Human Mesenchymal Stem Cell Morphology and Migration on Microtextured Titanium

Brittany L Banik, Thomas R Riley, Christina J Platt, Justin L Brown, Brittany L Banik, Thomas R Riley, Christina J Platt, Justin L Brown

Abstract

The implant used in spinal fusion procedures is an essential component to achieving successful arthrodesis. At the cellular level, the implant impacts healing and fusion through a series of steps: first, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) need to adhere and proliferate to cover the implant; second, the MSCs must differentiate into osteoblasts; third, the osteoid matrix produced by the osteoblasts needs to generate new bone tissue, thoroughly integrating the implant with the vertebrate above and below. Previous research has demonstrated that microtextured titanium is advantageous over smooth titanium and PEEK implants for both promoting osteogenic differentiation and integrating with host bone tissue; however, no investigation to date has examined the early morphology and migration of MSCs on these surfaces. This study details cell spreading and morphology changes over 24 h, rate and directionality of migration 6-18 h post-seeding, differentiation markers at 10 days, and the long-term morphology of MSCs at 7 days, on microtextured, acid-etched titanium (endoskeleton), smooth titanium, and smooth PEEK surfaces. The results demonstrate that in all metrics, the two titanium surfaces outperformed the PEEK surface. Furthermore, the rough acid-etched titanium surface presented the most favorable overall results, demonstrating the random migration needed to efficiently cover a surface in addition to morphologies consistent with osteoblasts and preosteoblasts.

Keywords: PEEK; cell–material interactions; regenerative medicine; spinal implant; titanium (alloys).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Surface morphology of PEEK and titanium samples. (A) PEEK, (B) smooth titanium, and (C) rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Morphological changes of mesenchymal stem cells analyzed at 2, 6, and 24 h post-seeding. (A) Area, (B) circularity, and (C) aspect ratio measurements were taken. The results indicate that stem cells on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface spread the most over 24 h. The circularity of the three surfaces began dissimilar, but converged at 24 h. The aspect ratio of stem cells initially began close to 1, but over 24 h, the smooth surfaces, Ti and PEEK, increased significantly higher than the rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface. Taken together, the aspect ratio and circularity indicate that stem cells on smooth surfaces move toward a spindle or fibroblastic morphology, whereas those on the rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface moved toward a stellate or star-like morphology. Within a single time point, * indicates significance, p < 0.05 between acid-etched Ti and PEEK, † indicates significance between acid-etched Ti and Ti, and § indicates significance between PEEK and Ti. Color-coded bars demonstrate significance between time points for a single surface.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Representative morphologies of MSCs. (A) PEEK, (B) smooth titanium, and (C) rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface, at 24 h. Immunofluorescence was carried out to examine the focal adhesion protein vinculin (green), the actin cytoskeleton (red), and the cell nuclei (blue). Additionally, a gray scale depiction of the surface was obtained with reflected DIC. The results demonstrated the trends observed in Figure 2 with cells on the smooth surfaces moving toward an elongated spindle-shaped morphology, whereas the cells on the rough surface demonstrated a range of morphologies from spindle-shaped cells to cuboidal and stellate-shaped cells. In particular, the cuboidal and stellate cells in C. are representative of morphologies expected of osteoblastic differentiation. Scale bar indicating 50 μm applies to (A–C).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Stem cell migration on each surface was assessed from 6 to 18 h post-seeding. The results demonstrate random migration on the PEEK and acid-etched endoskeleton surfaces indicated by the rose plots in (A), a histogram of the angle of migration for each cell monitored in (B), and the graph of directionality in (C), which demonstrates significance between PEEK and acid-etched endoskeleton surfaces when compared to the smooth titanium surface. Furthermore, the non-random migration on smooth titanium followed the grooves created by milling the surface, and this non-random migration resulted in an expected velocity increase, which was significantly higher than both the PEEK and acid-etched endoskeleton surfaces. Between the two surfaces demonstrating random migration, the MSCs on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface demonstrated a significantly higher velocity than those on PEEK. Significance, p < 0.05, is demonstrated by bars between groups in (B,C).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Early differentiation marker alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and osterix (OSX), a transcription factor significant for osteoblast differentiation, were normalized to dsDNA. (A) Early differentiation marker, ALP, is increased on the smooth Ti surface, while the mid-differentiation marker OSX increased on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface. The PEEK surface fell short for both ALP and OSX. This suggests that hMSC differentiation is moving toward bone formation for the Ti surfaces. (B) Seeding densities for all samples were equal. The dsDNA value for the acid-etched endoskeleton surface is the highest amongst the surfaces, which suggests that there is improved cell attachment and/or proliferation for the acid-etched endoskeleton surface compared to the smooth Ti and PEEK substrates.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Nuclear morphology was examined to assess the general cell morphology after 7 days when the populations were confluent and cell borders were difficult to identify. The nuclear morphology on PEEK and Ti surfaces were very similar in regards to axial ratio (A), whereas the nuclei on the rough acid-etched endoskeleton surface had a significantly lower axial ratio than either the PEEK or smooth Ti surface indicating more circular nuclei on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface. The nuclear area (B) followed a similar trend to axial ratio with the smooth surfaces demonstrating significantly more nuclear area than the rough acid-etched endoskeleton surface. Finally, the orientation of nuclei (C) was assessed establishing 0° as the average orientation direction. The inset provides a plot of the cumulative distribution and clearly demonstrates that PEEK and smooth Ti surfaces were different than the rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface. Nuclei on PEEK and smooth Ti were grouped very close to 0° indicating that most cells presented an elongated nucleus in the same direction; however, on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface, the nuclei were randomly oriented with only one range, 70–90°, demonstrating a slight increase. The black dotted line in the inset of (C) provides the expected cumulative distribution for random orientation; p values were calculated for each of the three samples with a χ2 test and yielded p values of 10−10, 10−19, and 1.0 for PEEK, Ti, and acid-etched endoskeleton, respectively. Taken together, these results indicated that the aligned spindle morphology observed early on the PEEK and smooth Ti surfaces persists when the stem cells are confluent, and likewise, the random cuboidal/stellate morphology on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface also persists to the confluent cell layer observed after 7 days.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Representative images of confluent cells stained for actin (red) and the cell nuclei (blue). (A) PEEK, (B) smooth titanium, and (C) rough, acid-etched endoskeleton surface, after 7-day culture. The cells on PEEK and smooth titanium demonstrate an elongated morphology in a uniform direction, whereas cells on the acid-etched endoskeleton surface demonstrate a branched random morphology. Scale bar indicating 200 μm applies to (A–C).

