The ability to direct neurite growth into a close proximity of stimulating elements of a neural prosthesis, such as a retinal or cochlear implant (CI), may enhance device performance and overcome current spatial signal resolution barriers. In this work, spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs), which are the target neurons to be stimulated by CIs, were cultured on photopolymerized micropatterns with varied matrix stiffnesses to determine the effect of rigidity on neurite alignment to physical cues. Micropatterns were generated on methacrylate thin film surfaces in a simple, rapid photopolymerization step by photomasking the prepolymer formulation with parallel line-space gratings. Two methacrylate series, a nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA series and a polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series, with significantly different surface wetting properties were evaluated. Equivalent pattern periodicity was maintained across each methacrylate series based on photomask band spacing, and the feature amplitude was tuned to a depth of 2 μm amplitude for all compositions using the temporal control afforded by the UV curing methodology. The surface morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. All micropatterned films adsorb similar amounts of laminin from solution, and no significant difference in SGN survival was observed when the substrate compositions were compared. SGN neurite alignment significantly increases with increasing material modulus for both methacrylate series. Interestingly, SGN neurites respond to material stiffness cues that are orders of magnitude higher (GPa) than what is typically ascribed to neural environments (kPa). The ability to understand neurite response to engineered physical cues and mechanical properties such as matrix stiffness will allow the development of advanced biomaterials that direct de novo neurite growth to address the spatial signal resolution limitations of current neural prosthetics.
The ability to direct neurite growth into a close proximity of stimulating elements of a neural prosthesis, such as a retinal or cochlear implant (CI), may enhance device performance and overcome current spatial signal resolution barriers. In this work, spiral ganglion neurons (SGNs), which are the target neurons to be stimulated by CIs, were cultured on photopolymerized micropatterns with varied matrix stiffnesses to determine the effect of rigidity on neurite alignment to physical cues. Micropatterns were generated on methacrylate thin film surfaces in a simple, rapid photopolymerization step by photomasking the prepolymer formulation with parallel line-space gratings. Two methacrylate series, a nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA series and a polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series, with significantly different surface wetting properties were evaluated. Equivalent pattern periodicity was maintained across each methacrylate series based on photomask band spacing, and the feature amplitude was tuned to a depth of 2 μm amplitude for all compositions using the temporal control afforded by the UV curing methodology. The surface morphology was characterized by scanning electron microscopy and white light interferometry. All micropatterned films adsorb similar amounts of laminin from solution, and no significant difference in SGN survival was observed when the substrate compositions were compared. SGN neurite alignment significantly increases with increasing material modulus for both methacrylate series. Interestingly, SGN neurites respond to material stiffness cues that are orders of magnitude higher (GPa) than what is typically ascribed to neural environments (kPa). The ability to understand neurite response to engineered physical cues and mechanical properties such as matrix stiffness will allow the development of advanced biomaterials that direct de novo neurite growth to address the spatial signal resolution limitations of current neural prosthetics.
The matrix stiffness of native extracellular
matrices (ECMs) or
synthetic matrices is a key biophysical cue that regulates cellular
functions including migration, differentiation, spreading, and proliferation.[1,2] For example, in a process referred to as durotaxis, NIH 3T3 fibroblast
cells are shown to preferentially migrate toward the stiffer substrate
on polyacrylamide sheets.[3] The number and
lengths of angiogenic sprouts from endothelial cells increase with
increasing matrix stiffness, which is independent of matrix density.[4] Furthermore, matrix elasticity significantly
affects the cell fate of naive mesenchymal stem cells with soft, stiffer,
and rigid matrices that delineate neurogenic, myogenic, and osteogenic
cell lineages, respectively.[5]Neural
processes are also known to sense and respond to biophysical
cues, including substrate elasticity. For example, primary spinal
cord neural processes branch significantly more on softer polyacrylamide
gels compared to stiffer matrices.[6] Additionally,
neurites from chick dorsal root ganglia grow significantly longer
down a stiffness gradient, that is, harder to softer, than they do
up the gradient in a three-dimensional (3D) genipin cross-linked collagen
gel.[7] The behavior of neurons and their
processes is of particular interest in cell–material interaction
studies, including interactions based on matrix stiffness, because
of their significance in a host of physiological functions. Accordingly,
an array of material modifications or microenvironmental controls
were developed to influence neuronal behavior, particularly with regard
to neurite outgrowth, including the photodegradation of 3D matrices,[8] diffusion or patterning of bioactive agents,[9−12] aligned physical features,[12−17] and electrical fields.[18] These methods
are often employed to increase the ultimate unidirectional outgrowth
to bridge gaps that are representative of nerve injuries.[19−22]Beyond the applications intended to bridge nerve gaps, the
ability
to understand and control the directionality of de novo neurite growth
based on physical material cues may also enable significant functional
improvements of current and developing neural prosthetics. Specifically,
directing neural processes into closer spatial proximity to stimulating
elements of retinal or cochlear implants (CIs) may overcome current
spatial signal resolution barriers and enhance prosthesis performance.[23−27] Furthermore, spatially organized neural growth will likely be critical
for the high resolution performance of any future device that interfaces
with the nervous system.In this work, we investigate the effects
of material mechanical
properties, that is, matrix rigidity, on spiral ganglion neuron (SGN)
behavior and neurite alignment in response to topographical guidance
cues. SGNs are nerve cells in the inner ear that are electrically
stimulated by CI prostheses. In a previous work we demonstrated that
de novo neurite growth from inner ear SGNs is guided by photopolymerized
micropatterns,[28] that the extent of the
alignment can be tuned based on features dimensions,[29] and that response to uni- and multidirectional cues varies
significantly even when neurites are presented with similar topographic
features.[30] For this study, micropatterned
thin films are generated for neurite alignment experiments using the
spatial reaction control afforded via photopolymerization. UV exposure
time is modulated to control the feature depth, which enables a direct
comparison of the neuronal and neural process behavior. Two copolymer
systems, namely hexyl methacrylate (HMA) with 1,6-hexanediol dimethacrylate
(HDDMA) and poly(ethylene glycol) dimethacrylate (PEGDMA) with ethylene
glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), are used as platforms with different
monomer chemistries and for neuronal contact guidance experiments.
