4.8 Article

Covalent immobilized RGD gradient on PEG hydrogel scaffold influences cell migration parameters

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 2532-2539

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2009.12.050

关键词

Cell instructive materials; Hydrogels; Biological cues; Signal gradients; Cell migration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the influence of a controlled spatial distribution of biological cues on cell activities can be useful to design cell instructive materials, able to control and guide the formation of engineered tissues in vivo and in vitro. To this purpose, biochemical and mechanical properties of the resulting biomaterial must be carefully designed and controlled. In this work, the effect of covalently immobilized RGD peptide gradients on poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate hydrogels on cell behaviour was studied. We set up a mechanical device generating gradients based on a fluidic chamber. Cell response to RGD gradients with different slope (0.7, 1 and 2 mM cm(-1)) was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed by evaluating cell adhesion and, in particular, cell migration, compared to cells seeded on hydrogels with uniform distribution of RGD peptides. To evaluate the influence of RGD gradient and to exclude any concentration effect on cell response, all analyses were carried out in a specific region of the gradients which displayed the same average concentration of RGD (1.5 mM). Results suggest that cells recognize the RGD gradient and adhere onto it assuming a stretched shape. Moreover, cells tend to migrate in the direction of the gradient, as their speed is higher than that of cells migrating on hydrogels with a uniform distribution of RGD and increases by increasing RGD gradient steepness. This increment is due to an augmentation of bias speed component of the mean squared speed, that is, the drift of the cell population migrating on the anisotropic surface provided by the RGD gradient. (C) 2010 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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