4.7 Article

Near infrared laser stimulation of human neural stem cells into neurons on graphene nanomesh semiconductors

Journal

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 313-321

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.027

Keywords

Graphene nanomesh; Nanostructures; Stem cells; Neural differentiation; NIR stimulation; Tissue engineering

Funding

  1. Research Council of Sharif University of Technology
  2. Iran Nanotechnology Initiative Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Reduced graphene oxide nanomeshes (rGONMs), as p-type semiconductors with band-gap energy of similar to 1 eV, were developed and applied in near infrared (NIR) laser stimulation of human neural stem cells (hNSCs) into neurons. The biocompatibility of the rGONMs in growth of hNSCs was found similar to that of the graphene oxide (GO) sheets. Proliferation of the hNSCs on the GONMs was assigned to the excess oxygen functional groups formed on edge defects of the GONMs, resulting in superhydrophilicity of the surface. Under NIR laser stimulation, the graphene layers (especially the rGONMs) exhibited significant cell differentiations, including more elongations of the cells and higher differentiation of neurons than glia. The higher hNSC differentiation on the rGONM than the reduced GO (rGO) was assigned to the stimulation effects of the low-energy photo excited electrons injected from the rGONM semiconductors into the cells, while the high-energy photoelectrons of the rGO (as a zero band-gap semiconductor) could suppress the cell proliferation and/or even cause cell damages. Using conventional heating of the culture media up to similar to 43 degrees C (the temperature typically reached under the laser irradiation), no significant differentiation was observed in dark. This further confirmed the role of photoelectrons in the hNSC differentiation. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available