Transmission electron microscopy study of the cell–sensor interface

An emerging number of micro- and nanoelectronics-based biosensors have been developed for non-invasive recordings of physiological cellular activity. The interface between the biological system and the electronic devices strongly influences the signal transfer between these systems. Little is known about the nanoscopic structure of the cell–sensor interface that is essential for a detailed interpretation of the recordings. Therefore, we analysed the interface between the sensor surface and attached cells using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). The maximum possible resolution of our TEM study, however, was restricted by the quality of the interface preparation. Therefore, we complemented our studies with imaging ellipsometry. We cultured HEK293 cells on substrates, which had been precoated with different types of proteins. We found that contact geometry between attached cell membrane and substrate was dependent on the type of protein coating used. In the presence of polylysine, the average distance of the membrane–substrate interface was in the range of 35–40 nm. However, the cell membrane was highly protruded in the presence of other proteins like fibronectin, laminin or concanavalin-A. The presented method allows the nanoscopic characterization of the cell–sensor interface.

[1]  Andreas Offenhäusser,et al.  Neuron–transistor coupling: interpretation of individual extracellular recorded signals , 2005, European Biophysics Journal.

[2]  P. Fromherz,et al.  A neuron-silicon junction: a Retzius cell of the leech on an insulated-gate field-effect transistor. , 1991, Science.

[3]  S. Ingebrandt,et al.  Backside contacted field effect transistor array for extracellular signal recording. , 2003, Biosensors & bioelectronics.

[4]  P. Fromherz,et al.  Fluorescence Interferometry of Neuronal Cell Adhesion on Microstructured Silicon , 1998 .

[5]  Andreas Offenhäusser,et al.  Cell-transistor coupling: investigation of potassium currents recorded with p- and n-channel FETs. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[6]  A. Offenhäusser,et al.  Field-effect transistor array for monitoring electrical activity from mammalian neurons in culture. , 1997, Biosensors & bioelectronics.

[7]  A. Spurr.  A low-viscosity epoxy resin embedding medium for electron microscopy. , 1969, Journal of ultrastructure research.

[8]  Andreas Offenhäusser,et al.  Long-term recording system based on field-effect transistor arrays for monitoring electrogenic cells in culture , 1998 .

[9]  Piet Bergveld,et al.  Extracellular Potential Recordings by Means of a Field Effect Transistor Without Gate Metal, Called OSFET , 1976, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  P. Fromherz,et al.  Neuron–silicon junction with voltage‐gated ionic currents , 1998, The European journal of neuroscience.

[11]  A. S. G. Curtis,et al.  THE MECHANISM OF ADHESION OF CELLS TO GLASS , 1964, The Journal of cell biology.

[12]  S. Ingebrandt,et al.  Solution of the Poisson-Nernst-Planck equations in the cell-substrate interface , 2007, The European physical journal. E, Soft matter.

[13]  P. Fromherz,et al.  The extracellular electrical resistivity in cell adhesion. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[14]  Peter Fromherz,et al.  FREQUENCY DEPENDENT SIGNAL TRANSFER IN NEURON TRANSISTORS , 1997 .

[15]  G. Gross,et al.  Transparent indium-tin oxide electrode patterns for extracellular, multisite recording in neuronal cultures , 1985, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[16]  J. Pine.  Recording action potentials from cultured neurons with extracellular microcircuit electrodes , 1980, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[17]  David W. Tank,et al.  Sealing cultured invertebrate neurons to embedded dish electrodes facilitates long-term stimulation and recording , 1989, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[18]  Armin Lambacher,et al.  Luminescence of dye molecules on oxidized silicon and fluorescence interference contrast microscopy of biomembranes , 2002 .

[19]  Weis,et al.  Neuron adhesion on a silicon chip probed by an array of field-effect transistors. , 1996, Physical review letters.

[20]  Pentti Tengvall,et al.  The determination of thickness and surface mass density of mesothick immunoprecipitate layers by null ellipsometry and protein 125iodine labeling. , 2002, Journal of colloid and interface science.

[21]  T. Chinowsky,et al.  Quantitative interpretation of the response of surface plasmon resonance sensors to adsorbed films , 1998 .

[22]  D. Kern,et al.  Cell reactions to microstructured implant surfaces , 2003 .

[23]  Peter Fromherz,et al.  Recombinant maxi-K channels on transistor, a prototype of iono-electronic interfacing , 2001, Nature Biotechnology.

[24]  Andreas Offenhäusser,et al.  Single cell recordings with pairs of complementary transistors , 2006 .

[25]  M. Yoshinari,et al.  The attachment and growth behavior of osteoblast-like cells on microtextured surfaces. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[26]  Armin Lambacher,et al.  Fluorescence interference-contrast microscopy on oxidized silicon using a monomolecular dye layer , 1996 .

[27]  J. Jansen,et al.  Scanning electron microscopic, transmission electron microscopic, and confocal laser scanning microscopic observation of fibroblasts cultured on microgrooved surfaces of bulk titanium substrata. , 1998, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[28]  Peter Fromherz,et al.  Field-effect transistor with recombinant potassium channels: fast and slow response by electrical and chemical interactions , 2005 .

[29]  C. S. Izzard,et al.  Cell-to-substrate contacts in living fibroblasts: an interference reflexion study with an evaluation of the technique. , 1976, Journal of cell science.

[30]  D. Axelrod.  Cell-substrate contacts illuminated by total internal reflection fluorescence , 1981, The Journal of cell biology.

[31]  A. Offenhäusser,et al.  Electrical recordings from rat cardiac muscle cells using field-effect transistors. , 1999, Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics.

[32]  P. Fromherz,et al.  No correlation of focal contacts and close adhesion by comparing GFP-vinculin and fluorescence interference of DiI , 2001, European Biophysics Journal.

[33]  A F von Recum,et al.  Fibroblast anchorage to microtextured surfaces. , 1993, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[34]  D. Gingell,et al.  Topography of cell-glass apposition revealed by total internal reflection fluorescence of volume markers , 1985, The Journal of cell biology.

[35]  Janos Vörös,et al.  The density and refractive index of adsorbing protein layers. , 2004, Biophysical journal.

[36]  J. Jansen,et al.  Growth behavior of fibroblasts on microgrooved polystyrene. , 1998, Biomaterials.

[37]  Jeanette G. Grasselli,et al.  CRC Handbook of Data on Organic Compounds , 1985 .

[38]  W. T. Chen,et al.  Immunoelectron microscopic studies of the sites of cell-substratum and cell-cell contacts in cultured fibroblasts , 1982, The Journal of cell biology.

[39]  Gregory Stephanopoulos,et al.  Effects of substratum morphology on cell physiology , 1994, Biotechnology and bioengineering.

[40]  M. Textor,et al.  Substratum roughness alters the growth, area, and focal adhesions of epithelial cells, and their proximity to titanium surfaces. , 2005, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[41]  D. Brunette,et al.  Effects of titanium-coated micromachined grooved substrata on orienting layers of osteoblast-like cells and collagen fibers in culture. , 2004, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.