Abstract
It is considered that cells can use filopodia, or microspikes, to locate sites suitable for adhesion. This has been investigated using a number of mature cell types, but, to our knowledge, not progenitor cells. Chemical and topographical cues on the underlying substrate are a useful tool for producing defined features for cells to respond to. In this study, arrays of nanopits with different symmetries (square or hexagonal arrays with 120 nm diameters, 300 nm center–centre spacings) and osteoprogenitor cells were considered. The pits were fabricated by ultra-high precision electron-beam lithography and then reproduced in polycarbonate by injection moulding with a nickel stamp. Using scanning electron and fluorescence microscopies, the initial interactions of the cells via filopodia have been observed, as have subsequent adhesion and cytoskeletal formation. The results showed increased filopodia interaction with the surrounding nanoarchitecture leading to a decrease in cell spreading, focal adhesion formation and cytoskeletal organisation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
A. S. G. CURTIS and M. VARDE, J. Natl. Cancer Res. Inst. 33 (1964) 15.
S. BRITLAND, H. MORGAN, B. WOJCIAK-STOTHARD, M. RIEHLE, A. CURTIS and C. WILKINSON, Exp. Cell Res. 228 (1996) 313.
B. WOJCIAK-STOTHARD, A. CURTIS, W. MONAGHAN, K. MACDONALD and C. WILKINSON, Exp. Cell. Res. 223 (1996) 426.
B. WOJCIAK-STOTHARD, A. S. G. CURTIS, W. MONAGHAN, M. MCGRATH, I. SOMMER and C. D. W. WILKINSON, Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 31 (1995) 147.
P. CLARK, P. CONNOLLY, A. S. CURTIS, J. A. DOW and C. D. WILKINSON, Development 99 (1987) 439.
P. CLARK, P. CONNOLLY, A. S. CURTIS, J. A. DOW and C. D. WILKINSON, Development 108 (1990) 635.
M. J. DALBY, M. O. RIEHLE, S. J. YARWOOD, C. D. WILKINSON and A. S. CURTIS, Exp. Cell. Res. 284 (2003) 274.
B. KASEMO and J. LAUSMAA, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 3 (1988) 247.
B. KASEMO and J. LAUSMAA, Environ. Health Perspect. 102(Suppl 5) (1994) 41.
A. D. BERSHADSKY, N. Q. BALABAN and B. GEIGER, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 19 (2003) 677.
K. BURRIDGE and M. CHRZANOWSKA-WODNICKA, Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 12 (1996) 463.
M. J. DALBY, M. O. RIEHLE, H. JOHNSTONE, S. AFFROSSMAN and A. S. CURTIS, Cell Biol. Int. 28 (2004) 229.
M. J. DALBY, N. GADEGAARD, M. O. RIEHLE, C. D. WILKINSON and A. S. CURTIS, Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 36 (2004) 2015.
J. HUANG, L. DI SILVIO, M. WANG, K. E. TANNER and W. BONFIELD, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 8 (1997) 775.
M. J. DALBY, L. DI SILVIO, E. J. HARPER and W. BONFIELD, Biomaterials 23 (2002) 569.
J. HUANG, L. DI SILVIO, M. WANG, I. REHMAN, C. OHTSUKI and W. BONFIELD, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med. 8 (1997) 809.
M. J. DALBY, D. PASQUI and S. AFFROSSMAN, IEE Proc. Nanobiotechnol. 151 (2004) 53.
M. J. DALBY, M. O. RIEHLE, D. S. SUTHERLAND, H. AGHELI and A. S. CURTIS, Biomaterials 25 (2004) 5415.
D. R. S. CUMMING, S. THOMS, S. P. BEAUMONT and J. M. R. WEAVER, Appl. Phys. Lett. 68 (1996) 322.
C. VIEU, F. CARCENAC, A. PEPIN, Y. CHEN, M. MEJIAS, A. LEBIB, L. MANIN-FERLAZZO, L. COURAUD and H. LAUNOIS, Appl. Surf. Sci 164 (2000) 111.
N. GADEGAARD, S. THOMS, D. S. MACINTYRE, K. MCGHEE, J. GALLAGHER, B. CASEY and C. D. W. WILKINSON, Microelectron Eng 67–68 (2003) 162.
N. GADEGAARD, S. MOSLER and N. B. LARSEN, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 88 (2003) 76.
H. SCHIFT, C. DAVID, M. GABRIEL, J. GOBRECHT, L. J. HEYDERMAN, W. KAISER, S. KOPPEL and L. SCANDELLA, Microelectron. Eng. 53 (2000) 1.
R. O. OREFFO, S. BORD and J. T. TRIFFITT, Clin. Sci. (Lond) 94 (1998) 549.
X. B. YANG, H. I. ROACH, N. M. P. CLARK, S. M. HOWDLE, R. QUIRK, K. M. SHAKESHEFF and R. O. C. OREFFO, Bone 29 (2001) 523.
A. S. CURTIS, B. CASEY, J. O. GALLAGHER, D. PASQUI, M. A. WOOD and C. D. WILKINSON, Biophys. Chem. 94 (2001) 275.
J. O. GALLAGHER, K. F. MCGHEE, C. D. W. WILKINSON and M. O. RIEHLE, IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci. 1 (2002) 24.
A. S. CURTIS, N. GADEGAARD, M. J. DALBY, M. O. RIEHLE, C. D. WILKINSON and G. AITCHISON, IEEE Trans. Nanobiosci. 3 (2004) 61.
T. GUSTAFSON and L. WOLPERT, Exp. Cell Res. 24 (1961) 64.
W. WOOD and P. MARTIN, Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 34 (2002) 726.
M. UEDA, Y. SAKO, T. TANAKA, P. DEVREOTES and T. YANAGIDA, Science 294 (2001) 864.
M. IIJIMA and P. DEVREOTES, Cell 109 (2002) 599.
A. J. KOLESKE, Sci. STKE 2003 (2003) pe20.
A. RAJNICEK, S. BRITLAND and C. MCCAIG, J. Cell. Sci. 110(Pt 23) (1997) 2905.
A. RAJNICEK and C. MCCAIG, J. Cell. Sci. 110(Pt 23) (1997) 2915–2924.
E. STEPIEN, J. STANISZ and W. KOROHODA, Cell. Biol. Int. 23 (1999) 105.
M. J. DALBY, M. O. RIEHLE, H. J. JOHNSTONE, S. AFFROSSMAN and A. S. CURTIS, Tissue Eng. 8 (2002) 1099.
E. MARTINES, K. SEUNARINE, H. MORGAN, N. GADEGAARD, C. D. W. WILKINSON, M. O. RIEHLE, Nanoletters 5 (2005) 2097.
Acknowledgments
MD is a BBSRC David Phillips Fellow (17/JF/20604) and is funded through this route. N. Gadegaard is a Royal Society of Edinburgh research fellow. ROCO is supported by grants from the BBSRC and EPSRC. We would like to thank John Pedersen (SDC Dandisc A/S, Denmark) for the organising and preparation of nickel shims and Stephanie Inglis for assistance with cell culture. We also thank Prof Adam Curtis and Dr Mathis Riehle for their support and discussion.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hart, A., Gadegaard, N., Wilkinson, C.D. . et al. Osteoprogenitor response to low-adhesion nanotopographies originally fabricated by electron beam lithography. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 18, 1211–1218 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-0157-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-0157-7