AFM and Cell Staining to Assess the In Vitro Biocompatibility of Opaque Surfaces

General Cytotoxicity and Its Application in Nanomaterial Analysis

“…On the other hand, the MTT assay suggested better biocompatibility for 6H-SiC than for the graphene surface. Moreover, different preparation of graphene surfaces (first one without any further surface treatment, and the second one additionally disinfected by immersion in ethanol) resulted in more homogeneous and increased cell adhesion on ethanol-sterilised graphene surface [1]. Our study also confirmed the undeniable value of AMF analysis in the experiment involving the MAC-T cell line seeded on different surfaces (glass, glass coated with poly-D-lysine) (Figure 7).…”

“…Cell-substrate interaction was different for H4 and PC12 cell lines, e.g., for H4 cells; the most negative interaction was recorded for glass, the most positive for 3C-SiC, while PC12 cells had the most negative interaction with glass, but the best with 3C-SiC and PSt. The authors concluded that AFM analysis indicated that neural cell interactions with 3C-SiC resulted in the optimal cell viability, morphology and interaction of cells with 3C-SiC surface [1]. Frewin et al [1] published the results of AFM analysis concerning cellular interaction on graphene.…”

“…The authors concluded that AFM analysis indicated that neural cell interactions with 3C-SiC resulted in the optimal cell viability, morphology and interaction of cells with 3C-SiC surface [1]. Frewin et al [1] published the results of AFM analysis concerning cellular interaction on graphene. The experiments focused on cytoskeleton organisation and the determination of the number of contact sites, and AFM technology can provide valuable information on the mechanism of cellular adhesion and proliferation on graphene surface.…”

“…Different methods of graphene preparation, for example, mechanical cleaving, chemical synthesis and chemical vapour deposition (CVD) on metals or epitaxial growth on SiC, not only give graphene different electrical, optical or morphological properties, but also different biocompatibility. For example, the biocompatibility of a single graphene layer produced by CVD on Cu was higher in comparison with SiO 2 /Si surfaces studied on human osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells [1,84]. In another study, epitaxially grown graphene films on (0001) 6H-SiC substrates were evaluated in cellular response experiments using AMF analysis.…”

“…The effect of nanomaterials on cellular metabolism and relative viability can differ according to their properties and experimental design. As shown by Frewin et al [1], biocompatibility analyses of novel materials for medical applications are conducted using quantitative and qualitative techniques. These techniques have been collected by the International Standards Organization (ISO) 10,993 1 (ISO-10993-1, 2009; ISO-10993- 5,2009; ISO-10993- 6,2007).…”