Dual effect of molecular mobility and functional groups of polyrotaxane surfaces on the fate of mesenchymal stem cells

Abstract

Mesenchymal stem cells on polyrotaxane surfaces underwent enhanced osteoblast and adipocyte differentiation. Two independent parameters, high molecular mobility and negative charge on the surfaces, may not offset the effect to promote both differentiation.

Delayed Senescence of Human Vascular Endothelial Cells by Molecular Mobility of Supramolecular Biointerfaces

“…As the molecular mobility of polyrotaxanes increases with decreasing number of threaded 𝛼-CDs, the SPE-PRX 5 surface is estimated to possess higher mobility than the SPE-PRX 86 surface. [32][33][34] To confirm whether vascular endothelial cells can recognize the molecular mobility of polyrotaxane surfaces via the YAP signaling pathway, HUVECs at passage 6 (young HUVECs) were seeded on each polyrotaxane surface, and subcellular YAP localization was analyzed in adhering young HUVECs after 48 h of cultivation. A total of 173 cells from more than eight images was counted.…”

“…[27,28] The molecular mobility can be extensively adjusted by the number of 𝛼-CDs threaded by a PEG chain and the type and number of functional groups modified to 𝛼-CDs. [29][30][31][32][33][34] We fabricated cell-adhesive surfaces coated with molecularly mobile polyrotaxanes and explored the potential effects of molecular mobility on cellular responses. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] On culturing various types of cells, such as human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), [35] human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (HBmMSCs), [36] human hepatomaderived cell line, [37] and mouse Kupffer cell line, [38] polyrotaxane surfaces with high mobility tended to promote cytoplasmic YAP localization in adherent cells, whereas those with low mobility tended to promote nuclear YAP localization.…”

“…[29][30][31][32][33][34] We fabricated cell-adhesive surfaces coated with molecularly mobile polyrotaxanes and explored the potential effects of molecular mobility on cellular responses. [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] On culturing various types of cells, such as human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), [35] human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (HBmMSCs), [36] human hepatomaderived cell line, [37] and mouse Kupffer cell line, [38] polyrotaxane surfaces with high mobility tended to promote cytoplasmic YAP localization in adherent cells, whereas those with low mobility tended to promote nuclear YAP localization. The molecular mobility of polyrotaxane surfaces affects cellular functions, such as stemness, [36] protein secretion, [37] and immune responses.…”

Tissue Adhesion-Anisotropic Polyrotaxane Hydrogels Bilayered with Collagen

“…When mouse fibroblasts were cultured on the PRX and collagen layers of the PRX/collagen hydrogel, PRX hydrogel, and collagen sponge for 3 days, cellular adhesion was observed on all the hydrogels ( Figure 5 ). The methyl group modified on α-CD promotes the adsorption of serum-derived cellular adhesion proteins [ 32 , 33 ], which may contribute to the promotion of cellular adhesion of PRX/collagen hydrogels. These results suggest that the PRX/collagen hydrogel is a promising implantable scaffold, with cytocompatibility.…”

Thin‐layer photodegradable polyrotaxane gel‐immobilized surfaces for photoregulation of surface properties and cell adhesiveness

“…The contact angle of the PRX‐MTP gel surfaces increased to 63.1° ± 1.2° compared to that of the IPTMS glass surfaces. Because PRX‐MTP was not chemically modified, the solubility and wettability against water are low because of the intra‐ and intermolecular hydrogen bonding formation of PRXs, 31 compared to chemically modified water‐soluble PRXs 32,33 . Additionally, PRX‐MTP was chemically crosslinked with hydrophobic HDI, which increased the contact angle of the PRX‐MTP gel surfaces.…”