SGN survival, neurite length, and neurite alignment are compared on
substrates that vary in matrix rigidity across each methacrylate series
based on changes in the cross-link density. The development of advanced
biomaterials that direct de novo neurite growth will require an improved
understanding of neuron–material interactions, including the
response to substrate stiffness, to improve the spatial signal resolution
of existing and future prostheses.
Experimental
Section
Glass Substrate Functionalization
Methacrylate thin
films were polymerized on functionalized glass slides to prevent polymer
delamination and facilitate the cellular microscopy studies. Standard
microscope glass slides (2.54 cm × 7.62 cm × 0.1 cm) were
functionalized with the silane coupling agent 3-(trimethoxysilyl)propyl
methacrylate (Aldrich). Prior to treatment with the coupling agent,
the slides were first cleaned and oxidized with O2 plasma
for 3 min at 30 W RF power (PDC-001 Harrick Plasma Expanded Cleaner,
Ithaca, NY) while under a 300 mTorr vacuum. Following the removal
from the plasma chamber, the slides were immersed in a 1/100 v/v solution
of the silane coupling agent and n-hexane (Aldrich)
overnight in a covered container at room temperature (∼21 °C).
Each slide was then rinsed with fresh hexane and dried in the fume
hood before being placed in a sealed container. The functionalized
slides were used immediately as substrates for polymerization.
Photopolymerization
of Micropatterned Methacrylate Thin Films
All of the mixtures
of HMA (Aldrich) with HDDMA (Aldrich) and PEGDMA
(Aldrich, Mn = 600) with EGDMA (Aldrich)
were prepared with 1 wt % of 2,2-dimethoxy-2- phenylacetophenone (DMPA,
BASF) as the photoinitiator. Copolymer compositions are represented
as whole numbers (e.g., 40/60, 50/50), but each polymer fraction is
0.5 wt % less to account for the photoinitiator. Twenty microliters
of prepolymer solutions were pipetted onto the center of a functionalized
slide and then covered with a 2.54 cm × 2.54 cm × 0.1 cm
glass–chrome Ronchi rule photomask (Applied Image Inc., Rochester,
NY) for the parallel patterns or with a cut untreated glass slide
of the same dimensions for the unpatterned samples. Capillary forces
caused the formulations to spread evenly under the photomasks. Photopolymerization
was carried out with a high-pressure mercury vapor arc lamp (Omnicure
S1500, Lumen Dynamics, Ontario, Canada) at a 365 nm light intensity
of 16 mW/cm2. The curing module was equipped with an 8
mm aperture × 50 mm length beam homogenizing fused silica light
pipe (Edmund Optics) and a collimating lens (RLQ-1, Asahi Spectra).
The light intensity was measured with a Cole–Parmer Series
9811 radiometer. The microfeature amplitude was tuned by shuttering
UV radiation at specific times, which thereby prevented further initiation
events and resulted in the rapid termination of the polymerization.
Following the set exposure time, the photomask was removed from the
polymer, and the sample was washed with 95% ethanol to remove any
residual surface monomer. The rinsed samples were then postcured for
10 min using the same light source and intensity without the photomask
and under ambient conditions to maximize the monomer conversion.
White Light Interferometry
The micropattern feature
spacing and depth were measured by white light interferometry (Dektak
Wyko 1100 Optical Profiling System, Veeco). The feature amplitude
was measured as the difference between a maximum ridge value and an
adjacent minimum groove value. For each composition and exposure time,
the average feature height was determined by measuring channel amplitude
in nine different areas across the surface (n ≥
3). The feature spacing, or periodicity, was measured as the distance
between the highest points on adjacent ridges and was consistent with
the photomask band spacing. The measurements and 3D images were generated
by Vision software associated with the instrument.
Scanning Electron
Microscopy
The micropattern morphology
of each composition was further characterized by scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) (S-4800, Hitachi). Conductive silver paint was applied
to the bottom of glass substrates modified with micropattered methacrylate
thin films for mounting on aluminum SEM stubs to acquire the top-down
images. For the cross-sectional images, a glass etcher was used to
etch the sample on the side opposite the thin polymer film, and patterned
polymers were then fractured and mounted vertically on the specimen
stages. The SEM specimen stage was rotated using automated stage and
software controls. Each polymer surface was sputter coated with gold
prior to examination by SEM. The electron accelerating voltage was
set at 2 kV.
Cell Culture
The polymer substrates
attached to glass
slides were sterilized with 70% ethanol and UV irradiation and air-dried
in a culture hood. The micropatterned surfaces were then coated sequentially
with poly-l-ornithine (100 μg/mL) at room temperature
and laminin (20 μg/mL) at 4 °C overnight. The following
day, dissociated spiral ganglion (SG) cultures from P3–6 rat
pups were prepared as previously described.[31,32] The dissociated cultures were plated with equal volumes of the cell
suspension and maintained in a humidified incubator with 6.5% CO2 for 48 h. The cultures were maintained in Dulbecco’s
Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) supplemented with N2 additives,
insulin, 5% fetal bovine serum, neurotrophin-3 (NT-3) (50 ng/mL),
and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) (50 ng/mL).
Immunostaining
and Measurement of SGN Survival and Neurite Length
The SGN
cultures were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde at 4 °C
for 20 min, permeabilized and blocked with 5% goat serum, 2% bovineserum albumin (BSA), 0.1%
Triton X in phosphate buffered saline (PBS), and immunostained with
antineurofilament 200 (NF200) antibodies (1:400, Sigma-Aldrich) at
37 °C for 2 h, as previously described.[31] Alexa 488 conjugated secondary antibody (1:800, Invitrogen) was
used to detect the primary antibody immunolabeling at room temperature
for 1 h. The slides were treated with ProLong Gold antifading reagent
with DAPI (Life Technology) and sealed with nitrocellulose. The digital
epifluoresencent images were captured of the entire polymer surface
using the scan slide application of the Metamorph software (Molecular
Devices, Silicon Valley, CA) on a Leica DMIRE2 microscope (Leica Microsystem,
Bannockburn, IL) with a Leica DFC350FX digital camera. The total number
of NF200-positive neurons with healthy nuclei was counted from the
digital images for each polymer surface to determine the SGN survival.
