A simple, robust, and cost-effective method is developed to fabricate nanofibrous micropatterns particularly microposts and microwells of controlled shapes. The key to this method is the use of an easily micropatternable and intrinsically conductive metal alloy as a template to collect electrospun fibers. The micropatterned alloy allows conformal fiber deposition with high fidelity on its topographical features and in situ formation of diverse, free-standing micropatterned nanofibrous membranes. Interestingly, these membranes can serve as structural frames to form robust hydrogel micropatterns that may otherwise be fragile on their own. These hybrid micropatterns represent a new platform for cell encapsulation where the nanofiber frames enhance the mechanical integrity of hydrogel and the micropatterns provide additional surface area for mass transfer and cell loading.
A simple, robust, and cost-effective method is developed to fabricate nanofibrous micropatterns particularly microposts and microwells of controlled shapes. The key to this method is the use of an easily micropatternable and intrinsically conductive metal alloy as a template to collect electrospun fibers. The micropatterned alloy allows conformal fiber deposition with high fidelity on its topographical features and in situ formation of diverse, free-standing micropatterned nanofibrous membranes. Interestingly, these membranes can serve as structural frames to form robust hydrogel micropatterns that may otherwise be fragile on their own. These hybrid micropatterns represent a new platform for cell encapsulation where the nanofiber frames enhance the mechanical integrity of hydrogel and the micropatterns provide additional surface area for mass transfer and cell loading.
Electrospun fibers with fiber
diameters from tens of nanometers to micrometers[1] have attracted intensive research interests in the past
couple of decades and found broad applications including photovoltaic[2] and photonic devices,[3] catalyst supports,[4] composite reinforcements,[5] superhydrophobic surfaces,[6] immunoassay,[7] biosensing,[8] drug delivery,[9] and
tissue engineering.[10−14] Generally, the electrospun fibers have random nonwoven structures,
resulted from the whipping motion of the electrospinning jet.[15] However, it is highly desirable to endow these
materials with more spatially organized microscale architectures in
order to engineer more functional structures and devices. Examples
include electronic and photonic devices[16] as well as tissue scaffolds to control cell morphology,[17] wound healing,[18] stem
cells differentiation,[19] and tissue regeneration.[20]Tremendous efforts have been made to manipulate
electrospun fibers
in spatially organized ways including both the alignment at the individual
fiber level[18,21−23] and more complex
hierarchical structures at larger length scales in 2D and 3D.[3,24−31] Of particular interest, 2D nanofibrous micropatterns have recently
received much attention due to their enhanced properties such as increased
surface area, roughness, and uniquely combined micro/nano structures.[25,27,30,32] The strategies to fabricate these micropatterns can be generally
divided into top-down and bottom-up methods. One of the top-down methods
was direct photolithographic patterning of nanofibers by mixing photoinitiator
in the polymer solution and then selectively photo-cross-linking the
fibers through a photomask.[24] Although
various nanofibrous micropatterns were prepared, this method is only
limited to photo-cross-linkable materials. In one of the bottom-up
methods, nanofibrous micropatterns were fabricated through direct-write
electrospinning on a 2D movable conductive collector.[26] The drawbacks were the complicated setup and manipulation
as well as coarse feature resolution. Another popular bottom-up method
was to use micropatterned conductive templates to collect the electrospun
fibers which then formed micropatterns in situ. Despite of varying
degrees of successes, limitations still exist in the robustness and
versatility of templates. For example, stainless steel beads[32,33] and metal molds[28−30] were conductive but it was difficult to achieve micropatterns
of controlled geometries. The feature resolution was also limited
at sub-millimeter scale.[28,29,32,33] Although polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS) templates have the advantages of being easy to be processed
into controlled micropatterns through soft lithography, intrinsically
they are not conductive and hence additional treatments are required
for the fiber collection.[25,34]Here, we report
a new, versatile, and robust method to fabricate
nanofibrous micropatterns, particularly microposts and microwells,
with controlled geometries. The key to this method is the use of an
intrinsically conductive and ductile metal alloy that has a low-melting
temperature and can be micropatterned, through simple imprint lithography,
into controlled shapes with a relatively high resolution. When used
as the substrate to collect the nanofibers, the alloy allowed conformal
deposition of fibers on its topographical features. To our knowledge,
this is the first report that metal alloy was micropatterned and used
as a template to make hierarchical nanofibrous structures. We demonstrated
various mechanically robust, free-standing nanofibrous microposts
and microwells. In contrast to the reported microwells with smooth
surface,[35] these nanofibrous microwells
