Fig. 7: In vivo assay of antimicrobial activity of the implants modified by peptides. | Nature Communications

Fig. 7: In vivo assay of antimicrobial activity of the implants modified by peptides.

From: High-throughput screening and rational design of biofunctionalized surfaces with optimized biocompatibility and antimicrobial activity

Fig. 7

a Schematic diagram and processes of the surgery. b Schematic of antimicrobial assay and H&E staining to evaluate the antimicrobial ability of the implants. For the antimicrobial assay, the implants were extracted from femur, cultured and characterized on blood agar plates. For H&E staining, the residual tissues of femur without implants were made into tissue section for pathological examination. c The images of the blood agar plates in the indicated groups (n = 3). d The H&E staining images of the bone tissues after implant were taken out. The inflammatory cells and cytoplasm were pointed out by the black and red arrows, respectively (n = 4, scale bar, 200 μm). e Antimicrobial activities of the implants against S. aureus by the agar plate method. Three implants were collected for each group (n = 3). (Sidak’s multiple comparisons test, two-way ANOVA. Ti vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p = 0.0014; Ti vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p = 0.0014; Ti–S vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p = 0.0010; Ti–S vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p = 0.0010; Ti-RGD-P3 vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p = 0.0001; Ti-RGD-P3 vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p = 0.0001.) f The number of inflammatory cells determined from the H&E staining images. Four images were collected for each group (n = 4). (Sidak’s multiple comparisons test, two-way ANOVA. Ti vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p < 0.0001; Ti vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p < 0.0001; Ti–S vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p < 0.0001; Ti–S vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p < 0.0001; Ti-RGD-P3 vs Ti-AMP-P3, **p < 0.0001; Ti-RGD-P3 vs Ti-Dual-P4, **p < 0.0001.) Data are displayed as mean ± SD and analyzed by GraphPad Prism software.

Back to article page