What are the most effective methods for identifying promising biomaterials?

Reflecting on the reply provided by Alex, I also beleive that identifying your niche and the requirements for the material should guide your screening activities. Speaking about pure bio-based materials, one should be very clear and transparent about the properties, range of application, and durability of the product, making specific remarks on expected behaviour under different environments and how this connects with biodegradability. Moreover, always remember, it's not really "bio" if it cannot simply return to nature and decompose by itself, it's not "bio" if turtles and seagulls are gonna die by ingesting it, so first of all I would suggest to screen your own ethics and intentions, and then find your material.

Identify your target product market and then throughly specify what the requirements of that market are, both technically and financially to the nth degree. Reflect on what it would take for your material to meet these specifications at scale, and if it will be profitable to do so. If the answer is no, don't give up, find a better market or a better process.

In the quest for promising biomaterials, we must prioritize a meticulous screening and selection process. The key is to discern candidates from a variety of materials, considering criteria such as biocompatibility, mechanical properties, and functionality. The strategy should integrate experimental testing, computational modeling, and cutting-edge technologies. Large-scale screening expedites assessments of biological response, while machine learning algorithms predict properties and performance. This synergistic approach allows us to identify biomaterials with optimal characteristics, propelling advancements in biomedical applications.

One of the most effective assays for identifying promising biomaterials and predicting their long-term stability within the body is immune assessment. This assay allows for the optimization of biomaterial design to match the desired immune response, crucial for applications like implants, drug delivery systems, or tissue engineering. The adoption of correctly designed in vitro immune response assessments promises significant reductions in both experimental time and resource utilization. This approach not only eliminates the need for unnecessary and ethically questionable animal testing but also concurrently reduces the likelihood of unsuitable biomaterials advancing to clinical applications.

Excellent insight Fahimeh, as always! There seems to be a very significant push to reduce the use of animal model testing in several industries. Alternative testing strategies are readily being implemented. I'm excited to see changes taking center stage these days to adopt unique approaches to safety testing such as biocompatibility and cytotoxicity. Kudos to those involved in making this happen!

At present, our focus revolves around L929 cell lines or primary cells for assessing cell viability. However, biocompatibility goes beyond mere absence of cytotoxicity; it involves a reciprocal relationship between the biomaterial and the body. A high pro-to-anti-inflammatory ratio (M1/M2), along with prolonged M1 survival on the material's surface, can lead to chronic responsiveness to foreign bodies, triggering a severe foreign body response. That’s why study design is paramount, necessitating a comprehensive approach considering M0, M1, and M2 cell interactions, and a broader array of M1 and M2 markers. At the end, achieving a balanced immune response aligned with therapeutic goals may require fine-tuning the biomaterial design.

I have some doubts in this regard. Assume we obtained a biomaterial to produce 3D scaffolds that perfectly aligned with our needs in order to carry and release the drug, it's biocomptible and excellent cell viability was obtained. On the other hand, when it comes in contact with monocytes, it induces polarization to pro-inflammatory macrophages over anti-inflammatory ones. Which decision shall we make?