structurally resemble the extracellular matrix[36] and hence represent a biomimetic platform for high throughput
cell culture.[37] By taking advantage of
the flexibility and ductility, we also readily fabricated double-faced
and rod-shaped micropatterned alloy templates and corresponding nanofibrous
membranes, which may be difficult to engineer using traditional rigid
metal templates.[27−30] Additionally, we demonstrated that these nanofibrous microposts
and microwells could be used as structural frames to form hydrogel
micropatterns for cell encapsulation applications. We showed that
either non-adherent or adherent cells could be readily encapsulated
in these hybrid micropatterns. Compared with previous studies where
fibers were simply composited within bulk hydrogels,[38,39] the nanofibrous frames not only enhance the integrity of the hydrogel
as a whole but also facilitate the formation of hydrogel micropatterns,
which in turn increase the surface area for mass transfer and cell
loading.Low-melting-temperature metal alloys have been utilized
in a broad
variety of tool and die applications including casting, tube bending,
and anchoring parts, however, its potential applications in micro/nano
technologies such as electrospining have never been explored. By taking
advantages of its low-melting temperature and inherent conductivity,
we fabricated micropatterned alloy via simple imprint lithography
and used it as a template to collect electrospun nanofibers (Scheme 1). Controlled micropatterns with both round and
sharp corners were replicated on the alloy with a high fidelity using
PDMS molds (Figure 1). The scattered dark and
bright regions on micropatterned alloy were due to the reflection
of metallic luster under the microscope (Figure 1f–j, p–t). The depth of microwells on alloy was 40
± 3 μm and controllable through the PDMS molds. The smallest
width obtained on micropatterened alloy was 50 μm (Figure 1s). Unlike rigid steel beads[32,33] and metal molds[28−30] or non-conductive PDMS,[25,34] these alloy micropatterns are intrinsically conductive, flexible,
and ductile, distinguishing them as attractive substrates to engineer
micropatterned nanofibers with greater freedom of control. We also
prepared double-faced and rod-shaped micropatterned alloy templates
by pressing melt alloy with two PDMS molds in a sandwich configuration
and rolling premade micropatterned alloy sheet, respectively (see
Figure S1a, b in the Supporting Information). It may be difficult to engineer such intriguing and conductive
templates using traditional rigid metal materials.[28−30]
Scheme 1
Fabrication
of Controllably Micropatterned Alloys, Nanofibrous Membranes,
and Nanofiber-Framed Hydrogel Micropatterns
(1) Press PDMS mold on melt
alloy and cool to room temperature. (2) Peel off PDMS mold from solidified
alloy. (3) Electrospin nanofibers on micropatterned alloy. (4.1) Peel
off micropatterned nanofibrous membrane from alloy. (4.2) Cast hydrogel
on nanofiber-deposited micropatterned alloy. (5) Peel off nanofiber-framed
hydrogel micropatterns.
Figure 1
Microscopic images of
micropatterned (a–e, k–o) PDMS
molds and (f–j, p–t) alloys. Scale bars: 1000 μm.
Fabrication
of Controllably Micropatterned Alloys, Nanofibrous Membranes,
and Nanofiber-Framed Hydrogel Micropatterns
(1) Press PDMS mold on melt
alloy and cool to room temperature. (2) Peel off PDMS mold from solidified
alloy. (3) Electrospin nanofibers on micropatterned alloy. (4.1) Peel
off micropatterned nanofibrous membrane from alloy. (4.2) Cast hydrogel
on nanofiber-deposited micropatterned alloy. (5) Peel off nanofiber-framed
hydrogel micropatterns.Microscopic images of
micropatterned (a–e, k–o) PDMS
molds and (f–j, p–t) alloys. Scale bars: 1000 μm.We chose nylon as electrospun
material because it is mechanically
tough, hydrolytically stable, and has been safely used as cell encapsulation
material in humans.[40] The nanofibers were
conformally deposited on the alloys and free-standing micropatterned
nanofibrous membranes were readily peeled off from the alloy (Figure 2). The topographical features of the membranes were
corresponding to the alloy templates (Figure 2a–j). The delicate conformity of nanofibers on micropatterned
alloy was characterized with SEM (Figure 2k–p).
It is clearly shown that the nanofibers tightly followed the micropatterned
structures on alloy, no matter the microstructures were concave microwells
(Figure 2k , l) or convex microposts (Figure 2m). The inserts are high magnification SEM images
of individual nanofibers on microwell/micropost and outside regions
(Figure 2n–p). These controllably shaped
nanofibrous microposts and microwells were in direct contrast with
the previously reported nanofibrous micropatterns. The geometry of
nanofibrous patterns prepared using steel beads were limited to hemispherical
shape.[33] The nanofibrous micropatterns
obtained by utilization of carbon black doped PDMS templates had inclined
side walls.[25] In our case, the nanofibers
were conformally deposited on alloy microposts or microwells with
near 90° corner angles, attributing to the inherent conductivity
of metal alloy. Recently, microwell technologies have received much
attention for single cell analysis[41] and
high throughput screening applications.[37] However, the microwells reported to date most of time only have
smooth surfaces.[35] In contrast, the microwells
reported here have nanofibrous surface that is structurally similar
to the extracellular matrix[36] and therefore
represent a new, more relevant high throughput cell culture platform.
