Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Dental Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by García, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Reyes, C.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by García, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Reyes, C.D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ORAL BIOLOGY & MEDICINE

Bio-adhesive Surfaces to Promote Osteoblast Differentiation and Bone Formation

A.J. García* and C.D. Reyes

Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Petit Institute for Bioengineering and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology, 315 Ferst Drive, 2314 Petit Biotechnology Building, Atlanta, GA 30332-0363, USA;

Correspondence: * corresponding author, andres.garcia{at}me.gatech.edu


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
 OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
 BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
 REFERENCES
 
Binding of integrin adhesion receptors to extracellular matrix components, such as fibronectin and type I collagen, activates signaling pathways directing osteoblast survival, cell-cycle progression, gene expression, and matrix mineralization. Biomimetic strategies exploit these adhesive interactions to engineer bio-inspired surfaces that promote osteoblast adhesion and differentiation, bone formation, and osseointegration. These emerging initiatives focus on directing integrin binding through presentation of bio-adhesive motifs derived from extracellular matrices. These biomolecular approaches provide promising strategies for the development of biologically active implants and grafting substrates for enhanced bone repair.

Key Words: integrin • fibronectin • RGD • type I collagen • GFOGER • cell adhesion • biomaterial


   CELL ADHESION AND BONE FORMATION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
 BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
 REFERENCES
 
Cell adhesion to extracellular matrices is essential to the development, maintenance, and remodeling of osseous tissues (Damsky, 1999; De Arcangelis and Georges-Labouesse, 2000). Adhesive interactions with extracellular matrix components, including fibronectin and type I collagen, play critical roles in osteoblast survival, proliferation, differentiation, and matrix mineralization, as well as in bone formation (Weiss and Reddi, 1981; Franceschi et al., 1994; Gronowicz and DeRome, 1994; Moursi et al., 1996; Globus et al., 1998; Zimmerman et al., 2000). Furthermore, adhesive interactions are also important for osteoclast function and bone resorption (Fisher et al., 1993; McHugh et al., 2000).

Cell adhesion to extracellular matrix ligands is primarily mediated by integrins, a widely expressed family of transmembrane adhesion receptors (Hynes, 2002). Integrin heterodimers, consisting of non-covalently-associated {alpha} and β subunits, bind to specific amino acid sequences, such as the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) recognition motif present in many extracellular matrix proteins, including fibronectin, bone sialoprotein, and osteopontin (Ruoslahti and Pierschbacher, 1987). Integrin-mediated adhesion is a highly regulated process involving receptor-ligand interactions and subsequent adhesion strengthening and cell spreading. Upon ligand-binding, integrins rapidly associate with the actin cytoskeleton and cluster together to form focal adhesions, discrete complexes that contain structural and signaling molecules (Sastry and Burridge, 2000; Geiger et al., 2001) (Fig. 1Go). Focal adhesions are central elements in the adhesion process, functioning as structural links between the cytoskeleton and extracellular matrix to mediate stable adhesion and migration. Furthermore, in combination with growth-factor receptors, focal adhesions activate signaling pathways, such as MAPK and JNK, that regulate transcription factor activity and direct cell growth and differentiation (Giancotti and Ruoslahti, 1999). Many of these integrin-activated signaling cascades are required for mesenchymal cell commitment and osteoblast differentiation (Takeuchi et al., 1997; Tamura et al., 2001; Lai et al., 2001; Xiao et al., 2000, 2002; Jaiswal et al., 2000).


Figure 1
View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Integrin-mediated cell adhesion to extracellular matrices involves integrin binding and clustering, focal adhesion assembly, and cytoskeletal interactions. Focal adhesions are supramolecular assemblies containing structural and signaling components regulating cell functions. Immunofluorescence staining for osteoblasts (DNA white) adhering to fibronectin showing actin cytoskeleton stress fibers (red) terminating in focal adhesions as shown by vinculin localization (green). Focal adhesions indicated by green arrowhead. Bar = 10 µm.

 
Osteoblasts and osteoprogenitor cells express multiple integrins—including {alpha}1β1, {alpha}2β1, {alpha}3β1, {alpha}4β1, {alpha}5β1, {alpha}6β1, {alpha}8β1, and {alpha}vβ3—that bind to numerous extracellular matrix components (Moursi et al., 1997; Gronthos et al., 2001). Integrin-mediated interactions with extracellular proteins are central to osteoblastic functions. For instance, using blocking antibodies in primary osteoblast cultures, Damsky and colleagues demonstrated that integrin interactions, in particular {alpha}5β1, with fibronectin are essential for osteoblast survival, proliferation, osteoblast-specific gene expression, and matrix mineralization (Moursi et al., 1996, 1997; Globus et al., 1998). Integrin interactions with type I collagen are also important. Blocking adhesion with type I collagen-specific peptides or antibodies directed against the collagen-binding integrin {alpha}2β1 interferes with the activity of the Runx2/Cbfa1 transcription factor, expression of osteoblast-specific genes, and matrix mineralization (Xiao et al., 1998; Jikko et al., 1999; Mizuno et al., 2000). These studies underscore the critical role of specific integrin-extracellular matrix interactions, particularly {alpha}5β1-fibronectin and {alpha}2β1-collagen type I, in osteoblast activities.


   OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL INTERACTIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
 OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
 REFERENCES
 
Because of the crucial role of extracellular matrix-mediated adhesion in osteoblast functions, cell adhesion considerations are central to many biotechnological and biomedical applications focusing on bone formation, including cell-culture supports, implant surfaces, and tissue-engineering scaffolds. Cell adhesion to synthetic supports and biomaterial surfaces involves dynamic interactions with extracellular ligands originating from several sources: (i) adsorption from protein-containing solutions, (ii) cell-mediated synthesis and deposition, and (iii) bio-adhesive motifs engineered on biomaterial surfaces (Fig. 2Go). Due to differences in surface properties (e.g., chemistry, roughness, energy), synthetic materials support osteoblastic activities to different extents (Puleo et al., 1991; Vrouwenvelder et al., 1993; Ishaug et al., 1994; El-Ghannam et al., 1997; Lincks et al., 1998; Ahmad et al., 1999; Zreiqat et al., 1999; Calvert et al., 2000; Mayr-Wohlfart et al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2001; Yang et al., 2001; Stephansson et al., 2002; Keselowsky et al., 2004). Importantly, most synthetic materials do not support robust osteoblast activities, compared with natural matrices, and often result in poor cell differentiation and limited bone formation (Krause et al., 2000; Stephansson et al., 2002). These limited osteogenic activities arise primarily from inadequate bio-ligand presentation, biological activity, and density that result in suboptimal integrin-mediated cellular signaling.


Figure 2
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Mechanisms controlling cell adhesion to synthetic materials.

 

   BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
 OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
 BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
 REFERENCES
 
Over the last decade, biomimetic approaches have sought to convey biofunctionality to synthetic materials by presenting bio-adhesive motifs derived from extracellular matrix components, such as RGD for fibronectin (Shakesheff et al., 1998; Hubbell, 1999, 2003). These biomolecular strategies mostly focus on immobilizing short peptides onto synthetic or natural materials to produce biofunctional surfaces that bind adhesion receptors and promote cell adhesion (Fig. 3Go). Non-fouling/non-adhesive supports, such as poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) or alginate, are often used to reduce background effects arising from non-specific protein adsorption. Tethering of RGD peptides onto biomaterial supports and tissue-engineering scaffolds results in enhanced osteogenic cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation, as evidenced by higher alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin expression and matrix mineralization (Dee et al., 1996; Bearinger et al., 1998; Rezania and Healy, 1999; Alsberg et al., 2001; Sofia et al., 2001; Itoh et al., 2002; Barber et al., 2003; Behravesh and Mikos, 2003; Hu et al., 2003; Huang et al., 2003; Zreiqat et al., 2003; Shin et al., 2004). Moreover, RGD-functionalized materials exhibit enhanced bone formation in vivo. Implant surfaces presenting RGD display higher levels of implant-associated bone area and thickness when compared with unmodified controls (Ferris et al., 1999; Kantlehner et al., 2000). Similarly, RGD immobilization improves early bone ingrowth and matrix mineralization in implanted tissue-engineered constructs (Alsberg et al., 2001; Eid et al., 2001; Lutolf et al., 2003). The density of tethered peptide is an important design parameter, since higher RGD densities promote osteoblast proliferation, bone-specific gene expression, and mineralization (Rezania and Healy, 2000). In addition, there is evidence that RGD-mediated enhancements in osteogenic function depend on the presentation of RGD within a non-fouling background to prevent non-specific protein adsorption. Simple presentation of RGD on titanium surfaces does not improve bone-implant contact (Schliephake et al., 2002), presumably due to non-specific adsorption of plasma proteins and interactions with inflammatory components that drown the engineered RGD signals. Interestingly, RGD presentation does not necessarily lead to enhancements in osteoblast differentiation. Boyan and colleagues recently reported reduced alkaline phosphatase and osteocalcin expression, as well as lower secreted levels of TGF-β1 and PGE2, for cells cultured on surfaces coated with RGD-functionalized PLL-g-PEG compared with control PLL-g-PEG (Tosatti et al., 2004). These investigators attributed the limited osteogenic differentiation on RGD-functionalized surfaces, compared with control substrates, to differences in cellular morphology/shape. These results underscore the complexity associated with cellular interactions with these engineered biomaterials, and the need for rigorous analyses of cell adhesion and signaling on bio-adhesive supports.


