The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cell adhesion to a series of hydrophili–hydrophobic copolymers studies with a spinning disc apparatus
Abstract
Adhesion of cells to substrates strongly influences many of their functions and therefore plays an important role in a variety of processes, including phagocytosis, hemostasis, and the response of tissue to implanted materials. In previous studies, the influence of substrate hydrophilicity on cell adhesion has not been separated from effects due to major differences in other properties of the substrate, such as charge, rigidity, and the specific chemical composition of the materials. In addition, very few careful studies of the force required for cell detachment from various substrates have been performed. In this study, 3T3 cell detachment from a chemically homologous series of copolymers based on hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA) and ethylmethacrylate (EMA) was measured with a spinning‐disc apparatus. The spinning‐disc technique allowed measurements of cell detachment over a wide range of applied shear stress on each sample. Cell detachment did not occur until a critical value of shear stress was exceeded. The critical shear stress of detachment decreased linearly with increasing HEMA content, from 18 dynes/cm 2 on poly‐EMA to 0 on the polymers containing 83% or more HEMA. “Plating efficiency,” calculated as the fraction of cells initially applied which remained after dip rinsing the surfaces, did not vary significantly among most of the copolymers. Dip rinsing, however, exposes the cells to only one, relatively low shear stress (estimated to be somewhat less than 3 dynes/cm 2). The existence of a critical shear stress for 3T3 cell detachment suggests that cell adhesion to surfaces cannot be fully understood with single shear stress methods because cells may attach with a wide range of strengths which are either all above or all below the applied shear stress. The influence of surface hydrophilicity on cell adhesion and the variety of forces which may contribute to this phenomenon are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Griffith, L. G. (2000) · Acta Materialia · doi:10.1016/s1359-6454(99)00299-2 · Cited by 730
The biocompatibility of novel starch-based polymers and composites: in vitro studies
Marques, A. P., Reis, R. L., & Hunt, J. A. (2002) · Biomaterials · doi:10.1016/s0142-9612(01)00272-1 · Cited by 347
Use of polyphosphazenes for skeletal tissue regeneration
Laurencin, C. T., Norman, M. E., Elgendy, H. M., El‐Amin, S. F., Allcock, H. R., Pucher, S. R., & Ambrosio, A. A. (1993) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research · doi:10.1002/jbm.820270716 · Cited by 179
Schulte, V. A., Díez, M., Möller, M., & Lensen, M. C. (2009) · Biomacromolecules · doi:10.1021/bm900631s · Cited by 115
Metadata
- Authors
- Horbett, T. A., Waldburger, J. J., Ratner, B. D., & Hoffman, A. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1988-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 383-404
- ISSN
- 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4636
- OpenAlex
- W2075244463
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cell adhesion to a series of hydrophili–hydrophobic copolymers studies with a spinning disc apparatus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.820220503
- The paper
- Horbett, T. A., Waldburger, J. J., Ratner, B. D., & Hoffman, A. S. (1988). Cell adhesion to a series of hydrophili–hydrophobic copolymers studies with a spinning disc apparatus. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820220503
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.