SPECIAL FOCUS y Engineering the nanoenvironment for regenerative medicine Foreword For reprint orders, please contact: [email protected]
Special focus on nanoscale regeneration
It has been a great pleasure to compile this special issue of Nanomedicine focusing on engineering the nanoenvironment for regenerative medicine. This is a fast moving field that has grown exponentially over the last 15 years. We were both introduced to the field of ‘nanoregeneration’ in the Glasgow Centre for Cell Engineering as a postdoc (MJ Dalby) and PhD student (MJP Biggs) by Professors Adam Curtis and Chris Wilkinson. This serendipitous collaboration at Glasgow encapsulated the multidisciplinary approach needed to define and drive the early field of nanobiomedicine. A Curtis had been a cell biologist who had found interest in cell- contact guidance in the 1960s and C Wilkinson had worked on pioneering electron beam lithography and dry etch procedures within the context of microelectronics research and development. The initiation of their fruitful collaboration and the establishment of the Centre for Cell Engineering at Glasgow University was through adjoining vegetable growing allotments where one day they decided they could work together, C Wilkinson fabricating miniature features for A Curtis to test his cell cultures on. It is interesting that however forward thinking researchers can be, they can still sometimes be too conservative. A Curtis had a bet with one of his new lecturers, Peter Clark, that cells would not respond to features below 1 μm in size. P Clark proved A Curtis wrong through use of laser holography and demonstrated cell alignment to nanoscale features in 1991 (Figure 1) [1] . They published a first paper using electron beam lithographically patterned surfaces to control cell adhesion in 2001 [2] .
10.2217/NNM.15.34 © 2015 Future Medicine Ltd
A Curtis and P Clark’s bet opened up this next dimension to those of us interested in nanoscale topography and our contribution at the center was to understand how mesenchymal stem cells interacted with surfaces at the nanoscale, first to understand how to control osteogenesis [3] and then stem cell growth [4] , implicating roles for cell adhesion [5] and hence placing cell nanoscale interactions more firmly in the regenerative area. Sadly, C Wilkinson passed away in 2012 and we dedicate this issue to him as a real pioneer of this field. His ability to produce microscale and then nanoscale structures really helped to open up the field to us and to the generation of researchers who publish in this issue. The fields of study encompassing the nanobiointerface have since expanded to include nanotopographical modification, formulation of existing biomaterials (e.g., hydroxyapatite) and modification of the extracellular matrix – all of which will be discussed in this issue – as well as the development of targeting techniques using nanoparticles (e.g., targeted 3D delivery). Furthermore, nanoscale platforms are becoming recognized as powerful tools to understand biological molecules [6] , subcellular structures [7] and how cells and organs work [5] , representing a future that was not so obvious 10 years ago but that could have real impact in regenerative medicine, in understanding how stem cells (and other cells) work and also in drug discovery and cell targeting, for example. Included introductions to the current state of the art also really highlight the critical importance that nanotechnologies will play in basic cell science and in the future design of biomaterial systems and we are delighted to have editorials from
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5), 677–680
Matthew J Dalby Author for correspondence: Centre for Cell Engineering, Institute of Molecular, Cell & Systems Biology, CMVLS, Joseph Black Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK [email protected]
Manus JP Biggs Network of Excellence for Functional Biomaterials, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
part of
ISSN 1743-5889
677
Foreword Dalby & Biggs
Figure 1. BHK cells aligning to 100-nm high and 400-nm high nanogrooves. (A) shows 100-nm high features and (B) shows 400-nm high features. Reproduced with permission from [1] .
the groups of Cavalcanti-Adam and Spatz [8] , Zhang and Khademhosseini [9] and Zhang and Xia [10] . These focus on the probing of cell receptors, developing organ mimics on a chip and understanding the potential for biomimicry of the extracellular matrix. The authors provide an authoritative glimpse into some exciting future directions for the field. Following on from these editorial perspectives, this special issue presents a broad selection of reviews and original articles covering current translation (e.g., patterning of metals and ceramics for orthopaedic application) and future directions (e.g., multieffect surfaces that could direct complexity in tissue engineering). An overarching theme of this tissue is the regulation of cellular function through nanotopographical modification. Mashinchian et al. present a comprehensive review of the contribution of nanotopography to the field with particular focus on stem cell fate on nanotopographies [11] . The article provides an excellent introduction and overview of the field. Azeem et al. present research on micro- to nano-scale grooved topographies and how these influence osteoblast function in vitro and bone regeneration in vivo [12] . Similarly Liu et al. present research on the fabrication of titania nanotubes anodized into titanium and how these may be employed to improve the materials antibacterial and cell compatibility properties [13] . Specifically the authors show that these surfaces induce significant downregulations in glycosytransferase genes in Streptococcus mutans populations and improved osteogenic functions in human stem cells, noting that this may provide a powerful methodology to improve orthopedic and dental implant efficacy. The role of nanotopographical modification in the osteointegration of titanium and titanium alloys is further explored by Cunha et al. who investigate
678
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5)
ultrafast laser-surface texturing as a surface treatment of Ti-6Al-4V alloy dental and orthopedic implants to improve the osteoblastic commitment of human mesenchymal stem cells [14] ; and by Salou et al. who present a comparison of osteointegration, examining nanostructured implants relative to a microsurface widely used for titanium dental implants [15] . Both studies indicated that nanotopographies were shown to improve osteointegration relative to a standard microrough surface. Again, this illustrates the potential for nanoscale in implant design and the authors conclude that nanoscale topographies provide powerful cues for the modulation of differential cell function, integrin signalling and cell proliferation in vitro. Nanobiomaterials are also increasingly being recognized for their significant potential in targeted delivery of drug payloads, and particularly for drug delivery to inaccessible anatomical or intracellular compartments. This is indicated in an original article by Schiavi et al. who present research on a new generation of collagen nanofiber implants functionalized with BMP-7 nanoreservoirs and equipped with human mesenchymal stem cell microtissues for regenerative nanomedicine [16] . The authors conclude that by using a 3D nanofibrous collagen membrane and by adding microtissues rather than single cells, this optimizes the microenvironment for cell colonization and can accelerate bone growth in vivo. Similarly, Juhi Samal et al. present research on hollow fibrin microspheres and how they may be employed to protects neural growth factor activity and promote a controlled release in vivo [17] . The authors demonstrate how these microspheres offer tuneable loading efficiency and maintaining their bioactive form after release in vivo. Nanoparticle coating formulations are also explored in a study by Velard et al., which presents research
future science group
Special focus on nanoscale regeneration
on the inflammatory potential of seven nanoporous hydroxyapatite powders synthesized by hard or soft templating [18] . Increases in the secretion of TNF-α, IL-1, -8, -10, and proMMP-2 and -9 and decreases in the secretion of IL-6 only for powders prepared by hard templating were observed in vitro, coupled with an extensive inflammatory tissue reaction in vivo. Finally, this issue includes insights as to the future of nanobiomaterials and includes extensive reviews on the present and future roles for dynamic surfaces and materials that could allow different cell actions at different times, based on user added or cell excreted cues, nanoresevoirs of growth factors and novel composites. Dhowre et al. present a review article on stimulus responsive materials and in particular interfaces [19] . Here they discuss the generation of biointerfaces which provide chemical and physical cues to promote both general and specific biological responses. This is fascinating as in vivo cells can be controlled in dynamic ways – such as in the stem cell niche where quiescence, growth and differentiation are initiated upon tissue need. Dynamic surfaces could be a real future perspective of tissue engineering and Seras-Franzoso et al. present a review article on bioinspired multieffector materials and how these may be employed to control different facets of cell proliferation and differentiation through mechanical and biological activity in addition to provision of topographical information [20] . Such considerations are important as we wish to provide complexity in tissue engineering to make tissue and organs (e.g., using stem cells) and are explored by Yinan Lin et al. who report
on silk-tropoelastin alloys, composed of recombinant human tropoelastin and regenerated Bombyx mori silk fibroin [21] . These alloys were prepared by electrodeposition and their ability to support cell adhesion was assessed in vitro. Mechanical characterization and in vitro cell culture revealed enhanced adhesive capability and cellular response of these alloy gels as compared with electrogelled silk alone. Finally, we are pleased to include a slightly different article by Ballester-Beltrán et al. on techniques illustrating how some 2D topographical (and other) techniques could be moved to 3D understanding [22] . In this article the authors present research on the design of a sandwich-like culture as a tool to engineer the cellular nanoenvironment by tuning protein presentation and activation of dorsal and ventral receptors. Here they report that dorsal stimulation promotes cell remodeling of the extracellular matrix relative to simple ventral receptor activation. The future is rosy … Take my hand as we explore the pages within … Financial & competing interests disclosure The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.
