Biomedical Microdevices

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 267–275

Analysis of Connective Tissue Progenitor Cell Behavior on Polydimethylsiloxane Smooth and Channel Micro-Textures

  • Alvaro Mata
  • Cynthia Boehm
  • Aaron J. Fleischman
  • George Muschler
  • Shuvo Roy
Article

Abstract

Growth of human connective tissue progenitor cells (CTPs) was characterized on smooth and microtextured polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) surfaces. Human bone marrow derived cells were cultured for nine days under conditions promoting osteoblastic differentiation on Smooth PDMS and PDMS Channel microtextures (11 μm high, 45 μm wide channels, and separated by 5 μm wide ridges). Glass tissue culture dish surfaces were used as controls. Cell numbers per colony, cell density within colonies, alignment of cells, area of colonies, and colony shapes were determined as a function of substrate surface topography. An alkaline phosphatase stain was used as a marker for osteoblastic phenotype. CTPs attached, proliferated, and differentiated on all surfaces with cell process lengths of up to 80 μm. Cells on the Smooth PDMS and control surfaces spread and proliferated as colonies in proximity to other cells and migrated in random directions creating colonies that covered significantly larger areas (0.96 and 1.05 mm2, respectively) than colonies formed on PDMS Channel textures (0.64 mm2). In contrast, cells on PDMS Channel textures spread, proliferated, aligned along the channel axis, and created colonies that were more dense, and with lengths of longest colony axes that were significantly longer (3252 μm) than those on the Smooth PDMS (1265 μm) and control surfaces (1319 μm). Cells on PDMS Channel textures were aligned at an angle of 14.44° relative to the channel axis, and the resulting colonies exhibited a significantly higher aspect ratio (13.72) compared to Smooth PDMS (1.57) and control surfaces (1.51).

microfabrication tissue engineering polydimethyl siloxane soft lithography connective tissue progenitor cells 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. J.A. Alerts, V.M. De Cupere, S. Moser, P. van den Bosh de Aguilar, and P.G. Rouxhet, Surface characterization of poly(methyl methacrylate) microgrooved for contact guidance of mammalian cells. Biomaterials 22, 1635-1642 (2001).Google Scholar
  2. T.W. Bauer and G.F. Muschler, Bone graft materials. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 371, 10-27 (2000).Google Scholar
  3. A. Bruinink and E. Wintermantel, Grooves affect primary bone marrow but not osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cell cultures. Biomaterials 22, 2465-2473 (2001).Google Scholar
  4. D.M. Brunette and B. Chehroudi, The effects of the surface topography of micromachined titanium substrata on cell behavior in vitro and in vivo. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 121, 49-57 (1999).Google Scholar
  5. D.M. Brunnette, Spreading and orientation of epithelial cells on grooved substrata. Experimental Cell Research 167, 203-217 (1986a).Google Scholar
  6. D.M. Brunnette, Fibroblasts on micromachined substrata orient hierarchically to grooves of different dimensions. Experimental Cell Research 164, 11-26 (1986b).Google Scholar
  7. C.S. Chen, M. Mrksich, S. Huang, G.M. Whitesides, and D.E. Ingber, Micropatterned surfaces for control of cell shape, position, and function. Biotechnology Progress 14, 356-363 (1998).Google Scholar
  8. P. Clark, P. Connolly, A.S.G. Curtis, A.T. Dow, and C.D.W. Wilkinson, I. Topographical control of cell behavior: II. Multiple grooved substrata. Development 108, 635-644 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. H.G. Craighead, S.W. Turner, R.C. Davis, C. James, A.M. Perez, P.M. St. John, M.S. Isaacson, L. Kam, W. Shain, J.N. Turner, and G. Banker, Chemical and topographical surface modification for control of central nervous system cell adhesion. Biomedical Microdevices 1, 49-64 (1998).Google Scholar
  10. A. Curtis and C. Wilkinson, Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials 18, 1573-1583 (1998).Google Scholar
  11. E.T. den Braber, J.E. Ruijter, T.J. Smits, L.A. Ginsel, A.F. von Recum, and J.A. Jansen, Effect of parallel surface microgrooves and surface energy on cell growth. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 29, 511-518 (1995a).Google Scholar
  12. E.T. den Braber, J.E. Ruijter, L.A. Ginsel, A.F. von Recum, and J.A. Jansen, Quantitative analysis of fibroblast morphology on microgrooved surfaces with various groove and ridge dimensions. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 17, 2037-2044 (1996a).Google Scholar
  13. E.T. den Braber, J.E. Ruijter, T.J. Smits, L.A. Ginsel, A.F. von Recum, and J.A. Jansen, Quantitative analysis of cell proliferation and orientation on substrata with uniform parallel surface microgrooves. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 17, 1093-1099 (1995b).Google Scholar
  14. E.T. den Braber, J.E. Ruijter, L.A. Ginsel, A.F. von Recum, and J.A. Jansen, Orientation of ECM protein deposition, fibroblast cytoskeleton, and attachment complex components on silicone micro-grooved surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 17, 2037-2044 (1996b).Google Scholar
  15. J. Deutsch, D. Motlagh, B. Russell, and T.A. Desai, Fabrication of microtextured membranes for cardiac myocyte attachment and orientation. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 53, 267-275 (2000).Google Scholar
  16. J.E. Fleming, C.N. Cornell, and G.F. Muschler, Bone cells and matrices in orthopedic tissue engineering. Orthopedic Clinics of North America 31(3), 357-374 (2000).Google Scholar
  17. A.M. Green, J.A. Jansen, J.P.C.M. van der Waerden, and A.F. von Recum, Fibroblast response to microtextured silicone surfaces: texture orientation into or out of the surface. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 28, 647-453 (1993).Google Scholar
  18. R. Kapur, B.J. Spargo, M.S. Chen, J.M. Calvert, and A.S. Rudolph, Fabrication and selective surface modification of 3-dimensionally textured biomedical polymers from etched silicon substrates. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 33, 205-216 (1996).Google Scholar
  19. R.G. Lebaron and A.A. Kyriacos, Extracellular matrix cell adhesion peptides: Functional applications in orthopedic materials. Tissue Engineering 6(2), 85-103 (2000).Google Scholar
  20. A.K. Majors, C.A. Boehm, H. Nitto, R.J. Midura, and G.F. Muschler, Characterization of human marrow stromal cells with respect to osteoblastic differentiation. Journal of Orthopedic Research 15, 546-557 (1997).Google Scholar
  21. A. Mata, C. Boehm, A. Fleischman, G.F. Muschler, and S. Roy, Growth of connective tissue progenitor cells on micro-textured polydimethylsiloxane surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 62, 499-506 (2002).Google Scholar
  22. C. Miller, H. Shanks, A. Witt, G. Rutkowski, and S. Mallapragada, Oriented Schwann cell growth on micropatterned biodegradable polymer substrates. Biomaterials 22, 1263-1269 (2001).Google Scholar
  23. G.F. Muschler, C. Boehm, and K. Easly, Aspiration to obtain osteoblast progenitor cells from human bone marrow: The influence of aspiration volume. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 79-A(11), 1699-1709 (1997).Google Scholar
  24. G. Muschler, H. Nitto, Y. Matsukura, C. Boehm, A. Valdevit, H. Kambic, W. Davros, P. Kimerly, and K. Easley, Spine fusion using cell matrix composites enriched in bone marrow derived cells. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Issues, in press.Google Scholar
  25. G.F. Muschler, H. Nitto, C.A. Boehm, and K.A. Easley, Age-and gender-related changes in the cellularity of human bone marrow and the prevalence of osteoblastic progenitors. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 19, 117-125 (2001).Google Scholar
  26. G. Muschler, Y. Matsukura, C. Boehm, A. Valdevit, H. Kambic, W. Davros, P. Kimerly, and K. Easley, Spine fusion using allograft bone matrix enriched in bone marrow derived cells and connective tissue progenitors. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, submitted in 02-05-01.Google Scholar
  27. J. Nation, A new method using Hexamethyldisilazane for preparation of soft insect tissues for scanning electron microscopy. Stain Technology 58, 347-351 (1983).Google Scholar
  28. A. Rich and A.K. Harris, Anomalous preferences of cultured macrophages for hydrophobic and roughened substrata. Journal of Cell Science 50, 1-7 (1981).Google Scholar
  29. M. Riedel, B. Muller, and E. Wintermantel, Protein adsorption and monocyte activation on germanium nanopyramids. Biomaterials 22, 2307-2316 (2001).Google Scholar
  30. J.A. Schmidt and A.F. von Recum, Macrophage response to microtextured silicone. Biomaterials 13, 1059-1069 (1992).Google Scholar
  31. L. Sigurdson, D.E. Carney, Y. Hou, L. III Hall, R. Hard, W. Jr., Hicks, F.V. Bright, and J.A. Jr. Gardella, A comparative study of primary and immortalize cell adhesion characteristics to modified polymer surfaces: Toward the goal of effective re-epithelialization. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 59, 357-365 (2002).Google Scholar
  32. R. Singhvi, G. Stephanopoulous, and D. Wang, Review: Effects of substratum morphology on cell physiology. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 43, 764-771 (1994).Google Scholar
  33. T.G. van Kooten, J.F. Whitesides, and A.F. von Recum, Influence of silicone (PDMS)surface texture on human skin fibroblast proliferation as determined by cell cycle analysis. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 43, 1-14 (1998).Google Scholar
  34. A.F. von Recum, C.E. Shannon, C.E. Cannon, K.J. Long, T.G. van Kooten, and J. Meyle, Surface roughness, porosity, and texture as modifiers of cellular adhesion. Tissue Engineering 2, 241-253 (1996).Google Scholar
  35. X.F. Walboomers, H.J.E. Croes, L.A. Ginsel, and J.A. Jansen, Growth behavior of fibroblasts on microgrooved polystyrene. Biomaterials 19, 1861-1868 (1998).Google Scholar
  36. Y. Xia and G.M. Whitesides, Soft lithography. Annual Review Material Science 28, 153-184 (1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alvaro Mata
    • 1
  • Cynthia Boehm
    • 2
  • Aaron J. Fleischman
    • 1
  • George Muschler
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shuvo Roy
    • 1
  1. 1.BioMEMS Laboratory, Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationUSA
  2. 2.Bone Biology Laboratory, Department of Biomedical EngineeringThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryThe Cleveland Clinic FoundationUSA

Personalised recommendations