4.5 Article

Collagen fibril diameter and alignment promote the quiescent keratocyte phenotype

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
Volume 100A, Issue 3, Pages 613-621

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.33284

Keywords

cornea; keratocyte; fibroblast; nanotopography; tissue engineering

Funding

  1. NIH [5T32GM008155-26]
  2. Directorate For Engineering
  3. Div Of Engineering Education and Centers [914790] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we investigated how matrix nanotopography affects corneal fibroblast phenotype and matrix synthesis. To this end, corneal fibroblasts isolated from bovine corneas were grown on collagen nanofiber scaffolds of different diameters and alignment30 nm aligned fibrils (30A), 300 nm or larger aligned fibrils (300A), and 30 nm nonaligned fibrils (30NA) in comparison with collagen coated flat glass substrates (FC). Cell morphology was visualized using confocal microscopy. Quantitative PCR was used to measure expression levels of six target genes: the corneal crystallintransketolase (TKT), the myofibroblast markera-smooth muscle actin (SMA), and four matrix proteinscollagen 1 (COL1), collagen 3 (COL3), fibronectin (FN), and biglycan. It was found that SMA expression was down-regulated and TKT expression was increased on all three collagen nanofiber substrates, compared with the FC control substrates. However, COL3 and biglycan expression was also significantly increased on 300A, compared with the FC substrates. Thus matrix nanotopography down-regulates the fibrotic phenotype, promotes formation of the quiescent keratocyte phenotype, and influences matrix synthesis. These results have significant implications for the engineering of corneal replacements and for promoting regenerative healing of the cornea after disease and/or injury. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2012.

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