The SGN survival on each polymer was expressed as the percent survival
relative to the number of SGNs in the cultures maintained on tissue
culture plastic as previously described.[33,34] Overall, SGN survival is typically ∼25% in cultures maintained
on laminin-coated tissue culture plastic.[33] The experiments were performed in duplicate and repeated at least
three different times. Neurite length was determined by measuring
the longest process of 100 randomly selected neurites from each slide
using the measurement tool in ImageJ (NIH, Bethesda, MD) as previously
described.[35]
Protein Adsorption on Methacrylate
Thin Films
Polymer
substrates were sequentially coated with poly-l-ornithine
(100 μg/mL) at room temperature and 10 μg laminin (20
μg/mL, 0.5 mL in Hank’s Balanced Salt Solution, Life
Technologies) at 4 °C overnight. The laminin solution was removed
by pipet, and the surfaces were washed three times. An equal volume
of radioimmunoprecipitation assay (RIPA) buffer containing 50 mM tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane
(Tris)-Hcl, 1% NP-40, 1% Triton X-100, 150 mM NaCl, and 1 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic
acid (EDTA) was applied to each slide to dissolve the adsorbed protein.
A 96-well plate protein assay kit (Life Technologies) was used to
quantify the protein concentration according to the manufacturer’s
protocol. Experimental samples and solutions of protein standards
with known concentrations were pipetted into the microplate wells
and 1x dye reagent was added to each well, mixed, and incubated at
room temperature for 5 min. The absorbance was measured by a microplate
reader (THERMOmax, Molecular Devices). A standard curve was generated
using the absorption values from the protein standards. The protein
concentration of the experimental samples was calculated based on
the standard curve. Each condition was performed in triplicate and
then repeated at three different times.
Contact Angle Measurements
Water contact angles were
measured on unpatterned surfaces for each polymer composition using
a sessile drop method at room temperature (∼21 °C) with
a Ramé-Hart NRL 100–00 goniometer (Ramé-Hart
Instrument Co., Mountain Lakes, NJ). For each composition, three samples
were analyzed with repeats in six different spots for a total of 18
measurements per composition. Drops of doubly distilled H2O were dispensed as 1 μL volumes.
Measurement of Substrate
Rigidity
Tensile tests were
performed with a dynamic mechanical analyzer (DMA) (Q800 DMA, TA Instruments)
to measure the Young’s modulus of each composition as a measure
of relative substrate rigidity encountered by neural tissue. The characterization
of material moduli enables the comparison of neural pathfinding within
a given polymer series. The polymer specimens for tensile tests were
prepared by injecting prepolymer formulations between two untreated
glass plates separated by 280 μm thick spacers and held together
with clamps. The sample was then irradiated for 10 min using the same
lamp and intensity used to fabricate micropatterned surfaces. The
polymer bars, with dimensions of 25 mm × 6.4 mm × 0.28 mm,
were placed in a vertical film tension clamp for the tensile tests.
Young’s modulus was evaluated at 30 °C using the controlled
force tensile mode with a designated force rate (0.5 N/m). The modulus
was calculated from the slope of the stress–strain curve in
the early linear regime (less than 5% strain) (n =
5).
Determination of Neurite Alignment
The neurite alignment
to the micropatterns was measured by determining the ratio (TL/AL) of the total
neurite length (TL) to the aligned length
(AL). AL is
defined as the distance in a straight line along the direction of
the micropattern (set horizontally) from the cell body to the nerve
terminus. Neurites that closely follow the pattern have a ratio close
to unity (1). Wandering neurites that do not strongly align to the
pattern have higher ratios. For each slide, the neurite alignment
was measured for 100 randomly chosen SGNs.
Statistics
A statistical
analysis was performed using
SigmaStat 3.5 software (Systat Software, Chicago, IL). The groups
were compared by performing a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
followed by a post-hoc Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance
on ranks and a Dunn’s Method or Tukey Test multiple comparison
procedure. The results were considered statistically significant if p < 0.05.
Results and Discussion
UV Curing of Micropatterned
Methacrylate Substrates
The spatial control inherent to radiation
curing was used to generate
microscale biophysical cues suitable for neural process contact guidance.
Specifically, prepolymermethacrylate monomer and photoinitiator mixtures
were selectively exposed to UV irradiation through photomasks, which
have alternating reflective and transparent 25 μm wide bands
(Figure 1). The exposure of the prepolymer
formulation to the UV radiation in this manner modulates local polymerization
kinetics, which results in raised or depressed topographic features
under transparent or reflective bands, respectively.[36,37] Propagation proceeds rapidly beneath the transparent bands during
UV exposure, which locally increases the polymer chain concentration
while depleting the unreacted monomer content. A concentration gradient
occurs locally at the interface between the masked and exposed regions
of both the monomer and polymer chains. Because unreacted monomer
is much smaller than the propogating polymer chains, it diffuses more
rapidly into the developing cross-linked network and swells the features
during amplitude formation. While polymerization occurs most rapidly
under transparent bands, the photomasked regions still undergo polymer
formation, albeit more slowly, because of the angled diffraction of
light as it passes through narrow slits and because of the diffusion
of active species into the shadowed region as well as photon reflections
within the system. As a result, a pattern of gradually transitioning
microridges and grooves of uniform width and amplitude rapidly develop
across the substrate surface in a single fabrication step. Gradual
transitions between topographic features are caused by light diffraction
as it passes through the microscale photomask bands[38,39] and are due to monomer diffusion to reactive regions as has been
demonstrated in interference patterning holographic photopolymerization.[40] We previously demonstrated that this size scale
is relevant to SGNs, their processes, and associated glial cells.[29] Furthermore, hair cell spacing within the cochlea
is also within the feature spacing range that is relevant for a future
application to improve patient integration with a cochlear prosthetic.[41] The glass substrates used were first oxidized
with O2 plasma and treated with a methacrylated silane
coupling agent to improve thin film adhesion and prevent polymer delamination
during the neurite microscopy studies.
Figure 1
Photopolymerization of
micropatterns on methacrylate thin film
surfaces. (A) UV exposure of the prepolymer formulation is selectively
blocked with a photomask to alter the local reaction kinetics on the
surface that result in raised or depressed microfeatures. (B) 2D profile
of a 50/50 PEGDMA-co-EGDMA ridge–groove–ridge
transition generated by white light interferometry. (C) 3D representation
obtained by white light interferometry of a micropatterned methacrylate
surface formed during a masked photopolymerization. All patterns used
for this study have a 50 μm periodicity and a channel amplitude
of 2 μm.
Photopolymerization of
micropatterns on methacrylate thin film
surfaces. (A) UV exposure of the prepolymer formulation is selectively
blocked with a photomask to alter the local reaction kinetics on the
surface that result in raised or depressed microfeatures. (B) 2D profile
of a 50/50 PEGDMA-co-EGDMA ridge–groove–ridge
transition generated by white light interferometry. (C) 3D representation
obtained by white light interferometry of a micropatterned methacrylate
surface formed during a masked photopolymerization. All patterns used
for this study have a 50 μm periodicity and a channel amplitude
of 2 μm.Many cell-contact guidance
studies for neurons and other cell types
use microfeatures generated directly by photolithography or indirectly
via soft lithography casting over etched silicon masters.[42,43] For example, human corneal epithelial cells were shown to align
to and migrate in the direction of the nanotopography generated by
X-ray lithography and reactive ion etching.[44] Bovine aortic endothelial cells exhibited contact guidance to micropatterned
polyacrylamide gels that were fabricated via soft lithography on a
patterned silicon master template.[45] Furthermore,
in an effort to produce cartilage tissue engineering constructs that
yield superior mechanical properties of the resultant tissue, micropatterned
collagen–glycosaminoglycan membranes were generated using a
combination of photolithography and softlithography to direct mesenchymal
stem cell growth and ECM formation.[46] As
an alternative patterning method, the direct micropattern fabrication
by photopolymerization presented here is advantageous as it requires
one principle reaction step, few reagents, and simple and inexpensive
equipment. By contrast, the generation of micropatterns by photolithographic
methods often requires a multistep process, hazardous reagents, expensive
substrates, and processing equipment. Furthermore, the creation of
a range of gradually transitioning features with direct photopolymerization
enables the tailored probing of cell contact guidance behavior in
response to simultaneous physical and chemical guidance cues. Sharp
features generated with traditional photolithography would likely
dominate the cellular interactions, which may mask the effects of
bioactive signaling on cellular behaviors. The direct photopolymerization
of microfeatures is, therefore, an additional and advantageous tool
for the rapid and facile development of surface active substrates
for cell–material interaction studies.[47]
Matching Microfeature Amplitude Across Different Monomer Chemistries
To determine if the SGN neurite response to matrix stiffness is
system-dependent, photopolyermized micropatterns were generated on
the surfaces of various compositions of two different methacrylate
platforms (Figure 2). The HMA-co-HDDMA system is a relatively nonpolar material, and HDDMA serves
as the cross-linker. The cross-linking density increases when the
HDDMA content increases, which stiffens the material. The PEGDMA-co-EGDMA system, by contrast, has a higher surface energy
and is more wettable than the HMA-co-HDDMA system
because of the repeating polar ether linkages between the polymerizable
methacrylate moieites on the high molecular weight PEGDMA monomers.
Both monomers in the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA system undergo
cross-linking within the network; however, the cross-linking density
decreases when the PEGDMA content increases because of larger spacing
between the polymerizable groups, and hence, fewer cross-links per
unit volume.
Figure 2
Chemical structures of the monomers used for the micropattern
fabrication.
Shown are (a) HMA, (b) HDDMA, (c) PEGDMA (Mn = 600), and (d) EGDMA.
Chemical structures of the monomers used for the micropattern
fabrication.
Shown are (a) HMA, (b) HDDMA, (c) PEGDMA (Mn = 600), and (d) EGDMA.For both of the methacrylate systems, changes in the diene
concentration
and monomer chemistry alter the polymerization kinetics, which directly
affects the formation of the microfeatures on the substrate surface
as a function of time. Consequently, the temporal control enabled
by photopolymerization, that is, the simple shuttering of the irradiation
source at specific exposure times, is crucial to create comparable
microfeatures on materials with different monomer chemistries. For
a typical radical chain photopolymerization, the shuttering of the
light source in this manner prevents the generation of new radical
species for initiation events, which significantly precludes further
polymerization. To utilize the temporal reaction control thus afforded,
specific feature amplitudes were kinetically captured that develop
at different exposure times for each composition to create microfeatures
with the same amplitude for each polymer composition (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Micropattern feature height is tuned by modulating the
UV exposure
time as determined by white light interferometry. (A) HMA-co-HDDMA amplitude profiles for various compositions and
exposure times. Maximum channel amplitudes are similar but occur at
earlier polymerization times with the increased diene concentration.
(B) PEGDMA-co-EGDMA amplitude profiles for various
compositions and exposure times. Maximum amplitudes occur early in
the reaction because of the rapid vitrification caused by the polymerization
of the high molecular weight PEGDMA monomers. Final amplitudes level
off at similar heights of approximately 1.5 μm for both series.
Each composition was masked with a 50 μm periodicity glass–chrome
photomask and was mixed with 1 wt % DMPA as the photoinitiator. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (SD).
Micropattern feature height is tuned by modulating the
UV exposure
time as determined by white light interferometry. (A) HMA-co-HDDMA amplitude profiles for various compositions and
exposure times. Maximum channel amplitudes are similar but occur at
earlier polymerization times with the increased diene concentration.
(B) PEGDMA-co-EGDMA amplitude profiles for various
compositions and exposure times. Maximum amplitudes occur early in
the reaction because of the rapid vitrification caused by the polymerization
of the high molecular weight PEGDMA monomers. Final amplitudes level
off at similar heights of approximately 1.5 μm for both series.
Each composition was masked with a 50 μm periodicity glass–chrome
photomask and was mixed with 1 wt % DMPA as the photoinitiator. Error
bars represent the standard deviation (SD).For example, under the given photopolymerization conditions,
a
microfeature amplitude of 2 μm for the HMA-co-HDDMA series occurs at approximately 93, 105, and 114 s for 20,
30, and 40 HMA wt % compositions, respectively. Accordingly, the microfeature
amplitude for all compositions was tuned by modulating the UV exposure
time based on the reaction kinetics of the prepolymer formulations
to generate comparable micropatterns. For the HMA-co-HDDMA polymers, the amplitude development profile shifts to higher
polymerization times with a decreasing cross-linker content. However,
for the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA system, the amplitude profile,
including the UV exposure time at the maximum amplitude and the subsequent
leveling off at a lower amplitude, occurs at much earlier polymerization
times because of the rapid onset of system vitrification caused by
the greater concentration of cross-linking monomers. As a result,
the exposure times required to reach a microfeature target amplitude
of 2 μm are much shorter than those for the HMA-co-HDDMA system and are reached at 40, 74, and 95 s for 35, 50, and
75 wt % PEGDMA, respectively. For the HMA-co-HDDMA
system, 2 μm amplitude features were targeted with UV exposure
times that occurred after the development of the maximum amplitude.SEM was used to confirm the white light interferometry measurements
and to enable a more detailed comparison of the micropattern morphology
of each methacrylate composition (Figure 4).
The temporal control of photopolymerization was utilized to generate
the 2 μm amplitude features for all of the compositions to allow
for simple comparisons of the neurite behavior between systems based
on the material mechanical properties rather than on the microfeature
dimensions. The microfeature band spacing of the ridges and grooves
for all of the compositions closely matches the periodicity of transparent
and reflective bands of the photomask with ridge–ridge spacing
on the polymersurface, which occur 50 μm apart. Furthermore,
the SEM cross-sectional images demonstrate that the polymer film thickness,
surface micropatterns, and feature transitions are nearly identical
for each composition. The microfeature similarities for the different
polymer chemistries indicate that the final surface morphology is
strongly shaped by the constraints of the photopolymerization, including
light diffraction and reactive species diffusion considerations. Accordingly,
the neurite alignment to topographic features would be expected to
be nearly identical if only the dimensions of the physical cues, but
not the mechanical properties of the substrate, are considered as
the contact guidance factors.
Figure 4
Representative top-down (TD) and cross-section
(CS) scanning electron
micrographs of the micropatterned polymer surfaces of each methacrylate
composition.
Representative top-down (TD) and cross-section
(CS) scanning electron
micrographs of the micropatterned polymer surfaces of each methacrylate
composition.
Material Surface Chemistry
and Adsorbed Adhesive Protein
To isolate the effect of the
matrix rigidity on the neurite alignment
to physical micropatterns, we first quantified the surface wettabilities
and adsorbed protein contents of HMA-co-HDDMA and
PEGDMA-co-EGDMA to determine their contributions,
if any, to differences in neural behavior (Figures 5 and 6). Unpatterned thin films for
each methacrylate composition were photopolymerized using the same
reaction conditions as outlined for the micropatterned substrates.
In place of a photomask, plain glass slides were cut to similar dimensions
as the photomasks and used to enable the absorption of full incident
light intensity across the entire thin film area. Following the removal
of any residual surface monomer with an ethanol wash, the unpatterned
polymer surface polarity was quantified by measuring the water contact
angles using a sessile drop method (Figure 5). For the HMA-co-HDDMA series, the surface becomes
slightly more hydrophobic with the increasing HMA content with static
water contact angles of 73.8° ± 1.1, 76.7° ± 1.6,
and 79.2° ± 1.4 for 20, 30, and 40 wt % HMA, respectively.
However, while the contact angle difference between the 20 and 40
wt % HMA compositions is significant, it is unlikely that such a small
absolute change in the surface polarity, that is, ∼5°
water contact angle change, would lead to significant differences
in neural behavior on the surface. For example, the endothelial and
epithelial cell adhesion on OH-, COOH-, and NH2-terminated
self-assembled monolayers does not significantly change within a 5°
range, but it does change significantly with larger differences (e.g.,
20–80°) in the surface wettability.[48] Furthermore, it was illustrated that iridium oxide substrates
with relatively broad distributions of surface energies are suitable
for both insect and vertebrate neuronal growth.[49]
Figure 5
Static water contact angle on unpatterned methacrylate
substrates.
Surface polarity increases slightly when the HMA concentration increases
for the HMA-co-HDDMA series with a 5° difference
between the 20 and 40 wt % compositions. No statistical difference
in the contact angles is observed across the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series. The PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series is substantially
more polar and wettable, with an average contact angle 30° lower
than that of the other methacrylate series (∗, p < 0.05 one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). Error bars represent
the SD.
Figure 6
Laminin adsorption on the methacryalte thin
films. Laminin adsorption
is no different on the nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA substrates
than on the polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates. The
glass control adsorbed less laminin from solution than did the methacrylate
films. (∗, p < 0.05 one way ANOVA, Tukey
Test). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SE).
Similar to the HMA-co-HDDMA system,
the surface polarity does not substantially change across the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series, with static water contact angles of 48.3°
± 2.9, 49.5° ± 1.8, and 49.4° ± 2.5 for 35,
50, and 65 wt % PEGDMA, respectively. While little to no change in
the surface polarity occurs for a given series, a significant difference
in the surface polarity is observed when both series are compared.
The PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series is significantly more
polar, that is, wettable, with average static water contact angles
∼30° lower than those of the HMA-co-HDDMA
series. Both polymer series have surface polarities that are known
to support cellular adhesion and survival.[50,51] The two platforms, therefore, provide surfaces with substantially
different chemical properties but identical microfeature dimensions
on which to probe neurite response to material stiffness in relation
to topographic cues.Static water contact angle on unpatterned methacrylate
substrates.
Surface polarity increases slightly when the HMA concentration increases
for the HMA-co-HDDMA series with a 5° difference
between the 20 and 40 wt % compositions. No statistical difference
in the contact angles is observed across the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series. The PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series is substantially
more polar and wettable, with an average contact angle 30° lower
than that of the other methacrylate series (∗, p < 0.05 one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). Error bars represent
the SD.Laminin adsorption on the methacryalte thin
films. Laminin adsorption
is no different on the nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA substrates
than on the polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates. The
glass control adsorbed less laminin from solution than did the methacrylate
films. (∗, p < 0.05 one way ANOVA, Tukey
Test). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SE).In addition to substrate polarity,
the amount of adsorbed laminin
on each composition was also measured to determine its potential effects
on the neural outcomes including survival, neurite length, and neurite
alignment (Figure 6). Laminin is an extracellular
glycoprotein that facilitates neuronal adhesion, survival, and neurite
growth.[52] Glycoproteins are polypeptides,
that is, proteins, that have covalently attached oligosaccharide side
chains. A complex variety of pendant groups populate the main polypeptide
chain that includes aliphatic, polar, and charged groups for electrostatic
interactions at neutral pH. Pendant surface moieties largely determine
the interfacial interactions with material surfaces, which can vary
based on the material chemical properties;[53] however, even with the substantial disparity in surface polarity
between the two methacrylate platforms, no significant difference
in the concentration of adsorbed laminin is observed. Furthermore,
the adsorbed protein content for each composition across a given series
is also nearly identical.The protein adsorption on varied thin
film compositions is likely
similar for several reasons. For example, both surface types are moderately
wettable, that is, they each have a 40–70° water contact
angle, so it is probable that sufficient protein–surface interactions
occur with either series to facilitate adhesion. Additionally, while
the surface polarity between the two series is substantially different,
the functional groups presented by each material are quite similar.
Both series present aliphatic backbones of polymer chains that make
up the cross-linked network along with polar ester bonds from the
polymerizable methacrylate groups. The main difference in polarity
between the two series is due to the presence of the repeating polar
ether bonds between cross-links in the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA
platform. Approximately ten percent of the laminin in solution remains
adsorbed to the micropatterned methacrylate platforms following the
rinsing steps, which is similar to but slightly higher than the amount
adsorbed on the glass control. This increase is likely due to greater
hydrophobic interactions between the protein and the polymer surface
compared to the interactions with a highly polar glass substrate.
The laminin function is not compromised following the surface adsorption
as verified by the healthy outcomes of the dissociated neuronal cultures
on each composition, which is indicative of an active surface protein.
With little to no change in the surface polarity across either series,
and because the adsorbed functional laminin content for each composition
is similar, a more direct comparison of the stiffness effects on neurite
alignment to physical features can be realized.
SGN Survival
and Neurite Growth on Methacrylate Platforms
Dissociated
SGNs were cultured on a series of methacrylate substrates
with varied matrix stiffnesses in the MPa–GPa range to compare
the neuronal and process behaviors. The matrix stiffness is modulated
by varying the cross-link density by either increasing the cross-linker
concentration in the HMA-co-HDDMA series or by tuning
the spacing between cross-links based on the high molecular weight
monomer concentration in the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series.
As an initial comparison of neural behavior, SGN survival was quantified
on a tissue culture plastic (TCP) control and on each micropatterned
methacrylate thin film composition (Figure 7). The TCP control and polymer substrates were coated with poly-l-ornithine and laminin to facilitate neuronal adhesion. For
both the TCP and unpatterned methacrylatepolymers, de novo neurite
growth extended randomly across the substrate surface (Figure 7A–C). The SGN survival on the micropatterned
methacrylate substrates is comparable to the survival on the TCP control.
Furthermore, the SGN survival is not significantly different on the
HMA-co-HDDMA substrates compared to the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates or between the substrates of the same
series but with varied matrix stiffnesses (Figure 7 D). Similar survival and culture behavior outcomes for SGNs
on each methacrylate composition facilitate the comparisons of the
neural behaviors, including neurite length and alignment in response
to physical cues, without potential complications to account for unhealthy
neurons or irregular morphologies. No trend or correlation is observed
between SGN survival and methacrylate matrix rigidity under the range
of stiffnesses studied.
Figure 7
SGN survival on unpatterned TCP and methacrylate
thin films. Immunofluorescent
images of de novo neurite growth from dissociated SGNs illustrate
random neurite outgrowth on the (A) unpatterned TCP and on the unpatterned
(B) HMA-co-HDDMA and (C) PEGDMA-co-EGDMA films. (D) SGN survival on various polymer surfaces is expressed
as percent survival on TCP. No significant difference in SGN survival
is observed when cultured on HMA-co-HDDMA substrates
compared to on PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates. SGN survival
on polymer substrates is also similar to the survival on a TCP control
(p = 0.125, one way ANOVA). Error bars represent
the SE.
SGN survival on unpatterned TCP and methacrylate
thin films. Immunofluorescent
images of de novo neurite growth from dissociated SGNs illustrate
random neurite outgrowth on the (A) unpatterned TCP and on the unpatterned
(B) HMA-co-HDDMA and (C) PEGDMA-co-EGDMA films. (D) SGN survival on various polymer surfaces is expressed
as percent survival on TCP. No significant difference in SGN survival
is observed when cultured on HMA-co-HDDMA substrates
compared to on PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates. SGN survival
on polymer substrates is also similar to the survival on a TCP control
(p = 0.125, one way ANOVA). Error bars represent
the SE.To compare neurite behavior in
response to varied matrix stiffnesses,
the SGN neurite length was quantified from the dissociated neuronal
populations cultured on micropatterned polymers for each methacrylate
composition (Figure 8). Comparable microfeature
spacing and depth are developed for each methacrylate composition
using the spatiotemporal control of photopolymerization to allow for
direct comparisons of the neural process behavior. Specifically, feature
spacing is controlled by photomasking the prepolymer formulation during
UV exposure. All of the compositions were selectively blocked with
photomasks that had repeating 25 μm reflective, −25 μm
transmissive bands, or a 50 μm periodicity. The widths of the
photopolymerized microfeatures for all of the compositions closely
match the photomask band spacing as observed by interferometry and
SEM. The feature depth is modulated by controlling the irradiation
exposure time (Figure 3).
Figure 8
SGN neurite length on
the micropattered methacrylate thin films.
Neurite length is significantly shorter on the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates compared to the HMA-co-HDDMA substrates.
The average difference in length between the two series is 40 μm.
No significant difference in neurite length is observed between the
TCP control and polymer substrates (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). Error bars represent the
SE.
SGN neurite length on
the micropattered methacrylate thin films.
Neurite length is significantly shorter on the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates compared to the HMA-co-HDDMA substrates.
The average difference in length between the two series is 40 μm.