Figure 3
View larger version (26K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Bio-inspired bio-adhesive surfaces. (A) General strategy focusing on immobilizing short adhesive peptides onto various supports. (B) RGD immobilization onto non-fouling/non-adhesive support (top) results in robust osteoblast adhesion, while non-functionalized surface (bottom) resists cell adhesion.

 
Although results with surfaces presenting RGD peptides indicate that this biomolecular strategy enhances osteoblast adhesion and differentiation as well as bone formation, three critical factors limit the potential of this approach for bone repair. First, the biological activity of short adhesive peptides is significantly lower than that of the complete protein (Pierschbacher et al., 1983). This loss in activity results from conformation-dependent effects and the absence of crucial modulatory domains present in the native molecule (Aota et al., 1994; Akiyama et al., 1995). For example, osteoblast growth and differentiation—as evidenced by Runx2/Cbfa1, type I expression, and alkaline phosphatase expression and mineralization—are enhanced on RGD-functionalized poly(lactic acid) films compared with unmodified controls; however, osteoblastic markers are 50-fold higher on fibronectin-coated substrates compared with RGD-presenting polymers (Yang et al., 2001). Second, RGD peptides exhibit limited specificity among integrins, and, in some cases, RGD, although required, is not sufficient for efficient binding of particular integrin receptors. For instance, binding of {alpha}5β1 requires both the PHSRN sequence in the 9th type III repeat and RGD motif in the 10th type III repeat of fibronectin (Aota et al., 1994). Each domain independently contributes little to binding, but in combination, they synergistically bind to {alpha}5β1 to provide stable adhesion (Redick et al., 2000; García et al., 2002). This is a critical consideration, given the essential role that {alpha}5β1 plays on osteoblast activities. Third, osteogenic cells require signals from non-RGD-binding integrins, notably {alpha}2β1, for robust differentiation. These considerations motivate the engineering of ‘second generation’ surfaces that present more complex ligand formulations to overcome the limitations associated with short RGD peptides (Fig. 4Go).


Figure 4
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. Biomolecular engineering strategies for bio-adhesive surfaces. First-generation substrates concentrate on tethering RGD to direct integrin binding and cell adhesion. Second-generation strategies focus on enhancing biological activity, integrin specificity, and binding non-RGD integrins.

 
One strategy to provide biofunctionality beyond RGD relies on tethering mixtures of short peptides targeting integrin and non-integrin receptors to improve osteoblast adhesion and differentiation. Dee et al.(1998) reported selective heparan-sulfate-mediated adhesion of osteoblasts compared with fibroblasts and endothelial cells on surfaces grafted with KRSR. Rezania and Healy (1999) demonstrated enhanced osteoblast adhesion and mineralization on surfaces functionalized with mixtures of RGD and FHRRIKA (consensus heparin-binding motif), compared with substrates presenting RGD or FHRRIKA peptides alone. Additional studies focusing on various peptide ratios and densities, as well as nano-scale clustering, should provide important insights into optimizing these mixed-peptide substrates. In fact, recent analyses demonstrate that substrate compliance and ligand-clustering and patterning, as well as combinations of bioligands and microstructured substrata, modulate cell adhesion, spreading, and migration (Maheshwari et al., 2000; Ranucci and Moghe, 2001; Gallant et al., 2002; Brock et al., 2003; Wong et al., 2003).

Synthetic approaches have been pursued to convey receptor specificity among RGD-binding integrins. Inclusion of flanking residues and constraining the conformation of the RGD motif to a loop via cyclization improve ligand specificity for integrins, including {alpha}5β1 (Scarborough et al., 1993; Koivunen et al., 1994; Humphries et al., 2000). Nevertheless, these short peptides are limited in their ability to support robust {alpha}5β1 binding when compared with native fibronectin (Akiyama et al., 1995; García et al., 2002). In efforts to include the essential PHSRN synergy site outside the RGD binding motif in fibronectin, mixtures of RGD and PHSRN peptides, either independently or within the same backbone, have been tethered onto non-fouling supports (Dillow et al., 2001; Kao et al., 2001). Although these bio-adhesive supports promote integrin binding and cell adhesion, their activity has not been directly compared with that of native fibronectin. However, due to the exquisite sensitivity of {alpha}5β1 binding to small perturbations in the orientation and conformation of these domains (Grant et al., 1997; García et al., 1999), reconstitution of the proper binding structure using short peptides remains a challenging task. As an alternative to these synthetic routes, Cutler and García (2003) functionalized non-adhesive supports with a recombinant fragment of fibronectin spanning the 7th to 10th type III repeats, which include the PHSRN and RGD binding sites in the correct spatial orientation and conformation. These biomimetic surfaces supported {alpha}5β1-mediated osteoblast adhesion and focal adhesion assembly at levels comparable with those of plasma fibronectin. In addition to providing increased specificity over RGD peptides, the use of recombinant fibronectin fragments offers several advantages over the entire molecule, including reduced antigenicity, elimination of domains that may elicit undesirable reactions, and enhanced cost-efficiency. Recombinant fragments also provide flexibility in the engineering of specific characteristics on the fragment via site-directed mutagenesis, to enhance protein immobilization, orientation, and activity. Further studies focusing on osteoblastic differentiation and mineralization are needed to establish the potential of these bio-adhesive surfaces for directing cell functions.

