Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T13:26:36.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Substratum Morphology on Animal Cell Adhesion and Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

Rahul Singhvi ,
Gregory N. Stephanopoulos  and
Daniel I. C. Wang
Rahul Singhvi
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Process Engineering Center and Department of Chemical Engineering Massachusetts, Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.
Gregory N. Stephanopoulos
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Process Engineering Center and Department of Chemical Engineering Massachusetts, Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.
Daniel I. C. Wang
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Process Engineering Center and Department of Chemical Engineering Massachusetts, Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139.
Get access

Abstract

Glass surfaces with well defined surface morphologies have been prepared using photolithography to study the effect of surface morphology on cell adhesion and function. Using a transformed recombinant cell-line, AtT-20, as a model of shear sensitive cell, we have shown that cell-substratum adhesion strength is enhanced using a surface with uniform grooves without any loss in cellular function. Furthermore, using primary hepatocytes as a model for a cell whose function is sensitive to its shape, we have shown that surface morphology can modulate cell shape as well as its function.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 252: Symposium T – Tissue-Inducing Biomaterials , 1991 , 237
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Folkman, J. and Moscona, A., Nature, 273, 345 (1978).Google Scholar
2. Ingber, D. E., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87 3579 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Hong, H. L. and Brunette, D. M., J. Cell Sci., 87, 259 (1987).Google Scholar
4. Iwig, M., Glaesser, D. and Bethge, M., Exp. Cell Res., 131, 47 (1981).Google Scholar
5. Ben-Ze'ev, A., J. Cell Sci. Suppl., 8, 293 (1987).Google Scholar
6. Aikan, J., Cima, L., Schloo, B., Mooney, D., Johnson, L., Langer, R. and Vacanti, J., J. Ped. Sur. 25, 140 (1990).Google Scholar
7. Hertl, W., Ramsey, W. S. and Nowlan, E. D., In Vitro, 20, 796 (1984).Google Scholar
8. Cima, L. G., Ingber, D. E., Vacanti, J. P. and Langer, R., Biot. Bioeng., 38 145 (1991).Google Scholar
9. Mooney, D. J., Langer, R., Vacanti, J. P. and Ingber, D. E., presented at the 1990 AIChE annual meeting, Chicago, II, 1990 (unpublished).Google Scholar
10. Chehroudi, B., Gould, T. R. L., and Brunette, D. M., J. Biomed. Mat. Res., 24 1203 (1990)Google Scholar
11. Dunn, G. A. and Brown, A. F., J. Cell Sci., 83, 313 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Brunette, D. M., Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants, 3, 231 (1988). Surface Characterization of Biomaterials, edited by Ratner, B.D. (Elsevier), p 205.Google Scholar
13. Wittelsberger, S. C., Kleene, K. and Penman, S., Cell, 24, 859 (1981).Google Scholar
14. Ben-Ze'ev, A., Farmer, S. R. and Penman, S., Cell, 21, 365 (1980).Google Scholar