4.5 Article

Adhesion and differentiation behaviors of mesenchymal stem cells on titanium with micrometer and nanometer-scale grid patterns produced by femtosecond laser irradiation

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL MATERIALS RESEARCH PART A
卷 106, 期 10, 页码 2735-2743

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.36503

关键词

titanium; nanotopography; mesenchymal stem cell; focal adhesion; differentiation

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [17K17204]
  2. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K17204] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To clarify the effects of grid topographies with different scales on cell morphology and functionalization, we investigated the adhesion and differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) to titanium surfaces with micron, nano, and micron/nano (hybrid) grid topographies created by femtosecond laser irradiation. The results showed that cellular adhesion and differentiation strongly depended on the scales of the grid topography. hMSCs cultured on micron and hybrid grid topographies showed regulation of cellular adhesion plaques following the surface topography and were vinculin-positive, whereas filamentous vinculin was evident at the filopodia of hMSCs cultured on nanogrids. The findings indicate that the micron grid topography was beneficial for cell colonization by anchoring the cells to the substrate surface, whereas the nanogrid topography was beneficial for cell locomotion. With the superposition effect of the micron and nanogrids, micro/nanohybrid grid topography strongly promoted cell adhesion. This differential adhesion induced differences cell differentiation. Nanogrids promoted differentiation of hMSCs, particularly osteogenic differentiation. These findings provide a basis for the design of novel biomaterial surfaces that can regulate specific cellular functions. (c) 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 106A: 2735-2743, 2018.

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