Electrospun P(LLA-CL) nanofiber: a biomimetic extracellular matrix for smooth muscle cell and endothelial cell proliferation

Mo, Xiumei; Xu, Chengyu; Kotaki, Masaya; Ramakrishna, Seeram

doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.042

Cited by 759 publications

(479 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

458

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As advances in tissue engineering lead to development of new fabrics to be used as cell scaffolds (Li et al, 2002;Mo et al, 2004;Smith and Ma, 2004;Kwon et al, 2005), the potential to regulate cell anchorage to these scaffolds through mechanical entanglement should become an important design element.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell–Matrix Entanglement and Mechanical Anchorage of Fibroblasts in Three-dimensional Collagen Matrices

Jiang

Grinnell²

2005

MBoC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fibroblast-3D collagen matrix culture provides a physiologically relevant model to study cell-matrix interactions. In tissues, fibroblasts are phagocytic cells, and in culture, they have been shown to ingest both fibronectin and collagencoated latex particles. Compared with cells on collagen-coated coverslips, phagocytosis of fibronectin-coated beads by fibroblasts in collagen matrices was found to be reduced. This decrease could not be explained by integrin reorganization, tight binding of fibronectin beads to the collagen matrix, or differences in overall bead binding to the cells. Rather, entanglement of cellular dendritic extensions with collagen fibrils seemed to interfere with the ability of the extensions to interact with the beads. Moreover, once these extensions became entangled in the matrix, cells developed an integrin-independent component of adhesion. We suggest that cell-matrix entanglement represents a novel mechanism of cell anchorage that uniquely depends on the three-dimensional character of the matrix. INTRODUCTIONCompared with collagen-coated material surfaces such as plastic or glass, fibroblasts exhibit unique features when they interact with three-dimensional collagen matrices (Cukierman et al., 2002;Grinnell, 2003). The stiffness of fibroblasts is similar to that of three-dimensional (3D) collagen fibrils in the matrix (Wakatsuki et al., 2000). As a result, the interaction between cells and the matrix can lead not only to changes in cell shape but also to matrix remodeling and contraction (Grinnell, 1994;Brown et al., 1998;Tranquillo, 1999;Petroll and Ma, 2003;Vanni et al., 2003;Wakatsuki and Elson, 2003). By contrast, the difference in stiffness between cells and rigid material surfaces such as glass and plastic is so great (Wakatsuki et al., 2000;Callister, 2001) that cell shape change predominates even if the material surface has been modified to make it somewhat flexible (Balaban et al., 2001;Beningo and Wang, 2002).Fibroblasts interact with and attach to collagen matrices primarily through integrin ␣2␤1 but also with other integrins, including ␣1␤1, ␣11␤1, and ␣v␤3 (Klein et al., 1991;Schiro et al., 1991;Carver et al., 1995;Cooke et al., 2000;Tiger et al., 2001;Jokinen et al., 2004). Attached cells, rather than forming flattened, lamellar extensions as occurs on impenetrable glass or plastic surfaces, range in shape from dendritic to stellate to bipolar, depending on matrix stiffness and tension (Grinnell, 2003). Similar morphological features have been described for cells in tissues (Breathnach, 1978;Doljanski, 2004;Goldsmith et al., 2004;Langevin et al., 2005). In part, differences in morphology between cells in twodimensional (2D) versus 3D culture may result from the symmetric adhesive interactions in 3D matrices versus the forced asymmetry of 2D surfaces (Beningo et al., 2004).In tissues, fibroblasts are phagocytic cells (McGaw and Ten Cate, 1983;Everts et al., 1996Everts et al., , 2003, and in culture they have been shown to ingest both fibronectin (FN) and collagen-coated late...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cell–Matrix Entanglement and Mechanical Anchorage of Fibroblasts in Three-dimensional Collagen Matrices

Jiang

Grinnell²

2005

MBoC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…183 Highly porous microscale scaffolds also allow for higher levels of nutrient diffusion, vascularization, and better spatial organization for cell growth and ECM production. 184,185 There is still some ambiguity surrounding the optimal porosity and pore size for a 3D bone scaffold. A literature review indicates that a pore size in the range of 10-400 lm may provide enough nutrient and osteoblast cellular infusion, while maintaining structural integrity.…”

Section: Physical Effectors In Synthetic Bone Scaffoldsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone tissue engineering: A review in bone biomimetics and drug delivery strategies

