2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.05.076
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Substrate conductivity dependent modulation of cell proliferation and differentiation in vitro

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
51
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
5
51
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The lengths of myotubes were typically 1.7–3.2 folds higher on the HPLAAT than on HPLA, which demonstrated again the positive correlation between the increase of myotube length and AT contents. These results were also consistent with other reports about myogenic differentiation on conductive substrates [6, 9, 41, 42]. The diameters of myotubes were also measured to further quantify myotube formation on these polymer substrates.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The lengths of myotubes were typically 1.7–3.2 folds higher on the HPLAAT than on HPLA, which demonstrated again the positive correlation between the increase of myotube length and AT contents. These results were also consistent with other reports about myogenic differentiation on conductive substrates [6, 9, 41, 42]. The diameters of myotubes were also measured to further quantify myotube formation on these polymer substrates.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 90%
“…Conducting scaffolds are attractive for skeletal muscle tissue engineering because they not only provide physical support, but also transmit electrical signal [2, 47]. Conducting substrates derived from polypyrrole (PPy) [8], HA-CaTiO3 (hydroxyapatite-calcium titanate), [9], polyaniline (PANi) and poly(ε-caprolactone) (PCL) [6] show positive effect in promoting the proliferation, differentiation, and maturation of skeletal muscle tissue in comparison with non-conductive polymeric substrates [2]. However, there are significant challenges in utilizing these conductive materials for muscle regeneration because of their low or non-degradability, poor mechanical properties, poor solubility and poor processability [1015].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, coating the substrates with conductive films of gold and titanium did upregulate expression of these markers. The authors attribute this to the changes in inherent conductivity – a property known to upregulate myogenesis as reported elsewhere384647. It is possible that the regulatory effects of conductivity on differentiation are seen herein.…”
Section: Discussion/conclusionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Importantly, a higher current (40 mA) could increase the surface extracellular substances and the net negative surface electrostatic charge. Further, the manipulation of cell behavior in the presence of electric field depends on the size, shape, membrane thickness of the cells, strength and duration of applied electric field [14][15][16]. It is reported that the weak electric fields enhance the efficacy of antibiotics in killing bacterial biofilm even on the surfaces that are not used as electrodes [17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As far as the sole influence of substrate conductivity effect is concerned, an earlier study from our group illustrated the role of substrate conductivity as a guiding factor in the orientation and differentiation of C2C12 mouse myoblast cells on moderately conducting HACaTiO 3 substrates in the absence of electric field stimulation during culture [16]. In a follow-up study, our research group also reported the influence of pulse electrical stimulation (lateral electric field) on the osteogeneic cell proliferation on HACaTiO 3 substrates [34] and stainless steel [35] over a narrow window of field strength.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%