The nanofibers were also electrospun on double-faced and rod-shaped
alloy by rotating the alloy template during electrospinning process
(see Figure S1c, d in the Supporting Information). These unique micropatterned 3D structures may find important applications
in areas such as tissue engineering.[31]
Figure 2
(a–j)
Microscopic images of free-standing micropatterned
nanofibrous membranes. The insert images are magnified micropatterns.
Scale bars: 200 μm. (k–p) SEM images of representative
micropatterned nanofibrous membranes. Images of n–p are magnified
micropatterns. Scale bars: 200 μm. The inset images are individual
nanofibers at high resolution. Scale bars: 2 μm.
(a–j)
Microscopic images of free-standing micropatterned
nanofibrous membranes. The insert images are magnified micropatterns.
Scale bars: 200 μm. (k–p) SEM images of representative
micropatterned nanofibrous membranes. Images of n–p are magnified
micropatterns. Scale bars: 200 μm. The inset images are individual
nanofibers at high resolution. Scale bars: 2 μm.Next, we demonstrated that the nanofibrous microposts
and microwells
could be hybridized with hydrogels for cell encapsulation applications.
Cell encapsulation holds great promises in regenerative medicine[42−44] to treat a range of difficult diseases, including type 1 diabetes,[45] tumor,[46] heart failure,[47] and neurodegenerative disorders.[48] To make cell encapsulation a clinically success,
one key is to develop a biocompatible encapsulation material with
robust mechanical, mass transfer, and immunoisolation properties for
either non-adherent or adherent cells. Instead of simply compositing
fibers within bulk hydrogels as reported in previous studies,[38,39] we fabricated nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns by casting
and cross-linking alginate solution onto micropatterned nanofibers.
The alginate solution followed the micropatterns and infiltrated the
porous nanofibrous membranes. Free-standing, hydrogel micropatterns
reinforced by nanofiber frames were obtained after cross-linking.
Figure 3 and Figure S2 in the Supporting Information show a variety of nanofiber (red)/hydrogel
(green) hybrid micropatterns. Compared with the neat hydrogel micropatterns,
which are prone to shrinking and curling (see Figure S3a in the Supporting Information), the nanofibrous frames
imparted the necessary mechanical robustness and durability for handling
(see Figure S3b in the Supporting Information). In addition, the individual microtopographical features on the
surface of hydrogel were also reinforced by the nanofibers.
Figure 3
(a–j)
Overlaid fluorescent images of nanofiber (red)-framed
hydrogel (green) micropatterns of various geometries. Scale bars:
1000 μm. (See Figure S2 in the Supporting
Information for individual channel images.)
(a–j)
Overlaid fluorescent images of nanofiber (red)-framed
hydrogel (green) micropatterns of various geometries. Scale bars:
1000 μm. (See Figure S2 in the Supporting
Information for individual channel images.)We devised two methods to demonstrate the feasibility
of cell encapsulation
using nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns (Figure 4a). To encapsulate non-adherent cells such as islet cells,
the cells were first suspended in alginate solution and the cell mixture
was then poured on the nanofibrous microwells followed by cross-linking.
As shown in Figure 4b–d, INS-1 832/13
cells, a model cell mimicking islet cells, were encapsulated in this
way. For encapsulation of adherent cell, we first cultured the cells
and attached them on the nanofiber substrates and then an alginate
solution was infused into the nanofibrous membranes and cross-linked.
The green MDA-MB-231-GFP cells were used as model cells, cultured
on micropatterned nanofibers, and encapsulated in alginate hydrogel
(Figure 4e–g). Moreover, we encapsulated
fibroblasts and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) which
may be useful for skin disease treatment[49] and regeneration of ischemic tissues,[50] respectively (see Figure S4a, b in the Supporting
Information). Interestingly, fibroblasts attached on nanofibers
and HUVECs suspended in the solution can be co-encapsulated in nanofiber-framed
hydrogel micropatterns (see Figure S4c in the Supporting Information), representing a potential vascularization
model.[51] It is worth mentioning that the
nanofibers, because of their structural similarity to extracellular
matrix, have been shown as an excellent growth substrate for many
types of cells[36] and therefore this approach
provides a new platform to encapsulate and deliver these cells. Furthermore,
the cells attached to the nanofiber membranes are close to the surface
and have easy access to oxygen and nutrients, greatly reducing the
risk of necrosis.[43] In a microarray composed
of thousands of microposts, the lateral area of all microposts is
appreciable and substantial. Therefore, compared with traditional
encapsulation of cells in planar structures, the microtopographical
structures remarkably increase the surface area for mass transfer
and cell loading. By taking these advantages, human embryonic stem
cell (hESC)-derived pancreatic progenitors (PPs), an unlimited and
practical cell source for type 1 diabetes treatment, were cultured
on Matrigel-coated nanofibrous micropatterns and then encapsulated
in alginate hydrogel (Figure 5). The characteristic
markers of hESC-PPs were confirmed with immunostaining of PDX1 and
SOX9 (Figure 5a). As shown in b and c in Figure 5, hESCs-PPs adhered on nanofibers and were encapsulated
in alginate hydrogel micropattern. The encapsulated hESCs-PPs were
expected to mature into glucose responsive, insulin-producing β-like
cells after transplantation in vivo.[52,53]
Figure 4
Cell encapsulation
in nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns.
