Skip to main content
Log in

Stem cell plasticity, osteogenic differentiation and the third dimension

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Different cues present in the cellular environment control basic biological processes. A previously established 3D microwell array was used to study dimensionality-related effects on osteogenic differentiation and plasticity of marrow stromal cells. To enable long-term culture of single cells in the array a novel surface functionalization technique was developed, using the principle of subtractive micro contact printing of fibronectin and surface passivation with a triblock-copolymer. Immunohistochemical stainings showed that when cultivated in 3D microenvironments, marrow stromal cells can be maintained in the wells for up to 7 days and be induced to commit to the osteogenic lineage. In conclusion, this work shows the modification of a 3D microwell array allowing the long term study of single stem cell plasticity and fate in controlled microenvironments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McBeath R, et al. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell. 2004;6(4):483–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dalby M, et al. Morphological and microarray analysis of human fibroblasts cultured on nanocolumns produced by colloidal lithography. Eur Cell Mater. 2005;9:1–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Oreffo ROC, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells: lineage, plasticity, and skeletal therapeutic potential. Stem Cell Rev. 2005;1(2):169–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Song L, Tuan RS. Transdifferentiation potential of human mesenchymal stem cells derived from bone marrow. FASEB J. 2004;18(9):980–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Engler AJ, et al. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell. 2006;126(4):677–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang Y-l. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science. 2005;310(5751):1139–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen CS, et al. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science. 1997;276(5317):1425–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunn JC, et al. Hepatocyte function and extracellular matrix geometry: long-term culture in a sandwich configuration [published erratum appears in FASEB J 1989 May;3(7):1873]. FASEB J. 1989;3(2):174–7.

    CAS  PubMed  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Griffith LG, Swartz MA. Capturing complex 3D tissue physiology in vitro. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7(3):211–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ochsner M, et al. Micro-well arrays for 3D shape control and high resolution analysis of single cells. Lab Chip. 2007;7(8):1074–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dusseiller MR, et al. Microfabricated three-dimensional environments for single cell studies. Biointerphases. 2006;1(1):P1–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lussi JW, et al. Pattern stability under cell culture conditions-a comparative study of patterning methods based on PLL-g-PEG background passivation. Biomaterials. 2006;27(12):2534–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nelson CM, et al. Degradation of micropatterned surfaces by cell-dependent and -independent processes. Langmuir. 2003;19(5):1493–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Li J-T, Caldwell KD. Plasma protein interactions with pluronicTM-treated colloids. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces. 1996;7(1–2):9–22.

    Article  MATH  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lovchik R, et al. Cellular microarrays for use with capillary-driven microfluidics. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008;390(3):801–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tan JL, et al. Simple approach to micropattern cells on common culture substrates by tuning substrate wettability. Tissue Eng. 2004;10(5–6):865–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goffin JM, et al. Focal adhesion size controls tension-dependent recruitment of α-smooth muscle actin to stress fibers. J Cell Biochem. 2006;172(2):259–68.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Oreffo ROC, Bord S, Triffitt JT. Skeletal progenitor cells and ageing human populations. Clin Sci. 1998;94(5):549–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de Silva MN, Desai R, Odde DJ. Micro-patterning of animal cells on PDMS substrates in the presence of serum without use of adhesion inhibitors. Biomed Microdevices. 2004;6(3):219–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to Prof. Marcus Textor and his group at ETH Zürich for sharing their knowledge on the microwell fabrication technique. The present study is supported by CCMX - MatLife (Competence Center for Materials Science and Technology – Materials for the Life Sciences), Switzerland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Maniura-Weber.

Additional information

Markus Rottmar and Maria Håkanson have equally contributed to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rottmar, M., Håkanson, M., Smith, M. et al. Stem cell plasticity, osteogenic differentiation and the third dimension. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 21, 999–1004 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3926-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-009-3926-7

Keywords

Navigation