4.5 Article

Cell growth as a sheet on three-dimensional sharp-tip nanostructures

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 89A, Issue 3, Pages 804-817

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.32101

Keywords

nanotopography; cell morphology; cell proliferation; cell attachment/detachment; cell sheet

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) [0103562]
  2. Directorate For Engineering [0103562] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  3. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn [0103562] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cells in vivo encounter with and react to the extracellular matrix materials on a nanometer scale. Recent advances in nanofabrication technologies allowing the precise control of a nanostructure's pattern, periodicity, shape, and height have enabled a systematic study of cell interactions with three-dimensional nanotopographies. In this report, we examined the behavior of human foreskin fibroblasts on well-ordered dense arrays (post and grate patterns with a 230-nm pitch) of sharp-tip nanostructures with varying three-dimensionalities (from 50 to 600 nm in structural height) over time-until a cell sheet was formed. Although cells started out smaller and proliferated slower on tall nanostructures (both posts and grates) than on smooth surfaces, they became confluent to form a sheet in 3 weeks. On grate patterns, significant cell elongation in alignment with the underlying pattern was observed and maintained over time. On tall nanostructures, cells grew while raised on sharp tips, resulting in a weak total adherence to the solid surface. A sheet of cells was easily peeled off from such surfaces, suggesting that nanoscale topographies can be used as the basis for cell-sheet tissue engineering. (C) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 89A: 804-817, 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available