment.

2.3. Preparation of the Materials

In the present study, three different materials, which were considered promising for future applications in the development of medical devices (Table 2), were used for cytotoxicity tests. The materials were prepared similarly as in [40,41,42,43]. Zn-1Mg and Zn-1Mg-1Ag (wt.%) were prepared by mechanical alloying using pure zinc powder (99.9%, particle size < 149 µm, Thermo Fisher Scientific), pure magnesium (99.8%, particle size < 44 µm, Alfa Aesar-Thermo Fisher Scientific), and pure Ag (99.5%, particle size < 44 µm, Safina a.s., Vestec, Czech Republic) as the input materials. To prevent the agglomeration of powder particles during milling, 0.03 g of stearic acid was added to all selected compositions. The mechanical alloying was performed for 4 h in ZrO2 vessels under an argon-protective atmosphere (purity 99.95%) using a Retsch E-Max milling machine with 800 rotations per minute (RPM). The milling balls were composed of ZrO2, while the ball-to-powder weight ratio was equal to 5:1. The weight of the input powder mixture was 30 g. The mill equipped with a water-cooling system enabled us to keep the temperature of the process low. The temperature of the cooling medium was maintained between 30 and 50 °C. Zn-0.8Mg-0.2Ag was prepared as follows: Commercially available zinc (99.995 wt%), magnesium (Magnesium Elektron, Manchester, UK, 99.95 wt%), and silver (Safina, a.s., 99.0 wt%) were used for the preparation of the alloys by the general casting process. The Zn-0.8Mg-0.2 Ag (wt%) alloy was melted in an electrical resistance furnace in a graphite crucible. Pure Zn was melted at 520 °C; subsequently, pure Mg and Ag were added and the melt was manually stirred using a graphitic rod. It was subsequently left at 520 °C for 10 min in a resistance furnace. No protective atmosphere was used. Finally, the melt was poured into a non-preheated steel cylindrical mold with a diameter of 50 mm and length of 400 mm. To homogenize the microstructure, the obtained ingots were thermally treated at 350 °C for 24 h in air with subsequent quenching into water (25 °C). Subsequently, billets for the extrusion process, 30 mm in diameter and 35 mm in length, were machined. The surface of these billets was finished by conventional mechanical machining. The billets were extruded at 200 °C using extrusion dies with a die angle of 90° and an extrusion ratio (ER) of 25:1. The billets were tempered for 10 min in the extrusion die. Subsequently, the extrusion was performed at a constant ram speed of 0.2 mm/s and the final rod was cooled in air.
Cylindrical samples (5 mm in diameter and 2 mm in height) were ground (SiC paper, with a grit size up to P4000), cleaned, and sterilized by immersion in 70% ethanol (2 h) and by subsequent exposure to UV (2 h).

2.4. Preparation of the Extracts

The prepared samples were transferred to MEM or DMEM/Ham’s F-12 cultivation medium with 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and agitated (130 RPM) at 37 °C in closed vessels for 24 h. The surface-to-volume ratio was 87.5 mm2·mL−1 for all samples. Four replicates were used for each sample for each medium. The extracts from four samples were then pooled. The extracts were used for indirect in vitro cytotoxicity tests (undiluted, i.e., 100%, and diluted., i.e., 50% extracts were used) and for ICP-MS measurement.

2.5. Metabolic Activity of hFOB 1.19 and Cytotoxicity of Zn2+ towards hFOB 1.19 after Long-Term Cultivation at Different Temperatures

hFOB 1.19 cells were seeded in 48-well plates in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 medium without phenol red, with 10% FBS and with or without the selection reagent, G418. Forty-eight-well plates were used to facilitate medium exchanges. The seeding density was 263,000 cells∙cm−2. The cells were cultivated at 34 °C for 3 days until full confluence was reached. Subsequently, the cultivation continued at different temperatures (34, 37, or 39.5 °C). The medium was exchanged every 4–5 days. After 14 days of cultivation, the medium was exchanged for solutions of ZnCl2 in the medium with 5% FBS. After 24 h, the metabolic activity was evaluated using the resazurin assay.

2.6. Cytotoxicity of Zn2+ and Extracts towards hFOB 1.19 and L929 in Different Media

hFOB 1.19 or L929 cells were seeded in 96-well plates (20,000 cells/well in 50 µL, i.e., approx. 60,000 cells∙cm−2) in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 or in the MEM medium with 10% FBS and cultivated for 4 h at 34 °C or 37 °C, respectively. Subsequently, ZnCl2 solutions in media without FBS (50 µL) were added to the cells to achieve the 5% FBS concentration. After one day, the metabolic activity was evaluated using the resazurin assay.

