Advertisement

Adhesion and Proliferation of Human Adipose-Derived Stem Cells on Titania Nanotube Surfaces

  • Kari Cowden
  • Marcela Ferreira Dias-Netipanyj
  • Ketul C. PopatEmail author
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. BioMET2018

Abstract

When a biomaterial is implanted, the body reacts similar to an injury and stem cells are recruited to the implant site. Since, stem cells play an important role in tissue repair in the body, their interaction with biomaterials is critical for long-term success of medical devices. Surfaces with nanostructured features have been shown to alter cellular functionality in vitro and even improve fixation of the implant to the surrounding bone tissues in vivo. In this study, the effect of titania nanotube (NT) size and cell density on the adhesion and proliferation of human adipose-derived stem cells (ASCs) was evaluated. Although many studies have evaluated mesenchymal stem cells response on nanostructured surfaces, very few studies have explored the response of adipose-derived stem cells on titanium nanotube surfaces and none have explored the effect of cell density concurrent with nanotube size on ASC proliferation. Proliferation behavior of ASCs on NT surfaces and titanium control were investigated for a week using three different cell densities. The optimal cell density was 2500 cells/well and the smaller diameter NT exhibited higher ASC proliferation. This study confirms that NT surfaces promote ASC adhesion and proliferation. By more fully understanding the effect of nanostructure size on adhesion and proliferation of stem cells, implants could be specifically designed to achieve the optimal stem cell response from the tissue in which they are implanted. Additionally, the favorable response of ASC to these NT surfaces and determination of optimal cell density suggests a potential use in orthopedic tissue regeneration.

Lay Summary

When a biomaterial is implanted, the body reacts similar to an injury and stem cells are recruited to the implant site. Since, stem cells play an important role in tissue repair in the body, their interaction with biomaterials is critical for long-term success of medical devices. This study confirms that nanotube surfaces promote stem cell adhesion and proliferation.

Keywords

Adipose-derived stem cells Titania nanotubes Biomaterials Cell adhesion Cell proliferation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Patrick McCurdy and Dr. Roy Geiss for their assistance with SEM, Brian Newell for his assistance with XRD, and Dr. Kimberly Cox-York for isolating and donating the adipose-derived stem cells.

References

  1. 1.
    Krafts KP. The hidden drama tissue repair. Organogenesis. 2010;6:225–33.  https://doi.org/10.4161/org6.4.12555.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Colter DC, Class R, DiGirolamo CM, Prockop DJ. Rapid expansion of recycling stem cells in cultures of plastic-adherent cells from human bone marrow. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2000;97:3213–8.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.7.3213.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lindroos B, Suuronen R, Miettinen S. The potential of adipose stem cells in regenerative medicine. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2011;7:269–91.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-010-9193-7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zuk P. Adipose-derived stem cells in tissue regeneration: a review. Int Sch Res Not. 2013;2013:e713959.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/713959.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zanetti AS, Sabliov C, Gimble JM, Hayes DJ. Human adipose-derived stem cells and three-dimensional scaffold constructs: a review of the biomaterials and models currently used for bone regeneration. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101 B:187–99.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.32817.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsuji W. Adipose-derived stem cells: implications in tissue regeneration. World J Stem Cells. 2014;6:312–21.  https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v6.i3.312.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunnell BA, Flaat M, Gagliardi C, Patel B, Ripoll C. Adipose-derived stem cells: isolation, expansion and differentiation. Methods. 2008;45:115–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2008.03.006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halvorsen YC, Franklin D, Bond AL, Hitt DC, Auchter C, Boskey AL, et al. Extracellular matrix mineralization and osteoblast. Tissue Eng. 2001;7:729–41.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miana VV, González EAP. Adipose tissue stem cells in regenerative medicine. Ecancermedicalscience. 2018;12:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2018.822.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Locke M, Windsor J, Dunbar PR. Human adipose-derived stem cells: isolation, characterization and applications in surgery. ANZ J Surg. 2009;79:235–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.04852.x.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frese L, Dijkman PE, Hoerstrup SP. Adipose tissue-derived stem cells in regenerative medicine. Transfus Med Hemother. 2016;43:268–74.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000448180.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Long M, Rack HJ. Titanium alloys in total joint replacement--a materials science perspective. Biomaterials. 1998;19:1621–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(97)00146-4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams DF. On the mechanisms of biocompatibility. Biomaterials. 2008;29:2941–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.04.023.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Banovetz JM, Sharp R, Probe RA, Anglen JO. Titanium plate fixation: a review of implant failures. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10:389–94.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berthet JP, Gomez Caro A, Solovei L, Gilbert M, Bommart S, Gaudard P, et al. Titanium implant failure after chest wall osteosynthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:1945–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.02.040.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geetha M, Singh AK, Asokamani R, Gogia AK. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants - a review. Prog Mater Sci. 2009;54:397–425.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yaszemski MJ, Trantolo DJ, Lewandrowsk K-U, Hasirc V, Altobelli DE, Wise DL. Corrosion and biocompatibility of orthopedic implants. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Newman P, Galenano-Ninõ JL, Graney P, Razal JM, Minett AI, Ribas J, et al. Relationship between nanotopographical alignment and stem cell fate with live imaging and shape analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37909.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salou L, Hoornaert A, Louarn G, Layrolle P. Enhanced osseointegration of titanium implants with nanostructured surfaces: an experimental study in rabbits. Acta Biomater. 2015;11:494–502.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.10.017.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Witte MB, Barbul A. General principles of wound healing. Surg Clin North Am. 1997;77:509–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6109(05)70566-1.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knabe C, Howlett CR, Klar F, Zreiqat H. The effect of different titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated dental implant surfaces on phenotypic expression of human bone-derived cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;71:98–107.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30130.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bosco R, Iafisco M, Tampieri A, Jansen JA, Leeuwenburgh SCG, Van Den Beucken JJJP. Hydroxyapatite nanocrystals functionalized with alendronate as bioactive components for bone implant coatings to decrease osteoclastic activity. Appl Surf Sci. 2015;328:516–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.12.072.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alghamdi HS, Bosco R, van den Beucken JJJP, Walboomers XF, Jansen JA. Osteogenicity of titanium implants coated with calcium phosphate or collagen type-I in osteoporotic rats. Biomaterials. 2013;34:3747–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.02.033.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alghamdi HS, Bosco R, Both SK, Iafisco M, Leeuwenburgh SCG, Jansen JA, et al. Synergistic effects of bisphosphonate and calcium phosphate nanoparticles on peri-implant bone responses in osteoporotic rats. Biomaterials. 2014;35:5482–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.03.069.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kokkonen H, Niiranen H, Schols HA, Morra M, Stenbäck F, Tuukkanen J. Pectin-coated titanium implants are well-tolerated in vivo. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;93:1404–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32649.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prakash C, Uddin MS. Surface modification of β-phase Ti implant by hydroaxyapatite mixed electric discharge machining to enhance the corrosion resistance and in-vitro bioactivity. Surf Coat Technol. 2017;326:134–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.07.040.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aparicio C, Padrós A, Gil FJ. In vivo evaluation of micro-rough and bioactive titanium dental implants using histometry and pull-out tests. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4:1672–82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2011.05.005.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schwartz Z, Raz P, Zhao G, Barak Y, Tauber M, Yao H, et al. Effect of micrometer-scale roughness of the surface of Ti6Al4V pedicle screws in vitro and in vivo. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:2485–98.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00499.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Surface modifications and their effects on titanium dental implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/791725.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Simmons CA, Valiquette N, Pilliar R. Osseointegration of sintered porous-surfaced and plasma spray-coated implants: an animal model study of early postimplanation healing response and mechanical stability. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999;47:127–38.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ban S, Iwaya Y, Kono H, Sato H. Surface modification of titanium by etching in concentrated sulfuric acid. Dent Mater. 2006;22:1115–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.09.007.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stevens MM. Biomaterials for bone tissue engineering. Mater Today. 2008;11:18–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(08)70086-5.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mendonça G, Mendonça DBS, Aragão FJL, Cooper LF. Advancing dental implant surface technology - from micron- to nanotopography. Biomaterials. 2008;29:3822–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.012.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kulkarni M, Mazare A, Schmuki P, Iglič A. Biomaterial surface modification of titanium and titanium alloys for medical applications. Nanomedicine. 2014:111–36.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tan AW, Tay L. Proliferation and stemness preservation of human adipose-derived stem cells by surface-modified in situ TiO 2 nanofibrous surfaces. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:5389–401.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S72659.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang X, Zhu J, Yin L, Liu S, Zhang X, Ao Y, et al. Fabrication of electrospun silica-titania nanofibers with different silica content and evaluation of the morphology and osteoinductive properties. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2012;100 A:3511–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34293.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Malec K, Goralska J, Hubalewska-Mazgaj M, Glowacz P, Jarosz M, Brzewski P, et al. Effects of nanoporous anodic titanium oxide on human adipose derived stem cells. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:5349–60.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S116263.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yu D, Song Y, Zhu X, Yang R, Han A. Morphological evolution of TiO2 nanotube arrays with lotus-root-shaped nanostructure. Appl Surf Sci. 2013;276:711–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2013.03.158.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wang Y, Wen C, Hodgson P, Li Y. Biocompatibility of TiO2 nanotubes with different topographies. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102:743–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.34738.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kulkarni M, Flašker A, Lokar M, Mrak-Poljšak K, Mazare A, Artenjak A, et al. Binding of plasma proteins to titanium dioxide nanotubes with different diameters. Int J Nanomedicine. 2015;10:1359–73.  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S77492.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lv L, Liu Y, Zhang P, Zhang X, Liu J, Chen T, et al. The nanoscale geometry of TiO2 nanotubes influences the osteogenic differentiation of human adipose-derived stem cells by modulating H3K4 trimethylation. Biomaterials. 2015;39:193–205.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Popat KC, Eltgroth M, LaTempa TJ, Grimes CA, Desai TA. Decreased Staphylococcus epidermis adhesion and increased osteoblast functionality on antibiotic-loaded titania nanotubes. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4880–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.037.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Oh S, Daraio C, Chen L-H, Pisanic TR, Fiñones RR, Jin S. Significantly accelerated osteoblast cell growth on aligned TiO2 nanotubes. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2006;78:97–103.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    An S-H, Narayanan R, Matsumoto T, Lee H-J, Kwon T-Y, Kim K-H. Crystallinity of anodic TiO2 nanotubes and bioactivity. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2011;11:4910–8.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ge R, Fu W, Yang H, Zhang Y, Zhao W, Liu Z, et al. Fabrication and characterization of highly-ordered titania nanotubes via electrochemical anodization. Mater Lett. 2008;62:2688–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2008.01.015.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kulkarni M, Mazare a GE, Perutkova Š, Kralj-Iglič V, Milošev I, Schmuki P, et al. Titanium nanostructures for biomedical applications. Nanotechnology. 2015;26:062002.  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/26/6/062002.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith BS, Yoriya S, Grissom L, Grimes CA, Popat KC. Hemocompatibility of titania nanotube arrays. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010;95 A:350–60.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.32853.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cox-York KA, Erickson CB, Pereira RI, Bessesen DH, Van Pelt RE. Region-specific effects of oestradiol on adipose-derived stem cell differentiation in post-menopausal women. J Cell Mol Med. 2017;21:677–84.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.13011.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trujillo N, Popat K. Increased adipogenic and decreased chondrogenic differentiation of adipose derived stem cells on nanowire surfaces. Materials (Basel). 2014;7:2605–30.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ma7042605.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Frandsen CJ, Brammer KS, Jin S. Variations to the nanotube surface for bone regeneration. Int J Biomater. 2013;2013:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/513680.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Boyan BD, Lohmann CH, Dean DD, Sylvia VL, Cochran DL, Schwartz Z. Mechanisms involved in osteoblast response to implant surface morphology. Annu Rev Mater Res. 2001;31:357–71.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
  53. 53.
    Macak JM, Tsuchiya H, Ghicov a, Yasuda K, Hahn R, Bauer S, et al. TiO2 nanotubes: self-organized electrochemical formation, properties and applications. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci. 2007;11:3–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2007.08.004.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wang Y, Yu D-L, Chong B, Li D-D, Song Y, Zhang S-Y, et al. Simulation and separation of anodizing current-time curves, morphology evolution of TiO2 nanotubes anodized at various temperatures. J Electrochem Soc. 2014;161:H891–5.  https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0411414jes.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Roy P, Berger S, Schmuki P. TiO2 nanotubes: synthesis and applications. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2011;50:2904–39.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201001374.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hamlekhan A, Butt A, Patel S, Royhman D, Takoudis C, Sukotjo C, et al. Fabrication of anti-aging TiO2 nanotubes on biomedical Ti alloys. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96213.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096213.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yang Y, Cavin R, Ong JL. Protein adsorption on titanium surfaces and their effect on osteoblast attachment. J Biomed Mater Res. 2003;67A:344–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.10578.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rupp F, Liang L, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Scheideler L, Hüttig F. Surface characteristics of dental implants: a review. Dent Mater. 2017;34:1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.007.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mor GK, Varghese OK, Paulose M, Shankar K, Grimes CA. A review on highly ordered, vertically oriented TiO2 nanotube arrays: fabrication, material properties, and solar energy applications. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells. 2006;90:2011–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2006.04.007.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kar P. Effect of anodization voltage on the formation of phase pure anatase nanotubes with doped carbon. Inorg Mater. 2010;46:377–82.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0020168510040102.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Su Z, Zhang L, Jiang F, Hong M. Formation of crystalline TiO2 by anodic oxidation of titanium. Prog Nat Sci Mater Int. 2013;23:294–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2013.04.004.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mazare A, Dilea M, Ionita D, Titorencu I, Trusca V, Vasile E. Changing bioperformance of TiO 2 amorphous nanotubes as an effect of inducing crystallinity. Bioelectrochemistry. 2012;87:124–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2012.01.002.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Brammer KS, Oh S, Cobb CJ, Bjursten LM, Van Der Heyde H, Jin S. Improved bone-forming functionality on diameter-controlled TiO2 nanotube surface. Acta Biomater. 2009;5:3215–23.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2009.05.008.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    He J, Zhou W, Zhou X, Zhong X, Zhang X, Wan P, et al. The anatase phase of nanotopography titania plays an important role on osteoblast cell morphology and proliferation. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008;19:3465–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-008-3505-3.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Albu SP, Schmuki P. TiO2 nanotubes grown in different organic electrolytes: two-size self-organization, single vs. double-walled tubes, and giant diameters. Phys Status Solidi Rapid Res Lett. 2010;4:215–7.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pssr.201004244.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lai M, Cai K, Zhao L, Chen X, Hou Y, Yang Z, Surface functionalization of tio 2 nanotubes with bone morphogenetic protein 2 and its synergistic effect on the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12(4):1097–105.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Albu SP, Kim D, Schmuki P. Growth of aligned TiO2 bamboo-type nanotubes and highly ordered nanolace. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2008;47:1916–9.  https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.200704144.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Barbier O, Arreola-Mendoza L, Del Razo LM. Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chem Biol Interact. 2010;188:319–33.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2010.07.011.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Khokher MA, Dandona P. Fluoride stimulates [3H] thymidine incorporation and alkaline phosphatase production by human osteoblasts. Metabolism. 1990;39:1118–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0026-0495(90)90081-M.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Qu WJ, Zhong DB, Wu PF, Wang JF, Han B. Sodium fluoride modulates caprine osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. J Bone Miner Metab. 2008;26:328–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-007-0832-2.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Liu HY, Wang XJ, Wang LP, Lei FY, Wang XF, Ai HJ. Effect of fluoride-ion implantation on the biocompatibility of titanium for dental applications. Appl Surf Sci. 2008;254:6305–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2008.03.075.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ellingsen JE. Pre-treatment of titanium implants with fluoride improves their retention in bone. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1995;6:749–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00134312.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yang CY, Huang LY, Shen TL, Andrew Yeh J. Cell adhesion, morphology and biochemistry on nanotopographic oxidized silicon surfaces. Eur Cells Mater. 2010;20:415–30.  https://doi.org/10.22203/eCM.v020a34.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Papenburg BJ, Rodrigues ED, Wessling M, Stamatialis D. Insights into the role of material surface topography and wettability on cell-material interactions. Soft Matter. 2010;6:4377.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b927207k.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Abagnale G, Sechi A, Steger M, Zhou Q, Kuo CC, Aydin G, et al. Surface topography guides morphology and spatial patterning of induced pluripotent stem cell colonies. Stem Cell Rep. 2017;9:654–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.06.016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Regenerative Engineering Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Pós-graduação em Ciências da Saúde, Escola de MedicinaPontifícia Universidade Católica do ParanáCuritibaBrazil
  3. 3.School of Biomedical EngineeringColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA

Personalised recommendations