Lens epithelial cell response to atmospheric pressure plasma modified poly(methylmethacrylate) surfaces

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Selective control of cellular response to polymeric biomaterials is an important consideration for many ocular implant applications. In particular, there is often a need to have one surface of an ophthalmic implant capable of promoting cell attachment while the other needs to be resistant to this effect. In this study, an atmospheric pressure dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) has been used to modify the surface region of poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), a well established ocular biomaterial, with the aim of promoting a controlled response to human lens epithelial cells (LEC) cultured thereon. The DBD plasma discharge environment has also been employed to chemically graft a layer of poly(ethylene glycol) methyl ether methacrylate (PEGMA) onto the PMMA and the response to LEC likewise determined. Two different molecular weights of PEGMA, namely 1000 and 2000 MW were used in these experiments. The LEC response to DBD treated polystyrene (PS) samples has also been examined as a positive control and to help to further elucidate the nature of the modified surfaces. The LEC adhered and proliferated readily on the DBD treated PMMA and PS surfaces when compared to the pristine polymer samples which showed little or no cell response. The PMMA and PS surfaces that had been DBD grafted with the PEGMA1000 layer were found to have some adhered cells. However, on closer inspection, these cells were clearly on the verge of detaching. In the case of the PEGMA2000 grafted surfaces no cells were observed indicating that the higher molecular weight PEGMA has been able to attain a surface conformation that is capable of resisting cell attachment in vitro.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1703-1712
JournalJournal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 27 Feb 2010

Bibliographical note

Reference text: 1. Lloyd AW, Faragher RG, Denyer SP. Ocular biomaterials and
implants. Biomaterials. 2001;22(8):769–85.
2. Ilhan-Sarac O, Akpek EK. Current concepts and techniques in
keratoprosthesis. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2005;16(4):246–50.
3. Hicks CR, Fitton JH, Chirila TV, Crawford GJ, Constable IJ.
Keratoprostheses: advancing toward a true artificial cornea. Surv
Ophthalmol. 1997;42(2):175–89.
4. Patel S, Thakar RG, Wong J, McLeod SD, Li S. Control of cell
adhesion on poly(methyl methacrylate). Biomaterials. 2006;
27(14):2890–7.

5. Kim MK, Park IS, Park HD, Wee WR, Lee JH, Park KD, et al.
Effect of poly(ethylene glycol) graft polymerization of poly
(methyl methacrylate) on cell adhesion. In vitro and in vivo
study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(5):766–74.
6. Spalton DJ. Posterior capsular opacification after cataract surgery.
Eye. 1999;13(Pt 3b):489–92.
7. Nishi O. Posterior capsule opacification. Part 1. Experimental
investigations. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25(1):106–17.
8. Schauersberger J, Amon A, Kruger A, Abela C, Schild G,
Kolodjaschna J. Lens epithelial cell outgrowth on 3 types of
intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(6):850–4.
9. Yuen C, Williams R, Batterbury M, Grierson I. Modification of
the surface properties of a lens material to influence posterior
capsular opacification. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2006;
34(6):568–74.
10. Tognetto D, Toto L, Sanguinetti G, Cecchini P, Vattovani O,
Filacorda S, et al. Lens epithelial cell reaction after implantation
of different intraocular lens materials: two-year results of a randomized
prospective trial. Ophthalmology. 2003;110(10):
1935–41.
11. Doan KT, Olson RJ, Mamalis N. Survey of intraocular lens
material and design. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2002;13(1):24–9.
12. Matsushima H, Iwamoto H, Mukai K, Katsuki Y, Nagata M,
Senoo T. Preventing secondary cataract and anterior capsule
contraction by modification of intraocular lenses. Expert Rev
Med Devices. 2008;5(2):197–207.
13. Lampin M, Warocquier C, Legris C, Degrange M, Sigot-Luizard
MF. Correlation between substratum roughness and wettability,
cell adhesion, and cell migration. J Biomed Mater Res.
1997;36(1):99–108.
14. Mitchell SA, Davidson MR, Bradley RH. Improved cellular
adhesion to acetone plasma modified polystyrene surfaces. J
Colloid Interface Sci. 2005;281(1):122–9.
15. Chu PK, Chen JY, Wang LP, Huang N. Plasma-surface modification
of biomaterials. Mater Sci Eng R. 2002;36(5-6):143–206.
16. Hubbell JA. Surface treatment of polymers for biocompatibility.
Annu Rev Mater Sci. 1996;26:365–94.
17. Kingshott P, Thissen H, Griesser HJ. Effects of cloud-point
grafting, chain length, and density of PEG layers on competitive
adsorption of ocular proteins. Biomaterials. 2002;23(9):2043–56.
18. Lee JH, Lee HB, Andrade JD. Blood compatibility of polyethylene
oxide surfaces. Prog Polym Sci. 1995;20(6):1043–79.
19. Harris JM. Poly(ethylene glycol) chemistry. New York: Plenum;
1992.
20. Kingshott P, Griesser HJ. Surfaces that resist bioadhesion. Curr
Opin Solid State Mater Sci. 1999;4(4):403–12.
21. Michel R, Pasche S, Textor M, Castner DG. Influence of PEG
architecture on protein adsorption and conformation. Langmuir.
2005;21(26):12327–32.
22. Chen H, Zhang Z, Chen Y, Brook MA, Sheardown H. Protein
repellant silicone surfaces by covalent immobilization of
poly(ethylene oxide). Biomaterials. 2005;26(15):2391–9.
23. D’Sa RA, Meenan BJ. Chemical grafting of poly(ethylene glycol)
methyl ether methacrylate onto polymer surfaces by atmospheric
pressure plasma processing. Langmuir. 2010;24(3):1894–903.
24. Uyama Y, Kato K, Ikada Y. Surface modification of polymers by
grafting. Adv Polym Sci. 1998;137:1–39.
25. Kato K, Uchida E, Kang ET, Uyama Y, Ikada Y. Polymer surface
with graft chains. Prog Polym Sci. 2003;28(2):209–59.
26. Zhao B, Brittain WJ. Polymer brushes: surface-immobilized
macromolecules. Prog Polym Sci. 2000;25(5):677–710.
27. Wang P, Tan KL, Kang ET, Neoh KG. Plasma-induced immobilization
of poly(ethylene glycol) onto poly(vinylidene fluoride)
microporous membrane. J Memb Sci. 2002;195(1):103–14.
28. Liu C, Brown NMD, Meenan BJ. Uniformity analysis of
dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) processed polyethylene terephthalate
(PET) surface. Appl Surf Sci. 2006;252(6):2297–310.
29. Liu C, Brown NMD, Meenan BJ. Statistical analysis of the effect
of dielectric barrier discharge (DBD) operating parameters on the
surface processing of poly(methylmethacrylate) film. Surf Sci.
2005;575(3):273–86.
30. Liu C, Cui N, Brown NMD, Meenan BJ. Effects of DBD plasma
operating parameters on the polymer surface modification. Surf
Coat Technol. 2004;185(2–3):311–20.
31. Upadhyay DJ, Cui NY, Meenan BJ, Brown NMD. The effect of
dielectric barrier discharge configuration on the surface modification
of aromatic polymers. J Phys D Appl Phys. 2005;38(6):
922–9.
32. Borcia G, Anderson CA, Brown NMD. The surface oxidation of
selected polymers using an atmospheric pressure air dielectric
barrier discharge. Part II. Appl Surf Sci. 2004;225(1–4):186–97.
33. Borcia G, Anderson CA, Brown NMD. The surface oxidation of
selected polymers using an atmospheric pressure air dielectric
barrier discharge. Part I. Appl Surf Sci. 2004;221(1–4):203–14.
34. Cui NY, Upadhyay DJ, Anderson CA, Meenan BJ, Brown NMD.
Surface oxidation of a Melinex 800 PET polymer material
modified by an atmospheric dielectric barrier discharge studied
using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and contact angle measurement.
Appl Surf Sci. 2007;253(8):3865–71.
35. Evans MDM, Pavon-Djavid G, He´lary G, Legeais JM, Migonney
V. Vitronectin is significant in the adhesion of lens epithelial cells
to PMMA polymers. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2004;69A(3):
469–76.
36. Weber GF, Menko AS. Actin filament organization regulates the
induction of lens cell differentiation and survival. Dev Biol.
2006;295(2):714–29.
37. Yan Q, Perdue N, Sage EH. Differential responses of human lens
epithelial cells to intraocular lenses in vitro: hydrophobic acrylic
versus PMMA or silicone discs. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol.
2005;243(12):1253–62.
38. Wiesner S, Legate KR, Fassler R. Integrin–actin interactions. Cell
Mol Life Sci. 2005;62(10):1081–99.
39. Angres B, Barth A, Nelson WJ. Mechanism for transition from
initial to stable cell–cell adhesion: kinetic analysis of E-cadherinmediated
adhesion using a quantitative adhesion assay. J Cell
Biol. 1996;134(2):549–57.
40. Miyamoto S, Teramoto H, Coso OA, Gutkind JS, Burbelo PD,
Akiyama SK, et al. Integrin function: molecular hierarchies of
cytoskeletal and signaling molecules. J Cell Biol. 1995;131(3):
791–805.
41. Nojima Y, Morino N, Mimura T, Hamasaki K, Furuya H, Sakai
R, et al. Integrin-mediated cell adhesion promotes tyrosine
phosphorylation of p130Cas, a Src homology 3-containing molecule
having multiple Src homology 2-binding motifs. J Biol
Chem. 1995;270(25):15398–402.
42. Shattil SJ, Haimovich B, Cunningham M, Lipfert L, Parsons JT,
Ginsberg MH, et al. Tyrosine phosphorylation of pp125FAK in
platelets requires coordinated signaling through integrin and
agonist receptors. J Biol Chem. 1994;269(20):14738–45.
43. McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS.
Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell
lineage commitment. Dev Cell. 2004;6(4):483–95.
44. Woods A, Wang G, Beier F. RhoA/ROCK signaling regulates
Sox9 expression and actin organization during chondrogenesis.
J Biol Chem. 2005;280(12):11626–34.
45. Andrade JD, Hlady V. Vroman effects, techniques, and philosophies.
J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1991;2:161–72.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lens epithelial cell response to atmospheric pressure plasma modified poly(methylmethacrylate) surfaces'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this