References 1
2
7
Curtis AS, Casey B, Gallagher JO, Pasqui D, Wood MA, Wilkinson CD. Substratum nanotopography and the adhesion of biological cells. Are symmetry or regularity of nanotopography important? Biophys. Chem. 94, 275–283 (2001).
Schvartzman M, Palma M, Sable J et al. Nanolithographic control of the spatial organization of cellular adhesion receptors at the single-molecule level. Nano Lett. 11, 1306–1312 (2011).
8
Cavalcanti-Adam EA, Spatz JP. Receptor clustering control and associated force sensing by surface patterning: when force matters. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 681–684 (2015).
9
Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A. Seeking the right context for evaluating nanomedicine: from tissue models in petri dishes to microfluidic organs-on-a-chip. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 685–688 (2015).
10
Zhang YS, Xia Y. Mutliple facets for extracellular matrix mimicking in regenerative medicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 689–692 (2015).
11
Mashinchian O, Turner L-A, Dalby MJ et al. Regulation of stem cell fate by nanomaterial substrates. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 829–847 (2015).
12
Azeem A, English A, Kumar P et al. The influence of anisotropic nano- to micro- topography on in vitro and in vivo osteogenesis. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 693–711 (2015).
Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat. Mater. 6, 997–1003 (2007).
4
McMurray RJ, Gadegaard N, Tsimbouri PM et al. Nanoscale surfaces for the long-term maintenance of mesenchymal stem cell phenotype and multipotency. Nat. Mater. 10, 637–644 (2011).
5
6
and surface bio-functionalization. Methods Mol. Biol. 749, 169–185 (2011).
Clark P, Connolly P, Curtis A, Dow J, Wilkinson C. Cell guidance by ultrafine topography in vitro. J. Cell. Sci. 99, 73–77 (1991).
3
Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkinson CD, Oreffo RO, Dalby MJ. The use of nanoscale topography to modulate the dynamics of adhesion formation in primary osteoblasts and ERK/MAPK signalling in STRO-1+ enriched skeletal stem cells. Biomaterials 30, 5094–5103 (2009). Palma M, Abramson JJ, Gorodetsky AA et al. Controlled confinement of DNA at the nanoscale: nanofabrication
future science group
Foreword
www.futuremedicine.com
679
Foreword Dalby & Biggs 13
Liu W, Su P, Chen S et al. Antibacterial and osteogenic stem cell differentiation properties of photoinduced TiO2 nanoparticles decorated TiO2 nanotubes. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5) 713–723 (2015).
18
Velard F, Schlaubitz S, Fricain JC et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the inflammatory potential of various nanoporous hydroxyapatite biomaterials. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 785–802 (2015).
14
Cunha A, Zouani OF, Plawinski L et al. Human mesenchymal stem cell behavior on femtosecond lasertextured Ti-6Al-4V surfaces. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 725–739 (2015).
19
Dhowre HS, Rajput S, Russell NA, Zelzer M. Responsive cell–material interfaces. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 849–871 (2015).
20
15
Salou L, Hoornaert A, Stanovici J et al. Comparative bone tissue integration of nanostructured and microroughened dental implants. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 741–751 (2015).
Seras-Franzoso J, Tatkiewicz WI, Vazquez E et al. Integrating mechanical and biological control of cell proliferation through bioinspired multieffector materials. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 873–891 (2015).
21
16
Schiavi J, Keller L, Morand D et al. Active implant combining human stem cells microtissues and growth factors for bone-regenerative nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 753–763 (2015).
Lin Y, Wang S, Chen Y et al. Electrodeposited gels prepared from protein alloys. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 803–814 (2015).
22
Ballester-Beltrán J, Lebourg M, Rico P, SalmerónSánchez M. Cell migration within confined sandwich-like nanoenvironments. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 815–828 (2015).
17
680
Samal J, Hoban JB, Naughton C et al. Fibrin-based microsphere reservoirs for delivery of neurotrophic factors to the brain. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 765–783 (2015).
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5)
future science group
Special focus on nanoscale regeneration
It has been a great pleasure to compile this special issue of Nanomedicine focusing on engineering the nanoenvironment for regenerative medicine. This is a fast moving field that has grown exponentially over the last 15 years. We were both introduced to the field of ‘nanoregeneration’ in the Glasgow Centre for Cell Engineering as a postdoc (MJ Dalby) and PhD student (MJP Biggs) by Professors Adam Curtis and Chris Wilkinson. This serendipitous collaboration at Glasgow encapsulated the multidisciplinary approach needed to define and drive the early field of nanobiomedicine. A Curtis had been a cell biologist who had found interest in cell- contact guidance in the 1960s and C Wilkinson had worked on pioneering electron beam lithography and dry etch procedures within the context of microelectronics research and development. The initiation of their fruitful collaboration and the establishment of the Centre for Cell Engineering at Glasgow University was through adjoining vegetable growing allotments where one day they decided they could work together, C Wilkinson fabricating miniature features for A Curtis to test his cell cultures on. It is interesting that however forward thinking researchers can be, they can still sometimes be too conservative. A Curtis had a bet with one of his new lecturers, Peter Clark, that cells would not respond to features below 1 μm in size. P Clark proved A Curtis wrong through use of laser holography and demonstrated cell alignment to nanoscale features in 1991 (Figure 1) [1] . They published a first paper using electron beam lithographically patterned surfaces to control cell adhesion in 2001 [2] .
10.2217/NNM.15.34 © 2015 Future Medicine Ltd
A Curtis and P Clark’s bet opened up this next dimension to those of us interested in nanoscale topography and our contribution at the center was to understand how mesenchymal stem cells interacted with surfaces at the nanoscale, first to understand how to control osteogenesis [3] and then stem cell growth [4] , implicating roles for cell adhesion [5] and hence placing cell nanoscale interactions more firmly in the regenerative area. Sadly, C Wilkinson passed away in 2012 and we dedicate this issue to him as a real pioneer of this field. His ability to produce microscale and then nanoscale structures really helped to open up the field to us and to the generation of researchers who publish in this issue. The fields of study encompassing the nanobiointerface have since expanded to include nanotopographical modification, formulation of existing biomaterials (e.g., hydroxyapatite) and modification of the extracellular matrix – all of which will be discussed in this issue – as well as the development of targeting techniques using nanoparticles (e.g., targeted 3D delivery). Furthermore, nanoscale platforms are becoming recognized as powerful tools to understand biological molecules [6] , subcellular structures [7] and how cells and organs work [5] , representing a future that was not so obvious 10 years ago but that could have real impact in regenerative medicine, in understanding how stem cells (and other cells) work and also in drug discovery and cell targeting, for example. Included introductions to the current state of the art also really highlight the critical importance that nanotechnologies will play in basic cell science and in the future design of biomaterial systems and we are delighted to have editorials from
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5), 677–680
Matthew J Dalby Author for correspondence: Centre for Cell Engineering, Institute of Molecular, Cell & Systems Biology, CMVLS, Joseph Black Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK [email protected]
Manus JP Biggs Network of Excellence for Functional Biomaterials, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
part of
ISSN 1743-5889
677
Foreword Dalby & Biggs
Figure 1. BHK cells aligning to 100-nm high and 400-nm high nanogrooves. (A) shows 100-nm high features and (B) shows 400-nm high features. Reproduced with permission from [1] .
the groups of Cavalcanti-Adam and Spatz [8] , Zhang and Khademhosseini [9] and Zhang and Xia [10] . These focus on the probing of cell receptors, developing organ mimics on a chip and understanding the potential for biomimicry of the extracellular matrix. The authors provide an authoritative glimpse into some exciting future directions for the field. Following on from these editorial perspectives, this special issue presents a broad selection of reviews and original articles covering current translation (e.g., patterning of metals and ceramics for orthopaedic application) and future directions (e.g., multieffect surfaces that could direct complexity in tissue engineering). An overarching theme of this tissue is the regulation of cellular function through nanotopographical modification. Mashinchian et al. present a comprehensive review of the contribution of nanotopography to the field with particular focus on stem cell fate on nanotopographies [11] . The article provides an excellent introduction and overview of the field. Azeem et al. present research on micro- to nano-scale grooved topographies and how these influence osteoblast function in vitro and bone regeneration in vivo [12] . Similarly Liu et al. present research on the fabrication of titania nanotubes anodized into titanium and how these may be employed to improve the materials antibacterial and cell compatibility properties [13] . Specifically the authors show that these surfaces induce significant downregulations in glycosytransferase genes in Streptococcus mutans populations and improved osteogenic functions in human stem cells, noting that this may provide a powerful methodology to improve orthopedic and dental implant efficacy. The role of nanotopographical modification in the osteointegration of titanium and titanium alloys is further explored by Cunha et al. who investigate
678
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5)
ultrafast laser-surface texturing as a surface treatment of Ti-6Al-4V alloy dental and orthopedic implants to improve the osteoblastic commitment of human mesenchymal stem cells [14] ; and by Salou et al. who present a comparison of osteointegration, examining nanostructured implants relative to a microsurface widely used for titanium dental implants [15] . Both studies indicated that nanotopographies were shown to improve osteointegration relative to a standard microrough surface. Again, this illustrates the potential for nanoscale in implant design and the authors conclude that nanoscale topographies provide powerful cues for the modulation of differential cell function, integrin signalling and cell proliferation in vitro. Nanobiomaterials are also increasingly being recognized for their significant potential in targeted delivery of drug payloads, and particularly for drug delivery to inaccessible anatomical or intracellular compartments. This is indicated in an original article by Schiavi et al. who present research on a new generation of collagen nanofiber implants functionalized with BMP-7 nanoreservoirs and equipped with human mesenchymal stem cell microtissues for regenerative nanomedicine [16] . The authors conclude that by using a 3D nanofibrous collagen membrane and by adding microtissues rather than single cells, this optimizes the microenvironment for cell colonization and can accelerate bone growth in vivo. Similarly, Juhi Samal et al. present research on hollow fibrin microspheres and how they may be employed to protects neural growth factor activity and promote a controlled release in vivo [17] . The authors demonstrate how these microspheres offer tuneable loading efficiency and maintaining their bioactive form after release in vivo. Nanoparticle coating formulations are also explored in a study by Velard et al., which presents research
future science group
Special focus on nanoscale regeneration
on the inflammatory potential of seven nanoporous hydroxyapatite powders synthesized by hard or soft templating [18] . Increases in the secretion of TNF-α, IL-1, -8, -10, and proMMP-2 and -9 and decreases in the secretion of IL-6 only for powders prepared by hard templating were observed in vitro, coupled with an extensive inflammatory tissue reaction in vivo. Finally, this issue includes insights as to the future of nanobiomaterials and includes extensive reviews on the present and future roles for dynamic surfaces and materials that could allow different cell actions at different times, based on user added or cell excreted cues, nanoresevoirs of growth factors and novel composites. Dhowre et al. present a review article on stimulus responsive materials and in particular interfaces [19] . Here they discuss the generation of biointerfaces which provide chemical and physical cues to promote both general and specific biological responses. This is fascinating as in vivo cells can be controlled in dynamic ways – such as in the stem cell niche where quiescence, growth and differentiation are initiated upon tissue need. Dynamic surfaces could be a real future perspective of tissue engineering and Seras-Franzoso et al. present a review article on bioinspired multieffector materials and how these may be employed to control different facets of cell proliferation and differentiation through mechanical and biological activity in addition to provision of topographical information [20] . Such considerations are important as we wish to provide complexity in tissue engineering to make tissue and organs (e.g., using stem cells) and are explored by Yinan Lin et al. who report
on silk-tropoelastin alloys, composed of recombinant human tropoelastin and regenerated Bombyx mori silk fibroin [21] . These alloys were prepared by electrodeposition and their ability to support cell adhesion was assessed in vitro. Mechanical characterization and in vitro cell culture revealed enhanced adhesive capability and cellular response of these alloy gels as compared with electrogelled silk alone. Finally, we are pleased to include a slightly different article by Ballester-Beltrán et al. on techniques illustrating how some 2D topographical (and other) techniques could be moved to 3D understanding [22] . In this article the authors present research on the design of a sandwich-like culture as a tool to engineer the cellular nanoenvironment by tuning protein presentation and activation of dorsal and ventral receptors. Here they report that dorsal stimulation promotes cell remodeling of the extracellular matrix relative to simple ventral receptor activation. The future is rosy … Take my hand as we explore the pages within … Financial & competing interests disclosure The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.
References 1
2
7
Curtis AS, Casey B, Gallagher JO, Pasqui D, Wood MA, Wilkinson CD. Substratum nanotopography and the adhesion of biological cells. Are symmetry or regularity of nanotopography important? Biophys. Chem. 94, 275–283 (2001).
Schvartzman M, Palma M, Sable J et al. Nanolithographic control of the spatial organization of cellular adhesion receptors at the single-molecule level. Nano Lett. 11, 1306–1312 (2011).
8
Cavalcanti-Adam EA, Spatz JP. Receptor clustering control and associated force sensing by surface patterning: when force matters. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 681–684 (2015).
9
Zhang YS, Khademhosseini A. Seeking the right context for evaluating nanomedicine: from tissue models in petri dishes to microfluidic organs-on-a-chip. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 685–688 (2015).
10
Zhang YS, Xia Y. Mutliple facets for extracellular matrix mimicking in regenerative medicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 689–692 (2015).
11
Mashinchian O, Turner L-A, Dalby MJ et al. Regulation of stem cell fate by nanomaterial substrates. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 829–847 (2015).
12
Azeem A, English A, Kumar P et al. The influence of anisotropic nano- to micro- topography on in vitro and in vivo osteogenesis. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 693–711 (2015).
Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Tare R et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat. Mater. 6, 997–1003 (2007).
4
McMurray RJ, Gadegaard N, Tsimbouri PM et al. Nanoscale surfaces for the long-term maintenance of mesenchymal stem cell phenotype and multipotency. Nat. Mater. 10, 637–644 (2011).
5
6
and surface bio-functionalization. Methods Mol. Biol. 749, 169–185 (2011).
Clark P, Connolly P, Curtis A, Dow J, Wilkinson C. Cell guidance by ultrafine topography in vitro. J. Cell. Sci. 99, 73–77 (1991).
3
Biggs MJ, Richards RG, Gadegaard N, Wilkinson CD, Oreffo RO, Dalby MJ. The use of nanoscale topography to modulate the dynamics of adhesion formation in primary osteoblasts and ERK/MAPK signalling in STRO-1+ enriched skeletal stem cells. Biomaterials 30, 5094–5103 (2009). Palma M, Abramson JJ, Gorodetsky AA et al. Controlled confinement of DNA at the nanoscale: nanofabrication
future science group
Foreword
www.futuremedicine.com
679
Foreword Dalby & Biggs 13
Liu W, Su P, Chen S et al. Antibacterial and osteogenic stem cell differentiation properties of photoinduced TiO2 nanoparticles decorated TiO2 nanotubes. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5) 713–723 (2015).
18
Velard F, Schlaubitz S, Fricain JC et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the inflammatory potential of various nanoporous hydroxyapatite biomaterials. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 785–802 (2015).
14
Cunha A, Zouani OF, Plawinski L et al. Human mesenchymal stem cell behavior on femtosecond lasertextured Ti-6Al-4V surfaces. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 725–739 (2015).
19
Dhowre HS, Rajput S, Russell NA, Zelzer M. Responsive cell–material interfaces. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 849–871 (2015).
20
15
Salou L, Hoornaert A, Stanovici J et al. Comparative bone tissue integration of nanostructured and microroughened dental implants. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 741–751 (2015).
Seras-Franzoso J, Tatkiewicz WI, Vazquez E et al. Integrating mechanical and biological control of cell proliferation through bioinspired multieffector materials. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 873–891 (2015).
21
16
Schiavi J, Keller L, Morand D et al. Active implant combining human stem cells microtissues and growth factors for bone-regenerative nanomedicine. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 753–763 (2015).
Lin Y, Wang S, Chen Y et al. Electrodeposited gels prepared from protein alloys. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 803–814 (2015).
22
Ballester-Beltrán J, Lebourg M, Rico P, SalmerónSánchez M. Cell migration within confined sandwich-like nanoenvironments. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 815–828 (2015).
17
680
Samal J, Hoban JB, Naughton C et al. Fibrin-based microsphere reservoirs for delivery of neurotrophic factors to the brain. Nanomedicine (Lond.) 10(5), 765–783 (2015).
Nanomedicine (Lond.) (2015) 10(5)
future science group
