This study investigates the effect of graphene scaffold on morphology, viability, cytoskeleton, focal contacts, mitochondrial network morphology and activity in BALB/3T3 fibroblasts and provides new data on biocompatibility of the “graphene-family nanomaterials”. We used graphene monolayer applied onto glass cover slide by electrochemical delamination method and regular glass cover slide, as a reference. The morphology of fibroblasts growing on graphene was unaltered, and the cell viability was 95% compared to control cells on non-coated glass slide. There was no significant difference in the cell size (spreading) between both groups studied. Graphene platform significantly increased BALB/3T3 cell mitochondrial activity (WST-8 test) compared to glass substrate. To demonstrate the variability in focal contacts pattern, the effect of graphene on vinculin was examined, which revealed a significant increase in focal contact size comparing to control-glass slide. There was no disruption in mitochondrial network morphology, which was branched and well connected in relation to the control group. Evaluation of the JC-1 red/green fluorescence intensity ratio revealed similar levels of mitochondrial membrane potential in cells growing on graphene-coated and uncoated slides. These results indicate that graphene monolayer scaffold is cytocompatible with connective tissue cells examined and could be beneficial for tissue engineering therapy.

Graphene-based materials (GBMs), owing to their excellent biomedical properties, can significantly advance the development of nano-biodressings. Their unique physicochemical features, such as high surface area, tunable functionalization, antimicrobial activity, and ability to interact with immune cells, suggest that GBMs may influence key biological processes involved in tissue repair, particularly the immune response. Building on this growing evidence, the aim of this review is to demonstrate that GBMs can serve as tools for modulating macrophage polarization as a strategy for promoting wound healing. We present the mechanisms by which GBMs penetrate macrophages and discuss the effects of GBMs, either in suspension or as scaffolds/grounds/substrates, on macrophage polarization. Moreover, we propose mechanisms underlying the actions of different forms of GBMs on macrophage polarization. Nevertheless, a multitude of uncertainties and significant challenges remain. Chief among these are the pronounced heterogeneity of GBM subtypes, the necessity for exhaustive characterization and in-depth analysis, the formulation of robust experimental designs, and the careful selection of models capable of accurately delineating macrophage populations and guiding their polarization toward achieving targeted wound healing outcomes. This review attempts to systematize and clarify these issues.

Maintaining an appropriate balance of macrophage subpopulations throughout the wound healing process, using a graphene monolayer as a substrate, may represent a promising therapeutic strategy. In this study, the effect of a graphene monolayer on the polarization of RAW 264.7 macrophages was investigated using flow cytometry, fluorescence microscopy, and ELISA. Analysis of surface M1 (MHC II, CD80, CD86) and M2 (CD163, CD200R, CD206) markers demonstrated generally higher expression of M1 markers in M1-polarized groups (control, CM1; and graphene monolayer, GM1) compared to M2-polarized groups (CM2 and GM2), likely as a result of LPS and IFN-γ stimulation. Culturing macrophages on a graphene monolayer as a substrate for LPS- and IFN-γ-stimulated cells was associated with a trend toward reduced expression of all analyzed M1-associated markers compared with the control M1 group; however, this effect did not reach statistical significance. TNF-α secretion was higher in GM1 compared to CM0, GM0, and CM2. In contrast, surface markers alone were less conclusive for identifying M2 polarization, whereas intracellular markers such as ARG1 provided a more robust indication of the M2 phenotype. ARG1 expression was significantly elevated in CM2 and GM2 groups, with GM2 showing a significant increase relative to the control groups (CM0, CM1) and GM0 and GM1. These findings further support ARG1 and NOS2 as reliable markers of M2 and M1 polarization, respectively. The graphene monolayer did not induce spontaneous macrophage polarization. Only under M1 (LPS and IFN-γ) and M2 (IL-4 and IL-13) stimulation did it show a consistent trend toward modest modulation of macrophage polarization, possibly creating conditions conducive to tissue healing.