No significant difference in neurite length is observed between the
TCP control and polymer substrates (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). Error bars represent the
SE.Similar to neuronal survival,
no significant difference is observed
between the neurite length on th TCP compared to the neurite length
on each of the polymer compositions. The SGN survival and neurite
length results further illustrate that the photopolymerized methacrylate
platforms are amenable to neuronal cultures and that no substantial
deviations from typical dissociated SGN culture behavior occur. Furthermore,
the neurite lengths on varied compositions of a given series are also
similar, which indicates that matrix rigidity does not significantly
influence the rate of neurite outgrowth, at least for the range of
stiffnesses studied.Other studies have reported differences
in neurite length based
on the mechanical properties of the culture material in certain stiffness
ranges. For example, neurites from PC12 cells are longer on stiff
polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) substrates (1.72 MPa) than on soft substrates (5 kPa) during
the first 5 days of culture.[54] On the other
hand, dorsal root ganglia grow longer neurites in very soft (0.5 kPa)
elastin-like polypeptide hydrogels than they do on stiffer (2 kPa)
gels.[55] Furthermore, neurite outgrowth
is longer from the neuroblast Neuroa-2A cells on stiff matrices (800
kPa) than they are on softer substrates (200 kPa).[56] However, each of these studies examines the neural response
to materials that are orders of magnitude less rigid, that is, in
the kPa range, than those that were examined here.Neurite length
may not be significantly influenced after a certain
threshold of material stiffness is reached.[57] Additionally, the neurite length response to matrix stiffness may
also be dependent on the neuronal type.While no substantial
difference in neurite length is observed between
the TCP control and either methacrylate series, the neurite length
is significantly different when both polymer platforms are directly
compared. On average, the neurites are approximately 40 μm longer
on the HMA-co-HDDMA substrates than on the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates when maintained under the same culture
conditions for the same length of time. Neurite length differences
can likely be attributed to increased interactions of the advancing
neural growth cones on laminin-coated PEGDMA-co-EGDMApolymers compared to laminin-coated HMA-co-HDDMA
constructs. Because the two polymer series have significantly different
surface polarities, it is possible that laminin, while adsorbing at
similar surface concentrations (Figure 6),
is presented in a more favorable orientation for trans-membrane receptor
binding, which increases neurite–substrate interactions and
may slow outgrowth. Furthermore, changes in the ECM organization and
cell membrane response to material surface energy may also contribute
to the observed difference in neurite length.
SGN Neurite Alignment on
Micropatterned Substrates with Varied
Matrix Stiffnesses
To determine the effect of the rigid matrix
stiffness on neurite alignment to physical cues, the cross-link density
of each methacrylate platform was modulated while the microfeature
periodicity and amplitude were maintained across each composition.
For the HMA-co-HDDMA series, the matrix stiffness
increased by raising the concentration of the dimethacrylate monomer,
HDDMA, which increased the cross-link density of the network (Figure 9A). However, when the concentration of the diene
increased, the polymerization rate also increased and led to a faster
onset of gelation, which alters the microfeature formation time. Accordingly,
the UV exposure time must be adjusted to enable the targeting of specific
microfeature amplitudes for each composition (see Figure 3). Following the photomasked exposure and subsequent
ethanol wash, all of the micropatterned samples were treated with
a 10 min post cure to maximize the double bond conversion under the
given reaction conditions. While equivalent microfeature spacing and
amplitude were maintained for each HMA-co-HDDMA composition,
the SGN neurite alignment to micropattern features significantly increased
with the increasing matrix stiffness (Figure 9B). Specifically, the micropattern periodicity and amplitude were
tuned to 50 μm and 2 μm, respectively, using the spatial
and temporal control inherent to photopolymerization. Furthermore,
the topographic features for each polymer composition, including feature
transitions, are not significantly different for both methacrylate
series as demonstrated by SEM (Figure 4). The
modulation of photopolymerization parameters to precisely tune the
topographic features for each composition enables a direct comparison
of neurite contact guidance behavior based on material mechanical
properites. Neurite alignment ratios (TL/AL)
approaching unity indicate substantial alignment to the pattern direction
along the entire the length of the neurite; higher ratios are indicative
of greater wandering or random growth. For an average neurite that
is 225 μm in length for the HMA-co-HDDMA series,
the neurite would travel an extra 30 μm of unaligned distance,
that is, outgrowth that is not in the direction of the micropattern
features, on the softest substrate with an alignment ratio of 1.32
compared to the stiffest substrate with a neurite alignment ratio
of 1.18.
Figure 9
Modulus and SGN neurite alignment on the HMA-co-HDDMA
series. (A) Material modulus significantly increases with
increasing cross-linker concentration (∗, p < 0.05, one
way ANOVA, Tukey Test). Error bars represent the SD. (B) SGN neurite
alignment on the micropatterned HMA-co-HDDMA substrates.
Neurite alignment significantly increases (i.e., alignment ratio TL/AL decreases)
with increasing substrate stiffness (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). (C) Representative immunofluorescent
image of SGN neurite growth on the micropatterned HMA-co-HDDMA polymers. Neurite outgrowth orients to the pattern direction
that is set horizontally during the alignment measurement. Error bars
represent the SE. The micropattern for each composition has a 50 μm
periodicity and a 2 μm amplitude.
Modulus and SGN neurite alignment on the HMA-co-HDDMA
series. (A) Material modulus significantly increases with
increasing cross-linker concentration (∗, p < 0.05, one
way ANOVA, Tukey Test). Error bars represent the SD. (B) SGN neurite
alignment on the micropatterned HMA-co-HDDMA substrates.
Neurite alignment significantly increases (i.e., alignment ratio TL/AL decreases)
with increasing substrate stiffness (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). (C) Representative immunofluorescent
image of SGN neurite growth on the micropatterned HMA-co-HDDMA polymers. Neurite outgrowth orients to the pattern direction
that is set horizontally during the alignment measurement. Error bars
represent the SE. The micropattern for each composition has a 50 μm
periodicity and a 2 μm amplitude.Because both monomers in the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA
system
undergo cross-linking reactions, tuning of the matrix stiffness is
realized by modulating the ratio of the high molecular weight PEGDMA
monomer relative to the low molecular weight EGDMA monomer (Figure 10A). EGDMA has the same structure as the larger
PEGDMA monomer but has only one ethylene glycol repeat unit, whereas
the PEGDMA monomer used for this study has ten repeat units on average.
With more flexible ether repeat units between polymerizable moieties,
that is, methacryaltes, there are fewer cross-links per unit volume,
which significantly reduces the material modulus. The material modulus
for the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA system ranged from a maximum
of 1901 ± 97 MPa to a minimum of 649 ± 35 MPa for 35 and
75 wt % PEGDMA compositions, respectively. Again, though the microfeatures
were maintained at equivalent periodicity and amplitude for each composition
based on the spatiotemporal reaction control afforded by photopolymerization,
the SGN neurite alignment is substantially improved on the stiffest
substrate compared to on the softest substrate (Figure 10B).
Figure 10
Modulus and SGN neurite alignment on the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series. (A) Material modulus significantly decreases
with
increasing large PEGDMA monomer content (∗, p < 0.05, one
way ANOVA, Tukey Test). Error bars represent the SD. (B) SGN neurite
alignment on the micropatterned PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates.
Neurite alignment significantly increases (i.e., alignment ratio TL/AL decreases)
with increasing substrate stiffness (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). (C) Representative immunofluorescent
image of the SGN neurite growth on the micropatterned PEGDMA-co-EGDMA polymers. Neurite outgrowth orients to the pattern
direction that is set horizontally during the alignment measurement.
Error bars represent the SE. The micropattern for each composition
has a 50 μm periodicity and a 2 μm amplitude.
Modulus and SGN neurite alignment on the PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series. (A) Material modulus significantly decreases
with
increasing large PEGDMA monomer content (∗, p < 0.05, one
way ANOVA, Tukey Test). Error bars represent the SD. (B) SGN neurite
alignment on the micropatterned PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates.
Neurite alignment significantly increases (i.e., alignment ratio TL/AL decreases)
with increasing substrate stiffness (∗, p <
0.05, one way ANOVA, Dunn’s Method). (C) Representative immunofluorescent
image of the SGN neurite growth on the micropatterned PEGDMA-co-EGDMA polymers. Neurite outgrowth orients to the pattern
direction that is set horizontally during the alignment measurement.
Error bars represent the SE. The micropattern for each composition
has a 50 μm periodicity and a 2 μm amplitude.For many biomaterial applications that consider
matrix stiffness,
it is often deemed ideal to match the material modulus to that of
the native tissue.[58−6162] This approach is particularly
appropriate for tissue engineering applications that aim to develop
scaffolds that enable the regeneration of healthy and functional tissue.
For example, isolated embryonic cardiomyocytes are shown to overstrain
and stop beating on rigid substrates, beat but do little work on soft
materials, and optimally striate and transmit contractile work on
substrates that match the stiffness of their native matrices.[60] Potential stem cell treatments are also substantially
affected by material mechanical properties since their lineage-specific
differentiation has been repeatedly linked to matrix stiffness.[63−68] Further, load bearing applications, such as cartilage tissue engineering,
require the appropriate mechanical properties, that is, similar to
previously lost or damaged tissue, for successful mechanical function
and integration.[61,69] However, our results demonstrate
that some biomaterial applications, such as promoting spatial organization
of de novo neurite growth, require a careful consideration of material
mechanical property effects on cellular behavior even when the material
modulus is several orders of magnitude removed from native matrix
stiffness of the target tissue. Part of the physical and biomechanical
signals presented to neural growth cones during development and regeneration
following injury likely include interactions with high modulus native
matrices of bone, that is, in the GPa range, or other dense connective
tissues that are crucial to the formation of spatially organized neural
networks.[70,71] For example, SGN growth cones extend through
the bony modiolus and along the osseous spiral lamina to reach the
organ of Corti. While the exact mechanisms by which different cell
types integrate biophysical cues remain unknown, it is evident that
SGN neurites sense the matrix stiffness on materials that are much
more rigid than central neural environments (e.g., brain or spinal
cord) and that their alignment to biophysical cues substantially changes
based on the substrate rigidity.[72−74]
Conclusions
This work illustrates that neurite alignment to physical micropatterns
is significantly affected by the matrix stiffness of the underlying
network. Specifically, for both the nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA and polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA series, the SGN
neurite alignment significantly increases when the material stiffness
increases. Interestingly, neurites respond to changes in matrix stiffness
that are orders of magnitude higher than what is reported for the
tissue stiffness in a native neural environment. SGN survival is comparable
on both methacrylate series, but the neurite length is significantly
shorter on the polar PEGDMA-co-EGDMA substrates than
on the nonpolar HMA-co-HDDMA substrates. Furthermore,
photopolymerization is demonstrated as a powerful tool to fabricate
readily tunable microfeatures across a variety of methacrylate compositions
based on the spatial and temporal control of UV curing. Our results
add to efforts aimed to enhance neural prosthetic performance by improving
spatial signaling resolution and are also applicable to neural pathfinding
and cell–material interaction applications.
Authors: Per Gustavsson; Fredrik Johansson; Martin Kanje; Lars Wallman; Cecilia Eriksson Linsmeier Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Harini G Sundararaghavan; Gary A Monteiro; Bonnie L Firestein; David I Shreiber Journal: Biotechnol Bioeng Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Adam J Engler; Christine Carag-Krieger; Colin P Johnson; Matthew Raab; Hsin-Yao Tang; David W Speicher; Joseph W Sanger; Jean M Sanger; Dennis E Discher Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2008-10-28 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Adam J Engler; Maureen A Griffin; Shamik Sen; Carsten G Bönnemann; H Lee Sweeney; Dennis E Discher Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2004-09-13 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: Bradley W Tuft; Linjing Xu; Braden Leigh; Daniel Lee; C Allan Guymon; Marlan R Hansen Journal: J Tissue Eng Regen Med Date: 2017-11-23 Impact factor: 3.963
Authors: Braden L Leigh; Kristy Truong; Reid Bartholomew; Mark Ramirez; Marlan R Hansen; C Allan Guymon Journal: ACS Appl Mater Interfaces Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 9.229
Authors: Linjing Xu; Alison E Seline; Braden Leigh; Mark Ramirez; C Allan Guymon; Marlan R Hansen Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: Shufeng Li; Bradley W Tuft; Linjing Xu; Marc A Polacco; Joseph C Clarke; C Allan Guymon; Marlan R Hansen Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Shufeng Li; Bradley Tuft; Linjing Xu; Marc Polacco; Joseph C Clarke; C Allan Guymon; Marlan R Hansen Journal: J Biomed Mater Res A Date: 2016-04-19 Impact factor: 4.396
Authors: Wesley A Anderson; Alexander Bosak; Helena T Hogberg; Thomas Hartung; Michael J Moore Journal: In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 2.416