| Sample name | PAN mass/g | ZnO mass/g | Maltodextrin/pea protein mass/g | Casein mass/g | Gelatin mass/g | DMSO mass/g | Also carbon. |
| PAN | 1.6 | 8.4 | Yes | ||||
| PAN/ZnO | 1.5 | 0.5 | 8.0 | Yes | |||
| PAN/MP | 1.5 | 0.75 | 7.75 | Yes | |||
| PAN/CG | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 8.5 | No |
Nanofiber mats can be produced by electrospinning from diverse polymers and polymer blends as well as with embedded ceramics, metals, etc. The large surface-to-volume ratio makes such nanofiber mats a well-suited substrate for tissue engineering and other cell growth experiments. Cell growth, however, is not only influenced by the substrate morphology, but also by the sterilization process applied before the experiment as well as by the chemical composition of the fibers. A former study showed that cell growth and adhesion are supported by polyacrylonitrile/gelatin nanofiber mats, while both factors are strongly reduced on pure polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers. Here we report on the influence of different PAN blends on cell growth and adhesion. Our study shows that adding ZnO to the PAN spinning solution impedes cell growth, while addition of maltodextrin/pea protein or casein/gelatin supports cell growth and adhesion.
Citation: Daria Wehlage, Hannah Blattner, Al Mamun, Ines Kutzli, Elise Diestelhorst, Anke Rattenholl, Frank Gudermann, Dirk Lütkemeyer, Andrea Ehrmann. Cell growth on electrospun nanofiber mats from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blends[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(1): 43-54. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020004
| [1] | Christina Großerhode, Daria Wehlage, Timo Grothe, Nils Grimmelsmann, Sandra Fuchs, Jessica Hartmann, Patrycja Mazur, Vanessa Reschke, Helena Siemens, Anke Rattenholl, Sarah Vanessa Homburg, Andrea Ehrmann . Investigation of microalgae growth on electrospun nanofiber mats. AIMS Bioengineering, 2017, 4(3): 376-385. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2017.3.376 |
| [2] | Sven Sölmann, Anke Rattenholl, Hannah Blattner, Guido Ehrmann, Frank Gudermann, Dirk Lütkemeyer, Andrea Ehrmann . Mammalian cell adhesion on different 3D printed polymers with varying sterilization methods and acidic treatment. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(1): 25-35. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021004 |
| [3] | Rachel Emerine, Shih-Feng Chou . Fast delivery of melatonin from electrospun blend polyvinyl alcohol and polyethylene oxide (PVA/PEO) fibers. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(2): 178-196. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022013 |
| [4] | Jianhao Jiang, Muhammet Ceylan, Yi Zheng, Li Yao, Ramazan Asmatulu, Shang-You Yang . Poly-ε-caprolactone electrospun nanofiber mesh as a gene delivery tool. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 528-537. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.528 |
| [5] | Sergio A. Salazar-Brann, Rosalba Patiño-Herrera, Jaime Navarrete-Damián, José F. Louvier-Hernández . Electrospinning of chitosan from different acid solutions. AIMS Bioengineering, 2021, 8(1): 112-129. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2021011 |
| [6] | Jingwen Zhang, Lu Wang, Huolin Chen, Tieying Yin, Yanqun Teng, Kang Zhang, Donghong Yu, Guixue Wang . Effect of Caspase Inhibitor Ac-DEVD-CHO on Apoptosis of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Induced by Artesunate. AIMS Bioengineering, 2014, 1(1): 13-24. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2014.1.13 |
| [7] | Pornchai Kittivarakarn, Matthew Penna, Zenith Acosta, Daniel Pelaez, Ramon Montero, Fotios M. Andreopoulos, Herman S. Cheung . Cardiomyotic induction and proliferation of dental stem cells on electrospun scaffolds. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(2): 139-155. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.2.139 |
| [8] | Takashi Nakazawa, Sohei Tasaki, Kiyohiko Nakai, Takashi Suzuki . Multicellular model of angiogenesis. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(1): 44-60. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022004 |
| [9] | Daniel Pelaez, John H. Michel, Herman S. Cheung . Growth on elastic silicone substrate elicits a partial myogenic response in periodontal ligament derived stem cells. AIMS Bioengineering, 2016, 3(4): 515-527. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.4.515 |
| [10] | Annabelle Collin, Hadrien Bruhier, Jelena Kolosnjaj, Muriel Golzio, Marie-Pierre Rols, Clair Poignard . Spatial mechanistic modeling for prediction of 3D multicellular spheroids behavior upon exposure to high intensity pulsed electric fields. AIMS Bioengineering, 2022, 9(2): 102-122. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2022009 |
Nanofiber mats can be produced by electrospinning from diverse polymers and polymer blends as well as with embedded ceramics, metals, etc. The large surface-to-volume ratio makes such nanofiber mats a well-suited substrate for tissue engineering and other cell growth experiments. Cell growth, however, is not only influenced by the substrate morphology, but also by the sterilization process applied before the experiment as well as by the chemical composition of the fibers. A former study showed that cell growth and adhesion are supported by polyacrylonitrile/gelatin nanofiber mats, while both factors are strongly reduced on pure polyacrylonitrile (PAN) nanofibers. Here we report on the influence of different PAN blends on cell growth and adhesion. Our study shows that adding ZnO to the PAN spinning solution impedes cell growth, while addition of maltodextrin/pea protein or casein/gelatin supports cell growth and adhesion.