2.7. Zn2+ and Extracts’ Cytotoxicity towards hFOB 1.19 and L929 in Different Media

hFOB 1.19 or L929 cells were seeded in 96-well plates (20,000 cells/well in 100 µL, i.e., approx. 60,000 cells∙cm−2) in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 or in the MEM medium with 10% FBS and cultivated for 4 h at 34 °C or 37 °C, respectively. Subsequently, the medium was replaced with alloy extracts in medium with 5% FBS (100 µL). After one day, the metabolic activity was evaluated using the resazurin assay.

2.8. Evaluation of Metabolic Activity (Resazurin Assay)

Cell metabolic activity was evaluated using the resazurin assay [44]. Resazurin is metabolized to resorufin by living cells. The cell medium was aspirated and a resazurin solution (final concentration: 25 µg∙mL−1) in a medium without phenol red was added. After 1 h of incubation, the fluorescence was measured at 560/590 nm (excitation/emission) (Fluoroskan Ascent FL, Thermo, or Spectramax id5, Molecular Devices). Metabolic activity was depicted as the absolute fluorescence of resorufin. The cytotoxicity of the solutions and extracts was depicted as a percentage of the metabolic activity of the control (sole medium without zinc). Extracts that caused a decrease below 70% of the activity of the control were considered cytotoxic, as described in the ISO 10993-5 standard [14].

2.9. ICP-MS Measurement

The extracts were analyzed by inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) using a Perkin Elmer Elan 6000 spectrometer (three measurements for each sample). Prior to the measurement, ultrapure HNO3 was added to the extracts in order to dissolve the majority of solid corrosion products.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

A one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was performed in the R software, version 4.2.3. Significant differences (p < 0.05) among groups are indicated by letters.

3. Results

Our main goal was to determine the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 cells to Zn2+ at both permissive and restrictive temperatures. Due to the discrepancies in the published cultivation protocols, we used a temperature of 34 °C as proliferative and both temperatures of 37 °C and 39.5 °C as restrictive. We also used media with and without the G418 selection reagent. The effect of zinc ions on cells under different conditions was then evaluated. We compared the results obtained for hFOB 1.19 with those of the L929 cell line, which is recommended for cytotoxicity tests according to the ISO-10993 standard [14]. We also used Zn-based biomaterials and performed a test with the extract according to ISO 10993-5 [14] using both cell types.

3.1. The Influence of Selection Reagent on the Metabolic Activity of hFOB 1.19

We compared the metabolic activity of cells after 7 and 14 days of incubation at different temperatures with and without the G418 selection reagent (Figure 1). After 7 days, the metabolic activity was significantly lower in the absence of G418 at both restrictive temperatures compared to the permissive one. After 14 days, the difference between the variants with and without G418 was less profound and, surprisingly, was statistically significant both at the restrictive temperature and the permissive temperatures of 39.5 °C and 34 °C, respectively.

3.2. Zn2+ Was More Toxic to hFOB 1.19 Cells at Restrictive Temperatures Than at Permissive Temperatures

Figure 2 shows the metabolic activity (resazurin assay) of hFOB 1.19 cells after their one-day exposure to ZnCl2 solutions preceded by 14-day incubation at different temperatures. No toxic effect of zinc ions was observed in cells cultured at 34 °C, even at the highest concentration of Zn2+ used (140 μmol∙L−1). Cells cultured in the absence of G418 at restrictive temperatures were more sensitive to ZnCl2 compared to those cultured in the presence of G418. The decrease below the normative cut-off was observed at a concentration of 140 μmol∙L−1.
The possibility of G418 influencing the metabolic activity assay was excluded, because the medium with G418 was removed prior to the addition of ZnCl2 solutions.

3.3. Zn2+ Was More Toxic to L929 Than to hFOB 1.19 in the Media Recommended for Each Cell Line

To compare the toxic effect of Zn2+ on L929 and hFOB 1.19, the same numbers of cells were seeded, and after 4 h of incubation, the ZnCl2 solutions were added.
Figure 3 shows that the mouse fibroblast cell line L929 was more sensitive to Zn2+ than hFOB 1.19 cells (a decrease in metabolic activity below 70% was observed at a 60 μmol∙L−1 concentration of ZnCl2, while a toxic effect towards hFOB 1.19 cells was observed at 100 μmol∙L−1 of ZnCl2).

3.4. The Effects of Media Used

Different cultivation media for the cell lines were used in the previous experiment according to the recommendation of the manufacturers. To evaluate the effect of the cultivation medium on the toxicity of Zn2+, a test was performed with both MEM and DMEM/Ham’s F-12 culture medium used for both the hFOB 1.19 and L929 cell lines. Again, ZnCl2 solutions were added 4 h after seeding the same number of both cell lines. We did not use G418 in this experiment to ensure the same conditions for both cell lines.
As in the previous experiment (Figure 3), the higher sensitivity of L929 compared to hFOB 1.19 cells was shown and the toxic effect at the 60 μmol∙L−1 concentration of Zn2+ was also confirmed for the L929 cell line (Figure 4). A higher metabolic activity of the L929 cells was observed in the MEM medium, which is recommended for this cell line. On the contrary, the hFOB 1.19 cells withstood higher concentrations of ZnCl2 in the DMEM/Ham’s F-12 medium, which is recommended for this cell line. The threshold toxic concentration of ZnCl2 in the case of hFOB 1.19 cells in MEM was around 100 μmol∙L−1.

