3D surface topology guides stem cell adhesion and differentiation

Abstract

Polymerized high internal phase emulsion (polyHIPE) foams are extremely versatile materials for investigating cell-substrate interactions in vitro. Foam morphologies can be controlled by polymerization conditions to result in either open or closed pore structures with different levels of connectivity, consequently enabling the comparison between 2D and 3D matrices using the same substrate with identical surface chemistry conditions. Additionally, here we achieve the control of pore surface topology (i.e. how different ligands are clustered together) using amphiphilic block copolymers as emulsion stabilisers. We demonstrate that adhesion of human mesenchymal progenitor (hES-MP) cells cultured on polyHIPE foams is dependent on foam surface topology and chemistry but is independent of porosity and interconnectivity. We also demonstrate that the interconnectivity, architecture and surface topology of the foams has an effect on the osteogenic differentiation potential of hES-MP cells. Together these data demonstrate that the adhesive heterogeneity of a 3D scaffold could regulate not only mesenchymal stem cell attachment but also cell behavior in the absence of soluble growth factors.

Gene expression in human adipose-derived stem cells: comparison of 2D films, 3D electrospun meshes or co-cultured scaffolds with two-way paracrine effects

“…Furthermore, applying dynamic conditions such as perfusion (Heo et al, 2016), mechanical (Xu et al, 2015) or magnetic stimulation (Lima et al, 2015) may improve differentiation toward the desired cell type. Finally, material characteristics such as www.ecmjournal.org composition (Lee et al, 2016), surface properties, architectural features (Li and Kilian, 2015), pore size and pore connectivity (Viswanathan et al, 2015) are cues for stem cell differentiation into a certain cell type. Substrate stiffness may not only affect adherence and morphology, as shown for fibroblasts seeded on polyacrylamide hydrogels with gradients in mechanical properties (Diederich et al, 2013).…”

“…Although the "real" 2D-3D comparison by using identical materials has also been reported, this comparison refers to adhesion and proliferation of human mesenchymal progenitor cells. However, when gene expression is analysed, again, it is compared to that of cells cultured in a 2D polystyrene dish (Viswanathan et al, 2015).…”

Investigation of silk fibroin nanoparticle-decorated poly(L-lactic acid) composite scaffolds for osteoblast growth and differentiation

“…[3][4][5] Compared to two-dimensional (2D) implants, three-dimensional (3D) biocompatible scaffolds have more spatial freedom of cellular growth and support the new tissue formation. 6,7 However, the reflection of the physiology of organs during tissue engineering process is highly challenging due to tissue complexity. A biodegradable scaffold can serve as a framework as well as a temporary carrier before occupancy of new tissue and also modulate various important cell behaviors.…”

Modulating cell response on cellulose surfaces; tunable attachment and scaffold mechanics

“…Surface modifications of the biomaterial allow tailoring of surface properties without impact on bulk material properties. Thus, through surface modification, the native surfaces of biomaterials can be physically, or chemically, transformed with the primary goal of engineering desired surface chemistry (Ismail et al 2007), topology (Viswanathan et al 2016), reactivity (Ducheyne and Qui 1999), biocompatibility (Lin et al 2015), hydrophilicity (Yang et al 2002), and/or charge (Courtenay et al 2017).…”