3.8 Article

The effect of combined simulated microgravity and microgrooved surface topography on fibroblasts

期刊

CELL MOTILITY AND THE CYTOSKELETON
卷 64, 期 3, 页码 174-185

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/cm.20174

关键词

microtexture; microgravity; connective tissue; fibroblast cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated in vitro the differences in morphological behaviour between fibroblast cultured on smooth and microgrooved substrata (groove depth: 0.5 mu m, width: 1, 2, 5, and 10 mu m), which were subjected to simulated microgravity. The aim of the study was to clarify which of these parameters was more dominant to determine cell behaviour. Morphological characteristics were investigated using scanning electron microscopy and fluorescence microscopy in order to obtain qualitative information on cell alignment and area. Confocal laser scanning microscopy visualised distribution of actin filaments and focal adhesion points. Finally, expression of collagen type I, fibronectin, and alpha 1- and beta 1-integrin were investigated by PCR. Microscopy and image analysis showed that the fibroblasts aligned along the groove direction on all textured surfaces. On the smooth substrata, cells had spread out in a random fashion. The alignment of cells cultured on grooved surfaces decreased under simulated microgravity, especially after 24 h of culturing. Cell surface area on grooved substrata were significantly smaller than on smooth substrata, but simulated microgravity on the grooved groups resulted in an enlargement of cell area. ANOVA was performed on all main parameters: topography, gravity force, and time. In this analysis, all parameters proved significant. In addition, gene levels were reduced by microgravity particularly those of beta 1-integrin and fibronectin. From our data it is concluded that the fibroblasts primarily adjust their shape according to morphological environmental cues like substratum surface whilst a secondary, but significant, role is played by microgravity conditions.

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

3.8
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