4.8 Article

Investigation of cell-substrate interactions by focused ion beam preparation and scanning electron microscopy

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 7, 期 6, 页码 2499-2507

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2011.02.024

关键词

Focused ion beam; Electron microscopy; Cell-substrate interactions; Nanoporous materials; Biosensor

资金

  1. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) [FKZ W3BIO033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell-substrate interactions, which are an important issue in tissue engineering, have been studied using focused ion beam (FIB) milling and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Sample cross-sections were generated at predefined positions (target preparation) to investigate the interdependency of growing cells and the substrate material. The experiments focus on two cell culturing systems, hepatocytes (HepG2) on nanoporous aluminum oxide (alumina) membranes and mouse fibroblasts (L929) and primary nerve cells on silicon chips comprised of microneedles. Cross-sections of these soft/hard hybrid systems cannot be prepared by conventional techniques like microtomy. Morphological investigations of hepatocytes growing on nanoporous alumina membranes demonstrate that there is in-growth of microvilli from the cell surface into porous membranes having pore diameters larger than 200 nm. Furthermore, for various cell cultures on microneedle arrays contact between the cells and the microneedles can be observed at high resolution. Based on FIB milled cross-sections and SEM micrographs cells which are only in contact with microneedles and cells which are penetrated by microneedles can be clearly distinguished. Target preparation of biological samples by the FIB technique especially offers the possibility of preparing not only soft materials but also hybrid samples (soft/hard materials). Followed by high resolution imaging by SEM, new insights into cell surface interactions can be obtained. (C) 2011 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