(a) The scheme of two cell encapsulation methods. Method 1:1.1. Disperse
non-adherent cells in alginate solution; 1.2. Encapsulate cells in
cross-linked nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns. Method 2:2.1.
Culture adherent cells on micropatterened nanofibers; 2.2. Place alginate
solution on attached cells; 2.3. Encapsulate attached cells in cross-linked
nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns. (b–d) The fluorescent
images of INS-1 cells (non-adherent model cells) encapsulated in nanofiber-framed
hydrogel micropatterns. (b) Red color is alginate hydrogel and (c)
the blue color indicates cell nuclei. (e–g) Fluorescent images
of encapsulated MDA-MB-231 cells (adherent model cells). (e) Red color
is alginate hydrogel and (f) the green color is cells expressing GFP
proteins. Scale bars: 400 μm.
Figure 5
hESCs-PPs encapsulation in nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns.
(a) Immunostaining of characteristic markers of hESCs-PPs. The green
color is PDX1, red color is SOX9, and blue color is cell nuclei. (b,
c) Microscopic images (at different magnifications) of hESCs-PPs encapsulated
in nanofiber-framed alginate hydrogel micropattern. Scale bars: 100
μm.
Cell encapsulation
in nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns.
(a) The scheme of two cell encapsulation methods. Method 1:1.1. Disperse
non-adherent cells in alginate solution; 1.2. Encapsulate cells in
cross-linked nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns. Method 2:2.1.
Culture adherent cells on micropatterened nanofibers; 2.2. Place alginate
solution on attached cells; 2.3. Encapsulate attached cells in cross-linked
nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns. (b–d) The fluorescent
images of INS-1 cells (non-adherent model cells) encapsulated in nanofiber-framed
hydrogel micropatterns. (b) Red color is alginate hydrogel and (c)
the blue color indicates cell nuclei. (e–g) Fluorescent images
of encapsulated MDA-MB-231 cells (adherent model cells). (e) Red color
is alginate hydrogel and (f) the green color is cells expressing GFP
proteins. Scale bars: 400 μm.hESCs-PPs encapsulation in nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns.
(a) Immunostaining of characteristic markers of hESCs-PPs. The green
color is PDX1, red color is SOX9, and blue color is cell nuclei. (b,
c) Microscopic images (at different magnifications) of hESCs-PPs encapsulated
in nanofiber-framed alginate hydrogel micropattern. Scale bars: 100
μm.In conclusion, we have demonstrated
a simple, robust, and cost-effective
approach to controllably micropatterning the nanofibers by taking
advantages of the intrinsic conductivity, ductility, and flexibility
of low-melting temperature alloys. These nanofibrous microposts and
microwells represent an interesting and biomimetic platform for cell
culture and high-throughput applications. We also demonstrated that
the nanofiber-framed hydrogel micropatterns can be engineered for
cell encapsulation applications for both non-adherent and adherent
cells. The nanofibers not only enhance the integrity of the hydrogel
as a whole for durability and easy handling but also improve the mechanical
robustness of individual microtopographical hydrogel structures. The
increased surface area due to the micropatterns is beneficial for
mass transfer and cell loading.
Authors: Gorka Orive; Rosa María Hernández; Alicia R Gascón; Riccardo Calafiore; Thomas M S Chang; Paul De Vos; Gonzalo Hortelano; David Hunkeler; Igor Lacík; A M James Shapiro; José Luis Pedraz Journal: Nat Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Shuibing Chen; Malgorzata Borowiak; Julia L Fox; René Maehr; Kenji Osafune; Lance Davidow; Kelvin Lam; Lee F Peng; Stuart L Schreiber; Lee L Rubin; Douglas Melton Journal: Nat Chem Biol Date: 2009-03-15 Impact factor: 15.040
Authors: Christoph Eilenberger; Mario Rothbauer; Florian Selinger; Anna Gerhartl; Christian Jordan; Michael Harasek; Barbara Schädl; Johannes Grillari; Julian Weghuber; Winfried Neuhaus; Seta Küpcü; Peter Ertl Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 16.806