Electrospinning is a simple method to prepare nanofiber mats from diverse polymers and polymer blends [1]–[3]. Several polymers can be electrospun from aqueous solutions, making the spinning process itself relatively simple and environmentally-friendly, but necessitating a subsequent crosslinking step if the nanofiber mats should be used in humid environments [4]–[6]. Most waterproof polymers have to be spun from toxic or corrosive solvents, while only some can also be electrospun from low-toxic solvents like dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) [7]. Being spinnable from DMSO is one of the reasons why polyacrylonitrile (PAN) is often used in electrospinning [8]–[10]. Another reason is the possibility to use PAN as a precursor for carbon nanofibers [11]–[13].
Nanofiber mats are applicable in a broad range of engineering and science areas, e.g. for air or water filtration [14]–[16], batteries and solar cells [17]–[19], biotechnology and medical purposes [20]–[25]. Although most eukaryotic cell culture bioprocesses consist of the cultivation of cells in suspension, certain processes involve the cultivation of adherent cell lines and primary cells. These bioprocesses cover the production of viral vaccines and viral vectors for gene therapy and oncology as well as regenerative medicine or recombinant protein production. The cultivation of adherent cells can be carried out in classical roller bottles or multilayer cell culture trays. However, production costs are relatively high [26].
Microcarriers and hollow fibers represent an alternative to these systems since they allow their implementation in bioreactor systems [27],[28]. They can be made of various polymers [29],[30]. Modern single use fixed bed bioreactors enable batch to batch constant product quality which is indispensable in pharma processes. Continuous bioprocessing allows for smaller production volumes and higher product concentration. These ready-to-use bioreactors are filled with non-woven macroporous carriers or rolled membranes. The fabric is often made of polyethylene-terephtalate (PET) microfibers which are surface-treated to render them hydrophilic and biocompatible for cell attachment [31]–[33].
In contrast, nanofibers display fiber diameters that are a hundred times smaller. The development of microcarriers that consist of nanofibers could lead to even higher cell densities in adherent cell culture bioprocesses. Pure PAN nanofibers are known to prevent cell adhesion. Blending PAN with certain additives could improve cell binding [34]. Blends were chosen which showed in pre-tests good morphological stability under oxidative stabilization and carbonization which can be used to make such nanofiber mats conductive. Electroconductive fibers present interesting substrates for myocardial and neural tissue engineering [35]–[37].
Here we report on cell growth on different nanofiber mats electrospun from pure PAN and PAN blends, thus modifying chemistry and morphology of the fibers in different ways. On the one hand, we used ZnO, an inorganic, heat stable compound which is typically used in dye-sensitized solar cells or photocatalytic degradation of dyes [13]. The second blend partner is maltodextrin, a carbohydrate, combined with pea protein, which can be used in the food industry [38]. Finally, first tests were performed combining milk casein, a globular protein which is used in cheese or as food additive [39], and gelatin which was used in the previous test [34].
Since the previous study underlined the strong influence of the sterilization process [34], all nanofiber mats were autoclaved. Experiments were performed with adherent Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells which are often used to produce therapeutic proteins as well as in general biotechnological investigations [40]–[42] and are thus a typical model system for these tests.
Nanofiber mats were produced with the needleless electrospinning machine “Nanospider Lab” (Elmarco, Liberec, Czech Republic), using the following spinning parameters: high voltage 80 kV, nozzle diameter 0.8 mm, carriage speed 100 mm/s, substrate speed 0 mm/min (static), ground-substrate distance 240 mm, electrode-substrate distance 50 mm, relative humidity in the spinning chamber 33%, temperature 22 °C.
For the spinning solutions, X-PAN (Dralon, Dormagen, Germany) was dissolved in DMSO (min. 99.9%, S3 Chemicals, Bad Oeynhausen, Germany) by stirring for 2 h at room temperature. Some of the spinning solutions were blended with ZnO (nano powder < 100 nm particle size, Sigma-Aldrich, Germany), casein (according to Hammersten) and gelatin (Abtei, Marienmünster, Germany). These blends were found to result in larger fiber diameters than pure PAN nanofiber mats and thus to retain their morphology and their mechanical properties better during stabilization and carbonization [13],[34],[39]. In addition, a maltodextrin/protein blend was added which was prepared as follows: 0.63 g of pea protein isolate (Pisane C9, Cosucra, Pecq, Belgium) (corresponds to a protein mass of 0.5 g) was mixed with 8 g maltodextrin with dextrose equivalent (DE) 2 (Eliane MD 2, Avebe, Veendam, Netherlands) and with 1 g maltodextrin with DE 21 (Glucidex 21 D, Roquette, Lestrem, France) [38]. Table 1 gives an overview of different samples under examination. Overall masses of the spinning solutions always add up to 10 g.
| Sample name | PAN mass/g | ZnO mass/g | Maltodextrin/pea protein mass/g | Casein mass/g | Gelatin mass/g | DMSO mass/g | Also carbon. |
| PAN | 1.6 | 8.4 | Yes | ||||
| PAN/ZnO | 1.5 | 0.5 | 8.0 | Yes | |||
| PAN/MP | 1.5 | 0.75 | 7.75 | Yes | |||
| PAN/CG | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 8.5 | No |
DownLoad:
CSV
Some of the samples were additionally carbonized since many studies reveal advantages of cell growth and orientation on conductive nanofiber substrates [35]–[37]. These samples were firstly stabilized in a muffle oven B150 (Nabertherm, Lilienthal, Germany) for 1 h at a temperature of 280 °C, approached with a heating rate of 1K/min. Afterwards they were carbonized in a furnace CTF 12/TZF 12 (Carbolite Gero, Neuhausen, Germany) for 1 h at 500 °C, approached with a heating rate of 10 K/min in a nitrogen flow of 150 ml/min.