3.5. Comparison of the Cytotoxicity of Extracts of Alloys in Different Media towards hFOB 1.19 and L929

We also tested extracts of selected Zn-based degradable biomaterials according to ISO 10993-5 [14]. The extracts were prepared as described in Section 2.4. The undiluted extracts of the alloys were toxic to both tested cell lines and almost completely inhibited the metabolic activity of both cell lines (relative metabolic activity was 7% or less; data not shown). Therefore, only results with 50% extracts are presented. The Zn and Ag concentrations in the extracts were measured using ICP-MS. The concentration of Ag in the diluted extracts was below 1.8 nmol∙L−1 and was considered to have a minor effect. The concentration of Zn, ranging between 72 and 102 µmol∙L−1, is shown for particular alloys on the labels above the columns of the graph. We did not observe any increase in pH after extraction using phenol red in the cultivation medium as an indicator. This is in accordance with our previous studies [40].
Figure 5 shows that the extracts were more toxic to the L929 cell line. For example, the same extract of Zn-1Mg in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 medium (Zn concentration = 73 µmol∙L−1) did not have any adverse effect on the hFOB 1.19 cell line; however, the metabolic activity of L929 was decreased to 2%.
Generally, the extracts prepared in MEM were more toxic for the hFOB 1.19 cell line compared to the extract prepared in DMEM/Ham’s F-12, even when they contained less Zn. For example, the Zn-1Mg-1Ag extracts in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 medium (Zn concentration = 90 µmol∙L−1) did not decrease the metabolic activity of the hFOB 1.19 cells, while the Zn-1Mg-1Ag extract in MEM (Zn concentration = 72 µmol∙L−1) decreased the metabolic activity of the hFOB 1.19 cells below 20%.
The metabolic activity of L929 after exposure to all of the extracts was 2% or less. Therefore, the difference in toxicity of the extract in MEM and DMEM/Ham’s F-12 is less evident.

