4.8 Article

Adhesion Assays of Endothelial Cells on Nanopatterned Surfaces within a Microfluidic Channel

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 82, 期 7, 页码 3016-3022

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac100107z

关键词

-

资金

  1. Engineering and Medical Schools of Seoul National University
  2. World Class University program [R31-2008-000-10083-0]
  3. Engineering Reserach Institute
  4. Korea Research Foundation [KRFJ03003]
  5. Seoul National University Hospital and Boramae Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a simple analytical method to measure adhesion of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) and calf pulmonary artery endothelial cells (CPAEs) using nanopatterned, biodegradable poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) surfaces for potential applications to artificial tissue-engineered blood vessel. Various nanostructured PLGA surfaces (350 nm wide ridges/350 nm grooves, 350 nm ridges/700 nm grooves, 350 nm ridges/1750 nm grooves, 700 nm ridges/350 nm grooves, 1050 nm ridges/350 inn grooves, 1750 nm ridges/350 nm grooves) and flat (unpatterned) surfaces were fabricated on the bottom of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microfluidic channel of 2 mm width and 60 mu m height by using thermal imprinting and irreversible channel bonding. To measure adhesion strength of HUVECs and CPAEs, the cells were exposed to a range of shear stress (12, 40, and 80 dyn/cm(2)) within the channels for 20 min after a preculture for 3 days and the remaining cells were counted under each condition. The highest adhesion strength was found on the surface of 700 urn wide ridges, 350 nm wide grooves for both cell types. The enhanced adhesion on nanopatterned surfaces can be attributed to two aspects: (i) contact guidance along the line direction and (ii) clustered focal adhesions. In particular, the contact guidance induced cell alignment along the line directions, which in turn lowers wall shear stress applied to the cell surface, as supported by a simple hydrodynamic model based on cell morphology.

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