2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.10.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of fiber diameter of electrospun substrates on neural stem cell differentiation and proliferation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

36
529
2
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 703 publications
(569 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
36
529
2
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This effect can be due to the FAs pattern and lower 3 stress fibres organization presented by SC cultured on micro-fibers substrate and to the mechanical 4 properties of the fibres in according to literature data discussed before [51][52][53]. Our data are in 5 according with a study in which neural stem/progenitor cells displayed fibres higher degree of 6 proliferation and cell spreading and lower degree of cell aggregation as the fibre diameter decreased 7 [23]. 8…”
Section: Increasing Fibre Diameter Size Resulted In Lower Cell Prolifsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…This effect can be due to the FAs pattern and lower 3 stress fibres organization presented by SC cultured on micro-fibers substrate and to the mechanical 4 properties of the fibres in according to literature data discussed before [51][52][53]. Our data are in 5 according with a study in which neural stem/progenitor cells displayed fibres higher degree of 6 proliferation and cell spreading and lower degree of cell aggregation as the fibre diameter decreased 7 [23]. 8…”
Section: Increasing Fibre Diameter Size Resulted In Lower Cell Prolifsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…As dictated in previous studies on neural and vascular cells (Daud et al 2012;Wang et al 2012;Christopherson et al 2009), fibre diameter does affect the viability of cells. Similarly to our results Christopherson et al (2009) and Daud et al (2012) found that when fibre diameter is around 1-1.5 µm cells have a lower proliferative capacity. Although, in the Christophereon et al study the comparison is to nanofibres, our study, similarly to Daud et al demonstrated a comparable result with respect to larger fibres, which may be down to points of attachment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…These fibers are exceedingly long (km range) compared with their diameters (x), which usually follow a unimodal statistical distribution. The mean and spread of such distributions can be controlled and tweaked via process parameters over a wide range, from a few nanometers to hundreds of microns [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. The fiber diameter x is regarded as the prime controllable design parameter to steer scaffold performance in terms of cell response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reportedly, nanoscale fibers, in the absence of beads, were found to accelerate and improve cell adhesion and proliferation in the presence of growth factors with respect to the microscale counterpart -partly owing to the higher specific surface area providing a kinetic boost [18,21]. Nanofibers also appeared to sustain growth factor-induced stem cell differentiation [14,15,17,22,23]. However, dense nanoscale networks are not optimal, as they tend to block cell migration through the thickness and are outperformed by microscale fibers in terms of cell ingrowth and viability [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation