Premium
PCL Nanopillars Versus Nanofibers: A Contrast in Progenitor Cell Morphology, Proliferation, and Fate Determination
Author(s) -
Prasad Ashok,
Berger Dustin,
Popat Ketul
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
advanced engineering materials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.938
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1527-2648
pISSN - 1438-1656
DOI - 10.1002/adem.201180086
Subject(s) - nanopillar , nanotopography , mesenchymal stem cell , progenitor cell , materials science , microbiology and biotechnology , nanofiber , stromal cell , osteopontin , osteoblast , biophysics , nanotechnology , stem cell , chemistry , nanostructure , immunology , biology , cancer research , in vitro , biochemistry
The role of nanotopography on the long‐term response of progenitor cells is explored using polycaprolactone (PCL) nanopillar and nanofiber surfaces seeded with plastic‐adherent rat multipotent mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs). After 4 weeks in culture under normal expansion media conditions, MSCs cultured on nanofibers exhibit better adherence, increased proliferation, and maintain increasingly dense fibroblast‐like morphologies. In contrast, MSCs seeded on nanopillar surfaces display lowered adherence, reduced proliferation, and adopt highly elongated cellular morphologies. Immunofluorescent staining of MSCs on PCL nanopillars reveals the presence of two bone marker proteins, osteopontin and osteocalcin, providing evidence for surface induced differentiation into osteoblast‐like cells. Unlike the nanopillar topography, MSCs cultured on nanofiber and smooth PCL surfaces did not appear to undergo osteogenesis. Observed differences in cellular response to the PCL nanotopographies offer strategies to direct progenitor cell populations solely based upon submicron surface modifications. This study provides a foundation for future work exploring variations in PCL nanopillar topography with the goal of optimizing adherence and osteogenic response of MSCs.