Porter

Ruckh

Popat

2009

Biotechnology Progress

685

499

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical‐sized defects in bone, whether induced by primary tumor resection, trauma, or selective surgery have in many cases presented insurmountable challenges to the current gold standard treatment for bone repair. The primary purpose of a tissue‐engineered scaffold is to use engineering principles to incite and promote the natural healing process of bone which does not occur in critical‐sized defects. A synthetic bone scaffold must be biocompatible, biodegradable to allow native tissue integration, and mimic the multidimensional hierarchical structure of native bone. In addition to being physically and chemically biomimetic, an ideal scaffold is capable of eluting bioactive molecules (e.g., BMPs, TGF‐βs, etc., to accelerate extracellular matrix production and tissue integration) or drugs (e.g., antibiotics, cisplatin, etc., to prevent undesired biological response such as sepsis or cancer recurrence) in a temporally and spatially controlled manner. Various biomaterials including ceramics, metals, polymers, and composites have been investigated for their potential as bone scaffold materials. However, due to their tunable physiochemical properties, biocompatibility, and controllable biodegradability, polymers have emerged as the principal material in bone tissue engineering. This article briefly reviews the physiological and anatomical characteristics of native bone, describes key technologies in mimicking the physical and chemical environment of bone using synthetic materials, and provides an overview of local drug delivery as it pertains to bone tissue engineering is included. © 2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 2009

show abstract

“…4 Electrospun polymeric nanofiber scaffolds are of particular interest since they mimic the fibrous structure of native extracellular matrix (ECM). 5,6 Thus, fibrous scaffolds are being advanced for clinical applications, such as bladder 7 and trachea. 8 Several reports have observed that nanofiber culture may promote osteogenic differentiation of osteoblast-like cells, embryonic stem cells, and bone marrow stromal cells.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanofiber scaffolds influence organelle structure and function in bone marrow stromal cells

Tutak

Giri

Bajcsy

et al. 2016

J. Biomed. Mater. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tutak, Wojtek; Jyotsnendu, Giri; Bajcsy, Peter; and Simon, Carl G. Jr., "Nanofiber scaffolds influence organelle structure and function in bone marrow stromal cells" (2016 Abstract: Recent work demonstrates that osteoprogenitor cell culture on nanofiber scaffolds can promote differentiation. This response may be driven by changes in cell morphology caused by the three-dimensional (3D) structure of nanofibers. We hypothesized that nanofiber effects on cell behavior may be mediated by changes in organelle structure and function. To test this hypothesis, human bone marrow stromal cells (hBMSCs) were cultured on poly(e-caprolactone) (PCL) nanofibers scaffolds and on PCL flat spuncoat films. After 1 dayculture, hBMSCs were stained for actin, nucleus, mitochondria, and peroxisomes, and then imaged using 3D confocal microscopy. Imaging revealed that the hBMSC cell body (actin) and peroxisomal volume were reduced during culture on nanofibers. In addition, the nucleus and peroxisomes occupied a larger fraction of cell volume during culture on nanofibers than on films, suggesting enhancement of the nuclear and peroxisomal functional capacity. Organelles adopted morphologies with greater 3D-character on nanofibers, where the Z-Depth (a measure of cell thickness) was increased. Comparisons of organelle positions indicated that the nucleus, mitochondria, and peroxisomes were closer to the cell center (actin) for nanofibers, suggesting that nanofiber culture induced active organelle positioning. The smaller cell volume and more centralized organelle positioning would reduce the energy cost of inter-organelle vesicular transport during culture on nanofibers. Finally, hBMSC bioassay measurements (DNA, peroxidase, bioreductive potential, lactate, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP)) indicated that peroxidase activity may be enhanced during nanofiber culture. These results demonstrate that culture of hBMSCs on nanofibers caused changes in organelle structure and positioning, which may affect organelle functional capacity and transport.

show abstract

Electrospun P(LLA-CL) nanofiber: a biomimetic extracellular matrix for smooth muscle cell and endothelial cell proliferation

Cited by 759 publications

References 27 publications

Cell–Matrix Entanglement and Mechanical Anchorage of Fibroblasts in Three-dimensional Collagen Matrices

Cell–Matrix Entanglement and Mechanical Anchorage of Fibroblasts in Three-dimensional Collagen Matrices

Bone tissue engineering: A review in bone biomimetics and drug delivery strategies

Nanofiber scaffolds influence organelle structure and function in bone marrow stromal cells

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About