2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.mee.2011.10.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Arrays of nano-structured surfaces to probe the adhesion and viability of bacteria

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our results reveal that adhesion of S. aureus (0.6–1 μm) to the patterned surfaces showed that pillar (PL) and line (LN) microtopographic features in the range between 1–5 µm increased bacterial adhesion to not only to PS but also to PI and PET biomaterials compared with non‐patterned ones (Figure and Supplementary Figure S1). These results agree with previous investigations reporting that surface features in the range of bacterium size allowed for maximization of the bacteria–surface contact area, hence increasing cell attachment whereas surface with topographic features smaller than the diameter of bacterial cells display a small accessible surface area . In the former case, bacterial extracellular appendages such as flagella, pili, and fimbriae could assume the responsibility for the adhesion to the sub‐micrometer features .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Our results reveal that adhesion of S. aureus (0.6–1 μm) to the patterned surfaces showed that pillar (PL) and line (LN) microtopographic features in the range between 1–5 µm increased bacterial adhesion to not only to PS but also to PI and PET biomaterials compared with non‐patterned ones (Figure and Supplementary Figure S1). These results agree with previous investigations reporting that surface features in the range of bacterium size allowed for maximization of the bacteria–surface contact area, hence increasing cell attachment whereas surface with topographic features smaller than the diameter of bacterial cells display a small accessible surface area . In the former case, bacterial extracellular appendages such as flagella, pili, and fimbriae could assume the responsibility for the adhesion to the sub‐micrometer features .…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Cell viability and adhesion were found to be influenced by the surface topography of the microstructure array [10]. The struts of the BCP scaffold with HA/PLLA nanocomposites coating changed the surface topography and cells environment to influence the metabolic activity and proliferation of hBMSCs on BCP scaffolds, which was further supported by MTT analysis.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 66%
“…Also, QCM was used as an extremely sensitive device for the inhibitory effect of biocides and monitoring the formation of biofilm. Komaromy et al (2012) successfully recruited e-beam lithography to make arrays with silicon or gold oxide nanostructures in the form of lines and dots of various sizes and with unusual spacing. To evaluate the propensity of microbial cells to adhere to these nanostructure arrays, these planar reference surfaces as well as new materials were incubated with suspensions of S. aureus and E. coli (Lai et al 2015).…”
Section: Recognition Of Bacterial Biofilm By Different Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%