4. Discussion

The human fetal osteoblast cell line hFOB 1.19 is a promising model for the in vitro testing of biomaterials due to its similarity to primary osteoblasts and its unlimited supply caused by conditional immortalization. However, the discrepancies in the cultivation protocols raise the question of what conditions should be chosen during the biomaterial tests.
First, we compared the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to Zn2+ in the presence and absence of the selection reagent, G418. When establishing this cell line by Harris et al. [20], G418 was used for the selection of transfectant and for additional maintenance during cultivation, since the desirable phenotype can be lost with the withdrawal of selective pressure [45]. Here, we have shown that the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to zinc is strongly affected by the presence of G418 both after short- and long-term incubation. We observed a higher sensitivity of hFOB1.19 to zinc in the absence of G418 (Figure 2). Some authors tend to use G418 not only during cultivation, but also during biomaterial tests [24,32,33], or the usage of G418 is not specified ([31,37]). In our opinion, in the case where the hFOB 1. 19 cell line is used as an appropriate cell model (mature osteoblastic phenotype is preferred, immortalization is not necessary), the G418 selection reagent does not need to be used during the experiment.
Furthermore, we studied the sensitivity hFOB 1.19 to zinc at different temperatures. We observed a higher sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to Zn2+ at a restrictive temperature. Harris compared proliferation at 33.5 °C (as permissive), 38, and 39 °C (both considered restrictive). The doubling time of hFOB 1.19 at 34 °C was ~36 h, and at 38 °C, it was >96 h [20]. However, there is no clear consensus on whether the temperature of 37 °C should be considered permissive or restrictive. The higher metabolic activity and lower sensitivity to ZnCl2 of hFOB 1.19 cells at a permissive temperature (34 °C) in our case was probably due to their ongoing proliferation. The resulting cell density was higher and, therefore, the concentration of Zn2+ per cell was lower. It is probably also due to the fact that at a temperature of 39.5 °C, the cells are stressed and thus more sensitive. This is supported by the fact that we observed an elevated level of heat shock proteins (HSPs) in hFOB 1.19 at 39.5 °C (our unpublished results, [46]). In our opinion, the physiological temperature of 37 °C is ideal for the testing of biomaterials using the hFOB 1.19 cell line. HSPs are probably not overexpressed and the temperature is sufficient for the development of the mature phenotype [20].
The comparison of the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to Zn2+ with the results obtained by other authors is difficult, since other studies using hFOB 1.19 to test degradable biomaterials with Zn (Table 1) do not specify the concentration of Zn2+ released to the medium in contact with the cells.
We also compared the sensitivity of the hFOB 1.19 and L929 cell lines to Zn2+ (Figure 3). The higher sensitivity of L929 to Zn2+ compared to hFOB 1.19 is in agreement with our previous results showing that another osteoblast-like cell line, U-2 OS, also withstands a higher concentration of Zn2+ (200 µmol∙L−1, when tested in MEM medium) compared to the L929 fibroblast-derived cell line [19]. We did not compare hFOB 1.19 and U-2 OS directly, but from testing under the same conditions, we can presume that hFOB 1.19 cell line is more sensitive than U-2 OS. Cell lines derived from bone cells (whether primary or cancerous) appear to be less sensitive to Zn2+ than the commonly used L929 line, and, therefore, their use in the testing of biomaterials intended for orthopedic implants may play a role in bringing the in vitro system closer to the real situation in the body.
We have also found that the type of medium plays a prominent role. Our previous results showed that ZnCl2 solutions were less toxic to L929 and U-2 OS in DMEM (Sigma, D0819) than in MEM (Sigma, M0446) [19]. This was confirmed for hFOB 1.19 (Figure 4), where the toxic effect of ZnCl2 was lower in the case of rich DMEM/Ham’s F-12 compared to the minimal medium MEM. Surprisingly, ZnCl2 was less toxic to L929 in MEM than in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 (Figure 4). DMEM/Ham’s F-12 is a mixture of component-rich Ham’s F12 medium and the nutrient-rich DMEM medium. However, some of its components (e.g., ferrous sulphate, HEPES) may have negative effects on certain cell types [47]. It was also possible that the L929 cells were unable to adapt to a new medium. Also, the availability of Zn in media can differ. For example, riboflavin (0.27 μmol∙L−1 in MEM vs. 1.0 μmol∙L−1 in DMEM/Ham’s F-12) forms toxic complexes with certain metals [48].
We also prepared extracts of Zn-based biomaterials and tested the cytotoxicity of these extracts on the two cell types. The materials selected in the presented study are considered promising for future applications in the development of medical devices. The chemical composition of these selected materials, especially its Mg content, is beneficial for improving mechanical strength and maintaining an adequate degradation rate of the materials [4,40,41,49]. The suggested processing by powder metallurgy (PM), including the preparation of alloy powder by mechanical alloying and its compaction by extrusion at 200 °C and an extrusion ratio equal to 25, enables the formation of extremely fine-grained homogeneous microstructures, leading to superior mechanical properties and uniform degradation [42,43,50,51]. Silver is used particularly to improve materials’ plasticity, but also the antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties [52]. During the degradation process of alloy, silver is released into the surrounding tissue, where it fulfils the antibacterial effect and subsequently is gradually eliminated from the human body by the liver and kidneys [53].
Extracts of the aforementioned materials were more toxic for L929 than for hFOB 1.19 (Figure 5). This is in agreement with the results with ZnCl2 solutions (Figure 3). We prepared the extracts of the materials in both types of media. Generally, the extracts prepared in MEM were more toxic for the hFOB 1.19 cell line compared to the extract prepared in DMEM/Ham’s F-12, even when they contained less Zn (Figure 5). Differences in the media’s composition probably improved the cell fitness and decreased the cytotoxic effect of extracts in DMEM/Ham’s F-12 (rich medium) compared to the MEM medium (minimal medium), similarly to our previous study with ZnCl2 solutions in MEM and DMEM [19].

