4.8 Article

Towards a Better Prediction of Cell Settling on Nanostructure ArraysSimple Means to Complicated Ends

期刊

ADVANCED FUNCTIONAL MATERIALS
卷 25, 期 21, 页码 3246-3255

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201500399

关键词

cell deformation; cell settling models; nanostructures; nanotopography; nanowires

资金

  1. Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation (Danish Council for Strategic Research-CLIPS)
  2. Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation (Danish Council for Strategic Research-ANaCell)
  3. Danish Agency for Science Technology and Innovation (Danish Natural Science Research Council-FTP) [11-116984]
  4. UNIK Synthetic Biology by Danish Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vertical arrays of nanostructures (NSs) are emerging as promising platforms for probing and manipulating live mammalian cells. The broad range of applications requires different types of interfaces, but cell settling on NS arrays is not yet fully controlled and understood. Cells are both seen to deform completely into NS arrays and to stay suspended like tiny fakirs, which have hitherto been explained with differences in NS spacing or density. Here, a better understanding of this phenomenon is provided by using a model that takes into account the extreme membrane deformation needed for a cell to settle into a NS array. It is shown that, in addition to the NS density, cell settling depends strongly on the dimensions of the single NS, and that the settling can be predicted for a given NS array geometry. The predictive power of the model is confirmed by experiments and good agreement with cases from the literature. Furthermore, the influence of cell-related parameters is evaluated theoretically and a generic method of tuning cell settling through surface coating is demonstrated experimentally. These findings allow a more rational design of NS arrays for the numerous exciting biological applications where the mode of cell settling is crucial.

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

4.8
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