The Effects of Colloidal Nanotopography on Initial Fibroblast Adhesion and Morphology

Abstract

Abstract-Colloidal lithography offers a simple, inexpensive method of producing irregular nanotopographies, a pattern not easily attainable utilizing conventional serial writing processes. Colloids with 20-or 50-nm diameter were utilized to produce such an irregular topography and were characterized by calculating the percentage area coverage of particles. Interparticle and nearest neighbor spacing were also assessed for the individual colloids in the pattern. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant differences between the number of fibroblasts adhering to planar, 20-, and 50-nm-diameter colloidal topographies, the number of fibroblasts adhering to the substrates at the time intervals studied, namely 20 min, 1 h, and 3 h and significant interaction between time and topography on fibroblast adhesion

Cell interaction with three-dimensional sharp-tip nanotopography

“…Our observations on cell number, morphology, and adhesion on the 3D sharp-tip Nanoposts were consistent with the results reported on the columnar nanostructures fabricated by polymer demixing [6,11] or colloidal lithography [7][8][9]15], including a clear interaction between cell's filopodia and the nanofeatures [6,7,9,11]. However, it should be noted that the pattern periodicity (100 nm -2 μm) and the tip diameter (50 nm -1 μm)…”

“…To date, there have been several studies on the nanotopographical effects on cell behaviors, including human fibroblasts [6][7][8][9]11,15,18,19,23]. Our observations on cell number, morphology, and adhesion on the 3D sharp-tip Nanoposts were consistent with the results reported on the columnar nanostructures fabricated by polymer demixing [6,11] or colloidal lithography [7][8][9]15], including a clear interaction between cell's filopodia and the nanofeatures [6,7,9,11].…”

“…Similarly, colloidal lithography [7][8][9]15] still lacked the independent control of the pattern periodicity (60-230 nm depending on the structure height) and tip dimension, not allowing the examination of the importance of symmetry or regularity of the nanotopography [18,34]. Although fewer cells, smaller cell area, clear orientation, more filopodia, and less cytoskeleton activities on regular orthogonal and hexagonal nanopit patterns (100-300 nm in pitch, 35-120 nm in diameter) enabled by e-beam lithography were reported [18,19], the topographical 3D effects were not examinable with the dot or pit patterns.…”

“…Topographical features affect cell behaviors in terms of adhesion, morphology, cytoskeletal arrangement, migration, proliferation, surface antigen display, and gene expression [3,4]. The effects of nanoperiodic surface features on the cell behavior had been examined by using nanoscale patterns such as columns [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12], dots [13][14][15][16][17], pits [18,19], pores [20], gratings [21][22][23][24][25][26], meshwork [27][28][29][30], nanophase grain [31], and random surface roughness [32] created by a variety of nanolithography and nanofabrication techniques including e-beam lithography [23], dip-pen lithography [13], laser irradiation [24], nanoimprinting [12,18,19,26], capillary lithography [10], x-ray lithography [22], interference lithography [21,25], polymer demixing [6,11], block-copolymer lithography [14], nanoparticle or colloi...…”

Greater fibroblast proliferation on an ultrasonicated ZnO/PVC nanocomposite material

“…For example, previous studies have demonstrated that initial fibroblast adhesion moderately increased on silica surfaces with a colloidal nanotopography. 4 However, some studies have also demonstrated adverse effects of nanostructures on cell adhesion, 5 and there has a been lack of understanding as to why some nanofeatures increase cellular functions while others may not. The authors' group has observed that increased cellular (eg, osteoblasts, fibroblasts, endothelial cells) functions can result on nanotopographies which possess altered wettability due to the presence of such nanofeatures.…”