Role of materials surface topography on mammalian cell response

Abstract

Many approaches are used to modify the surface topography of implant materials. Some produce unordered surfaces using, for example, classical implant surface treatments, whereas others produce ordered surfaces by micro-and nanopatterning techniques. Surface topographies can be characterised by several methods that can acquire two-dimensional profiles or threedimensional measurements and calculate different roughness parameters. The importance of using systematically several roughness parameters for correlation with biological response, and of consider these parameters at different scales will be demonstrated. Furthermore, it will be described, from a general point of view, how cells are able to identify and respond to surface topography. The role of membrane receptors, cytoskeleton, filopods and intracellular signal transduction in the response to topography will be considered and discussed. A critical review of more than 300 papers provides the basis for illustrating how mammalian cells respond to surface topography and how their rugophilia, the increased cell response to rougher surfaces, is a function of cell phenotype. For the first time, the rugophilia of cells from different tissue origins is compared in a synthetic table.

On-chip assay of the effect of topographical microenvironment on cell growth and cell-cell interactions during wound healing

“…These results may be due to the different cell sizes and origin. 42 According to what we have measured, the mean diameter of ESF-1 cells is 22 lm and almost in a round shape after just trypsinization, which is larger than HaCaT and HUVEC cells. So the d15-lm micropillar substrate may be not suitable for ESF-1 cells to attach.…”

“…These results may also indicate that cells could send local protrusions to probe the physical properties of the environment and later anchor themselves on the substrates that are suitable for their growth and proliferation. 42,43 In general, we found that the d18-lm micropillar substrate could prompt more cell adhesion and proliferation than the other substrates. In addition, cells on the d18-lm micropillar substrate showed higher cell viability and better morphology than those on the other substrates.…”

“…Actin cytoskeleton would be rearranged according to the underlying surface topography which accounted for the dramatic cell morphology changes. 42,48 Nuclei deformation is most likely the result of a balance between the rigidity of the nucleus and the force that the cytoskeleton is able to exert on it. 23 All together, these results confirmed that cells could interact with the micropillar substrates and respond dynamically and spatiotemporally to the surrounding extracellular matrix.…”

Calcium phosphate substrates with emulsion-derived roughness: Processing, characterisation and interaction with human mesenchymal stem cells

“…5). The Ra values that characterise the substrates are within a range that has been shown to affect cell behaviour [58].…”

“…A review by Anselme and Bigerelle [58] states that, in the majority of studies, adhesion of bone cells increases when roughness increases, although other studies suggest otherwise. Chemistry appears to have no significant effect on cell adhesion.…”