Stiffness and topography of biomaterials dictate cell‐matrix interaction in musculoskeletal cells at the bio‐interface: A concise progress review

Abstract

Mutually interacted musculoskeletal tissues work together within the physiological environment full of varieties of external stimulus. Consistent with the locomotive function of the tissues, musculoskeletal cells are remarkably mechanosensitive to the physical cues. Signals like extracellular matrix (ECM) stiffness, topography, and geometry can be sensed and transduced into intracellular signaling cascades to trigger a series of cell responses, including cell adhesion, cell phenotype maintenance, cytoskeletal reconstruction, and stem cell differentiation (Du et al., 2011; Murphy et al., 2014; Lv et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2017). With the development of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, the potent effects of ECM physical properties on cell behaviors at the cell‐matrix interface are drawing much attention. To mimic the interaction between cell and its ECM physical properties, developing advanced biomaterials with desired characteristics which could achieve the biointerface between cells and the surrounded matrix close to the physiological conditions becomes a great hotspot. In this review, based on the current publications in the field of biointerfaces, we systematically summarized the significant roles of stiffness and topography on musculoskeletal cell behaviors. We hope to shed light on the importance of physical cues in musculoskeletal tissue engineering and provide up to date strategies towards the natural or artificial replication of physiological microenvironment.

Assessing the combined effect of surface topography and substrate rigidity in human bone marrow stem cell cultures

“…The combined effect of surface topography and substrate stiffness in cell function has been the subject of many investigations, the findings of which have been recently summarized [32,33]. It is worth noting though that most research has been conducted with non-degradable polymers (such as polydimethylsiloxane, PDMS, [34][35][36][37]), which are of little value in the development of regenerative medicine implantable devices.…”

Biobased Elastomer Nanofibers Guide Light‐Controlled Human‐iPSC‐Derived Skeletal Myofibers

“…Physical, topographical, and mechanical properties have been shown to enhance cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation potential of different musculoskeletal cell types. [ 69 ] To assess how the electrospun nanofibers guide myoblast orientation and contribute to myofiber maturation, the orientation and morphology of C2C12 myoblasts were analyzed. ICC images of cells stained for F‐Actin (Phalloidin) and DNA (DAPI) showed visible morphological differences in the myotubes which formed on glass coverslips ( Figure 3 a ), and on coverslips coated with randomly oriented (Figure 3b ) and aligned nanofibers (Figure 3c ).…”

“…Physical, topographical, and mechanical properties have been shown to enhance cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation potential of different musculoskeletal cell types. [69] To assess how the electrospun nanofibers guide myoblast orientation and contribute to myofiber maturation, the orientation and Mean across all strain groups; b) Elastic modulus; c) Skeletal muscle; d) Tissue culture.…”

Adipogenesis or osteogenesis: destiny decision made by mechanical properties of biomaterials

“…26 Yet, in biomaterials engineering, topology is usually referred to as the macro-geometry and micro-surface features of the scaffolds. 85 Efforts in designing and manufacturing scaffolds with topological structure serve to recapitulate the topographic heterogeneity of native tissues. For example, muscles, vessels, nerves, and tendons shared a homeomorphic microtubular structure.…”