4.5 Article

A rough morphology of the adsorbed fibronectin layer favors adhesion of neuronal cells

期刊

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.31739

关键词

fibronectin; protein adsorption; neuronal cells; cell adhesion; patterned surfaces

资金

  1. Foundation for Training in Industrial and Agricultural Research (F.R.I.A.)
  2. National Foundation for Scientific Research (F.N.R.S.)
  3. Federal Office for Scientific, Technical and Cultural Affairs
  4. Research Department of the Communaute Francaise de Belgique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A range of substrates made of polystyrene (PS) and poly(methyl methacrylate)-poly(methacrylic acid) copolymer (PMMA-PMAA) containing 98 and 80% PMMA (PA98, PA80) and presenting a homogeneous or a patterned Surface were used to study fibronectin adsorption and neuronal cell behavior. Fibronectin adsorption showed weak differences regarding the adsorbed amount (evaluated by XPS), but large differences in adsorbed layer morphology as observed by AFM. A fine granular morphology, with dimensions Lip to 8 nm height and 50-150 nm width, was observed on top of a thin adsorbed layer in the case of PS, PA98, and of a surface made of nanoscale inclusions of the latter in PS. In contrast, the layer adsorbed on PA80, which carries more ionizable groups, showed a higher roughness oil the PA80 zones with differences in height Lip to 30 nm and characteristic lateral dimensions of 400 nm. Oil Substrates of the former category the cells formed large clusters, revealing poor interactions with the substrate. On PA80, the cells formed large networks with only a few small clusters. The adsorbed layer roughness, resulting from aggregation of fibronectin upon adsorption and from the substrate surface chemical composition, is responsible for neuronal cell spreading and growth. Its effect is not prevented by the presence of inclusions (< 30% of the surface) responsible for smoother areas of adsorbed fibronectin and for protrusions below 40 nm. (C) 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据