Enlargement, Reduction, and Even Reversal of Relative Migration Speeds of Endothelial and Smooth Muscle Cells on Biomaterials Simply by Adjusting RGD Nanospacing

Junhao He,Qiong Liu,Shuang Zheng,Runjia Shen,Xinlei Wang,Jingming Gao,Qunsong Wang,Jiale Huang,Jiandong Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.1c08559

2021-09-01

Abstract:Although many tissue regeneration processes after biomaterial implantation are related to migrations of multiple cell types on material surfaces, available tools to adjust relative migration speeds are very limited. Herein, we put forward a nanomaterial strategy to employ surface modification with arginine–glycine–aspartate (RGD) nanoarrays to tune in vitro cell migration using endothelial cells (ECs) and smooth muscle cells (SMCs) as demonstrated cell types. We found that migrations of both cell types exhibited a nonmonotonic trend with the increase of RGD nanospacing, yet with different peaks—74 nm for SMCs but 95 nm for ECs. The varied sensitivities afford a facile way to regulate the relative migration speeds. Although ECs migrated at a speed similar to SMCs on a non-nano surface, the migration of ECs could be controlled to be significantly faster or slower than SMCs simply by adjusting the RGD nanospacing. This study suggests a potential application of surface modification of biomaterials on a nanoscale level.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsami.1c08559.Schematic presentation of RGD nanopatterns on PEG-passivated glass (Figure S1); schematic presentation of the procedure to enable observation of single cell migration (Figure S2); schematic presentation for statistics of V(contour) and D for single cell migration (Figure S3); schematic presentation of the procedure to enable observation of collective migration of cells on RGD nanopatterns using a cell culture insert (Figure S4); calculated V(mid-cell) reflecting the speed of the collective migration (Figure S5); schematic to illustrate the competition between free peptides and immobilized peptides bioconjugated with their receptor integrins (Figure S6); adhesion of HUVECs and HASMCs on the non-nano surface (Figure S7); number of adherent cells per unit area (up) and projected cell area (down) (Figure S8); immunofluorescence micrographs further indicating the adhesion of cells on RGD nanopatterns of nuclei (blue), actin (red), and vinculin (green) in HUVECs (A) and HASMCs (B) (Figure S9); Figures S10–S20; fabrication parameters and resultant nanospacings of the RGD nanopatterns prepared in this study (Table S1); and p values of one-way ANOVA of the data in the present work (Table S2−S14) (PDF)Demonstration of collective migration of HUVECs on the non-nano surface and a nanopattern with 95 nm of RGD nanospacing (Movie S1) (AVI)Demonstration of collective migration of HASMCs on the non-nano surface and a nanopattern with 74 nm of RGD nanospacing (Movie S2) (AVI)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

materials science, multidisciplinary,nanoscience & nanotechnology