5. Conclusions

The human fetal osteoblast cell line hFOB 1.19 is a promising model for the in vitro testing of degradable zinc-based biomaterials intended for orthopedic applications due to its resemblance to primary osteoblasts and to its unlimited supply caused by conditional immortalization. We have shown that hFOB 1.19 cell line was less sensitive to Zn2+ than L929, recommended by the ISO-10993 standard [14]. This standard was originally developed for non-degradable materials and, therefore, in case of degradable materials, often leads to exaggerated, i.e., more toxic, responses than expected in vivo. Thus, less sensitive cell lines and, at the same time, cells resembling osteoblasts seem to be a more convenient model for the in vitro testing of degradable materials for orthopedic applications. We have also shown that the cultivation conditions of hFOB 1.19 during testing affects the results: most importantly, (1) the presence of G418 used as a selection reagent decreased the sensitivity of hFOB 1.19 to Zn2+, and (2) hFOB 1.19 were more sensitive to Zn2+ at elevated (restrictive) temperatures. The cultivation conditions should therefore be chosen with caution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: E.J.; methodology: E.J. and J.L.; investigation: E.J. and L.M.; resources: J.K. and I.P.; writing—original draft preparation: E.J.; writing—review and editing: all authors; visualization: E.J.; supervision: J.L., T.R. and D.V.; project administration, J.K.; funding acquisition J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Czech Science Foundation (project no. 21-11439K) and the project “Mechanical Engineering of Biological and Bio-inspired Systems”, funded as project No. CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004634 by Programme Johannes Amos Commenius, call Excellent Research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Data from ICP-MS measurements are accessible via the Zenodo repository: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10589660 (accessed on 7 February 2024).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Oto Mestek for the ICP-MS analysis and to Markéta Častorálová for proof-reading and valuable comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zheng, Y.F.; Gu, X.N.; Witte, F. Biodegradable metals. Mater. Sci. Eng. R Rep. 2014, 77, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vojtěch, D.; Kubásek, J.; Šerák, J.; Novák, P. Mechanical and corrosion properties of newly developed biodegradable Zn-based alloys for bone fixation. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3515–3522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pospíšilová, I.; Vojtěch, D. Zinc alloys for biodegradable medical implants. Mater. Sci. Forum Trans. Tech. Publ. 2014, 782, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Venezuela, J.; Dargusch, M.S. The influence of alloying and fabrication techniques on the mechanical properties, biodegradability and biocompatibility of zinc: A comprehensive review. Acta Biomater. 2019, 87, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Yang, H.; Jia, B.; Zhang, Z.; Qu, X.; Li, G.; Lin, W.; Zhu, D.; Dai, K.; Zheng, Y. Alloying design of biodegradable zinc as promising bone implants for load-bearing applications. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Levy, G.K.; Goldman, J.; Aghion, E. The Prospects of Zinc as a Structural Material for Biodegradable Implants—A Review Paper. Metals 2017, 7, 402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Antoniac, I.; Adam, R.; Biță, A.; Miculescu, M.; Trante, O.; Petrescu, I.M.; Pogărășteanu, M. Comparative Assessment of In Vitro and In Vivo Biodegradation of Mg-1Ca Magnesium Alloys for Orthopedic Applications. Materials 2020, 14, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Janardhanan, S.; Wang, M.O.; Fisher, J.P. Coculture strategies in bone tissue engineering: The impact of culture conditions on pluripotent stem cell populations. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev. 2012, 18, 312–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hulsart-Billström, G.; Dawson, J.I.; Hofmann, S.; Müller, R.; Stoddart, M.J.; Alini, M.; Redl, R.; El Haj, A.; Brown, R.; Salih, V.; et al. A surprisingly poor correlation between in vitro and in vivo testing of biomaterials for bone regeneration: Results of a multicentre analysis. Eur. Cells Mater. 2016, 31, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rijal, G.; Li, W. Native-mimicking in vitro microenvironment: An elusive and seductive future for tumor modeling and tissue engineering. J. Biol. Eng. 2018, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Anderson, J.M. Future challenges in the in vitro and in vivo evaluation of biomaterial biocompatibility. Regen. Biomater. 2016, 3, 73–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ray, S.; Anderson, M.E.; Loeber, G.; McVey, D.; Tegtmeyer, P. Functional characterization of temperature-sensitive mutants of simian virus 40 large T antigen. J. Virol. 1992, 66, 6509–6516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Reynisdóttir, I.; O’Reilly, D.; Miller, L.; Prives, C.J.J.O.V. Thermally inactivated simian virus 40 tsA58 mutant T antigen cannot initiate viral DNA replication in vitro. J. Virol. 1990, 64, 6234–6245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. ISO 10993-5:2009; Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices, Part 5: Tests for In Vitro Cytotoxicity. ISO: London, UK, 2009; p. 34.
