Atomic Force Microscopy Methods for Characterizing Protein Interactions with Microphase-Separated Polyurethane Biomaterials

  • Li-Chong Xu
  • Pranav Soman
  • Aashiish Agnihotri
  • Christopher A. Siedlecki


Understanding the molecular scale interactions between proteins and microphase-structured polyurethane (PU) biomaterials can provide mechanistic insights into the blood/biomaterial problem. This knowledge is critically important to provide design parameters for developing new blood-contacting materials with improved hemocompatibility. This chapter introduces a series of novel atomic force microscopy (AFM) techniques for characterization of PU biomaterials under ambient and physiologically relevant conditions. Techniques for measuring the interaction forces between proteins and surfaces or proteins and proteins, for measuring the bioactivity of proteins, and for correlating biological activity with material surface properties are discussed. The measurements reveal a complex interfacial environment where the material surface is undergoing dynamic changes at the same time as proteins are undergoing time-dependent conformational and bioactivity changes. Combining the ­traditional in vitro techniques for biocompatibility with these new AFM techniques offers new insights into the fundamental relationships between PU microphase structures and the biological response to these materials.


Atomic Force Microscopy Adhesion Force Platelet Adhesion Hard Segment Soft Segment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations and Symbols




Atomic force microscopy




Bovine serum albumin






Highly ordered pyrolytic graphite


Low-density polyethylene


Monoclonal antibody




phosphate-buffered saline










Poly(urethane urea)


Self-assembled monolayer


the set point amplitude of the oscillation of the cantilever


the free amplitude of the oscillation of the cantilever


the prefactor


the deflection of the cantilever (nm)


the initial deflection of the cantilever (nm)


the modulus (GPa)


the activation energy for protein unfolding (kT)


the adhesion force (nN)


the adhesion force at equilibrium (nN)


an empirical coefficient related to the initial interaction force (nN)


the domain height of fibrinogen (nm)


the equilibrium height of the domains at very long adsorption times (nm)


the initial height of molecule at the time of contact (nm)


the Planck constant


the Boltzmann constant


the spring constant of the cantilever (N/m)


the rate constant (s−1)


the thermal off-rate at zero force (s−1)


the ratio of set point amplitude and free amplitude of oscillation


the indentation depth (nm)


the radius of the tip (nm)


the Poisson ratio


the absolute temperature (K)


the contact time (s)


the water contact angle (degree)


the water adhesion tension (dyn/cm),


the loading rate (nN/s)


the effective distance between the bound and transition states (Å)


the movement of the piezo during compression of the surface (nm)


the cantilever deflection (nm)



The authors would like to thank Dr. James Runt, Dr. Jadwiga Weksler, and Dr. Ajay Padsalgikar for providing the PU biomaterials used in these studies. The authors would also like to thank Zachary Rice and Dr. James Garrett for technical contributions to the work.


  1. 1.
    Montdargent, B. and D. Letourneur, Toward new biomaterials. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 2000. 21(6):404–410.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horbett, T.A., Principles underlying the role of adsorbed plasma-proteins in blood interactions with foreign materials. Cardiovascular Pathology, 1993. 2(3):S137–S148.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gorbet, M.B. and M.V. Sefton, Biomaterial-associated thrombosis: Roles of coagulation factors, complement, platelets and leukocytes. Biomaterials, 2004. 25(26):5681–5703.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bajpai, A.K., Adsorption of fibrinogen onto macroporous, biocompatible sponges based on poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate). Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2006. 102(2):1341–1355.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray, J.J., The interaction of proteins with solid surfaces. Current Opinion in Structural Biology, 2004. 14(1): 110–115.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hsu, S.H. and Y.C. Kao, Biocompatibility of poly(carbonate urethane)s with various degrees of nanophase separation. Macromolecular Bioscience, 2005. 5(3):246–253.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castner, D.G. and B.D. Ratner, Biomedical surface science: Foundations to frontiers. Surface Science, 2002. 500(1–3):28–60.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson, J.M., Biological responses to materials. Annual Review of Materials Research, 2001. 31:81–110.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang, Y.X., et al, Effects of the chemical structure and the surface properties of polymeric biomaterials on their biocompatibility. Pharmaceutical Research, 2004. 21(8):1362–1373.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norde, W. and J. Lyklema, Why proteins prefer interferences. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 1991. 2(3):183–202.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malmsten, M., Formation of adsorbed protein layers. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1998. 207(2): 186–199.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thevenot, P., W.J. Hu, and L.P. Tang, Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2008. 8(4):270–280.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heynes, C.A. and W. Norde, Globular proteins at solid/liquid interfaces. Colloids and Surfaces B-Biointerfaces, 1994. 2:517–566.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Israelachvili, J. and H. Wennerstrom, Role of hydration and water structure in biological and colloidal interactions. Nature, 1996. 379(6562):219–225.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kidoaki, S. and T. Matsuda, Mechanistic aspects of protein/material interactions probed by atomic force microscopy. Colloids and Surfaces B-Biointerfaces, 2002. 23(2–3):153–163.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu, L.C. and B.E. Logan, Interaction forces between colloids and protein-coated surfaces measured using an atomic force microscope. Environmental Science & Technology, 2005. 39(10):3592–3600.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lubarsky, G.V., et al, The influence of electrostatic forces on protein adsorption. Colloids and Surfaces B-Biointerfaces, 2005. 44(1):56–63.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vogler, E.A., Structure and reactivity of water at biomaterial surfaces. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 1998. 74:69–117.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noh, H., Volumetric interpretation of protein adsorption: Mass and energy balance for albumin adsorption to particulate adsorbents with incrementally increasing hydrophilicity. Biomaterials, 2006. 27(34):5801–5812.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Noh, H. and E.A. Vogler, Volumetric interpretation of protein adsorption: Partition coefficients, interphase volumes, and free energies of adsorption to hydrophobic surfaces. Biomaterials, 2006. 27(34):5780–5793.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amiji, M.M., K.R. Kamath, and K. Park, Albumin-modified biomaterial surfaces for reduced thrombogenicity, in Encyclopedic Handbook of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, D.L. Wise, Editor. 1995, New York: CRC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hantgan, R.R., C.W. Francis, and V.J. Mardner, Fibrinogen structure and physiology, in Hemostasis and Thrombosis: Basic Principles and Clinical Practice, R.W. Colman, et al, Editors. 1994, Philadelphia:J.B. Lippincott, pp. 277–300.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grunkemeier, J.M., Platelet adhesion and procoagulant activity induced by contact with radiofrequency glow discharge polymers: Roles of adsorbed fibrinogen and vWF. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2000. 51(4):669–679.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodman, S.L., S.L. Cooper, and R.M. Albrecht, Integrin receptors and platelet-adhesion to synthetic surfaces. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1993. 27(5):683–695.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kerrigan, S.W., et al, Molecular basis for Staphylococcus aureus-mediated platelet aggregate formation under arterial shear in vitro. Arteriosclerosis Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, 2008. 28:335–340.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Walsh, E.J., et al, Identification of the Staphylococcus aureus MSCRAMM clumping factor B (ClfB) binding site in the alpha C-domain of human fibrinogen. Microbiology, 2008. 154:550–558.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitchell, J., A. Tristan, and T.J. Foster, Characterization of the fibrinogen-binding surface protein Fbl of Staphylococcus lugdunensis. Microbiology, 2004. 150:3831–3841.Google Scholar
  28. Marchant, R.E., et al., Three dimensional structure of fibrinogen visualized under aqueous conditions. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1997:P3098.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marchant, R.E., et al, Three dimensional structure of human fibrinogen under aqueous conditions visualized by atomic force microscopy. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1997. 77(6):1048–1051.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Farrell, D.H. and P. Thiagarajan, Binding of recombinant fibrinogen mutants to platelets. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1994. 269(1):226–231.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Farrell, D.H., et al, Role of fibrinogen alpha-chain and gamma-chain sites in platelet aggregation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1992. 89(22):10729–10732.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wu, Y.G., et al, The role of adsorbed fibrinogen in platelet adhesion to polyurethane surfaces: A comparison of surface hydrophobicity, protein adsorption, monoclonal antibody binding, and platelet adhesion. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2005. 74A(4):722–738.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Remijn, J.A., et al, Reduced platelet adhesion in flowing blood to fibrinogen by alterations in segment gamma 316–322, part of the fibrin-specific region. British Journal of Haematology, 2002. 117(3):650–657.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Agashe, M., et al, Molecular simulation to characterize the adsorption behavior of a fibrinogen gamma-chain fragment. Langmuir, 2005. 21(3):1103–1117.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lamba, N.M.K., Woodhouse, K.A., Cooper S.L., Polyurethanes in Biomedical Applications. 1998, Boca Raton, FL:CRC.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Poksinski, M. and H. Arwin, Total internal reflection ellipsometry: Ultrahigh sensitivity for protein adsorption on metal surfaces. Optics Letters, 2007. 32(10):1308–1310.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Seitz, R., R. Brings, and R. Geiger, Protein adsorption on solid-liquid interfaces monitored by laser-ellipsometry. Applied Surface Science, 2005. 252(1):154–157.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Green, R.J., et al, Surface plasmon resonance for real time in situ analysis of protein adsorption to polymer surfaces. Biomaterials, 1997. 18(5):405–413.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Green, R.J., et al, Competitive protein adsorption as observed by surface plasmon resonance. Biomaterials, 1999. 20(4):385–391.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Welle, A., Competitive plasma protein adsorption on modified polymer surfaces monitored by quartz crystal microbalance technique. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 2004. 15(3):357–370.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nonckreman, C.J., P.G. Rouxhet, and C.C. Dupont-Gillain, Dual radiolabeling to study protein adsorption competition in relation with hemocompatibility. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2007. 81A(4):791–802.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hylton, D.M., S.W. Shalaby, and R.A. Latour, Direct correlation between adsorption-induced changes in protein structure and platelet adhesion. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2005. 73A(3):349–358.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yokoyama, Y., et al, Quantitative analysis of protein adsorption on a planar surface by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: Lysozyme adsorbed on hydrophobic silicon-containing polymer. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 2003. 268(1):23–32.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Morin, C., et al, Selective adsorption of protein on polymer surfaces studied by soft X-ray photoemission electron microscopy. Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena, 2004. 137:785–794.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li, L., et al, X-ray microscopy studies of protein adsorption on a phase-segregated polystyrene/polymethyl methacrylate surface. 1. Concentration and exposure-time dependence for albumin adsorption. The Journal of Physical Chemistry. B, 2006. 110(33):16763–16773.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tidwell, C.D., et al, Static time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy characterization of adsorbed albumin and fibronectin films. Surface and Interface Analysis, 2001. 31(8):724–733.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wagner, M.S., T.A. Horbett, and D.G. Castner, Characterization of the structure of binary and ternary adsorbed protein films using electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis, time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, and radiolabeling. Langmuir, 2003. 19(5):1708–1715.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gettens, R.T.T., Z.J. Bai, and J.L. Gilbert, Quantification of the kinetics and thermodynamics of protein adsorption using atomic force microscopy. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2005. 72A(3): 246–257.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Muguruma, H., S. Miura, and N. Murata, Adsorption of antibody protein onto plasma-polymerized film characterized by atomic force microscopy and quartz crystal microbalance. IEICE Transactions on Electronics, 2007. E90C(3):649–651.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Schon, P., et al, Nonspecific protein adsorption at the single molecule level studied by atomic force microscopy. Langmuir, 2007. 23:9921–9923.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nakamae, K., et al, Microphase separation and surface properties of segmented polyurethane – Effect of hard segment content. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 1996. 16(4):233–239.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gisselfalt, K. and B. Helgee, Effect of soft segment length and chain extender structure on phase separation and morphology in poly(urethane urea)s. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering, 2003. 288(3):265–271.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garrett, J.T., J.S. Lin, and J. Runt, Influence of preparation conditions on microdomain formation in poly(urethane urea) block copolymers. Macromolecules, 2002. 35(1):161–168.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garrett, J.T., J. Runt, and J.S. Lin, Microphase separation of segmented poly(urethane urea) block copolymers. Macromolecules, 2000. 33(17):6353–6359.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garrett, J.T., et al, Phase separation of diamine chain-extended poly(urethane) copolymers: FTIR spectroscopy and phase transitions. Polymer, 2003. 44(9):2711–2719.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hernandez, R., et al, Microstructural organization of three-phase polydimethylsiloxane-based segmented polyurethanes. Macromolecules, 2007. 40(15):5441–5449.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tingey, K.G. and J.D. Andrade, Probing surface microheterogeneity of poly(Ether Urethanes) in an aqueous environment. Langmuir, 1991. 7(11):2471–2478.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lewis, K.B. and B.D. Ratner, Observation of surface rearrangement of polymers using ESCA. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1993. 159(1):77–85.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Agnihotri, A., et al, Atomic force microscopy visualization of poly(urethane urea) microphase rearrangements under aqueous environment. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 2006. 17(1–2):227–238.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    McLean, R.S. and B.B. Sauer, Tapping-mode AFM studies using phase detection for resolution of nanophases in segmented polyurethanes and other block copolymers. Macromolecules, 1997. 30(26):8314–8317.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Sheth, J.P., et al, Probing the hard segment phase connectivity and percolation in model segmented poly(urethane urea) copolymers. Macromolecules, 2005. 38(13):5681–5685.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Garrett, J.T., C.A. Siedlecki, and J. Runt, Microdomain morphology of poly(urethane urea) multiblock copolymers. Macromolecules, 2001. 34(20):7066–7070.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Xu, L.C., et al, Characterization of surface microphase structures of poly(urethane urea) biomaterials by nanoscale indentation with AFM. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 2007. 18(4):353–368.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chizhik, S.A., et al, Micromechanical properties of elastic polymeric materials as probed by scanning force microscopy. Langmuir, 1998. 14(10):2606–2609.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hansen, J.C., et al, Effect of surface nanoscale topography on elastic modulus of individual osteoblastic cells as determined by atomic force microscopy. Journal of Biomechanics, 2007. 40:2865–2871.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Vogler, E.A., Water and the acute biological response to surfaces. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 1999. 10(10):1015–1045.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Choee, J.H., et al, Proliferation rate of fibroblast cells on polyethylene surfaces with wettability gradient. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 2004. 92(1):599–606.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lee, J.H. and H.B. Lee, Platelet adhesion onto wettability gradient surfaces in the absence and presence of plasma proteins. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1998. 41(2):304–311.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Faucheux, N., et al, Self-assembled monolayers with different terminating groups as model substrates for cell adhesion studies. Biomaterials, 2004. 25(14):2721–2730.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sethuraman, A., et al, Effect of surface wettability on the adhesion of proteins. Langmuir, 2004. 20(18):7779–7788.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Dupont-Gillain, C.C., et al, Use of AFM to probe the adsorption strength and time-dependent changes of albumin on self-assembled monolayers. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2003. 67A(2):548–558.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Agnihotri, A. and C.A. Siedlecki, Time-dependent conformational changes in fibrinogen measured by atomic force microscopy. Langmuir, 2004. 20(20):8846–8852.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Xu, L.C. and C.A. Siedlecki, Effects of surface wettability and contact time on protein adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. Biomaterials, 2007. 28(22):3273–3283.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Weisel, J.W., et al, A model for fibrinogen-domains and sequence. Science, 1985. 230(4732):1388–1391.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sit, P.S. and R.E. Marchant, Surface-dependent conformations of human fibrinogen observed by atomic force microscopy under aqueous conditions. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1999. 82(3):1053–1060.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Balasubramanian, V., et al, Residence-time dependent changes in fibrinogen adsorbed to polymeric biomaterials. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1999. 44(3):253–260.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Balasubramanian, V. and S.M. Slack, Effects of fibrinogen residence time and shear rate on the morphology and procoagulant activity of human platelets adherent to polymeric biomaterials. ASAIO Journal, 2001. 47(4):354–360.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Santore, M.M. and C.F. Wertz, Protein spreading kinetics at liquid-solid interfaces via an adsorption probe method. Langmuir, 2005. 21(22):10172–10178.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Slack, S.M. and T.A. Horbett, Changes in fibrinogen adsorbed to segmented polyurethanes and hydroxyethylmethacrylate-ethylmethacrylate copolymers. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 1992. 26(12):1633–1649.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Wertz, C.F. and M.M. Santore, Fibrinogen adsorption on hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces: Geometrical and energetic aspects of interfacial relaxations. Langmuir, 2002. 18(3):706–715.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wertz, C.F. and M.M. Santore, Adsorption and relaxation kinetics of albumin and fibrinogen on hydrophobic surfaces: Single-species and competitive behavior. Langmuir, 1999. 15(26):8884–8894.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wertz, C.F. and M.M. Santore, Effect of surface hydrophobicity on adsorption and relaxation kinetics of albumin and fibrinogen: Single-species and competitive behavior. Langmuir, 2001. 17(10):3006–3016.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chowdhury, P.B. and P.F. Luckham, Probing recognition process between an antibody and an antigen using atomic force microscopy. Colloids and Surfaces. A, Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects, 1998. 143(1):53–57.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Agnihotri, A. and C.A. Siedlecki, Adhesion mode atomic force microscopy study of dual component protein films. Ultramicroscopy, 2005. 102(4):257–268.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Yoon, R.H., D.H. Flinn, and Y.I. Rabinovich, Hydrophobic interactions between dissimilar surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1997. 185(2):363–370.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Florin, E.L., V.T. Moy, and H.E. Gaub, Adhesion forces between individual ligand-receptor pairs. Science, 1994. 264(5157):415–417.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Moy, V.T., E.L. Florin, and H.E. Gaub, Intermolecular forces and energies between ligands and receptors. Science, 1994. 266(5183):257–259.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hinterdorfer, P., et al, Detection and localization of individual antibody-antigen recognition events by atomic force microscopy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1996. 93(8):3477–3481.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Merkel, R., et al, Energy landscapes of receptor-ligand bonds explored with dynamic force spectroscopy. Nature, 1999. 397(6714):50–53.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Evans, E. and K. Ritchie, Dynamic strength of molecular adhesion bonds. Biophysical Journal, 1997. 72(4):1541–1555.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Bell, G.I., Models for specific adhesion of cells to cells. Science, 1978. 200(4342):618–627.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Lo, Y.S., Y.J. Zhu, and T.P. Beebe, Loading-rate dependence of individual ligand-receptor bond-rupture forces studied by atomic force microscopy. Langmuir, 2001. 17(12):3741–3748.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Izrailev, S., et al, Molecular dynamics study of unbinding of the avidin-biotin complex. Biophysical Journal, 1997. 72(4):1568–1581.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Lu, S.Q., et al, Quantifying the effects of contact duration, loading rate, and approach velocity on P-selectin-PSGL-1 interactions using AFM. Polymer, 2006. 47(7):2539–2547.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Yu, J.P., et al, Energy landscape of aptamer/protein complexes studied by single-molecule force spectroscopy. Chemistry, an Asian Journal, 2007. 2(2):284–289.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Marshall, B.T., et al, Direct observation of catch bonds involving cell-adhesion molecules. Nature, 2003. 423(6936):190–193.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Zhu, C., Kinetics and mechanics of cell adhesion. Journal of Biomechanics, 2000. 33(1):23–33.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Holland, N.B. and R.E. Marchant, Individual plasma proteins detected on rough biomaterials by phase imaging AFM. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2000. 51(3):307–315.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Barattin, R., and N. Voyer, Chemical modifications of AFM tips for the study of molecular recognition events. Chemical Communications, 2008. (13):1513–1532.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Dufrene, Y.F. and P. Hinterdorfer, Recent progress in AFM molecular recognition studies. Pflugers Archiv:European Journal of Physiology, 2008. 456(1):237–245.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Dupres, V., C. Verbelen, and Y.F. Dufrene, Probing molecular recognition sites on biosurfaces using AFM. Biomaterials, 2007. 28(15):2393–2402.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Fotiadis, D., et al, Imaging and manipulation of biological structures with the AFM. Micron, 2002. 33(4):385–397.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ludwig, M., W. Dettmann, and H.E. Gaub, Atomic force microscope imaging contrast based on molecular recognition. Biophysical Journal, 1997. 72(1):445–448.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Willemsen, O.H., et al, Simultaneous height and adhesion imaging of antibody-antigen interactions by atomic force microscopy. Biophysical Journal, 1998. 75(5):2220–2228.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Powell, R.D., C.M.R. Halsey, and J.F. Hainfeld, Combined fluorescent and gold immunoprobes:Reagents and methods for correlative light and electron microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique, 1998. 42(1):2–12.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Montesano-Roditis, L., et al, Cryo-electron microscopic localization of protein L7/L12 within the Escherichia coli 70 S ribosome by difference mapping and Nanogold labeling. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 2001. 276(17):14117–14123.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Wiechmann, M., et al, Nanoscale lines of supported nanogold particles and lysozyme-nanogold conjugates generated by atomic force microscopy in aqueous solution. Surface and Interface Analysis, 2006. 38(6): 1004–1009.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Hussain, M.A., A. Agnihotri, and C.A. Siedlecki, AFM imaging of ligand binding to platelet integrin alpha(IIb)beta(3) receptors reconstituted into planar lipid bilayers. Langmuir, 2005. 21(15):6979–6986.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Soman, P., Z. Rice, and C.A. Siedlecki, Immunological identification of fibrinogen in dual-component protein films by AFM imaging. Micron, 2008. 39(7):832–842.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Tsai, W.B., Variations in the ability of adsorbed fibrinogen to mediate platelet adhesion to polystyrene-based materials: A multivariate statistical analysis of antibody binding to the platelet binding sites of fibrinogen. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2003. 67A(4):1255–1268.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Chiumiento, A., S. Lamponi, and R. Barbucci, Role of fibrinogen conformation in platelet activation. Biomacromolecules, 2007. 8(2):523–531.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Shiba, E., et al, Antibody-detectable changes in fibrinogen adsorption affecting platelet activation on polymer surfaces. American Journal of Physiology, 1991. 260(5):C965–C974.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Shiba, E., et al, Detection by monoclonal antibodies of conformational change in fibrinogen adsorbed on artificial surfaces. Thrombosis and Haemostasis, 1987. 58(1):33–33.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tunc, S., et al, In situ conformational analysis of fibrinogen adsorbed on Si surfaces. Colloids and Surfaces B-Biointerfaces, 2005. 42(3–4):219–225.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Soman, P., Z. Rice, and C.A. Siedlecki, Measuring the time-dependent functional activity of adsorbed fibrinogen by atomic force microscopy. Langmuir, 2008. 24(16):8801–8806.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Tamada, Y., E.A. Kulik, and Y. Ikada, Simple method for platelet counting. Biomaterials, 1995. 16(3):259–261.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Vanickova, M., J. Suttnar, and J.E. Dyr, The adhesion of blood platelets on fibrinogen surface: Comparison of two biochemical microplate assays. Platelets, 2006. 17(7):470–476.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Groth, T., et al, Protein adsorption, lymphocyte adhesion and platelet-adhesion activation on polyurethane ureas is related to hard segment content and composition. Journal of Biomaterials Science. Polymer Edition, 1994. 6(6):497–510.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Huang, S.L., et al, Microphase separated structure and protein adsorption of polyurethanes with butadiene soft segment. European Polymer Journal, 2000. 36(2):285–294.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Goodman, S.L., et al, Preferential adsorption of plasma-proteins onto apolar polyurethane microdomain. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1990. 139(2):561–570.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Christenson, E.M., J.M. Anderson, and A. Hiltner, Oxidative mechanisms of poly(carbonate urethane) and poly(ether urethane) biodegradation: In vivo and in vitro correlations. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2004. 70A(2):245–255.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Tang, Y.W., R.S. Labow, and J.P. Santerre, Enzyme-induced biodegradation of polycarbonate-polyurethanes: Dependence on hard-segment chemistry. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 2001. 57(4):597–611.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Ward, R., et al, In vivo biostability of polysiloxane polyether polyurethanes: Resistance to biologic oxidation and stress cracking. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 2006. 77A(3):580–589.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Simmons, A., et al, Long-term in vivo biostability of poly(dimethylsiloxane)/poly(hexamethylene oxide) mixed macrodiol-based polyurethane elastomers. Biomaterials, 2004. 25(20):4887–4900.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li-Chong Xu
    • 1
  • Pranav Soman
    • 1
  • Aashiish Agnihotri
    • 1
  • Christopher A. Siedlecki
    • 1
  1. 1.Departments of Surgery and Bioengineering, Biomedical Engineering Institute, College of MedicineThe Pennsylvania State UniversityHersheyUSA

Personalised recommendations