4.5 Article

Stiffness of the substrate influences the phenotype of embryonic chicken cardiac myocytes

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 95A, 期 4, 页码 1261-1269

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.32951

关键词

substrate stiffness; focal adhesions; beating force; embryonic chicken; cardiac myocytes

资金

  1. U.S. Army Medical Research & Materiel Command (USAMRMC)
  2. Telemedicine & Advanced Technology Research Center (TATRC) [W81XWH0810701]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the effect of substrate stiffness on the beating rate, force of contraction, and cytoskeletal structure of embryonic chicken cardiac myocytes by culturing them on laminin-coated polyacrylamide (PA) substrates. Cells cultured on PA substrates with elasticity comparable to that of the native myocardium (18 kPa) exhibited the highest beating rate during the first few days of culture. The initial beating rate of individual cells on all the substrates varied significantly but began to converge within 5 days. We also examined the focal adhesions (FAs) and cytoskeletal structure on different substrates via confocal microscopy and found a higher percentage of FAs on tissue culture (TC) plastic dishes compared with the softer PA gels. Furthermore, highly aligned sarcomeric striations were clearly visible on 18 kPa, 50 kPa, and TC dish, whereas cells on 1 kPa only showed nonaligned diffused striations. The force of contraction on these substrates was measured using a micro-electromechanical system force sensor, which showed that the force of contraction for the cells on TC dishes (F = 71.30 +/- 6.38 nN) was significantly larger than those cultured on the 18-kPa PA gel (F = 30.16 +/- 3.83 nN). This is most likely due to the formation of higher percentage of FAs on the TC dishes compared with fewer FAs on the softer gels. Our cumulative findings can have a significant impact on the design of 3D cardiac tissue engineered scaffolds. (C) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 95A: 1261-1269,2010.

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