Recent studies have shown that some nanostructured surfaces (NSS), many of which are derived from surfaces found on insect cuticles, rupture and kill adhered prokaryotic microbes. Most important, the nanoscale topography is directly responsible for this effect. Although parameters such as cell adhesion and cell wall rigidity have been suggested to play significant roles in this process, there is little experimental evidence regarding the underlying mechanisms involving NSS-induced microbial rupture. In this work, we report the NSS-induced rupturing of a eukaryotic microorganism, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We show that the amount of NSS-induced rupture of S. cerevisiae is dependent on both the adhesive qualities of the yeast cell and the nanostructure geometry of the NSS. Thus, we are providing the first empirical evidence that these parameters play a direct role in the rupturing of microbes on NSS. Our observations of this phenomenon with S. cerevisiae, particularly the morphological changes, are strikingly similar to that reported for bacteria despite the differences in the yeast cell wall structure. Consequently, NSS provide a novel approach for the control of microbial growth and development of broad-spectrum microbicidal surfaces.

The mechanical interactions of cells are mediated through adhesive interactions. In this study, we examined the growth, cellular behavior, and adhesion of MDCK epithelial cells on three different SiO2 substrates: amorphous glass coverslips and the silicon oxide layers that grow on ⟨111⟩ and ⟨100⟩ wafers. While compositionally all three substrates are almost similar, differences in surface energy result in dramatic differences in epithelial cell morphology, cell–cell adhesion, cell–substrate adhesion, actin organization, and extracellular matrix (ECM) protein expression. We also observe striking differences in ECM protein binding to the various substrates due to the hydrogen bond interactions. Our results demonstrate that MDCK cells have a robust response to differences in substrates that is not obviated by nanotopography or surface composition and that a cell’s response may manifest through subtle differences in surface energies of the materials. This work strongly suggests that other properties of a material other than composition and topology should be considered when interpreting and controlling interactions of cells with a substrate, whether it is synthetic or natural.