Relatively little work has concentrated on engineering bio-adhesive surfaces targeting non-RGD binding receptors, principally due to the lack of identification of binding sequences, as well as the complexity associated with these binding interactions. Nevertheless, as discussed previously for the {alpha}2β1 integrin-collagen type I interaction, signals triggered by non-RGD binding integrins are essential for osteoblast differentiation. Stayton et al. demonstrated {alpha}2β1-mediated adhesion and FAK phosphorylation for osteoblasts plated on hydroxyapatite surfaces functionalized with a peptide containing the hydroxyapatite-binding domain of statherin and the putative collagen-binding motif DGEA (Gilbert et al., 2003). However, analyses with purified integrin receptors indicate that this short peptide does not bind to integrin {alpha}2β1 (Knight et al., 1998). These conflicting results may be explained by differences in the density or presentation of the ligand. Based on recent work identifying the hexapeptide GFOGER from residues 502–507 of the {alpha}1(I) chain of type I collagen as a major binding locus for the {alpha}2β1 integrin (Emsley et al., 2000; Knight et al., 2000), Reyes and García (2003) engineered bioadhesive surfaces that specifically target {alpha}2β1 integrin using a stable triple-helical, collagen-mimetic peptide. In addition to the GFOGER adhesion motif, this peptide incorporates GPP triplets, on either side of the GFOGER recognition site, that provide cooperative clusters promoting the formation of a right-handed triple-helical structure equivalent to the native conformation of type I collagen. This triple-helical conformation is essential for integrin recognition and {alpha}2β1-mediated cell adhesion (Knight et al., 2000). This GFOGER peptide specifically targets the {alpha}2β1 integrin receptor, and its cell adhesion activity is comparable with that of type I collagen (Reyes and García, 2003). Furthermore, GFOGER-functionalized surfaces supported FAK activation, expression of osteoblast-specific genes, and matrix mineralization at levels equivalent to those of type I collagen matrices, but significantly higher than conventional cell-culture supports (Reyes and García, 2004). These promising results warrant further analyses to evaluate these collagen-mimetic bio-adhesive surfaces as surface-modification strategies for osseous implants and tissue-engineering scaffolds.


   CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
 OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
 BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
REFERENCES
 
Biomimetic surfaces incorporating bio-adhesive motifs from extracellular matrices have emerged as promising surface-modification strategies for biomaterials, implant surfaces, and tissue-engineering scaffolds. While considerable progress has been achieved with short peptides such as RGD, that bind integrin receptors and promote cell adhesion and bone formation, engineered bio-adhesive substrates should incorporate additional characteristics present in extracellular matrices. These include multiple binding motifs that support binding to various integrin and non-integrin receptors, gradients in ligand density, nanoscale clustering, dynamic interfacial properties, and growth factor interaction sites (see review by Hubbell, 2003). The development of these bio-inspired surfaces mimicking extracellular matrices relies heavily on the integration of advances in biochemistry, cell biology, synthetic chemistry, and materials science and engineering.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from NSF (BES-0093226), the NSF-sponsored Georgia Tech/Emory Center for the Engineering of Living Tissues (EEC-9731643), and the Arthritis and Whitaker Foundations.