  15. Pautke, C.; Schieker, M.; Tischer, T.; Kolk, A.; Neth, P.; Mutschler, W.; Milz, S. Characterization of osteosarcoma cell lines MG-63, Saos-2 and U-2 OS in comparison to human osteoblasts. Anticancer Res. 2004, 24, 3743–3748. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Czekanska, E.M.; Stoddart, M.J.; Ralphs, J.R.; Richards, R.G.; Hayes, J.S. A phenotypic comparison of osteoblast cell lines versus human primary osteoblasts for biomaterials testing. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2013, 2636, 102–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Liu, Y.; Du, T.; Qiao, A.; Mu, Y.; Yang, H. Zinc-Based Biodegradable Materials for Orthopaedic Internal Fixation. J. Funct. Biomater. 2022, 13, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yuan, W.; Xia, D.; Wu, S.; Zheng, Y.; Guan, Z.; Rau, J.V. A review on current research status of the surface modification of Zn-based biodegradable metals. Bioact. Mater. 2022, 7, 192–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jablonská, E.; Kubásek, J.; Vojtěch, D.; Ruml, T.; Lipov, J. Test conditions can significantly affect the results of in vitro cytotoxicity testing of degradable metallic biomaterials. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 6628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harris, S.A.; Enger, R.J.; Riggs, L.B.; Spelsberg, T.C. Development and characterization of a conditionally immortalized human fetal osteoblastic cell line. J. Bone Miner. Res. 1995, 10, 178–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Subramaniam, M.; Jalal, S.M.; Rickard, D.J.; Harris, S.A.; Bolander, M.E.; Spelsberg, T.C. Further characterization of human fetal osteoblastic hFOB 1.19 and hFOB/ER alpha cells: Bone formation in vivo and karyotype analysis using multicolor fluorescent in situ hybridization. J. Cell. Biochem. 2002, 87, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yen, M.-L.; Chien, C.-C.; Chiu, I.-M.; Huang, H.-I.; Chen, Y.-C.; Hu, H.-I.; Yen, B. Multilineage Differentiation and Characterization of the Human Fetal Osteoblastic 1.19 Cell Line: A Possible In Vitro Model of Human Mesenchymal Progenitors. Stem Cells 2007, 25, 125–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marozin, S.; Simon-Nobbe, B.; Irausek, S.; Chung, L.W.K.; Lepperdinger, G. Kinship of conditionally immortalized cells derived from fetal bone to human bone-derived mesenchymal stroma cells. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 10933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cieslik, M.; Mertas, A.; Morawska-Chochół, A.; Sabat, D.; Orlicki, R.; Owczarek, A.; Król, W.; Cieślik, T. The Evaluation of the Possibilities of Using PLGA Co-Polymer and Its Composites with Carbon Fibers or Hydroxyapatite in the Bone Tissue Regeneration Process—In Vitro and in Vivo Examinations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 3224–3234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Steckiewicz, K.; Barcinska, E.; Malankowska, A.; Zauszkiewicz-Pawlak, A.; Nowaczyk, G.; Zaleska-Medynska, A.; Inkielewicz-Stepniak, I. Impact of gold nanoparticles shape on their cytotoxicity against human osteoblast and osteosarcoma in in vitro model. Evaluation of the safety of use and anti-cancer potential. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 2019, 30, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Pallavi, M.; Waterman, J.; Koo, Y.; Sankar, J.; Yun, Y. In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Possible Corrosion Products from Mg-Based Biodegradable Metals: Magnesium Oxide and Magnesium Hydroxide Nanoparticles. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gnaneshwar, P.V.; Sudakaran, S.V.; Abisegapriyan, S.; Sherine, J.; Ramakrishna, S.; Rahim, M.H.A.; Yusoff, M.M.; Jose, R.; Venugopal, J.R. Ramification of zinc oxide doped hydroxyapatite biocomposites for the mineralization of osteoblasts. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2019, 96, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Donahue, H.J.; Li, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Yellowley, C.E. Differentiation of human fetal osteoblastic cells and gap junctional intercellular communication. Am. J. Physiol.-Cell Physiol. 2000, 278, C315–C322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oki, A.; Parveen, B.; Hossain, S.; Adeniji, S.; Donahue, H. Preparation and in vitro bioactivity of zinc containing sol-gel–derived bioglass materials. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part A 2004, 69, 216–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saidykhan, L.; Bakar, M.Z.A.; Rukayadi, Y.; Kura, A.; Latifah, S. Development of nanoantibiotic delivery system using cockle shell-derived aragonite nanoparticles for treatment of osteomyelitis. Int. J. Nanomed. 2016, 2016, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Balla, V.; Bhat, A.; Bose, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Laser Processed TiN Reinforced Ti6Al4V Composite Coatings. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2012, 6, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Setzer, B.; Bächle, M.; Metzger, M.C.; Kohal, R.J. The gene-expression and phenotypic response of hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts to surface-modified titanium and zirconia. Biomaterials 2009, 30, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Eugen, G.; Claus, M.; Anna-Maria, S.; Niklas, D.; Philipp, S.; Andrea, E.; Andrea, M.-L.; Elke, V. Degradation of 3D-printed magnesium phosphate ceramics in vitro and a prognosis on their bone regeneration potential. Bioact. Mater. 2023, 19, 376–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Predoi, D.; Iconaru, S.L.; Predoi, M.V. Fabrication of Silver- and Zinc-Doped Hydroxyapatite Coatings for Enhancing Antimicrobial Effect. Coatings 2020, 10, 905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Donnadio, A.; Bini, M.; Centracchio, C.; Mattarelli, M.; Caponi, S.; Ambrogi, V.; Pietrella, D.; Di Michele, A.; Vivani, R.; Nocchetti, M. Bioinspired Reactive Interfaces Based on Layered Double Hydroxides-Zn Rich Hydroxyapatite with Antibacterial Activity. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 7, 1361–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Laskus-Zakrzewska, A.; Kazimierczak, P.; Kolmas, J. Porous Composite Granules with Potential Function of Bone Substitute and Simvastatin Releasing System: A Preliminary Study. Materials 2021, 14, 5068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Chirica, I.; Enciu, A.-M.; Teddy, T.; Dudau, M.; Albulescu, L.; Iconaru, S.L.; Predoi, D.; Pasuk, I.; Enculescu, M.; Radu, C.; et al. The Physico-Chemical Properties and Exploratory Real-Time Cell Analysis of Hydroxyapatite Nanopowders Substituted with Ce, Mg, Sr, and Zn (0.5–5 at.%). Materials 2021, 14, 3808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Higuchi, J.; Klimek, K.; Wojnarowicz, J.; Opalińska, A.; Chodara, A.; Szałaj, U.; Dąbrowska, S.; Fudala, D.; Ginalska, G. Electrospun Membrane Surface Modification by Sonocoating with HA and ZnO:Ag Nanoparticles&mdash;Characterization and Evaluation of Osteoblasts and Bacterial Cell Behavior In Vitro. Cells 2022, 11, 1582. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Kazimierczak, P.; Golus, J.; Kolmas, J.; Wojcik, M.; Kolodynska, D.; Przekora, A. Noncytotoxic zinc-doped nanohydroxyapatite-based bone scaffolds with strong bactericidal, bacteriostatic, and antibiofilm activity. Biomater. Adv. 2022, 139, 213011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kubasek, J.; Vojtech, D.; Jablonska, E.; Pospisilova, I.; Lipov, J.; Ruml, T. Structure, mechanical characteristics and in vitro degradation, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and mutagenicity of novel biodegradable Zn-Mg alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. C Mater. Biol. Appl. 2016, 58, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kubásek, J.; Pinc, J.; Hosová, K.; Straková, M.; Molnárová, O.; Duchoň, J.; Nečas, D.; Čavojský, M.; Knapek, M.; Godec, M.; et al. The evolution of microstructure and mechanical properties of Zn-0.8Mg-0.2Sr alloy prepared by casting and extrusion. J. Alloys Compd. 2022, 906, 164308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nečas, D.; Kubásek, J.; Pinc, J.; Marek, I.; Donik, Č.; Paulin, I.; Vojtěch, D. Ultrafine-Grained Zn–Mg–Sr Alloy Synthesized by Mechanical Alloying and Spark Plasma Sintering. Materials 2022, 15, 8379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nečas, D.; Marek, I.; Pinc, J.; Vojtěch, D.; Kubásek, J. Advanced Zinc-Magnesium Alloys Prepared by Mechanical Alloying and Spark Plasma Sintering. Materials 2022, 15, 5272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Riss, T.L.; Moravec, R.A.; Niles, A.L.; Duellman, S.; Benink, H.A.; Worzella, T.J.; Minor, L. Cell Viability Assays. In Assay Guidance Manual; Sittampalam, G.S., Coussens, N.P., Foley, T.L., Hoare, S.R.J., McGee, J., Eds.; 2016. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144065/ (accessed on 7 February 2024).
  45. Liu, W.; Xiong, Y.; Gossen, M. Stability and homogeneity of transgene expression in isogenic cells. J. Mol. Med. 2006, 84, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ničová, A. Quantitative Analysis of hFOB1.19 Cell Line Proteome. Master’s Thesis, The University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yao, T.; Asayama, Y. Animal-cell culture media: History, characteristics, and current issues. Reprod. Med. Biol. 2017, 16, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sigma-Aldrich. Riboflavin in Cell Culture. Available online: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/CZ/en/technical-documents/technical-article/cell-culture-and-cell-culture-analysis/mammalian-cell-culture/riboflavin (accessed on 21 March 2023).
  49. Chandra, G.; Pandey, A. Biodegradable bone implants in orthopedic applications: A review. Biocybern. Biomed. Eng. 2020, 40, 596–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cui, Z.; Luo, M.; Zhang, Y.; Gong, D.; Wang, W.; Wang, J. Fabrication of high strength and plasticity of Zn-Mg composites with core–shell structure by spark plasma sintering. Mater. Lett. 2020, 279, 128525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bagha, P.S.; Khaleghpanah, S.; Sheibani, S.; Khakbiz, M.; Zakeri, A. Characterization of nanostructured biodegradable Zn-Mn alloy synthesized by mechanical alloying. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 735, 1319–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xiao, X.; Liu, E.; Shao, J.; Ge, S. Advances on biodegradable zinc-silver-based alloys for biomedical applications. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2021, 19, 22808000211062407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lansdown, A.B. Silver in health care: Antimicrobial effects and safety in use. Curr. Probl. Dermatol. 2006, 33, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Materials 17 00915 g001
Figure 1. Resorufin fluorescence produced by hFOB 1.19 cells after 7 and 14 days of cultivation in the presence (+) and absence (−) of the G418 selection agent. The error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of three measurements (three wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Figure 1. Resorufin fluorescence produced by hFOB 1.19 cells after 7 and 14 days of cultivation in the presence (+) and absence (−) of the G418 selection agent. The error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of three measurements (three wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Materials 17 00915 g001