Images of the nanofiber mat were taken with a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) VK-8710 (Keyence, Neu-Isenburg, Germany), using a nominal magnification of 2000×.
Nanofiber diameters were calculated from 100 fibers per sample using the software ImageJ 1.51j8 (from National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) which was also applied for fast Fourier transform (FFT) evaluations. Such FFT images show radially diffuse patterns for non-aligned fibers, while oriented fibers can be identified by single lines in the FFT images [43],[44].
Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's medium (DMEM)/Ham's Nutrient Mixture F12 (1:1 DMEM/F12) (SAFC Biosciences, Irvine, UK) was used as a base for cell cultivation. Glucose (Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) and L-glutamine (Applichem, Darmstadt, Germany) were added to reach a final concentration of 4 g/L and 4 mM, respectively. After setting the pH value to 7.4, the medium was sterile filtered (Sartolab P, 0.45 µm/0.22 µm, Sartorius, Göttingen, Germany). Subsequently, 10% sterile donor horse serum (biowest, Nuaillé, France) were added.
CHO DP-12 cells for this study (LGC Standards GmbH, Wesel, Germany; ATCC no. CRL-12445) grow in vitro to form a monolayer if using a serum containing medium.
Before cell growth experiments, the nanofiber mats were washed three times with highly purified water. Nanofiber mats of 2 cm × 2 cm were glued with Elastosil E41 RTV-1 silicone rubber (Wacker, Burghausen, Germany) on cover slips (21 mm × 26 mm) (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) to keep them inside the medium during cultivation. 24 h after gluing, they were washed with water and left for drying in air for another 24 h. Afterwards they were sterilized by autoclaving for 20 min at 121 °C in a VX-75 autoclave (Systec, Linden, Germany) and then placed in 6-well plates (Labsolute, Th. Geyer, Renningen, Germany) inside a safety cabinet Safe 2020 (Thermo Electron LED GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany). Into each well 5 ml medium with 20,000 cells were pipetted. Cultivation was carried out during 4 days (96 h) in a HERAcell 240i incubator (Thermo Electron LED GmbH, Langenselbold, Germany) at 37 °C and 7.5% CO2.
After cultivation, the medium was pipetted out of the wells, and 1.5 ml glyoxal solution was added to fix the cells [45]. 3 vol% glyoxal solution (containing 34 ml highly purified water, 9.5 ml ethanol (abs., VWR BDH Prolabo, Langenfeld, Germany), 3.75 ml 40% glyoxal (Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany) and 0.36 ml acetic acid p.a. (VWR BDH Prolabo, Langenfeld, Germany)) with a pH value between 4 and 5 were used for this. The well plate was then cooled on ice for 30 min and afterwards incubated for 30 min at room temperature before the glyoxal solution was pipetted out of the wells. Afterwards the nanofiber mats were washed with phosphate buffered saline for 5 min and another 5 min with highly purified water. Subsequently, the cells were dyed with hematoxylin eosin (H&E) Fast Staining Kit (Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany). The dyeing was based on the protocol by Roth. At first the samples were incubated in H&E solution 1 (modified hematoxylin solution) for 6 min. After the incubation, the samples were washed with tap water for 10 s and then with 0.1% hydrochloric acid for 10 s. For bluing, the samples were washed again with tap water for another 6 min. Finally the samples were incubated in H&E solution 2 (modified eosin yellow solution) for 30 s and for another 30 s washed with tap water. The nanofiber mats were taken out and dried in the air.
For the quantitative cell growth investigation, a Cedex™ MS20C cell counter (Innovatis, Bielefeld, Germany) was used. After washing the nanofiber mats with PBS (phosphate-buffered saline), they were treated with a sterile trypsin/EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) solution (biowest, Nuallié, France), resulting in cell detachment. Trypsinization was stopped by diluting the fluid with culture medium in a ratio of 1:10 after incubation at 37 °C for 5 min. 1 ml cell suspension were automatically mixed with 1 ml trypan blue (a vital stain coloring dead cells blue). The cell counter measures dead and living cells with an accuracy of ±5% [46].
All experiments were verified in subsequent, independent test series to avoid possible contaminations or other undesired environmental influences.
Firstly, Figure 1 depicts CLSM images of nanofiber mats after sterilization, revealing the influence of the blending materials. In all cases, the fiber diameters become larger than those of pure PAN nanofibers where the spinning parameters used here resulted in a diameter distribution of (144 ± 40) nm [47]. The diameter distributions for the samples depicted in Figure 1 as well as the FFT evaluations are presented in Figure 2.
All nanofiber mats show very similar average nanofiber diameters and standard deviations, approximately 4× the average fiber of pure PAN fibers [47]. This effect was also found in the previous investigation of cell growth on PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats [34].
The FFT analysis shows radially diffuse patterns, indicating non-aligned fibers [43]. Future experiments should be made on aligned fibers [44] to investigate differences in cell growth due to a possible fiber orientation in the substrate.
Figure 3 depicts CLSM images of dyed CHO cells adhered on a cover slip in different magnifications. The shape of the adhered cells is similar to long, stretched lenses, while the dead or not adhered ones are round. In this way, optical differentiation is possible between the states before fixation of the cells grown on nanofiber mats.
The results of cultivation of CHO cells on pure PAN nanofiber mats (as spun and carbonized) are shown in Figure 4. Generally, the hematoxylin eosin staining shows cell nuclei (and other acidic structures) in blue or brown color, depending on the pH value of the dye solution, while basic structures (such as the cytoplasm) are depicted in red. It should be mentioned that images taken on the (black) carbonized nanofiber mats can show reduced or shifted colors, as usual on dark undergrounds.
While in some areas of the electrospun PAN nanofiber mat, only nuclei are visible, other areas show also living, adhered cells (Figure 4a). For the carbonized PAN nanofiber mat, besides the brown cell nuclei, also reddish cytoplasm is visible, and the lens-shaped typical form of adhered CHO cells becomes partly visible, while again other cells seem to be dead (Figure 4b). Nevertheless, cell proliferation on this carbon nanofiber mat seems reduced as compared to cell growth, e.g., on PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats [34].
Next, PAN/ZnO nanofiber mats were tested as substrates are shown in Figure 5. While a slight pink undertone is visible in the raw nanofiber mat, probably due to staining of the ZnO by eosin yellow, neither cell nuclei nor cytoplasm can be recognized in both images. This is in contrast to the earlier experiments on PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats which also had increased fiber diameters and showed good cell adhesion and proliferation [34].
This finding indicates that ZnO is a problematic blending partner for cell growth experiments on nanofiber mats. Indeed ZnO nanoparticles are known to have cytotoxic effects, although differences are reported for different cell lines [48]–[51] which may also suppress the growth of CHO cells on PAN/ZnO nanofiber mats. Since ZnO is not decomposed at a temperature of 500 °C, it stays inside the carbonized nanofiber mats so that its negative impact on cell growth and adhesion persists.
This is opposite for the PAN/MP nanofiber mats depicted in Figure 6. On both the original and the carbonized PAN/MP nanofiber mats, cell adhesion and proliferation are visible. Apparently, similar to the PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats in the previous study, the chemical composition of these nanofiber mats supports cell growth and adhesion.
Figure 7 shows first results on newly developed PAN/CG nanofiber mats [38] which will be investigated more in detail in the near future. Unlike PAN/MP or PAN/gelatin [34] nanofiber mats, here the mat morphology changes stronger during autoclaving and the following cultivation procedures. This suggests testing different sterilization methods, such as ozone or UV irradiation, to avoid thermal damages of the nanofiber mats. On the other hand, nanofiber mats with smaller amounts of biopolymers should be tested to enable autoclaving without too strong changes in the fiber structures.
Finally, to underline the aforementioned qualitative findings, the results of the quantitative study are given in Figure 8.
Figure 8 clearly shows that PAN/ZnO is not suitable for growth of CHO cells, while PAN/CG shows the best results in terms of cells per nanofiber mat as well as in terms of viability (number of living cells per overall cells), while the CLSM images showed thicker cell agglomerations for PAN/MP nanofiber mats.
To statistically analyze the results, a one-way ANOVA was used. Homogeneity of variance was verified by Levine's test. The Bonferoni method was used for the comparison of means. For the numbers of living cells, only the comparison of the samples PAN and PAN stab. show no significant difference, while comparing the overall numbers of cells shows significantly differing pairs in all cases.
Comparing the nanofiber mats under investigation, it can be stated that PAN/ZnO is not suitable for cell growth, although the ZnO nanoparticles can be expected to be mainly located inside the fibers without contact to the environment [13]. On pure PAN, used after electrospinning, stabilization and carbonization, some cell growth and adhesion were observed, opposite to a previous investigation [34]. The PAN/CG nanofiber mats were stronger influenced by the preparation process, including autoclaving, which resulted in a fully modified morphology most probably due to denatured casein and molten gelatin during heat treatment. Nevertheless, they enabled cell growth and adhesion. The best cell proliferation and adhesion, however, comparable to PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats [34], was found in PAN/CG nanofiber mats. In the next steps, both these nanofiber blends should be optimized by additional studies of cell proliferation for different blend ratios and compared to further experiments on PAN/gelatin nanofiber mats to find the ideal growth conditions for the CHO DP-12 cells.
The utilization of the blended PAN nanofibers as microcarriers in batch and continuous bioprocessing will be evaluated. Moreover, the electroconductivity of carbonized and non-treated blended PAN nanofibers will be investigated to assess their suitability as scaffolds for neural and myocardial tissue engineering.
| [1] |
Dizge N, Shaulsky E, Karanikola V (2019) Electrospun cellulose nanofibers for superhydrophobic and oleophobic membranes. J Membr Sci 590: 117271. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117271
|
| [2] |
Pavlova ER, Bagrov DV, Monakhova KZ, et al. (2019) Tuning the properties of electrospun polylactide mats by ethanol treatment. Mater Des 181: 108061. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108061
|
| [3] | Wang JN, Zhao WW, Wang B, et al. (2017) Multilevel-layer-structured polyamide 6/poly(trimethylene terephthalate) nanofibrous membranes for low-pressure air filtration. J Appl Pol Sci 134: 44716. |
| [4] |
Cooper A, Oldinski R, Ma H Y, et al. (2013) Chitosan-based nanofibrous membranes for antibacterial filter applications. Carbohyd Polym 92: 254-259. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.08.114
|
| [5] |
Banner J, Dautzenberg M, Feldhans T, et al. (2018) Water resistance and morphology of electrospun gelatine blended with citric acid and coconut oil. Tekstilec 61: 129-135. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2018.61.129-135
|
| [6] |
Grimmelsmann N, Homburg SV, Ehrmann A (2017) Electrospinning chitosan blends for nonwovens with morphologies between nanofiber mat and membrane. IOP Conf Series Mater Sci Eng 213: 012007. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/213/1/012007
|
| [7] |
Wortmann M, Freese N, Sabantina L, et al. (2019) New polymers for needleless electrospinning from low-toxic solvents. Nanomater 9: 52. doi: 10.3390/nano9010052
|
| [8] |
Krasonu I, Tarassova E, Malmberg S, et al. (2019) Preparation of fibrous electrospun membranes with activated carbon filler. IOP Conf Series Mater Sci Eng 500: 012022. doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/500/1/012022
|
| [9] |
Plamus T, Savest N, Viirsalu M, et al. (2018) The effect of ionic liquids on the mechanical properties of electrospun polyacrylonitrile membranes. Polym Test 71: 335-343. doi: 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2018.09.003
|
| [10] |
Sabantina L, Mirasol JR, Cordero T, et al. (2018) Investigation of needleless electrospun PAN nanofiber mats. AIP Conf Proc 1952: 020085. doi: 10.1063/1.5032047
|
| [11] |
Wang JH, Cai C, Zhang ZJ, et al. (2020) Electrospun metal-organic frameworks with polyacrylonitrile as precursors to hierarchical porous carbon and composite nanofibers for adsorption and catalysis. Chemosphere 239: 124833. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124833
|
| [12] |
de Oliveira JB, Guerrini LM, dos Santos Conejo L, et al. (2019) Viscoelastic evaluation of epoxy nanocomposite based on carbon nanofiber obtained from electrospinning processing. Polym Bull 76: 6063-6076. doi: 10.1007/s00289-019-02707-0
|
| [13] |
Trabelsi M, Mamun A, Klöcker M, et al. (2019) Increased mechanical properties of carbon nanofiber mats for possible medical applications. Fibers 7: 98. doi: 10.3390/fib7110098
|
| [14] |
Wang L, Zhang C, Gao F, et al. (2016) Needleless electrospinning for scaled-up production of ultrafine chitosan hybrid nanofibers used for air filtration. RSC Adv 6: 105988-105995. doi: 10.1039/C6RA24557A
|
| [15] |
Roche R, Yalcinkaya F (2018) Incorporation of PVDF nanofibre multilayers into functional structure for filtration applications. Nanomater 8: 771. doi: 10.3390/nano8100771
|
| [16] |
Lv D, Wang RX, Tang GS, et al. (2019) Ecofriendly electrospun membranes loaded with visible-light-responding nanoparticles for multifunctional usages: highly efficient air filtration, dye scavenging, and bactericidal activity. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 11: 12880-12889. doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b01508
|
| [17] |
Fu QS, Lin G, Chen XD, et al. (2018) Mechanically reinforced PVdF/PMMA/SiO2 composite membrane and its electrochemical properties as a separator in lithium-ion batteries. Energy Technol 6: 144-152. doi: 10.1002/ente.201700347
|
| [18] |
Mamun A, Trabelsi M, Klöcker M, et al. (2019) Electrospun nanofiber mats with embedded non-sintered TiO2 for dye sensitized solar cells (DSSCs). Fibers 7: 60. doi: 10.3390/fib7070060
|
| [19] |
Xue YY, Guo X, Zhou HF, et al. (2019) Influence of beads-on-string on Na-Ion storage behavior in electrospun carbon nanofibers. Carbon 154: 219-229. doi: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.08.003
|
| [20] |
Mamun A (2019) Review of possible applications of nanofibrous mats for wound dressings. Tekstilec 62: 89-100. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2019.62.89-100
|
| [21] |
Gao ST, Tang GS, Hua DW, et al. (2019) Stimuli-responsive bio-based polymeric systems and their applications. J Mater Chem B 7: 709-729. doi: 10.1039/C8TB02491J
|
| [22] |
Aljawish A, Muniglia L, Chevalot I (2016) Growth of human mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on films of enzymatically modified chitosan. Biotechnol Prog 32: 491-500. doi: 10.1002/btpr.2216
|
| [23] |
Muzzarelli RAA, EI Mehtedi M, Bottegoni C, et al. (2015) Genipin-crosslinked chitosan gels and scaffolds for tissue engineering and regeneration of cartilage and bone. Mar Drugs 13: 7314-7338. doi: 10.3390/md13127068
|
| [24] |
Klinkhammer K, Seiler N, Grafahrend D, et al. (2009) Deposition of electrospun fibers on reactive substrates for in vitro investigations. Tissue Eng Part C 15: 77-85. doi: 10.1089/ten.tec.2008.0324
|
| [25] |
Yoshida H, Klinkhammer K, Matsusaki M, et al. (2009) Disulfide-crosslinked electrospun poly(γ-glutamic acid) nonwovens as reduction-responsive scaffolds. Macromol Biosci 9: 568-574. doi: 10.1002/mabi.200800334
|
| [26] | Chatel A (2019) A brief history of adherent cell culture: where we come from and where we should go. BioProcess Int 17: 44-49. |
| [27] | Whitford WG, Hardy JC, Cadwell JJS (2014) Single-use, continuous processing of primary stem cells. BioProcess Int 12: 26-32. |
| [28] | Simon M (2015) Bioreactor design for adherent cell culture. The bolt-on bioreactor project, part 1: volumetric productivity. BioProcess Int 13: 28-33. |
| [29] |
Allan SJ, De Bank PA, Ellis MJ (2019) Bioprocess design considerations for cultured meat production with a focus on the expansion bioreactor. Front Sus Food Syst 3: 44. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00044
|
| [30] | GE Healthcare Life Sciences (2013) Microcarrier Cell Culture, Principles and Methods.Available from: http://www.gelifesciences.co.kr/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/023.8_Microcarrier-Cell-Culture.pdf. |
| [31] |
Lennaertz A, Knowles S, Drugmand JC, et al. (2013) Viral vector production in the integrity iCELLis single-use fixed-bed bioreactor, from bench-scale to industrial scale. BMC Proc 7: P59. doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-7-S6-P59
|
| [32] | Dohogne Y, Collignon F, Drugmand JC, et al. (2019) Scale-X bioreactor for viral vector production. Proof of concept for scalable HEK293 cell growth and adenovirus production, Univercell Application note.Available from: https://www.univercells.com/app/uploads/2019/05/scale-X%E2%84%A2-bioreactor-for-viral-production-Adeno_SFM.pdf. |
| [33] |
Drugmand JC, Aghatos S, Schneider YJ, et al. (2007) Growth of mammalian and lepidopteram cells on BioNOC® II disks, a novel macroporous microcarrier. Cell Technology for Cell Products Heidelberg: Springer, 781-784. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-5476-1_143
|
| [34] |
Wehlage D, Blatter H, Sabantina L, et al. (2019) Sterilization of PAN/gelatin nanofibrous mats for cell growth. Tekstilec 62: 78-88. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2019.62.78-88
|
| [35] |
Ghasemi A, Imani R, Yousefzadeh M, et al. (2019) Studying the potential application of electrospun polyethylene terephthalate/graphene oxide nanofibers as electroconductive cardiac patc. Macromol Mater Eng 304: 1900187. doi: 10.1002/mame.201900187
|
| [36] |
Nekouian S, Sojoodi M, Nadri S (2019) Fabrication of conductive fibrous scaffold for photoreceptor differentiation of mesenchymal stem cell. J Cell Physiol 234: 15800-15808. doi: 10.1002/jcp.28238
|
| [37] |
Rahmani A, Nadri S, Kazemi HS, et al. (2019) Conductive electrospun scaffolds with electrical stimulation for neural differentiation of conjunctiva mesenchymal stem cells. Artif Organs 43: 780-790. doi: 10.1111/aor.13425
|
| [38] | Kutzli I, Beljo D, Gibis M, et al. (2019) Effect of maltodextrin dextrose equivalent on electrospinnability and glycation reaction of blends with pea protein isolate. Food Biophysics . |
| [39] |
Diestelhorst E, Mance F, Mamun A, et al. (2020) Chemical and morphological modification of PAN nanofiber mats by addition of casein after electrospinning, stabilization and carbonization. Tekstilec 63: 38-49. doi: 10.14502/Tekstilec2020.63.38-49
|
| [40] |
Möller J, Korte K, Pörtner R, et al. (2018) Model-based identification of cell-cycle-dependent metabolism and putative autocrine effects in antibody producing CHO cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng 115: 2996-3008. doi: 10.1002/bit.26828
|
| [41] |
Wippermann A, Rupp O, Brinkrolf K, et al. (2015) The DNA methylation landscape of Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) DP-12 cells. J Biotechnol 199: 38-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2015.02.014
|
| [42] |
Haredy AM, Nishizawa A, Honda K, et al. (2013) Improved antibody production in Chinese hamster ovary cells by ATF4 overexpression. Cytotechnology 65: 993-1002. doi: 10.1007/s10616-013-9631-x
|
| [43] |
Bazrafshan Z, Stylios GK (2018) Custom-built electrostatics and supplementary bonding in the design of reinforced Collagen-g-P (methyl methacrylate-co-ethyl acrylate)/nylon 66 core-shell fibers. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 87: 19-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.002
|
| [44] |
Storck JL, Grothe T, Mamun A, et al. (2020) Orientation of electrospun magnetic nanofibers near conductive areas. Materials 13: 47. doi: 10.3390/ma13010047
|
| [45] |
Richter KN, Revelo NH, Seitz KJ, et al. (2018) Glyoxal as an alternative fixative to formaldehyde in immunostaining and super-resolution microscopy. EMBO J 37: 139-159. doi: 10.15252/embj.201695709
|
| [46] |
Huang LC, Lin W, Yagami M, et al. (2010) Validation of cell density and viability assays using Cedex automated cell counter. Biologicals 38: 393-400. doi: 10.1016/j.biologicals.2010.01.009
|
| [47] |
Sabantina L, Rodríguez-Cano MA, Klöcker M, et al. (2018) Fixing PAN nanofiber mats during stabilization for carbonization and creating novel metal/carbon composites. Polymers 10: 735. doi: 10.3390/polym10070735
|
| [48] |
Baek M, Kim MK, Cho HJ, et al. (2011) Factors influencing the cytotoxicity of zinc oxide nanoparticles: particle size and surface charge. J Phys Conf Ser 304: 012044. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/304/1/012044
|
| [49] |
Sing S (2019) Zinc oxide nanoparticles impacts: cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, development toxicity, and neurotoxicity. Toxicol Mech Methods 29: 300-311. doi: 10.1080/15376516.2018.1553221
|
| [50] |
Kuebodeaux RE, Bernazzani P, Nguyen TTM (2018) Cytotoxic and membrane cholesterol effects of ultraviolet irradiation and zinc oxide nanoparticles on Chinese hamster ovary cells. Molecules 23: 2979. doi: 10.3390/molecules23112979
|
| [51] |
Zukiene R, Snitka V (2015) Zinc oxide nanoparticle and bovine serum albumin interaction andnanoparticles influence on cytotoxicity in vitro. Colloids Surf B 135: 316-323. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2015.07.054
|
| 1. | Mohd Reusmaazran Yusof, Roslinda Shamsudin, Sarani Zakaria, Muhammad Azmi Abdul Hamid, Fatma Yalcinkaya, Yusof Abdullah, Norzita Yacob, Electron-Beam Irradiation of the PLLA/CMS/β-TCP Composite Nanofibers Obtained by Electrospinning, 2020, 12, 2073-4360, 1593, 10.3390/polym12071593 | |
| 2. | Tomasz Blachowicz, Krzysztof Domino, Michał Koruszowic, Jacek Grzybowski, Tobias Böhm, Andrea Ehrmann, Statistical Analysis of Nanofiber Mat AFM Images by Gray-Scale-Resolved Hurst Exponent Distributions, 2021, 11, 2076-3417, 2436, 10.3390/app11052436 | |
| 3. | Nadine Fokin, Timo Grothe, Al Mamun, Marah Trabelsi, Michaela Klöcker, Lilia Sabantina, Christoph Döpke, Tomasz Blachowicz, Andreas Hütten, Andrea Ehrmann, Magnetic Properties of Electrospun Magnetic Nanofiber Mats after Stabilization and Carbonization, 2020, 13, 1996-1944, 1552, 10.3390/ma13071552 | |
| 4. | Asmaa M. Abd El-Aziz, Azza El-Maghraby, Andrea Ewald, Sherif H. Kandil, In-Vitro Cytotoxicity Study: Cell Viability and Cell Morphology of Carbon Nanofibrous Scaffold/Hydroxyapatite Nanocomposites, 2021, 26, 1420-3049, 1552, 10.3390/molecules26061552 | |
| 5. | Al Mamun, Tomasz Blachowicz, Lilia Sabantina, Electrospun Nanofiber Mats for Filtering Applications—Technology, Structure and Materials, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 1368, 10.3390/polym13091368 | |
| 6. | Timo Grothe, Tobias Böhm, Karim Habashy, Oliya S. Abdullaeva, Jennifer Zablocki, Arne Lützen, Karin Dedek, Manuela Schiek, Andrea Ehrmann, Optical Index Matching, Flexible Electrospun Substrates for Seamless Organic Photocapacitive Sensors, 2021, 0370-1972, 2000543, 10.1002/pssb.202000543 | |
| 7. | Ewin Tanzli, Andrea Ehrmann, Electrospun Nanofibrous Membranes for Tissue Engineering and Cell Growth, 2021, 11, 2076-3417, 6929, 10.3390/app11156929 | |
| 8. | Seyedeh Nooshin Banitaba, Andrea Ehrmann, Application of Electrospun Nanofibers for Fabrication of Versatile and Highly Efficient Electrochemical Devices: A Review, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 1741, 10.3390/polym13111741 | |
| 9. | Al Mamun, Lilia Sabantina, Michaela Klöcker, Alexander Heide, Tomasz Blachowicz, Andrea Ehrmann, Electrospinning Nanofiber Mats with Magnetite Nanoparticles Using Various Needle-Based Techniques, 2022, 14, 2073-4360, 533, 10.3390/polym14030533 | |
| 10. | Markus Rimann, Astrid Jüngel, Sara Mousavi, Nicole Moeschlin, Maurizio Calcagni, Karin Wuertz-Kozak, Florian Brunner, Stefan Dudli, Oliver Distler, Christian Adlhart, Acrylonitrile and Pullulan Based Nanofiber Mats as Easily Accessible Scaffolds for 3D Skin Cell Models Containing Primary Cells, 2022, 11, 2073-4409, 445, 10.3390/cells11030445 | |
| 11. | Tomasz Kozior, Al Mamun, Marah Trabelsi, Lilia Sabantina, Comparative Analysis of Polymer Composites Produced by FFF and PJM 3D Printing and Electrospinning Technologies for Possible Filter Applications, 2022, 12, 2079-6412, 48, 10.3390/coatings12010048 | |
| 12. | Eliconda Antaby, Kristina Klinkhammer, Lilia Sabantina, Electrospinning of Chitosan for Antibacterial Applications—Current Trends, 2021, 11, 2076-3417, 11937, 10.3390/app112411937 | |
| 13. | Al Mamun, Michaela Klöcker, Tomasz Blachowicz, Lilia Sabantina, Investigation of the Morphological Structure of Needle-Free Electrospun Magnetic Nanofiber Mats, 2022, 8, 2312-7481, 25, 10.3390/magnetochemistry8020025 | |
| 14. | Mina Nasari, Nazanin Poursharifi, Aref Fakhrali, Seyedeh Nooshin Banitaba, Sajjad Mohammadi, Dariush Semnani, Fabrication of novel PCL/PGS fibrous scaffold containing HA and GO through simultaneous electrospinning-electrospray technique, 2022, 0091-4037, 1, 10.1080/00914037.2022.2112678 | |
| 15. | Andrea Ehrmann, Non-Toxic Crosslinking of Electrospun Gelatin Nanofibers for Tissue Engineering and Biomedicine—A Review, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 1973, 10.3390/polym13121973 | |
| 16. | Shafizah Sa’adon, Mohamed Nainar Mohamed Ansari, Saiful Izwan Abd Razak, Joseph Sahaya Anand, Nadirul Hasraf Mat Nayan, Al Emran Ismail, Muhammad Umar Aslam Khan, Adnan Haider, Preparation and Physicochemical Characterization of a Diclofenac Sodium-Dual Layer Polyvinyl Alcohol Patch, 2021, 13, 2073-4360, 2459, 10.3390/polym13152459 | |
| 17. | Laura Bauer, Lisa Brandstäter, Mika Letmate, Manasi Palachandran, Fynn Ole Wadehn, Carlotta Wolfschmidt, Timo Grothe, Uwe Güth, Andrea Ehrmann, Electrospinning for the Modification of 3D Objects for the Potential Use in Tissue Engineering, 2022, 10, 2227-7080, 66, 10.3390/technologies10030066 | |
| 18. | Muheeb Rafiq, Anjum Hamid Rather, Rumysa Saleem Khan, Razia Rehman, Aaliya Qureashi, Haseeb A. Khan, Abdullah S. Alhomida, Ravi Mani Tripathi, Sami-ullah Rather, Shafquat Majeed, Faheem A. Sheikh, Enhancing nanofiber characteristics through solvothermal approaches for environmental cleaning and energy-saving applications, 2024, 40, 23524928, 110120, 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110120 | |
| 19. | Johar Amin Ahmed Abdullah, José J. Benítez, Antonio Guerrero, Alberto Romero, Sustainable Integration of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles: Enhancing Properties of Poly(ε-Caprolactone) Electrospun Nanofibers and Cast Films, 2023, 13, 2079-6412, 1665, 10.3390/coatings13101665 | |
| 20. | Ewin Tanzli, Tomasz Kozior, Jiri Hajnys, Jakub Mesicek, Bennet Brockhagen, Timo Grothe, Andrea Ehrmann, Improved cell growth on additively manufactured Ti64 substrates with varying porosity and nanofibrous coating, 2024, 10, 24058440, e25576, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25576 | |
| 21. | Tomasz Kozior, Muammel M. Hanon, Paweł Zmarzły, Damian Gogolewski, Mateusz Rudnik, Wiktor Szot, Evaluation of the Influence of Technological Parameters of Selected 3D Printing Technologies on Tribological Properties, 2024, 11, 2329-7662, e1567, 10.1089/3dp.2023.0080 | |
| 22. | Tomasz Blachowicz, Andrea Ehrmann, Optical Properties of Electrospun Nanofiber Mats, 2023, 13, 2077-0375, 441, 10.3390/membranes13040441 | |
| 23. | Andrea Ehrmann, 2024, Chapter 51, 978-3-031-48932-7, 518, 10.1007/978-3-031-48933-4_51 | |
| 24. | Sarah Vanessa Langwald, Andrea Ehrmann, Lilia Sabantina, Measuring Physical Properties of Electrospun Nanofiber Mats for Different Biomedical Applications, 2023, 13, 2077-0375, 488, 10.3390/membranes13050488 | |
| 25. | Bénédicte Fromager, Emilie Marhuenda, Benjamin Louis, Norbert Bakalara, Julien Cambedouzou, David Cornu, Recent Advances in Electrospun Fibers for Biological Applications, 2023, 3, 2673-6209, 569, 10.3390/macromol3030033 | |
| 26. | Tomasz Blachowicz, Andrea Ehrmann, 2023, Chapter 2, 978-981-99-5482-7, 7, 10.1007/978-981-99-5483-4_2 | |
| 27. | Johar Amin Ahmed Abdullah, Víctor Perez‐Puyana, Antonio Guerrero, Alberto Romero, Novel hybrid electrospun poly(ε‐caprolactone) nanofibers containing green and chemical magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles, 2023, 140, 0021-8995, 10.1002/app.54345 | |
| 28. | Al Mamun, Mohamed Kiari, Lilia Sabantina, A Recent Review of Electrospun Porous Carbon Nanofiber Mats for Energy Storage and Generation Applications, 2023, 13, 2077-0375, 830, 10.3390/membranes13100830 | |
| 29. | Mohammad Raeiji, Dina Morshedi, Matin Mahmoudifard, Novel simulation of the blood–brain barrier using the polyacrylonitrile electrospun nanofibrous membrane on 3D‐printed Transwell, 2024, 35, 1042-7147, 10.1002/pat.6401 | |
| 30. | Elham Hoviezi, Soraya Mojezi-badil, Zeinab Ansari-Asl, Fabrication, Characterization, and Biocompatibility Assessment of Polycaprolactone/Polyacrylonitrile/Casein Nanofibers Scaffold for Tissue Engineering Applications, 2025, 1229-9197, 10.1007/s12221-025-00859-7 | |
| 31. | Nonsikelelo Sheron Mpofu, Elzbieta Stepula, Uwe Güth, Andrea Ehrmann, Lilia Sabantina, 2025, Electrospinning Poly(acrylonitrile) (PAN) Nanofiber Mats with Mushroom Mycelium Powder, 45, 10.3390/engproc2025087045 |
Figures(8) / Tables(1)
Daria Wehlage, Hannah Blattner, Al Mamun, Ines Kutzli, Elise Diestelhorst, Anke Rattenholl, Frank Gudermann, Dirk Lütkemeyer, Andrea Ehrmann. Cell growth on electrospun nanofiber mats from polyacrylonitrile (PAN) blends[J]. AIMS Bioengineering, 2020, 7(1): 43-54. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2020004
| Sample name | PAN mass/g | ZnO mass/g | Maltodextrin/pea protein mass/g | Casein mass/g | Gelatin mass/g | DMSO mass/g | Also carbon. |
| PAN | 1.6 | 8.4 | Yes | ||||
| PAN/ZnO | 1.5 | 0.5 | 8.0 | Yes | |||
| PAN/MP | 1.5 | 0.75 | 7.75 | Yes | |||
| PAN/CG | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 8.5 | No |
DownLoad:
CSV
