4.8 Article

The determination of stem cell fate by 3D scaffold structures through the control of cell shape

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 32, Issue 35, Pages 9188-9196

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.08.054

Keywords

Bone tissue engineering; Cell morphology; Nanotopography; Osteogenesis; Scaffolds; Stem cell

Funding

  1. NIH-NIBIB/NIST NRC
  2. NIST NRC
  3. NIST
  4. NIH/NIDCR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)
  5. NCRR of the NIH [P40RR017447]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Stem cell response to a library of scaffolds with varied 3D structures was investigated. Microarray screening revealed that each type of scaffold structure induced a unique gene expression signature in primary human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs). Hierarchical cluster analysis showed that treatments sorted by scaffold structure and not by polymer chemistry suggesting that scaffold structure was more influential than scaffold composition. Further, the effects of scaffold structure on hBMSC function were mediated by cell shape. Of all the scaffolds tested, only scaffolds with a nanofibrous morphology were able to drive the hBMSCs down an osteogenic lineage in the absence of osteogenic supplements. Nanofiber scaffolds forced the hBMSCs to assume an elongated, highly branched morphology. This same morphology was seen in osteogenic controls where hBMSCs were cultured on flat polymer films in the presence of osteogenic supplements (OS). In contrast, hBMSCs cultured on flat polymer films in the absence of OS assumed a more rounded and less-branched morphology. These results indicate that cells are more sensitive to scaffold structure than previously appreciated and suggest that scaffold efficacy can be optimized by tailoring the scaffold structure to force cells into morphologies that direct them to differentiate down the desired lineage. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available