The effects of nanoscale pits on primary human osteoblast adhesion formation and cellular spreading

Current understanding of the mechanisms involved in ossesoinegration following implantation of a biomaterial has led to an emphasis being placed on the modification of material topography to control interface reactions. Recent studies have inferred nanoscale topography as an important mediator of cell adhesion and differentiation. Biomimetic strategies in orthopaedic research aim to exploit these influences to regulate cellular adhesion and subsequent bony tissue formation. Here experimental topographies of nanoscale pits demonstrating varying order have been fabricated by electron-beam lithography in (poly)carbonate. Osteoblast adhesion to these nanotopographies was ascertained by quantification of the relation between adhesion complex formation and total cell area. This study is specifically concerned with the effects these nanotopographies have on adhesion formation in S-phase osteoblasts as identified by BrdU incorporation. Nanopits were found to reduce cellular spreading and adhesion formation.

[1]  H. Perreault,et al.  Characterization of plasma proteins adsorbed onto biomaterials. By MALDI-TOFMS. , 2000, Biomaterials.

[2]  A S G Curtis,et al.  Fibroblast reaction to island topography: changes in cytoskeleton and morphology with time. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[3]  P. Sanderson,et al.  Complications of metalwork removal. , 1992, Injury.

[4]  V. Girish,et al.  Affordable image analysis using NIH Image/ImageJ. , 2004, Indian journal of cancer.

[5]  Christopher S. Chen,et al.  Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. , 2004, Developmental cell.

[6]  B. Kasemo,et al.  Response of rat osteoblast-like cells to microstructured model surfaces in vitro. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[7]  Nikolaj Gadegaard,et al.  Biomimetic Polymer Nanostructures by Injection Molding , 2003 .

[8]  M. Riehle,et al.  Interaction of animal cells with ordered nanotopography. , 2002, IEEE transactions on nanobioscience.

[9]  R. G. Richards,et al.  Variation in cell-substratum adhesion in relation to cell cycle phases. , 2004, Experimental cell research.

[10]  S. Miscia,et al.  Implant surface roughness influences osteoclast proliferation and differentiation. , 2005, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[11]  W. Obremskey,et al.  Incidence of Hardware-Related Pain and Its Effect on Functional Outcomes After Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Ankle Fractures , 2001, Journal of orthopaedic trauma.

[12]  Matthew J Dalby,et al.  Increasing fibroblast response to materials using nanotopography: morphological and genetic measurements of cell response to 13-nm-high polymer demixed islands. , 2002, Experimental cell research.

[13]  B. Geiger,et al.  Early molecular events in the assembly of the focal adhesion-stress fiber complex during fibroblast spreading. , 2004, Cell motility and the cytoskeleton.

[14]  A S G Curtis,et al.  Investigating the limits of filopodial sensing: a brief report using SEM to image the interaction between 10 nm high nano‐topography and fibroblast filopodia , 2004, Cell biology international.

[15]  Nikolaj Gadegaard,et al.  Investigating filopodia sensing using arrays of defined nano-pits down to 35 nm diameter in size. , 2004, The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology.

[16]  B. N. Day,et al.  Cell cycle analysis of cultured porcine mammary cells. , 1999, Cloning.

[17]  E. Jago,et al.  The removal of metalwork in children. , 1998, Injury.

[18]  Helmut Schift,et al.  Flow behaviour of thin polymer films used for hot embossing lithography , 2000 .

[19]  A. Curtis,et al.  Nonadhesive nanotopography: fibroblast response to poly(n-butyl methacrylate)-poly(styrene) demixed surface features. , 2003, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[20]  A Scarano,et al.  Removal torque and histomorphometric investigation of 4 different titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rabbit tibia. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  Tom Shemesh,et al.  Assembly and mechanosensory function of focal adhesions: experiments and models. , 2006, European journal of cell biology.

[22]  O. Coskunfirat,et al.  Complications and Removal Rates of Miniplates and Screws Used for Maxillofacial Fractures , 2002, Annals of plastic surgery.

[23]  Peter Thomsen,et al.  Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: A review of different theories , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[24]  Jun Hu,et al.  Nanotopographical guidance of C6 glioma cell alignment and oriented growth. , 2004, Biomaterials.

[25]  E. Zamir,et al.  Molecular complexity and dynamics of cell-matrix adhesions. , 2001, Journal of cell science.