Using high resolution focused ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM) we study the details of cell-nanostructure interactions using serial block face imaging. 3T3 Fibroblast cellular monolayers are cultured on flat glass as a control surface and on two types of nanostructured scaffold substrates made from silicon black (Nanograss) with low- and high nanowire density. After culturing for 72 hours the cells were fixed, heavy metal stained, embedded in resin, and processed with FIB-SEM block face imaging without removing the substrate. The sample preparation procedure, image acquisition and image post-processing were specifically optimised for cellular monolayers cultured on nanostructured substrates. Cells display a wide range of interactions with the nanostructures depending on the surface morphology, but also greatly varying from one cell to another on the same substrate, illustrating a wide phenotypic variability. Depending on the substrate and cell, we observe that cells could for instance: break the nanowires and engulf them, flatten the nanowires or simply reside on top of them. Given the complexity of interactions, we have categorised our observations and created an overview map. The results demonstrate that detailed nanoscale resolution images are required to begin understanding the wide variety of individual cells’ interactions with a structured substrate. The map will provide a framework for light microscopy studies of such interactions indicating what modes of interactions must be considered.

No abstract

Knowledge of cells' interactions with nanostructured materials is fundamental for bio-nanotechnology. We present results for how individual mouse fibroblasts from cell line NIH3T3 respond to highly spiked surfaces of silicon black that were fabricated by maskless reactive ion etching (RIE). We did standard measurements of cell viability, proliferation, and morphology on various surfaces. We also analyzed the motility of cells on the same surfaces, as recorded in time lapse movies of sparsely populated cell cultures. We find that motility and morphology vary strongly with nano-patterns, while viability and proliferation show little dependence on substrate type. We conclude that motility analysis can show a wide range of cell responses e.g. over a factor of two in cell speed to different nano-topographies, where standard assays, such as viability or proliferation, in the tested cases show much less variation of the order 10-20%.

IntroductionMicrofluidics systems usually consist of materials like PMMA - poly(methyl methacrylate) and PDMS - poly(dimethylsiloxane) and not polystyrene (PS), which is usually used for cell culture. Cellular and molecular responses in cells grown on PS are well characterized due to decades of accumulated research. In contrast, the experience base is limited for materials used in microfludics chip fabrication.MethodsThe effect of different materials (PS, PMMA and perforated PMMA with a piece of PDMS underneath) on the growth and differentiation of PC12 (adrenal phaeochromocytoma) cells into neuronal-like cells was investigated using cell viability, cell cycle distribution, morphology, and gene expression analysis.Results/ConclusionsAfter differentiation, the morphology, viability and cell cycle distribution of PC12 cells grown on PS, PMMA with and without PDMS underneath was the same. By contrast, 41 genes showed different expression for PC12 cells differentiating on PMMA as compared to on PS. In contrast, 677 genes showed different expression on PMMA with PDMS underneath as compared with PC12 cells on PS. The differentially expressed genes are involved in neuronal cell development and function. However, there were also many markers for neuronal cell development and functions that were expressed similarly in cells differentiating on PS, PMMA and PMMA with PDMS underneath. In conclusion, it was shown that PMMA has a minor impact and PDMS a major impact on gene expression in PC12 cells.