Hierarchical surface roughness wax-impregnated cotton fabrics platform for cell culture
Demand for cell culture platform has drawn increasing attention due to their ease for cell-based drug screening. Typically, cell culture platforms are made from non-biodegradable materials such as polystyrene or polyethylene. With respect to in vitro applications; we proposed an alternative platform...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Published: |
2017
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Demand for cell culture platform has drawn increasing attention due to their ease for cell-based drug screening. Typically, cell culture platforms are made from non-biodegradable materials such as polystyrene or polyethylene. With respect to in vitro applications; we proposed an alternative platform from wax-impregnated cotton fabrics to promote cells proliferation. The techniques, which consisted of cutting,dipping, folding and drying were conducted without any high-end and costly equipment. The chemical compositions of the substrate (wax) such as hydroxyl(OH-) and carbonyl groups (C=O, C-O) were attributed to hydrophilic property based on the effect of protein adsorptions. The water contact angle on the wax formulations was in a range of 80° to 100°. Due to different melting point of each wax, which is in a range of 53°C – 86°C). Several factors such as melting point, weight ratios of wax, and viscosity affected the surface roughness of the samples. Hence, hierarchical micro and nano roughness were found on wax-impregnated cotton fabrics surfaces which facilitated different actin cytoskeleton. Sample 1 (S1) has higher hydrophobicity, lower surface roughness and lowest stickiness where actin cytoskeletons were observed to spread uniformly compared to sample 2 (S2) which has lower hydrophobicity, highest surface roughness and moderate stickiness wherethe actin cytoskeletons were bound to the nucleus cells. Sample 3 (S3) and sample 4(S4) have quite similar cell morphology, sticked and spread. There was no significant difference in biocompatibility for all samples formulations, when compared to commercial 96 well-plate (Thermo scientificTM) but there was a statistical significant differences (student t-test, P<0.01). The healthy and non-healthy cells were stained using trichrome stain for observation under light microscopy. There was no significant difference in proliferations; size of nucleus and cytoplasm for normal and abnormal cells; however cells morphology in the S2 were similar to the morphology in the in-vivo. Further investigation on real tissues from patient is required to test further and apply this newly developed platform for clinical applications. |
|---|