Topographically targeted osteogenesis of mesenchymal stem cells stimulated by inclusion bodies attached to polycaprolactone surfaces

Nanomedicine

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 207-220

  Seras Franzoso, Joaquin ^a,b   Tsimbouri, Penelope M ^c   Burgess, Karl V ^d   Unzueta, Ugutz ^a,b   Garcia Fruitos, Elena ^a,b   Vazquez, Esther ^a,b   Villaverde, Antonio ^a,b   Dalby, Matthew J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITAT AUTÒNOMA DE BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b BIOMATERIALES Y NANOMEDICINA CIBER BBN   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Inclusion body; Mesenchymal stem cell; Metabolomic; Topography

Indexed keywords

POLYCAPROLACTONE;

ANIMAL CELL; ARTICLE; BONE DEVELOPMENT; CELL CULTURE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL INCLUSION; CELL PROLIFERATION; CELL RENEWAL; CELL STIMULATION; CELL STRUCTURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; MESENCHYMAL STEM CELL; METABOLOMICS; MICROSCOPY; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGIDITY; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOPOGRAPHY; WETTABILITY;

BASE SEQUENCE; DNA PRIMERS; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; INCLUSION BODIES; MESENCHYMAL STROMAL CELLS; MICROSCOPY, ELECTRON, SCANNING; OSTEOGENESIS; POLYESTERS; REAL-TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION;

EID: 84896697464     PISSN: 17435889     EISSN: 17486963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/nnm.13.43     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Harrison R. On the stereotropism of embryonic cells. Science 34(870), 279-281 (1911).
2. Curtis ASG, Varde M. Control of cell behaviour: Topological factors. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 33, 15-26 (1964).
3. Clark P, Connolly P, Curtis AS, Dow JA, Wilki nson CD. Cell guidance by ultrafine topography in vitro. J. Cell Sci. 99 (Pt 1), 73-77 (1991).
4. Dalby MJ, Riehle MO, Johnstone H, Affrossman S, Curtis AS. In vitro reaction of endothelial cells to polymer demixed nanotopography. Biomaterials 23(14), 2945-2954 (2002).
5. Dalby MJ, Yarwood SJ, Riehle MO, Johnstone HJH, Affrossman S, Curtis ASG. Increasing fibroblast response to materials using n anotopography: Morphological and genetic measurements of cell response to 13-nm-high polymer demixed islands. Exp. Cell Res. 276(1), 1-9 (2002).
6. Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat. Mater. 6(12), 997-1003 (2007).
7. Yim EK, Pang SW, Leong KW. Synthetic nanostructures inducing differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells into neuronal lineage. Exp. Cell Res. 313(9), 1820-1829 (2007).
8. Chen W, Villa-Diaz LG, Sun Y et al. Nanotopography influences adhesion, spreading, and self-renewal of human embryonic stem ce lls. ACS Nano 6(5), 4094-4103 (2012).
9. McMurray RJ, Gadegaard N, Tsimbouri PM et al. Nanoscale surfaces for the long-term maintenance of mesenchymal stem cell phenotype and multipotency. Nat. Mate r. 10(8), 637-644 (2011).
10. Ji L, LaPointe VL, Evans ND, Stevens MM. Changes in embryonic stem cell colony morphology and early differentiation markers driven by colloidal crystal topographical cues. Eur. Cell Mater. 23, 135-146 (2012).
11. Wilkinson CDW, Riehle M, Wood M, Gallagher J, Curtis ASG. The use of materials patterned on a nano-and micro-metric scale in cellular engineering. Mater. Sci. Eng. 19, 263-269 (2002).
12. Gadegaard N, Thoms S, MacIntyre DS et al. Arrays of nano-dots for cellular engineering. Microelectron. Eng. 67-68, 162-168 (2003).
13. Andersson AS, Backhed F, Von Euler A, Richter-Dahlfors A, Sutherland D, Kasemo B. Nanoscale features influence epithelial cell morphology and cytokine production. Biomaterials 24(20), 3427-3436 (2003).
14. Anderss on AS, Brink J, Lidberg U, Sutherland DS. Influence of systematically varied nanoscale topography on the morhphology of epithelial cells. IEEE Trans. Nanobioscience 2(2), 49-57 (2003).
15. Dalby MJ, McCloy D, Robertson Met al. Osteoprogenitor response to semi-ordered and random nanotopographies. Biomaterials 27(15), 2980-2987 (2006).
16. Zhang L, Webster TJ. Decreased lung carcinoma cell functions on select polymer nanometer surface features. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 100(1), 94-102 (2012).
17. Maclaine SE, Gadhari N, Pugin R, Meek RM, Liley M, Dal by MJ. Optimizing the osteogenicity of nanotopography using block co-polymer phase separation fabrication techniques. J. Orthop. Res. 30(8), 1190-1197 (2012).
18. Villaverde A, Carrio MM. Protein a ggregation in recombinant bacteria: Biological role of inclusion bodies. Biotechnol. Lett. 25(17), 1385-1395 (2003).
19. Garcia-Fruitos E, Rodriguez-Carmona E, Diez-Gil C et al. Surface cell growt h engineering assisted by a novel bacterial nanomaterial. Adv. Mater. 21(42), 4292-4253 (2009).
20. Ventura S, Villaverde A. Protein quality in bacterial inclusion bodies. Trends Biotechnol. 24(4), 179-185 (2006).
21. Garcia-Fruitos E, Vazquez E, Diez-Gil C et al. Bacterial inclusion bodies: Making gold from waste. Trends Biotechnol. 30(2), 65-70 (2012).
22. Seras-Franzoso J, Diez-Gil C, Vazquez E et al. Bioadhesiveness and efficient mechanotransduction stimuli synergistically provided by bacterial inclusion bodies as scaffolds for tissue engineering. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 7(1), 79-93 (2012).
23. Mirmalek-Sani SH, Tare RS, Morgan SM et al. Characterization and multipotentiality of human fetal femur-derived cells: Implications for skeletal tissue regeneration. Stem Cells 24(4), 1042-1053 (2006).
24. Tare RS, Babister JC, Kanczler J, Oreffo RO. Skeletal stem cells: Phenotype, biology and environmental niches informing tissue regeneration. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 288(1-2), 11-21 (2008).
25. Sambrook J, Fritsch E, Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning, a Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, NY, USA (1998).
26. Thomas JG, Baneyx F. Roles of the Escherichia coli small heat shock proteins IbpA and IbpB in thermal stress management: Comparison with ClpA, ClpB, and HtpG in vivo. J. Bacteriol. 180(19), 5165-5172 (1998).
27. Carrio M, Gonzalez-Montalban N, Vera A, Villaverde A, Ventura S. Amyloid-like properties of bacterial inclusion bodies. J. Mol. Biol. 347(5), 1025-1037 (2005).
28. Smith CA, Want EJ, O?maille G, Abagyan R, Siuzdak G. XCMS: Processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching, and identification. Anal. Chem. 78(3), 779-787 (2006).
29. Scheltema RA, Jankevics A, Jansen RC, Swe rtz MA, Breitling R. PeakML/mzMatch: A file format, Java library, R library, and tool-chain for mass spectrometry data analysis. Anal. Chem. 83(7), 2786-2793 (2011).
30. Creek DJ, Jankevics A, B urgess KE, Breitling R, Barrett MP. IDEOM: An Excel interface for analysis of LC-MS-based metabolomics data. Bioinformatics 28(7), 1048-1049 (2012).
31. Creek DJ, Jankevics A, Breitling R, Watson DG, Barrett MP, Burgess KE. Toward global metabolomics analysis with hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry: Improved metabolite identification by retention time prediction. Anal. Chem. 83(22), 8703-8710 (2011).
32. Vazquez E, Corchero JL, Burgueno JF et al. Functional inclusion bodies produced in bacteria as naturally occurring nanopills for advanced cell therapies. Adv. Mater. 24(13), 1742-1747 (2012).
33. Diez-Gil C, Krabbenborg S, Garcia-Fruitos E et al. The nanoscale properties of bacterial inclusion bodies and their effect on mammalian cell proliferation. Biomaterials 31(22), 5805-5812 (2010).
34. Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkinson CD, Dalby MJ. Regulation of implant surface cell adhesion: Characterization and quantification of S-phase primary osteo blast adhesions on biomimetic nanoscale substrates. J. Orthop. Res. 25(2), 273-282 (2007).
35. Biggs MJ, Richards RG, McFarlane S, Wilkinson CD, Oreffo RO, Dalby MJ. Adhesion formation of primary human osteoblasts and the functional response of mesenchymal stem cells to 330nm deep microgrooves. J. R. Soc. Interface 5(27), 1231-1242 (2008).
36. Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkins on CD, Oreffo RO, Dalby MJ. The use of nanoscale topography to modulate the dynamics of adhesion formation in primary osteoblasts and ERK/MAPK signaling in STRO-1+ enriched skeletal stem cells. Biomaterials 30(28), 5094-5103 (2009).
37. McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell 6(4), 483-495 (2004).
38. Kilian KA, Bugarija B, Lahn BT, Mrksich M. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107(11), 4872-4877 (2010).
39. Yanes O, Clark J, Wong DM et al. Metabolic oxidation regulates embryonic stem cell differentiation. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6(6), 411-417 (2010).
40. Reyes JM, Fermanian S, Y ang F et al. Metabolic changes in mesenchymal stem cells in osteogenic medium measured by autofluorescence spectroscopy. Stem Cells 24(5), 1213-1217 (2006).
41. Garcia-Fruitos E, Seras-Franzoso J , Vazquez E, Villaverde A. Tunable geometry of bacterial inclusion bodies as substrate materials for tissue engineering. Nanotechnology 21(20), 205101 (2010).
42. Kantawong F, Burgess KE, Jay awardena K et al. Whole proteome analysis of osteoprogenitor differentiation induced by disordered nanotopography and mediated by ERK signaling. Biomaterials 30(27), 4723-4731 (2009).
43. Engler AJ, Sen S, Sweeney HL, Discher DE. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4), 677-689 (2006).
44. Gonzalez-Montalban N, Garcia-Fruitos E, Ventura S, Aris A, Villaverde A. The chaperone DnaK controls the fractioning of functional protein between soluble and insoluble cell fractions in inclusion body-forming cells. Microb. Cell Fact. 7(5), 26 (2006).