Received for publication April 1, 2004. Accepted for publication September 8, 2004.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 CELL ADHESION AND BONE...
 OSTEOGENIC CELL-BIOMATERIAL...
 BIO-ADHESIVE SURFACES
 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
 REFERENCES
 

  • Ahmad M, McCarthy MB, Gronowicz G (1999). An in vitro model for mineralization of human osteoblast-like cells on implant materials. Biomaterials 20:211–220.
  • Akiyama SK, Aota S, Yamada KM (1995). Function and receptor specificity of a minimal 20 kilodalton cell adhesive fragment of fibronectin. Cell Adhes Commun 3:13–25.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Alsberg E, Anderson KW, Albeiruti A, Franceschi RT, Mooney DJ (2001). Cell-interactive alginate hydrogels for bone tissue engineering. J Dent Res 80:2025–2029.
  • Aota S, Nomizu M, Yamada KM (1994). The short amino acid sequence Pro-His-Ser-Arg-Asn in human fibronectin enhances cell-adhesive function. J Biol Chem 269:24756–24761.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Barber TA, Golledge SL, Castner DG, Healy KE (2003). Peptide-modified p(AAm-co-EG/AAc) IPNs grafted to bulk titanium modulate osteoblast behavior in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 64:38–47.
  • Bearinger JP, Castner DG, Healy KE (1998). Biomolecular modification of p(AAm-co-EG/AA) IPNs supports osteoblast adhesion and phenotypic expression. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 9:629–652.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Behravesh E, Mikos AG (2003). Three-dimensional culture of differentiating marrow stromal osteoblasts in biomimetic poly(propylene fumarate-co-ethylene glycol)-based macroporous hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res 66(A):698–706.
  • Brock A, Chang E, Ho C-C, LeDuc P, Jiang X, Whitesides GM, et al. (2003). Geometric determinants of directional cell motility revealed using microcontact printing. Langmuir 19:1611–1617.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Calvert JW, Marra KG, Cook L, Kumta PN, DiMilla PA, Weiss LE (2000). Characterization of osteoblast-like behavior of cultured bone marrow stromal cells on various polymer surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 52:279–284.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Cutler SM, García AJ (2003). Engineering cell adhesive surfaces that direct integrin alpha5beta1 binding using a recombinant fragment of fibronectin. Biomaterials 24:1759–1770.
  • Damsky CH (1999). Extracellular matrix-integrin interactions in osteoblast function and tissue remodeling. Bone 25:95–96.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • De Arcangelis A, Georges-Labouesse E (2000). Integrin and ECM functions: roles in vertebrate development. Trends Genet 16:389–395.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Dee KC, Rueger DC, Andersen TT, Bizios R (1996). Conditions which promote mineralization at the bone-implant interface: a model in vitro study. Biomaterials 17:209–215.
  • Dee KC, Andersen TT, Bizios R (1998). Design and function of novel osteoblast-adhesive peptides for chemical modification of biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res 40:371–377.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Dillow AK, Ochsenhirt SE, McCarthy JB, Fields GB, Tirrell M (2001). Adhesion of alpha5beta1 receptors to biomimetic substrates constructed from peptide amphiphiles. Biomaterials 22:1493–1505.
  • Eid K, Chen E, Griffith L, Glowacki J (2001). Effect of RGD coating on osteocompatibility of PLGA-polymer disks in a rat tibial wound. J Biomed Mater Res 57:224–231.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • El-Ghannam A, Ducheyne P, Shapiro IM (1997). Porous bioactive glass and hydroxyapatite ceramic affect bone cell function in vitro along different time lines. J Biomed Mater Res 36:167–180.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Emsley J, Knight CG, Farndale RW, Barnes MJ, Liddington RC (2000). Structural basis of collagen recognition by integrin alpha2beta1. Cell 101:47–56.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Ferris DM, Moodie GD, Dimond PM, Gioranni CW, Ehrlich MG, Valentini RF (1999). RGD-coated titanium implants stimulate increased bone formation in vivo. Biomaterials 20:2323–2331.
  • Fisher JE, Caulfield MP, Sato M, Quartuccio HA, Gould RJ, Garsky VM, et al. (1993). Inhibition of osteoclastic bone resorption in vivo by echistatin, an arginyl-glycyl-aspartyl (RGD)-containing protein. Endocrin 132:1411–1413.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Franceschi RT, Iyer BS, Cui Y (1994). Effects of ascorbic acid on collagen matrix formation and osteoblast differentiation in murine MC3T3-E1 cells. J Bone Miner Res 9:843–854.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gallant ND, Capadona JR, Frazier AB, Collard DM, García AJ (2002). Micropatterned surfaces to engineer focal adhesions for analysis of cell adhesion strengthening. Langmuir 18:5579–5584.[CrossRef]
  • García AJ, Vega MD, Boettiger D (1999). Modulation of cell proliferation and differentiation through substrate-dependent changes in fibronectin conformation. Mol Biol Cell 10:785–798.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • García AJ, Schwarzbauer JE, Boettiger D (2002). Distinct activation states of alpha5beta1 integrin show differential binding to RGD and synergy domains of fibronectin. Biochemistry 41:9063–9069.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Geiger B, Bershadsky A, Pankov R, Yamada KM (2001). Transmembrane crosstalk between the extracellular matrix and the cytoskeleton. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2:793–805.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Giancotti FG, Ruoslahti E (1999). Integrin signaling. Science 285:1028–1032.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gilbert M, Giachelli CM, Stayton PS (2003). Biomimetic peptides that engage specific integrin-dependent signaling pathways and bind to calcium phosphate surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 67(A):69–77.
  • Globus RK, Doty SB, Lull JC, Holmuhamedov E, Humphries MJ, Damsky CH (1998). Fibronectin is a survival factor for differentiated osteoblasts. J Cell Sci 111:1385–1393.[Abstract]
  • Grant RP, Spitzfaden C, Altroff H, Campbell ID, Mardon HJ (1997). Structural requirements for biological activity of the ninth and tenth FIII domains of human fibronectin. J Biol Chem 272:6159–6166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Gronowicz GA, DeRome ME (1994). Synthetic peptide containing Arg-Gly-Asp inhibits bone formation and resorption in a mineralizing organ culture system of fetal rat parietal bones. J Bone Miner Res 9:193–201.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Gronthos S, Simmons PJ, Graves SE, Robey PG (2001). Integrin-mediated interactions between human bone marrow stromal precursor cells and the extracellular matrix. Bone 28:174–181.
  • Hu Y, Winn SR, Krajbich I, Hollinger JO (2003). Porous polymer scaffolds surface-modified with arginine-glycine-aspartic acid enhance bone cell attachment and differentiation in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 64(A):583–590.[CrossRef]
  • Huang H, Zhao Y, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Zhang H, Fu T, et al. (2003). Enhanced osteoblast functions on RGD immobilized surface. J Oral Implantol 29:73–79.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hubbell JA (1999). Bioactive biomaterials. Curr Opin Biotechnol 10:123–129.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Hubbell JA (2003). Materials as morphogenetic guides in tissue engineering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 14:551–558.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Humphries JD, Askari JA, Zhang XP, Takada Y, Humphries MJ, Mould AP (2000). Molecular basis of ligand recognition by integrin alpha5beta 1. II. Specificity of arg-gly-Asp binding is determined by Trp157 of the alpha subunit. J Biol Chem 275:20337–20345.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hynes RO (2002). Integrins: bidirectional, allosteric signaling machines. Cell 110:673–687.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Ishaug SL, Yaszemski MJ, Bizios R, Mikos AG (1994). Osteoblast function on synthetic biodegradable polymers. J Biomed Mater Res 28:1445–1453.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Itoh D, Yoneda S, Kuroda S, Kondo H, Umezawa A, Ohya K, et al. (2002). Enhancement of osteogenesis on hydroxyapatite surface coated with synthetic peptide (EEEEEEEPRGDT) in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 62:292–298.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Jaiswal RK, Jaiswal N, Bruder SP, Mbalaviele G, Marshak DR, Pittenger MF (2000). Adult human mesenchymal stem cell differentiation to the osteogenic or adipogenic lineage is regulated by mitogen-activated protein kinase. J Biol Chem 275:9645–9652.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Jikko A, Harris SE, Chen D, Mendrick DL, Damsky CH (1999). Collagen integrin receptors regulate early osteoblast differentiation induced by BMP-2. J Bone Miner Res 14:1075–1083.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kantlehner M, Schaffner P, Finsinger D, Meyer J, Jonczyk A, Diefenbach B, et al. (2000). Surface coating with cyclic RGD peptides stimulates osteoblast adhesion and proliferation as well as bone formation. Chembiochem 1:107–114.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kao WJ, Lee D, Schense JC, Hubbell JA (2001). Fibronectin modulates macrophage adhesion and FBGC formation: the role of RGD, PHSRN, and PRRARV domains. J Biomed Mater Res 55:79–88.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Keselowsky BG, Collard DM, García AJ (2004). Surface chemistry modulates focal adhesion composition and signaling through changes in integrin binding. Biomaterials 25:5947–5954.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Knight CG, Morton LF, Onley DJ, Peachey AR, Messent AJ, Smethurst PA, et al. (1998). Identification in collagen type I of an integrin alpha2 beta1-binding site containing an essential GER sequence. J Biol Chem 273:33287–33294.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Knight CG, Morton LF, Peachey AR, Tuckwell DS, Farndale RW, Barnes MJ (2000). The collagen-binding A-domains of integrins alpha(1)beta(1) and alpha(2)beta(1) recognize the same specific amino acid sequence, GFOGER, in native (triple-helical) collagens. J Biol Chem 275:35–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Koivunen E, Wang B, Ruoslahti E (1994). Isolation of a highly specific ligand for the alpha 5 beta 1 integrin from a phage display library. J Cell Biol 124:373–380.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Krause A, Cowles EA, Gronowicz G (2000). Integrin-mediated signaling in osteoblasts on titanium implant materials. J Biomed Mater Res 52:738–747.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lai CF, Chaudhary L, Fausto A, Halstead LR, Ory DS, Avioli LV, et al. (2001). Erk is essential for growth, differentiation, integrin expression, and cell function in human osteoblastic cells. J Biol Chem 276:14443–14450.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Lincks J, Boyan BD, Blanchard CR, Lohmann CH, Liu Y, Cochran DL, et al. (1998). Response of MG63 osteoblast-like cells to titanium and titanium alloy is dependent on surface roughness and composition. Biomaterials 19:2219–2232.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Lutolf MP, Weber FE, Schmoekel HG, Schense JC, Kohler T, Muller R, et al. (2003). Repair of bone defects using synthetic mimetics of collagenous extracellular matrices. Nat Biotechnol 21:513–518.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Maheshwari G, Brown G, Lauffenburger DA, Wells A, Griffith LG (2000). Cell adhesion and motility depend on nanoscale RGD clustering. J Cell Sci 113:1677–1686.[Abstract]
  • Mayr-Wohlfart U, Fiedler J, Gunther KP, Puhl W, Kessler S (2001). Proliferation and differentiation rates of a human osteoblast-like cell line (SaOS-2) in contact with different bone substitute materials. J Biomed Mater Res 57:132–139.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • McHugh KP, Hodivala-Dilke K, Zheng MH, Namba N, Lam J, Novack D, et al. (2000). Mice lacking beta3 integrins are osteosclerotic because of dysfunctional osteoclasts. J Clin Invest 105:433–440.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mizuno M, Fujisawa R, Kuboki Y (2000). Type I collagen-induced osteoblastic differentiation of bone-marrow cells mediated by collagen-alpha2beta1 integrin interaction. J Cell Physiol 184:207–213.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Moursi AM, Damsky CH, Lull J, Zimmerman D, Doty SB, Aota S, Globus RK (1996). Fibronectin regulates calvarial osteoblast differentiation. J Cell Sci 109:1369–1380.[Abstract]
  • Moursi AM, Globus RK, Damsky CH (1997). Interactions between integrin receptors and fibronectin are required for calvarial osteoblast differentiation in vitro. J Cell Sci 110:2187–2196.[Abstract]
  • Pierschbacher MD, Hayman EG, Ruoslahti E (1983). Synthetic peptide with cell attachment activity of fibronectin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:1224–1227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Puleo DA, Holleran LA, Doremus RH, Bizios R (1991). Osteoblast responses to orthopedic implant materials in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res 25:711–723.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Ranucci CS, Moghe PV (2001). Substrate microtopography can enhance cell adhesive and migratory responsiveness to matrix ligand density. J Biomed Mater Res 54:149–161.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Redick SD, Settles DL, Briscoe G, Erickson HP (2000). Defining fibronectin’s cell adhesion synergy site by site-directed mutagenesis. J Cell Biol 149:521–527.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Reyes CD, García AJ (2003). Engineering integrin-specific surfaces with a triple-helical collagen-mimetic peptide. J Biomed Mater Res 65(A):511–523.
  • Reyes CD, García AJ (2004). {alpha}2β1 integrin-specific collagen-mimetic surfaces supporting osteoblastic differentiation. J Biomed Mater Res 69(A):591–600.
  • Rezania A, Healy KE (1999). Biomimetic peptide surfaces that regulate adhesion, spreading, cytoskeletal organization, and mineralization of the matrix deposited by osteoblast-like cells. Biotechnol Prog 15:19–32.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Rezania A, Healy KE (2000). The effect of peptide surface density on mineralization of a matrix deposited by osteogenic cells. J Biomed Mater Res 52:595–600.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Ruoslahti E, Pierschbacher MD (1987). New perspectives in cell adhesion: RGD and integrins. Science 238:491–497.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Sastry SK, Burridge K (2000). Focal adhesions: a nexus for intracellular signaling and cytoskeletal dynamics. Exp Cell Res 261:25–36.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Scarborough RM, Naughton MA, Teng W, Rose JW, Phillips DR, Nannizzi L, et al. (1993). Design of potent and specific integrin antagonists. Peptide antagonists with high specificity for glycoprotein IIb-IIIa. J Biol Chem 268:1066–1073.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Schliephake H, Scharnweber D, Dard M, Rossler S, Sewing A, Meyer J, et al. (2002). Effect of RGD peptide coating of titanium implants on periimplant bone formation in the alveolar crest. An experimental pilot study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res 13:312–319.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schmidt C, Ignatius AA, Claes LE (2001). Proliferation and differentiation parameters of human osteoblasts on titanium and steel surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 54:209–215.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Shakesheff K, Cannizzaro S, Langer R (1998). Creating biomimetic micro-environments with synthetic polymer-peptide hybrid molecules. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 9:507–518.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Shin H, Zygourakis K, Farach-Carson MC, Yaszemski MJ, Mikos AG (2004). Attachment, proliferation, and migration of marrow stromal osteoblasts cultured on biomimetic hydrogels modified with an osteopontin-derived peptide. Biomaterials 25:895–906.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Sofia S, McCarthy MB, Gronowicz G, Kaplan DL (2001). Functionalized silk-based biomaterials for bone formation. J Biomed Mater Res 54:139–148.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Stephansson SN, Byers BA, García AJ (2002). Enhanced expression of the osteoblastic phenotype on substrates that modulate fibronectin conformation and integrin receptor binding. Biomaterials 23:2527–2534.
  • Takeuchi Y, Suzawa M, Kikuchi T, Nishida E, Fujita T, Matsumoto T (1997). Differentiation and transforming growth factor-beta receptor down-regulation by collagen-alpha2beta1 integrin interaction is mediated by focal adhesion kinase and its downstream signals in murine osteoblastic cells. J Biol Chem 272:29309–29316.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Tamura Y, Takeuchi Y, Suzawa M, Fukumoto S, Kato M, Miyazono K, et al. (2001). Focal adhesion kinase activity is required for bone morphogenetic protein--Smad1 signaling and osteoblastic differentiation in murine MC3T3-E1 cells. J Bone Miner Res 16:1772–1779.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Tosatti S, Schwartz Z, Campbell C, Cochran DL, VandeVondele S, Hubbell JA, et al. (2004). RGD-containing peptide GCRGYGRGDSPG reduces enhancement of osteoblast differentiation by poly(L-lysine)-graft-poly(ethylene glycol)-coated titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 68(A):458–472.
  • Vrouwenvelder WC, Groot CG, de Groot K (1993). Histological and biochemical evaluation of osteoblasts cultured on bioactive glass, hydroxylapatite, titanium alloy, and stainless steel. J Biomed Mater Res 27:465–475.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Weiss RE, Reddi AH (1981). Role of fibronectin in collagenous matrix-induced mesenchymal cell proliferation and differentiation in vivo. Exp Cell Res 133:247–254.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Wong JY, Velasco A, Rajagopalan P, Pham Q (2003). Directed movement of vascular smooth muscle cells on gradient compliant hydrogels. Langmuir 19:1908–1913.[CrossRef]
  • Xiao G, Wang D, Benson MD, Karsenty G, Franceschi RT (1998). Role of the alpha2-integrin in osteoblast-specific gene expression and activation of the Osf2 transcription factor. J Biol Chem 273:32988–32994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Xiao G, Jiang D, Thomas P, Benson MD, Guan K, Karsenty G, et al. (2000). MAPK pathways activate and phosphorylate the osteoblast-specific transcription factor, Cbfa1. J Biol Chem 275:4453–4459.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Xiao G, Gopalakrishnan R, Jiang D, Reith E, Benson MD, Franceschi RT (2002). Bone morphogenetic proteins, extracellular matrix, and mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathways are required for osteoblast-specific gene expression and differentiation in MC3T3-E1 cells. J Bone Miner Res 17:101–110.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Yang XB, Roach HI, Clarke NM, Howdle SM, Quirk R, Shakesheff KM, et al. (2001). Human osteoprogenitor growth and differentiation on synthetic biodegradable structures after surface modification. Bone 29:523–531.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zimmerman D, Jin F, Leboy P, Hardy S, Damsky C (2000). Impaired bone formation in transgenic mice resulting from altered integrin function in osteoblasts. Dev Biol 220:2–15.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zreiqat H, Evans P, Howlett CR (1999). Effect of surface chemical modification of bioceramic on phenotype of human bone-derived cells. J Biomed Mater Res 44:389–396.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Zreiqat H, Akin FA, Howlett CR, Markovic B, Haynes D, Lateef S, et al. (2003). Differentiation of human bone-derived cells grown on GRGDSP-peptide bound titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 64(A):105–113.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 84, No. 5, 407-413 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910508400502
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Bioactive and Compatible PolymersHome page
I. G. Beskardes and M. Gumusderelioglu
Biomimetic Apatite-coated PCL Scaffolds: Effect of Surface Nanotopography on Cellular Functions
Journal of Bioactive and Compatible Polymers, November 1, 2009; 24(6): 507 - 524.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by García, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Reyes, C.D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by García, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Reyes, C.D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?