Regulation of implant surface cell adhesion: Characterization and quantification of S-phase primary osteoblast adhesions on biomimetic nanoscale substrates

Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 273-282

  Biggs, Manus J P ^a   Richards, R G ^b   Gadegaard, N ^a   Wilkinson, C D W ^a   Dalby, M J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^b AO RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Cell adhesion; Implant surface; Nanoscale substrates; S phage

Indexed keywords

ACTIN; BIOMIMETIC MATERIAL; BROXURIDINE; CARBONIC ACID; NANOMATERIAL; NICKEL; VINCULIN; DNA;

ARTICLE; BONE REGENERATION; CELL ADHESION; CELL CULTURE; CELL CYCLE S PHASE; CELL LABELING; CELL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; ELECTRON BEAM; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; FOCAL ADHESION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE TEST; NANOFABRICATION; OSTEOBLAST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; TOPOGRAPHY; CYTOLOGY; CYTOSKELETON; FEMUR HEAD; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; PROSTHESES AND ORTHOSES; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; STATISTICS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

BIOMIMETIC MATERIALS; BROMODEOXYURIDINE; CELLS, CULTURED; CYTOSKELETON; DNA; FEMUR HEAD; FOCAL ADHESIONS; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; NANOSTRUCTURES; OSTEOBLASTS; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; S PHASE; STATISTICS; VINCULIN;

EID: 33847270773     PISSN: 07360266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jor.20319     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Diener A, Nebe B, Luthen F, et al. 2005. Control of focal adhesion dynamics by material surface characteristics. Biomaterials 26:383-392.
2. Garcia AJ, Reyes CD. 2005. Bio-adhesive surfaces to promote osteoblast differentiation and bone formation. J Dent Res 84:407-413.
3. Lossdorfer S, Schwartz Z, Wang L, et al. 2004. Microrough implant surface topographies increase osteogenesis by reducing osteoclast formation and activity. J Biomed Mater Res A 70:361-369.
4. Boyan BD, Bonewald LF, Paschalis P, et al. 2002. Osteoblast-mediated mineral deposition in culture is dependent on surface microtopography. Calcif Tissue Int 71:519-529.
5. Boyan BD, Lossdorfer S, Wang L, et al. 2003. Osteoblasts generate an osteogenic microenvironment when grown on surfaces with rough microtopographies. Eur Cell Mater 6:22-27.
6. Kim HJ, Kim SH, Kim MS, et al. 2005. Varying Ti-6Al-4V surface roughness induces different early morphologic and molecular responses in MG63 osteoblast-like cells. J Biomed Mater Res A 74:366-373.
7. Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Riehle MO, et al. 2004. Investigating filopodia sensing using arrays of defined nano-pits down to 35 nm diameter in size. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 36:2005-2015.
8. Dalby MJ, Yarwood SJ, Riehle MO, et al. 2002. Increasing fibroblast response to materials using nanotopography: morphological and genetic measurements of cell response to 13-nm-high polymer demixed islands. Exp Cell Res 276:1-9.
9. Diehl KA, Foley JD, Nealey PF, et al. 2005. Nanoscale topography modulates corneal epithelial cell migration. J Biomed Mater Res A 75:603-611.
10. Zhu B, Zhang Q, Lu Q, et al. 2004. Nanotopographical guidance of C6 glioma cell alignment and oriented growth. Biomaterials 25:4215-4223.
11. Bershadsky AD, Balaban NQ, Geiger B. 2003. Adhesion-dependent cell mechanosensitivity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 19:677-695.
12. Wozniak MA, Modzelewska K, Kwong L, et al. 2004. Focal adhesion regulation of cell behavior. Biochim Biophys Acta 1692:103-119.
13. Andersson AS, Brink J, Lidberg U, et al. 2003. Influence of systematically varied nanoscale topography on the morphology of epithelial cells. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 2:49-57.
14. Curtis AS, Casey B, Gallagher JO, et al. 2001. Substratum nanotopography and the adhesion of biological cells. Are symmetry or regularity of nanotopography important? Biophys Chem 94:275-283.
15. Kurenova E, Xu LH, Yang X, et al. 2004. Focal adhesion kinase suppresses apoptosis by binding to the death domain of receptor-interacting protein. Mol Cell Biol 24: 4361-4371.
16. Zimerman B, Volberg T, Geiger B. 2004. Early molecular events in the assembly of the focal adhesion-stress fiber complex during fibroblast spreading. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 58:143-159.
17. Cohen M, Joester D, Geiger B, et al. 2004. Spatial and temporal sequence of events in cell adhesion: from molecular recognition to focal adhesion assembly. Chem-biochem 5:1393-1399.
18. Bershadsky AD, Tint IS, Neyfakh AA Jr, et al. 1985. Focal contacts of normal and RSV-transformed quail cells. Hypothesis of the transformation-induced deficient maturation of focal contacts. Exp Cell Res 158:433-444.
19. Ballestrem C, Hinz B, Imhof BA, et al. 2001. Marching at the front and dragging behind: differential alphaVbeta3-integrin turnover regulates focal adhesion behavior. J Cell Biol 155:1319-1332.
20. Gallant ND, Michael KE, Garcia AJ. 2005. Cell adhesion strengthening: contributions of adhesive area, integrin binding, and focal adhesion assembly. Mol Biol Cell 16: 4329-4340.
21. Curtis A. 2004. Tutorialon the biology of nanotopography. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 3:293-295.
22. Gadegaard N, Thoms S, Macintyre DS, et al. 2003. Arrays of nano-dots for cellular engineering. Microelectron Eng 67-68:126-168.
23. Gadegaard N, Mosler M, Larsen MB. 2003. Biomimetic polymer nanostructures by injection molding. Macromol Mater Eng 288:76-83.
24. Heyderman LJ, Schift H, David C, et al. 2000. Flow behaviour of thin polymer films used for hot embossing lithography. Microelectron Eng 54:229-245.
25. Grobler GP, Learmonth ID, Bernstein BP, et al. 2005. Ten-year results of a press-fit, porous-coated acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 87:786-789.
26. Kim YG, Kim SY, Kim SJ, et al. 2005. The use of cementless expansion acetabular component and an alumina-polyethylene bearing in total hip arthroplasty for osteonecrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:776-780.
27. Konttinen YT, Zhao D, Beklen A, et al. 2005. The microenvironment around total hip replacement prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:28-38.
28. Kalajzic I, Staal A, Yang WP, et al. 2005. Expression profile of osteoblast lineage at defined stages of differentiation. J Biol Chem 280:24618-24626.
29. Gallagher JO, McGhee KF, Wilkinson CDW, et al. 2002. Intraction of animal cells with ordered nanotopography. IEEE Trans Nanobiosci 1:24-28.
30. Gettens RT, Bai Z, Gilbert JL. 2005. Quantification of the kinetics and thermodynamics of protein adsorption using atomic force microscopy. J Biomed Mater Res A 72:246-257.
31. Suh CW, Kim MY, Choo JB, et al. 2004. Analysis of protein adsorption characteristics to nano-pore silica particles by using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Biotechnol 112:267-277.
32. den Braber ET, de Ruijter JE, Ginsel LA, et al. 1998. Orientation of ECM protein deposition, fibroblast cytoskeleton, and attachment complex components on silicone microgrooved surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 40:291-300.
33. Hornekaer L, Baurichter A, Petrunin VV, et al. 2005. Influence of surface morphology on D2 desorption kinetics from amorphous solid water. J Chem Phys 122:124701-124712.
34. Keselowsky BG, Collard DM, Garcia AJ. 2003. Surface chemistry modulates fibronectin conformation and directs integrin binding and specificity to control cell adhesion. J Biomed Mater Res A 66:247-259.
35. Hughes S, El Haj AJ, Dobson J. 2005. Magnetic micro- and nanoparticle mediated activation of mechanosensitive ion channels. Med Eng Phys 27:754-762.
36. Nicolas A, Geiger B, Safran SA. 2004. Cell mechanosensitivity controls the anisotropy of focal adhesions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:12520-12525.
37. Pollard TD. 2003. The cytoskeleton, cellular motility and the reductionist agenda. Nature 422:741-745.
38. Dalby MJ, Riehle MO, Johnstone H, et al. 2004. Investigating the limits of filopodial sensing: a brief report using SEM to image the interaction between 10 nm high nanotopography and fibroblast filopodia. Cell Biol Int 28:229-236.
39. Meredith DO, Owen GR, Gwynn I, et al. 2004. Variation in cell-substratum adhesion in relation to cell cycle phases. Exp Cell Res 293:58-67.