Materials 17 00915 g002
Figure 2. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 cells after 14 days of differentiation in the presence (+) and absence (−) of the selection agent, G418, after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (the negative control of 0 μmol∙L−1 of ZnCl2 represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of three measurements (three wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups calculated from fluorescence values are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Figure 2. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 cells after 14 days of differentiation in the presence (+) and absence (−) of the selection agent, G418, after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (the negative control of 0 μmol∙L−1 of ZnCl2 represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of three measurements (three wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups calculated from fluorescence values are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Materials 17 00915 g002
Materials 17 00915 g003
Figure 3. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 and L929 cells after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (negative control lacking ZnCl2 represents 100%). The error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups calculated from fluorescence values are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Figure 3. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 and L929 cells after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (negative control lacking ZnCl2 represents 100%). The error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups calculated from fluorescence values are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Materials 17 00915 g003
Materials 17 00915 g004
Figure 4. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 and L929 cells after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as percent (negative control without ZnCl2 represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Figure 4. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 and L929 cells after 1 day of incubation with ZnCl2 solutions. Metabolic activity is expressed as percent (negative control without ZnCl2 represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). Differences (p < 0.05) among groups are indicated by letters (one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test).
Materials 17 00915 g004
Materials 17 00915 g005aMaterials 17 00915 g005b
Figure 5. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 (a) and L929 (b) cells after 1 day of incubation with extracts of Zn-based materials. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (negative control of sole medium—represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). The labels above the columns indicate the concentration of Zn in µmol∙L−1 measured by ICP-MS.
Figure 5. Relative metabolic activity of hFOB 1.19 (a) and L929 (b) cells after 1 day of incubation with extracts of Zn-based materials. Metabolic activity is expressed as a percentage (negative control of sole medium—represents 100%). Error bars indicate the sample standard deviation of six measurements (six wells). The labels above the columns indicate the concentration of Zn in µmol∙L−1 measured by ICP-MS.
Materials 17 00915 g005aMaterials 17 00915 g005b
Table 1. Studies using hFOB 1.19 for the testing of degradable biomaterials containing Zn (HA = hydroxyapatite).
Table 1. Studies using hFOB 1.19 for the testing of degradable biomaterials containing Zn (HA = hydroxyapatite).
Material G418TemperaturesReferences
sol–gel-prepared glass materials with ZnOnot mentioned37 °C as permissive
39.5 °C as restrictive		[29]
Zn-doped HA coatingsnot mentioned37 °C[34]
Reactive interfaces based on hydroxides-Zn rich HApresent37 °C[35]
3D porous granules based on Zn-containing CaPspresent34 °C[36]
Zn-doped HA nanopowdersnot mentioned34 °C[37].
HA and bimetallic nanocomposite of ZnO–Agpresent34 °C[38]
Zn-doped nanoHA-based bone scaffoldspresent34 °C[39]
Table 2. Materials used for testing.
Table 2. Materials used for testing.
Designation (Composition in wt.%)SynthesisProcessing Conditions (Temperature and Extrusion Ratio)
Zn-1MgPowder metallurgyExtrusion of powder billets at 200 °C and extrusion ratio of 25
Zn-1Mg-1AgPowder metallurgyExtrusion of powder billets at 200 °C and extrusion ratio of 25
Zn-0.8Mg-0.2AgConventional casting and extrusionExtrusion of casted ingot at 200 °C and extrusion ratio of 25
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jablonská, E.; Mrázková, L.; Kubásek, J.; Vojtěch, D.; Paulin, I.; Ruml, T.; Lipov, J. Characterization of hFOB 1.19 Cell Line for Studying Zn-Based Degradable Metallic Biomaterials. Materials 2024, 17, 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17040915

AMA Style

Jablonská E, Mrázková L, Kubásek J, Vojtěch D, Paulin I, Ruml T, Lipov J. Characterization of hFOB 1.19 Cell Line for Studying Zn-Based Degradable Metallic Biomaterials. Materials. 2024; 17(4):915. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17040915

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jablonská, Eva, Lucie Mrázková, Jiří Kubásek, Dalibor Vojtěch, Irena Paulin, Tomáš Ruml, and Jan Lipov. 2024. "Characterization of hFOB 1.19 Cell Line for Studying Zn-Based Degradable Metallic Biomaterials" Materials 17, no. 4: 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17040915

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop