Fig. 4
(a) Influence of the substrate polymeric material over the cell area (mean ± SE) of MSCs, showing the comparison between different materials (sPDMS, hPDMS, and PMMA) with the same microtopography. The projected cell area is outlined in green for each cell, with the nucleus identified by a blue outline. (b) Representative images comparing the cell area of MSCs across various materials patterned with the LAR HPA topography. The outlines of the cytoskeleton and nucleus are shown in green and blue lines, respectively. (c) Influence of the ME nanostructure on MSC cell area (mean ± SE) . For each substrate, it is shown the comparison with its non-ME counterpart. (d) Influence of ME nanostructure over circularity (mean ± SE) for MSCs cultured onto different substrates, compared with the non-ME counterparts. (e) MSCs actin and nucleus staining grown onto different substrates. Representative pictures exemplify the influence of the ME nanostructures comparing hPDMS Flat vs. ME and hPDMS HPA vs. HPA + ME (hierarchy). Upper row shows the influence of the nanostructure compared to a flat substrate, while the bottom row shows this influence for a substrate that includes a microtopography, as in this case, HPA. One-way ANOVA statistical analysis was performed for comparisons. Significance is displayed by ns (not significant) and * symbols (ns p > 0.05, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.0001, **** p < 0.0001).