References

    1. Abernathie D. L., Pfeiffer F. M. (2011). Spinal Fusion Cage, Method of Design, and Method of Use. US 8,057,548 B2.
    1. Anselme K., Bigerelle M. (2005). Topography effects of pure titanium substrates on human osteoblast long-term adhesion. Acta Biomater. 1, 211–222.10.1016/j.actbio.2004.11.009
    1. Anselme K., Davidson P., Popa A. M., Giazzon M., Liley M., Ploux L. (2010). The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces structured at the nanometre scale. Acta Biomater. 6, 3824–3846.10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001
    1. Bächle M., Kohal R. J. (2004). A systematic review of the influence of different titanium surfaces on proliferation, differentiation and protein synthesis of osteoblast-like MG63 cells. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 15, 683–692.10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01054.x
    1. Cabraja M., Oezdemir S., Koeppen D., Kroppenstedt S. (2012). Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 13:172.10.1186/1471-2474-13-172
    1. Caraca-Huber D. C., Fille M., Hausdorfer J., Pfaller K., Nogler M. (2012). Evaluation of MBECTM-HTP biofilm model for studies of implant associated infections. J. Orthop. Res. 30, 1176–1180.10.1002/jor.22065
    1. Dalby M. J., Gadegaard N., Tare R., Andar A., Riehle M. O., Herzyk P., et al. (2007). The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat. Mater. 6, 997–1003.10.1038/nmat2013
    1. Deligianni D. D., Katsala N., Ladas S., Sotiropoulou D., Amedee J., Missirlis Y. F. (2001). Effect of surface roughness of the titanium allow Ti-6Al-4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. Biomaterials 22, 1241–1251.10.1016/S0142-9612(00)00274-X
    1. Gail M. H., Boone C. W. (1970). The locomotion of mouse fibroblasts in tissue culture. Biophys. J. 10, 980–993.10.1016/S0006-3495(70)86347-0
    1. Gittens R. A., Olivares-Navarrete R., McLachlan T., Cai Y., Hyzy S. L., Schneider J. M., et al. (2012). Differential responses of osteoblast lineage cells to nanotopographically-modified, microroughened titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy surfaces. Biomaterials 33, 8986–8994.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2012.08.059
    1. Gorth D. J., Puckett S., Ercan B., Webster T. J., Rahaman M., Bal B. S. (2012). Decreased bacteria activity on Si3N4 surfaces compared with PEEK or titanium. Int. J. Nanomed. 7, 4829–4840.10.2147/IJN.S35190
    1. Graham M. V., Cady N. C. (2014). Nano and microscale topographies for the prevention of bacterial surface fouling. Coatings 4, 37–59.10.3390/coatings4010037
    1. Gristina A. (1987). Biomaterial-centered infection: microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 237, 1588–1595.10.1126/science.3629258
    1. Gristina A., Naylor P., Myrvik Q. (1989). Infections from biomaterials and implants: a race for the surface. Med. Prog. Technol. 14, 205–224.
    1. Higgins A. M., Banik B. L., Brown J. L. (2015). Geometry sensing through POR1 regulates Rac1 activity controlling early osteoblast differentiation in response to nanofiber diameter. Integr. Biol. 7, 229–236.10.1039/c4ib00225c
    1. Hirano M., Kozuka T., Asano Y., Kakuchi Y., Arai H., Ohtsu N. (2014). Effect of sterilization and water rinsing on cell adhesion to titanium surfaces. Appl. Surf. Sci. 311, 498–502.10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.05.096
    1. Hong D., Chen H.-X., Yu H.-Q., Liang Y., Wang C., Lian Q.-Q., et al. (2010). Morphological and proteomic analysis of early stage of osteoblast differentiation in osteoblastic progenitor cells. Exp. Cell Res. 316, 2291–2300.10.1016/j.yexcr.2010.05.011
    1. Kummer K. M., Taylor E. N., Durmas N. G., Tarquinio K. M., Ercan B., Webster T. J. (2013). Effects of different sterilization techniques and varying anodized TiO2 nanotube dimensions on bacteria growth. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 101, 677–688.10.1002/jbm.b.32870
    1. Kurtz S. M., Lau E., Schmier J., Ong K. L., Zhao K., Parvizi J. (2008). Infection burden for hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J. Arthroplasty 23, 984–991.10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.017
    1. Li Q., Kumar A., Makhija E., Shivashankar G. V. (2014). The regulation of dynamic mechanical coupling between actin cytoskeleton and nucleus by matrix geometry. Biomaterials 35, 961–969.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.10.037
    1. Maniotis A. J., Chen C. S., Ingber D. E. (1997). Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 849–854.10.1073/pnas.94.3.849
    1. Matsuoka F., Takeuchi I., Agata H., Kagami H., Shiono H., Kiyota Y., et al. (2013). Morphology-based prediction of osteogenic differentiation potential of human mesenchymal stem cells. PLoS ONE 8:e55082.10.1371/journal.pone.0055082
    1. Matteson J. L., Greenspan D. C., Tighe T. B., Gilfoy N., Stapleton J. J. (2015). Assessing the hierarchical structure of titanium implant surfaces. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. Part B.10.1002/jbm.b.33462
    1. Nouh M. R. (2012). Spinal fusion-hardware construct: basic concepts and imaging review. World J. Radiol. 4, 193–207.10.4329/wjr.v4.i5.193
    1. Obrigkeit D. D., Koenen J., Schumann D. O. A., Smit L. (2012). Spinal Fusion Cage. US 2012/0046750 A1.
    1. Olivares-Navarrete R., Gittens R. A., Schneider J. M., Hyzy S. L., Haithcock D. A., Ullrich P. F., et al. (2012). Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether ketone. Spine J. 12, 265–272.10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.002
    1. Olivares-Navarrete R., Hyzy S., Hutton D., Erdman C., Wieland M., Boyan B. D., et al. (2010). Direct and indirect effects of microstructured titanium substrates on the induction of mesenchymal stem cell differentiation towards the osteoblast lineage. Biomaterials 31, 1–15.10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.12.029
    1. Olivares-Navarrete R., Hyzy S. L., Gittens R. A., I, Schneider J. M., Haithcock D. A., Ullrich P. F., et al. (2013). Rough titanium alloys regulate osteoblast production of angiogenic factors. Spine J. 13, 1563–1570.10.1016/j.spinee.2013.03.047
    1. Ozdemir T., Xu L.-C., Siedlecki C., Brown J. L. (2013). Substrate curvature sensing through Myosin IIa upregulates early osteogenesis. Integr. Biol. 5, 1407–1416.10.1039/c3ib40068a
    1. Pinzone J. J., Hall B. M., Thudi N. K., Vonau M., Qiang Y., Rosol T. J., et al. (2016). The role of Dickkopf-1 in bone development, homeostasis, and disease. Blood 113, 517–526.10.1182/blood-2008-03-145169
    1. Ramdas N. M., Shivashankar G. V. (2015). Cytoskeletal control of nuclear morphology and chromatin organization. J. Mol. Biol. 427, 695–706.10.1016/j.jmb.2014.09.008
    1. Rihn J. A., Patel R., Makda J., Hong J., Anderson D. G., Vaccaro A. R., et al. (2009). Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 9, 623–629.10.1016/j.spinee.2009.04.004
    1. Subbiahdoss G., Kuijer R., Grijpma D. W., van der Mei H. C., Busscher H. J. (2009). Microbial biofilm growth versus tissue integration: “the race for the surface” experimentally studied. Acta Biomater. 5, 1399–1404.10.1016/j.actbio.2008.12.011
    1. Vidal G., Blanchi T., Mieszawska A. J., Calabrese R., Rossi C., Vigneron P., et al. (2013). Enhanced cellular adhesion on titanium by silk functionalized with titanium binding and RGD peptides. Acta Biomater. 9, 4935–4943.10.1016/j.actbio.2012.09.003
    1. Williams A. L., Gornet M. F., Burkus J. K. (2005). CT evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion: current concepts. Am. J. Neuroradiol. 26, 2057–2066.
    1. Zhao C., Cao P., Ji W., Han P., Zhang J., Zhang F., et al. (2011). Hierarchical titanium surface textures affect osteoblastic functions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 99, 666–675.10.1002/jbm.a.33239

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel