HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. 2016 January ; 15(1): 11–18. doi:10.1109/TNB.2016.2519505.

Scale of Carbon Nanomaterials Affects Neural Outgrowth and

Adhesion
Eric Franca1, PitFee Jao2, Sheng-Po Fang2, Sankaraleengam Alagapan1, Liangbin Pan1,
Jung Hae Yoon2, Yong-Kyu ‘YK’ Yoon2, and Bruce C Wheeler1
1J.Crayton Pruitt Family Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL, USA
Author Manuscript

2Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

Abstract
Carbon nanomaterials have become increasingly popular microelectrode materials for
neuroscience applications. Here we study how the scale of carbon nanotubes and carbon
nanofibers affect neural viability, outgrowth, and adhesion.

Carbon nanotubes were deposited on glass coverslips via a layer-by-layer method with
polyethylenimine (PEI). Carbonized nanofibers were fabricated by electrospinning SU-8 and
pyrolyzing the nanofiber depositions. Additional substrates tested were carbonized and SU-8 thin
films and SU-8 nanofibers. Surfaces were O2-plasma treated, coated with varying concentrations
of PEI, seeded with E18 rat cortical cells, and examined at 3, 4, and 7 days in vitro (DIV). Neural
Author Manuscript

adhesion was examined at 4 DIV utilizing a parallel plate flow chamber.

At 3 DIV, neural viability was lower on the nanofiber and thin film depositions treated with higher
PEI concentrations which corresponded with significantly higher zeta potentials (surface charge);
this significance was drastically higher on the nanofibers suggesting that the nanostructure may
collect more PEI molecules, causing increased toxicity. At 7 DIV, significantly higher neurite
outgrowth was observed on SU-8 nanofiber substrates with nanofibers a significant fraction of a
neuron’s size. No differences were detected for carbonized nanofibers or carbon nanotubes. Both
carbonized and SU-8 nanofibers had significantly higher cellular adhesion post-flow in
comparison to controls whereas the carbon nanotubes were statistically similar to control
substrates.

These data suggest a neural cell preference for larger-scale nanomaterials with specific surface
Author Manuscript

treatments. These characteristics could be taken advantage of in the future design and fabrication
of neural microelectrodes.

Keywords
carbon nanotubes; carbon nanofibers; neural growth; neural nanotechnology

Correspondence to: Bruce C Wheeler.

 Franca et al. Page 2

I. Introduction
Author Manuscript

The development and design of electronics and devices that interface with the nervous
system is a hotly studied field in biomedicine. Microelectrodes have been utilized for
treating the symptoms of patients suffering from ailments ranging from Alzheimer’s and
Parkinson’s disease to treatment-resistant depression [1–3]. Though there has been great
improvement in the development and application of neural prosthetics, particularly neural
microelectrodes, there remain several serious challenges including the loss of physical and
electrical contact between microelectrodes and neural tissue over time [4].

For over 50 years, sharpened metal electrodes have been used as neural probes [5]. More
recently, different materials ranging from silicon to flexible polymer electrodes have been
utilized [6, 7]. Innovations in neural electrode materials and designs have focused on more
effectively integrating electrodes with neural tissue, improving the electrical characteristics,
Author Manuscript

and optimizing the long-term electrode viability [8–10].

Novel electrode materials, as they are developed, require biocompatibility assessments prior
to implantation in vivo. These neural microelectrode materials are commonly tested in vitro
using dissociated neurons, such as cortical [11] or hippocampal [12] neural networks, to
observe any adverse effects the materials have on the biological tissue. Materials with
different physical topographies, conductivities, and surface chemistries have been shown to
have a significant effect on the viability and outgrowth of neurons in vitro [13–26].

Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and carbonized nanofibers (CNFs) are two popular
microelectrode nanomaterials. These materials have been shown to be biocompatible when
immobilized and are capable of improving the impedance and charge transfer of metal
electrodes with a unique, nano-scale topography [27–31]. Interestingly, some research has
Author Manuscript

shown that CNTs and CNFs not only improve electrode characteristics, but can also have
some effects on neural and/or glial outgrowth and electrophysiology [14, 22, 32–39]. We are
able to deposit these nanomaterials onto various substrates in patterned, uniform films on a
large scale. Due to limitations with other deposition methods, such as electrodeposition, it is
more difficult to produce these large, patterned depositions with other electroconductive
materials, such as PEDOT [9]. This flexibility allows for the larger-scale experimentation
with neural networks proposed in this work.

This study focuses on how variations in the scale of nanomaterial topography affects the
viability, outgrowth, and adhesion of cortical neural cultures. CNTs deposited via a simple,
layer-by-layer method form thin, conductive CNT-polyelectrolyte films. In contrast, CNFs
and carbonized thin films (CTFs) deposited via an electrospinning/photo-patterning/
Author Manuscript

carbonization method form a thicker film of conductive, carbon depositions. Additional,

non-conductive nanofibers and thin films (made from the photopatternable epoxy SU-8)
were fabricated using the same methods. The substrates were treated with O2-plasma or the
cationic polymer polyethylenimine (PEI). Though PEI has been demonstrated to be toxic
when in solution [40], adsorbed it is a popular surface treatment to facilitate neural
outgrowth [17, 41]. PEI is a cheap material with a simple implementation that has been used
for decades to functionalize surfaces to support neural viability and outgrowth [17]. PEI has

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 3

also been demonstrated to be an effective cationic polymer to utilize in layer-by-layer

Author Manuscript

assembly of various depositions [42, 43].Thus PEI is an attractive surface treatment for the
purposes of this study.

We are interested in how neural tissue integrates with these carbon nanomaterials as these
characteristics may have implications in their utilization as microelectrode materials in the
future. We demonstrate here the effects of higher concentrations of the PEI surface
treatment and rougher surface topographies (e.g. nanofibers) on the viability of neurons.
Additionally, we demonstrate the extent to which neurons grow and integrate into different
topographies by measuring neurite outgrowth and performing neural adhesion
experimentation with parallel plate flow chambers.

II. Materials and Methods

Author Manuscript

A. Preparation of SU-8 and Carbon Nanomaterial Substrates

Carbonized nanofibers (CNFs) were fabricated by our collaborators Jao et al. via their
previously described methods [44, 45]. In short, an SU-8 (2025, Microchem Inc.) solution
was used to electrospin the nanofibers onto a polished silicon substrate. The nanofibers were
then patterned by UV-lithography to produce patterned SU-8 nanofibers (NFs). These
depositions can be carbonized in a tube furnace under forming gas at 1000 °C to produce
carbonized nanofibers (CNFs); this pyrolysis causes the nanofibers to lose a significant
portion of volume resulting in smaller, conductive, nearly pure carbon nanofibers. Patterned
thin film substrates were prepared by spin-coating SU-8 onto a polished silicon wafer,
followed by UV-lithography to produce SU-8 thin-films (TFs) which were carbonized to
produce carbonized thin-films (CTFs). These four physically contrasting materials (CNFs,
NFs, CTFs, and TFs) allow us to compare the effects of roughness, nano-feature scale, and
Author Manuscript

the resulting carbonized nanomaterials on neural cell growth.

Carboxylated multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs; www.cheaptubes.com) were

dispersed at 0.2 mg/mL in dimethyl formamide (DMF) by utilizing a pulsing (2 s on, 1 s off)
ultrasonicator probe for 40 min. The solution was then centrifuged at 3000·g for 5 min and
the supernatant was extracted. The thin films of CNTs were prepared on glass coverslips
using the technique of layer-by-layer (LBL) assembly in conjunction with layers of
poly(ethylenimine) (PEI). The nanotubes are electrostatically attracted to the positively
charged PEI molecules on the substrate via their carboxyl groups resulting in a stable
nanotube films. Briefly described, the glass coverslips were submerged fully into a solution
of 0.1 % PEI (w/v) in 18 MΩ de-ionized (DI) water followed by submerging the substrate
halfway into dispersed MWNTs to coat half of the substrate with the deposition; this
Author Manuscript

process, once completed, results in a single bilayer coating on half of the coverslip. This
process was repeated to add additional bilayers. Each layer-by-layer sample is designated as
CNT-n where n is the number of bilayers. For this study, we utilized CNT-3 and CNT-9,
denoting three and nine bilayers, respectively.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 4

B. Surface Characterization
Author Manuscript

Surfaces were characterized via atomic force microscopy (AFM; VEECO Dimension 3100)
and scanning electron microscopy (SEM; Hitachi S-4000 FE-SEM). Samples were sputter
coated with a thin layer of gold palladium (AU-PD) with a Denton DeskV Sputter coater
prior to SEM imaging. AFM micrographs were analyzed with Gwyddion 2.31, open-source
scanning probe microscopy software [46] which provided the average roughness values.
Ten, two-dimensional average roughness (Ra) profiles were randomly chosen from each
micrograph and averaged for the reported Ra values. Nanofiber and nanotube widths (or
feature widths) were measured from the SEM micrographs with ImageJ [47]. These values
were compared to the average width of cortical neurites as measured using a 40× fluorescent
image of a neural culture.

C. Surface Preparation and Cell Culture

Author Manuscript

The nanofiber (CNF and NF) and thin-film (CTF and TF) surfaces were treated with O2-
plasma for 30 s followed by exposure to UV in a biosafety cabinet overnight. Surfaces were
then treated with a sterilized 0.1 % PEI, 0.001 % PEI, 0.00001 % PEI (w/v), or 0 % PEI
solution (denoted as the Plasma group) in 18 MΩ DI water. The surfaces were rinsed five
times with sterile 18 MΩ DI water and dried via aspiration. CNT samples were sterilized in
70 % ethanol solution for 15 min, rinsed with 18 MΩ DI water, and dried via aspiration.

E18 rat cortex (Brainbits, LLC) is dissociated according to the vendor’s protocol.
Specifically, the cortices were digested in sterile, 2 mg/mL papain in Hibernate E (Brainbits,
LLC) at 35°C for five minutes. The tissue clump was then removed from the papain solution
and dispersed via trituration in the original shipping solution (Hibernate E with B27). The
cell suspension was centrifuged at 1000 rpm for one minute, the supernatant removed, and
Author Manuscript

the cells were re-suspended in Neurobasal media supplemented with B27, GlutaMAX, and
Penicillin/Streptomycin. The cells were plated at 200 cells/mm2. A control surface coated
with 0.1 % PEI and seeded with > 600 cells/mm2 was used to condition the media of the
Plasma groups of CNFs, CTFs, NFs, and TFs in order to support long-term growth; cells on
plasma-only surfaces (without media conditioning) become non-adherent within one week.
The cultures are kept at in an incubator at 37 °C and 5 % CO2.

D. Surface Charge
Prior to cell culture, surface charge was investigated by measuring the zeta potential (Zp) of
Plasma, 0.001 % PEI, and 0.1 % PEI surface treatments for NFs, TFs, and polished silicon.
This measurement was performed using the clamping cell of a commercial electrokinetic
analyzer with 1 mM KCl (EKA; Anton Paar). It was not possible to manufacture a stable
Author Manuscript

CTF or CNF film large enough to fit the clamping cell required for this measurement; as a
result, these samples have been excluded. Eight measurements were taken (n=8) from each
sample and averaged to produce the Zp value from each sample at an average pH level of
7.1.

E. Cell Viability and Outgrowth Measurements

Cells were stained with a Live/Dead Cell Viability Assay utilizing the vendor's protocol
(Life Technologies; L-3224). In short, 5 µL of calcein AM (live cells - green) and 20 µL of

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 5

ethidium homodimer-1 (EthD; dead cells - red) were added to 10 mL of Dulbecco’s

Author Manuscript

phosphate buffered saline 1X (D-PBS). The samples were washed with D-PBS once, and
submerged in the staining solution for 30 minutes. Pictures were taken at 10× magnification.
As the calcein (green) also stains neurites, the images were utilized to quantify cellular and
neurite characteristics on and off of each patterned material.

Neural viability was calculated by counting the living cells and dead cells at 3 days in vitro
(DIV) using the aforementioned Live/Dead Cell Viability Assay and reported as the
percentage of live cells over total cell count (sum of live and dead cells). Both on-pattern
(experimental substrate) and off-pattern (control silicon or glass) viabilities are reported.
Cellular coverage was measured at 7 DIV by setting a threshold in ImageJ highlighting the
total fluorescent cell area and quantified as a percentage of the total area of substrate; this
measurement was further subdivided into neurite and soma coverage by limiting the mask
threshold. Neurite length measurements were performed utilizing the NeuriteQuant toolkit in
Author Manuscript

ImageJ [48]. Reported data are cell density (cells per mm2) and total neurite length per area
at 7 DIV.

F. Neural Adhesion Assay

A parallel plate flow chamber was utilized to study the adhesion of neurons at 4 DIV to the
nanotube and nanofiber substrates (both carbon and SU-8). Specifically, a perforated silicon
gasket was placed over the vacuum channel of the flow chamber. The sample was then
placed on top of the gasket, cell side downwards, carefully so as to avoid bubbles. A vacuum
was applied to create a seal and hold the sample in place. An area in the center of the sample
was chosen randomly and photographed for cell counting. Three 60 mL syringes were filled
with 1× D-PBS at 37 °C and loaded onto a syringe pump. A flow rate of 180 mL/minute
(251 dynes/cm2) was applied for 30 s per sample. The same area was photographed once
Author Manuscript

more after the experiment. The cells were counted before and after to quantify what
percentage of cells remained following the flow trial; this value was taken as a
representation of neural adhesion, or neural resistance to shear flow.

G. Statistical Analyses
One-way ANOVAs were utilized for the physical and surface charge measurements of the
substrates. Repeated-measures ANOVAs were utilized for all viability, neurite, and adhesion
measurements. Where significance was reported (p < 0.05), Newman-Keuls post hoc tests
were performed.

III. Results
Author Manuscript

A. Surface Characterization
SEM micrographs for nanotube and nanofiber surfaces are shown in Figure 1. This figure
clearly shows the contrasting scale between the carbon nanotube and nanofiber substrates
while also demonstrating the shrinkage of nanofibers caused by the carbonization process in
comparing Figure 1C and 1D. Average roughness (Ra) values are presented in Table 1 and
range from 0.26 nm to 164 nm for carbonized thin film and carbonized nanofibers,
respectively. Additionally, the average size of the topographical features for each substrate

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 6

is reported (Table 1) which further demonstrates the contrasting scales between the
Author Manuscript

nanofibers and the carbon nanotubes. There are no values reported for the thin films as there
are no significant nano-topographical features to measure (e.g. a nanofiber or nanotube). We
found that the average width of neurites was statistically larger than all features with the
exception of the SU-8 nanofibers (n = 15; p < 0.0005).

B. Surface Charge
We investigated how surface charge might correlate to the toxicity seen in our 0.1 % PEI
viability results. At an average pH of 7.1, the surface charge (as measured by Zp) varied
dependent on the physical structure of the sample as well as the specific surface treatment
(Figure 2). The PEI treatment yielded positive Zp values, whereas the Plasma-only treatment
yielded negative Zp values. SU-8 nanofibers and thin films treated with 0.1 % PEI had
significantly higher Zp values in comparison to polished silicon under the same conditions
Author Manuscript

(n = 8; *p < 0.0005). Diluting the PEI solution to 0.001 % resulted in similar Zp values
across the measured groups. The data suggest that the nanofiber substrates are especially
attractive to PEI in comparison to controls or flat substrates.

C. Neural Viability
The neural viability assay was performed across several concentrations of PEI at 3 DIV
(Figure 3). For both CNT substrates, the neural cell viability showed no significant
difference to each paired control; both of these groups utilize 0.1 % PEI in their deposition
procedure. This concentration of PEI is an industry standard which supports neural
outgrowth on many substrates including glass and culture plastic. However, with both the
SU-8 and carbonized nanofibers and thin films, the concentration of PEI applied to the
surface significantly impacted the neural viability in comparison to off-pattern controls.
Author Manuscript

Neural viability on the substrates treated with the standard 0.1 % PEI concentration was
significantly lower than most other treatments on- and off-pattern, with the exception of the
CTF group (Figure 3; n = 4; *p < 0.001 and †p < 0.05). Upon dilution of PEI to 0.001 %, the
on- and off-pattern cell viability was statistically comparable for all groups. Treatment of the
substrates with 0.00001 % PEI and without any PEI (Plasma) yielded significantly higher
cell viability on-pattern. As the 0.001 % PEI concentration yielded comparable results
between on- and off-pattern areas, this concentration was utilized for all further experiments
with the patterned nanofiber (CNF-PEI, NF-PEI) and thin film substrates (CTF-PEI, TF-
PEI).

D. Neural Outgrowth
The contrasting neural outgrowth on patterned substrates (nanofibers and thin films) treated
Author Manuscript

with PEI are visualized in Figure 4. The density (per mm2) of adhering cell bodies was
quantified at 7 DIV across paired experimental (on-pattern) and control background (off-
pattern) substrates (Figure 5A). No significant differences were observed for this metric. On
the carbon nanotube and TF-PEI substrates, there were fewer cells per area compared to
controls, though this was not statistically significant. This demonstrates that the cells had
positive growth across all of the tested substrates with no significant preference for a surface
topography in comparison to the flat, silicon or glass backgrounds.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 7

The percentage of the total area covered by cells was calculated (Figure 5B) and subdivided
Author Manuscript

into the area covered by neurites and somata. Only the SU-8 nanofiber groups had
significantly higher cellular coverage on-pattern in comparison to the paired, off-pattern
background (n = 5; *p < 0.01). There was also significantly higher cell coverage on SU-8
nanofibers than on all other on-pattern substrates (n = 5; *p < 0.05). Neurites account for the
majority of this cellular coverage and the same statistical significances were observed for
neurite coverage. The somata account for less than 10% of the total area covered in all cases
and no statistical differences were observed. We also measured the total neurite length per
area to quantify the length that neurites grew across each substrate with respect to total
substrate area (Figure 5C). We found that the total neurite length per area is significantly
higher on the SU-8 nanofibers with and without PEI (n = 5; p< 0.05). We also found that the
TF-PEI group had significantly less neurite length per area in comparison to the respective
off-pattern control (n = 5; p < 0.05). The results suggest that the size of the SU-8 nanofibers
Author Manuscript

is ideal for more extensive neurite outgrowth; this shows that neurites prefer a growth
substrate with physical features of a similar size.

E. Neural Adhesion
Adhesion results revealed substantial differences among substrates (Figure 6). We tested
CNF, NF, CNT-3, and CNT-9 within a parallel plate flow chamber to assess the ability of
the neural network to resist shear flow on different substrates with highly contrasting
roughnesses. We show that nearly half of all neurons on 0.1 % PEI control substrates
remained post-shear stress. Both the CNT-3 and the CNT-9 were statistically
indistinguishable from these controls. The CNF and NF samples treated both with and
without 0.001 % PEI were also statistically similar to the 0.1 % control substrates. However,
the neurons on the nanofibers were significantly more resistant to the shearing flow than the
Author Manuscript

off-pattern controls, treated with the same PEI concentration (n = 4; *p < 0.005).

IV. Discussion
A. Concentration-dependent PEI Toxicity on Patterned Substrates
Cationic polymers, especially PEI, can be cytotoxic when exposed to cells in solution by
way of disrupting the cellular membrane, causing membrane leakage, and the cessation of
cellular metabolic activity, suggesting penetration through the cellular membrane [40]. This
toxicity has also been shown to be dependent on the molecular weight of the PEI [49].
Though PEI in solution can be toxic, it is known to be an effective facilitator of neural cell
growth at high and low molecular weights when immobilized on the culture surface
following a thorough rinsing step [17, 41], as it is also evident in our study.
Author Manuscript

We found that all of our substrates supported viable neural cell outgrowth under most
conditions tested. Surprisingly, some patterned samples treated with 0.1 % PEI (a common
PEI concentration for supporting neural outgrowth) suffered from significantly decreased
cell viability in contrast to off-pattern controls. Treated with 0.1 % PEI, patterned SU-8
nanofibers and thin films demonstrated cellular viabilities well below 20 %. These results
suggest that SU-8 attracts more PEI molecules which can cause more cytotoxicity. To
compare the levels of PEI on different substrates with varying PEI-treatment concentrations

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 8

we analyzed the zeta potential (Zp) of each substrate. We found that at 0.1 % PEI, SU-8
Author Manuscript

nanofibers and thin films have a significantly higher Zp than polished silicon with the Zp
magnitude of the NFs over three times larger than the TFs. This effect is eliminated when
reducing the PEI concentration to 0.001 %, resulting in similar Zp levels across all
substrates. This means that there is a very strong positive charge on the NF and TF
substrates when treated with higher concentrations of PEI, with an especially high charge on
the nanofibers; this could be explained by more PEI bound to the NFs or TFs which would
contribute to higher zeta potentials. The larger Zp values for the 0.1 % PEI-treated NFs
suggests that the nanostructure of the nanofibers may trap or collect significantly more PEI
molecules. The plasma-treated substrates demonstrated highly negative Zp values and with
significant differences across all groups but will support neural growth for a limited period
of time (without media conditioning) on all substrates. The short term cellular viability of
the Plasma-treated substrates are more likely driven by increasing the hydrophilicity of the
Author Manuscript

substrate. However, long-term viability likely requires a combination of increased

hydrophilicity and positive surface charge which can be accomplished with a PEI treatment.
These results suggest that there is an ideal range of surface charge which supports long-term
neural viability, effectively a Zp near 0 mV. The results also suggest that a Zp which is very
positive (> 60 mV) can result in a significantly more toxic surface.

Carbonized nanofibers also demonstrated a significantly lower cellular viability when

treated with 0.1% PEI solution. However, the same effect was not observed on the
carbonized thin film substrates as these substrates were similar to controls. Due to
manufacturing limitations, we were unable to analyze the zeta potentials of the carbonized
substrates. However, preliminary x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) results (not
shown) have suggested that carbonized nanofibers collect more PEI molecules when treated
with higher PEI concentrations than off-pattern controls (determined by comparing nitrogen
Author Manuscript

peaks which are exclusive to PEI molecules). These preliminary results and the lack of
toxicity on carbonized thin films further suggest that the topography of the nanofibers (both
SU-8 and carbon) has a significant effect on the level of PEI collected by the surface.
Further experimentation is required to fully characterize the mechanism of this toxic
phenomena as well as testing if similar results can be observed with other cationic polymers.

B. Neural Growth Preference on Larger-scale Topography

No significant differences in cell densities after 7 DIV were reported (p = 0.058). Neural
somata had positive outgrowth on all substrates without demonstrating a preference for any
specific topography. This suggests that none of the nanomaterials strongly attracts or repels
cell bodies. The neural cell bodies, at approximately 10 µm in diameter, are significantly
larger than the topographical features of the nanofiber, nanotube, and thin film depositions.
Author Manuscript

It is possible that somata growth is not significantly attracted or repelled by smaller

topographical features, unlike what has been shown previously in neurites [15, 50–52].
However, there was a noticeable contrast between the on-pattern cell densities of the SU-8
thin film and all nanofiber groups (comparing Figure 4A and 4C to 4B). This contrast could
prove to be useful in future experiments by pairing SU-8 thin film (as an insulator) and
carbonized nanofibers (as an electrode material) to draw cells to adhere to the conductive,
nano-fibrous CNF substrates; as the strongest extracellular signals are recorded from

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 9

electrodes in proximity to cell bodies, this could potentially yield an electrode capable of
Author Manuscript

encouraging growth onto the electrode area and recording from more neurons.

We also wanted to observe how these materials affected the outgrowth of neurites. We
found that the SU-8 nanofibers had a positive effect on the degree of neurite integration with
the nanofiber matrix. After 7 DIV, neurites covered a significant percentage of the total
nanofiber matrix, which also was accounted for in the total length of neurites per unit area of
nanofiber matrix. Interestingly, this result was not replicated for any other substrate tested,
including carbonized nanofibers and carbon nanotubes. This result suggests that neurites
prefer to follow and grow on like-sized topographical cues on the surface. It has been shown
previously that neurites like to follow large surface cues, such as walls, and features similar
in size to neurites [15, 50–52]. However, it has also been shown that substrates with small-
scale features (e.g. carbon nanotubes) can have a positive effect on cellular outgrowth [14,
53]. Considering these studies, we had expected to find an increase in neurite outgrowth on
Author Manuscript

all of our tested nanofibers and nanotubes. However, the results show that neurite growth is
most greatly enhanced by topographical features of a similar scale to the neurites;
unfortunately this was only achieved on the non-conductive, SU-8 nanofibers.

Alternatively, it is possible that potential chemical (e.g. surface chemistry) or mechanical

differences (e.g. modulus of elasticity) of the materials have a more significant effect on the
neurite outgrowth. Prior to cell culture there are significant changes to the surface chemistry
of the SU-8 and CNF substrates due to oxygen plasma treatment which includes increased
wettability and increased acidic and carbon-based functional groups (e.g. carboxyl,
carbonyl, etc.) [54, 55]. However, it has also been shown that, when exposed to a cell
culture environment (e.g. culture media), the substrate continually accumulates a biofilm
consisting of proteins and cell matter [56]. As a result, the unique surface chemistries on
Author Manuscript

each of the substrates in this study are likely increasingly obfuscated by the buildup of a
biofilm beginning with exposure to culture media. This may result in similar chemical
profiles across all substrates (nanofibers and thin films) over time. Though this chemical
profile will have an effect on cellular viability and outgrowth, it is likely that the large
topographical differences between the substrates may have a stronger impact on the
outgrowth observed in this study. Future studies will fully characterize the chemical profile
of these nanofiber substrates in a cell culture environment at different time points. Further, it
has been shown that the stiffness of a substrate can affect neural outgrowth and the
differentiation of neural stem cells [57]. However, it has also been shown that embryonic
cortical neural growth (like the neurons utilized in this work) is insensitive to substrate
stiffness suggesting that this phenomena is cell-specific [58, 59]. Given that cortical neural
growth has been shown to be relatively unaffected by the mechanical properties of a
Author Manuscript

substrate, it is probable that, as suggested in previous literature [50–52], the size of the
nanofibers have a stronger effect on the neurite outgrowth. This result suggests that
increasing the size of the carbonized nanofibers (after shrinkage due to carbonization) would
enhance the potential for electrodes to attract neurons and neurites.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 10

C. Neurons Resist Shearing Flow on Rougher Substrates

Author Manuscript

The measurement of neural adhesion, by way of resistance to shear stress, has not been
investigated extensively or at all. However, this assay can provide a unique method for
observing how well neurons integrate with these substrates. In both PEI and Plasma
samples, neurons located on both carbonized and SU-8 nanofiber substrates were
significantly more resistant to the shear flow when compared to their paired controls. The
adhesion of neurons on these samples treated with 0.001 % PEI is not significantly different
from the 0.1 % PEI controls. However, the decrease in the concentration of PEI negatively
affects cell adhesion on paired control substrates. This suggests that the nanofiber substrates
are simply more effective at attracting the PEI molecules, thus resulting in cell adhesion
similar to 0.1 % PEI controls. However, the adhesion of the neurons on the plasma-treated
NF substrates was also statistically comparable to the 0.1 % controls. This suggests that the
topography of the nanofiber substrates has some effect on the resistance of the neurons to
Author Manuscript

the shearing flow.

These results demonstrate that the cells are able to resist shear stress more effectively on the
nanofibers regardless of surface treatment. It is possible that the surface topography can act
as a substitute for charge-based adhesion. By introducing a physical topography, less
adhesion factor (e.g. PEI, PDL, PLL, etc.) is required to achieve similar results potentially
providing more flexibility for in vitro and in vivo experimental designs. The improved
adhesion on the nanofiber topography could be attributed to a couple of factors: 1) the
neurons are able to anchor to a larger surface area resulting in stronger resistance to shear
stress or 2) the neurons sink into the CNF matrix in which they avoid more of the shearing
flow. Though this method has not demonstrated the mechanism of the neural resistance to
shearing flow, either of the aforementioned factors contributing to the adhesion are positive
in terms of the nanofibers’ usefulness as neural microelectrode materials. An ideal neural
Author Manuscript

microelectrode, in addition to having attractive impedance and conductivity characteristics,

would attract neural integration with the electrode. In either case, each neuron is in contact
with a larger surface area on the nanofiber matrices as opposed to flat controls. This would
potentially result in tighter coupling at the cell-electrode interface or more neural contact
with electrode materials which would increase an electrode’s ability to collect neural signals
and improve the signal-to-noise ratio. This cellular integration means that these nanofibers
are of particular interest for designing future microelectrodes.

V. Conclusion
We have established that our substrates are viable for neural growth, the efficacy of which
depends upon surface treatment and surface topography. We have shown that there is a
Author Manuscript

significant correlation (Figure 5B–C) between the topographical scale of substrate features
and neurite outgrowth. Correspondingly, the number of neurons resistant to shear stress on
the rougher, larger scale nanofiber substrates was significantly higher than that of controls
regardless of surface treatment. All of the results in this study suggest that some feature
sizes and surface charges of rough substrates have a direct effect on neural outgrowth. In
future experiments, a focus on increasing the size of the carbonized nanofibers will be
emphasized to potentially replicate the extensive neurite outgrowth on the SU-8 nanofibers

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 11

(Figure 4A and Figure 5B–C). There may also be an opportunity to further explore the
Author Manuscript

method of toxicity at specific concentrations of PEI; it is possible that these nanofibers

slowly release PEI from within the interstices of the matrix, which may be utilized in
controlled molecule or drug release applications. Ultimately, the carbonized nanofibers are
most attractive as a microelectrode material and we have begun to analyze the electrical
properties of the material in microelectrode form [45, 60]. The facilitation of neural
outgrowth on microelectrodes consisting of carbonized nanofibers, with an optimized
surface treatment and nanofiber scale, could result in more effective neural signal detection
and generally improved microelectrodes. The neural outgrowth onto the microelectrodes
could be further accentuated by utilizing SU-8 thin film as an insulator; this design would
support neural outgrowth while encouraging more neural growth onto the nanofiber
microelectrodes.
Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 1132413) and the National
Institutes of Health (research grant NS 052233). The authors would also like to thank the Department of Biomedical
Engineering and the University of Florida for their continued support throughout the study. Additionally, the
authors would like to extend special thanks to Dr. Edward Keefer, Dr. Thomas DeMarse, Valentina Rapazzetti, and
Elizabeth Ankudowich for their valuable input and support during the design and implementation of this project.

References
1. Laxton AW, et al. A phase I trial of deep brain stimulation of memory circuits in Alzheimer’s
disease. Annals of neurology. 2010; 68(4):521–534. [PubMed: 20687206]
2. Deuschl G, et al. A randomized trial of deep-brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease. New
England Journal of Medicine. 2006; 355(9):896–908. [PubMed: 16943402]
3. Mayberg HS, et al. Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression. Neuron. 2005; 45(5):
651–660. [PubMed: 15748841]
Author Manuscript

4. Grill WM, et al. Implanted neural interfaces: biochallenges and engineered solutions. Annual
Review of Biomedical Engineering. 2009; 11:1–24.
5. Hubel DH, et al. Tungsten microelectrode for recording from single units. Science. 1957;
125(3247):549–550. [PubMed: 17793797]
6. Kozai TDY, Kipke DR. Insertion shuttle with carboxyl terminated self-assembled monolayer
coatings for implanting flexible polymer neural probes in the brain. Journal of neuroscience
methods. 2009; 184(2):199–205. [PubMed: 19666051]
7. Turner J, et al. Cerebral astrocyte response to micromachined silicon implants. Experimental
neurology. 1999; 156(1):33–49. [PubMed: 10192775]
8. Lacour SP, et al. Flexible and stretchable micro-electrodes for in vitro and in vivo neural interfaces.
Medical & biological engineering & computing. 2010; 48(10):945–954. [PubMed: 20535574]
9. Richardson-Burns SM, et al. Polymerization of the conducting polymer poly (3, 4-
ethylenedioxythiophene)(PEDOT) around living neural cells. Biomaterials. 2007; 28(8):1539–1552.
[PubMed: 17169420]
Author Manuscript

10. Winter JO, et al. Neurotrophin-eluting hydrogel coatings for neural stimulating electrodes. Journal
of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials. 2007; 81(2):551–563.
11. Yoon I, et al. Intracellular Neural Recording with Pure Carbon Nanotube Probes. PLOS ONE.
2013; 8(6):e65715. [PubMed: 23840357]
12. Cyster L, et al. The effect of surface chemistry and nanotopography of titanium nitride (TiN) films
on primary hippocampal neurones. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(1):97–107. [PubMed: 14580913]
13. Li S, et al. Aligned single-walled carbon nanotube patterns with nanoscale width, micron-scale
length and controllable pitch. Nanotechnology. 2007; 18:455302.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 12

14. Zhang X, et al. Guided neurite growth on patterned carbon nanotubes. Sensors and Actuators B:
Chemical. 2005; 106(2):843–850.
Author Manuscript

15. Dowell-Mesfin N, et al. Topographically modified surfaces affect orientation and growth of
hippocampal neurons. Journal of neural engineering. 2004; 1:78. [PubMed: 15876626]
16. Fan Y, et al. Culture of neural cells on silicon wafers with nano-scale surface topograph. Journal of
neuroscience methods. 2002; 120(1):17–23. [PubMed: 12351203]
17. Lelong IH, et al. Neuronal cells mature faster on polyethyleneimine coated plates than on
polylysine coated plates. Journal of neuroscience research. 1992; 32(4):562–568. [PubMed:
1527802]
18. Rajnicek AM, et al. The direction of neurite growth in a weak DC electric field depends on the
substratum: contributions of adhesivity and net surface charge. Developmental biology. 1998;
203(2):412–423. [PubMed: 9808790]
19. Johansson F, et al. Axonal outgrowth on nano-imprinted patterns. Biomaterials. 2006; 27(8):1251–
1258. [PubMed: 16143385]
20. Fan Y, et al. Adhesion of neural cells on silicon wafer with nano-topographic surface. Applied
surface science. 2002; 187(3):313–318.
Author Manuscript

21. Khan SP, et al. Influence of nanoscale surface roughness on neural cell attachment on silicon.
Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine. 2005; 1(2):125–129.
22. Malarkey EB, et al. Conductive single-walled carbon nanotube substrates modulate neuronal
growth. Nano letters. 2008; 9(1):264–268. [PubMed: 19143503]
23. Xie J, et al. Neurite outgrowth on nanofiber scaffolds with different orders, structures, and surface
properties. ACS nano. 2009; 3(5):1151–1159. [PubMed: 19397333]
24. Christopherson GT, et al. The influence of fiber diameter of electrospun substrates on neural stem
cell differentiation and proliferation. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(4):556–564. [PubMed: 18977025]
25. Mitra J, et al. Patterned growth and differentiation of neural cells on polymer derived carbon
substrates with micro/nano structures in vitro. Carbon. 2013; 65:140–155.
26. Jang MJ, et al. Directional neurite growth using carbon nanotube patterned substrates as a
biomimetic cue. Nanotechnology. 2010; 21:235102. [PubMed: 20463384]
27. Gabay T, et al. Electro-chemical and biological properties of carbon nanotube based multi-
electrode arrays. Nanotechnology. 2007; 18:035201. [PubMed: 19636111]
Author Manuscript

28. Keefer EW, et al. Carbon nanotube coating improves neuronal recordings. Nature nanotechnology.
2008; 3(7):434–439.
29. Gabriel G, et al. Single-walled carbon nanotubes deposited on surface electrodes to improve
interface impedance. Physiological measurement. 2008; 29:S203. [PubMed: 18544808]
30. Webster TJ, et al. Nano-biotechnology: carbon nanofibres as improved neural and orthopaedic
implants. Nanotechnology. 2004; 15(1):48.
31. Jan E, et al. Layered carbon nanotube-polyelectrolyte electrodes outperform traditional neural
interface materials. Nano letters. 2009; 9(12):4012–4018. [PubMed: 19785391]
32. Fabbro A, et al. Spinal Cord Explants Use Carbon Nanotube Interfaces to Enhance Neurite
Outgrowth and to Fortify Synaptic Inputs. ACS nano. 2012
33. Cellot G, et al. Carbon Nanotube Scaffolds Tune Synaptic Strength in Cultured Neural Circuits:
Novel Frontiers in Nanomaterial-Tissue Interactions. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2011; 31(36):
12945–12953. [PubMed: 21900573]
34. Lovat V, et al. Carbon nanotube substrates boost neuronal electrical signaling. Nano letters. 2005;
Author Manuscript

5(6):1107–1110. [PubMed: 15943451]

35. Mazzatenta A, et al. Interfacing neurons with carbon nanotubes: electrical signal transfer and
synaptic stimulation in cultured brain circuits. The Journal of neuroscience. 2007; 27(26):6931–
6936. [PubMed: 17596441]
36. Malarkey EB, et al. Water soluble single-walled carbon nanotubes inhibit stimulated endocytosis in
neurons. Nano letters. 2008; 8(10):3538–3542. [PubMed: 18759491]
37. McKenzie JL, et al. Decreased functions of astrocytes on carbon nanofiber materials. Biomaterials.
2004; 25(7):1309–1317. [PubMed: 14643605]

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 13

38. Fabbro A, et al. Adhesion to carbon nanotube conductive scaffolds forces action-potential
appearance in immature rat spinal neurons. PloS one. 2013; 8(8):e73621. [PubMed: 23951361]
Author Manuscript

39. Cellot G, et al. Carbon nanotubes might improve neuronal performance by favouring electrical
shortcuts. Nature nanotechnology. 2008; 4(2):126–133.
40. Fischer D, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity testing of polycations: influence of polymer structure on cell
viability and hemolysis. Biomaterials. 2003; 24(7):1121–1131. [PubMed: 12527253]
41. Lakard S, et al. Adhesion and proliferation of cells on new polymers modified biomaterials.
Bioelectrochemistry. 2004; 62(1):19–27. [PubMed: 14990322]
42. Pei R, et al. Assembly of alternating polycation and DNA multilayer films by electrostatic layer-
by-layer adsorption. Biomacromolecules. 2001; 2(2):463–468. [PubMed: 11749207]
43. Brunot C, et al. Cytotoxicity of polyethyleneimine (PEI), precursor base layer of polyelectrolyte
multilayer films. Biomaterials. 2007; 28(4):632–640. [PubMed: 17049374]
44. Jao PF, et al. Fabrication of an all SU-8 electrospun nanofiber based supercapacitor. Journal of
Micromechanics and Microengineering. 2013; 23(11):114011.
45. Jao PF, et al. Immersion lithographic patterning of electrospun nanofibers for carbon nanofibrous
microelectrode arrays. IEEE Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems. 2015; 24(3):703–715.
Author Manuscript

46. Necas D, Klapetek P, et al. Gwyddion: an open-source software for SPM data analysis. Central
European Journal of Physics. 2012; 10(1):181–188.
47. Schneider CA, et al. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012; 9(7):
671–675. [PubMed: 22930834]
48. Dehmelt L, et al. NeuriteQuant: An open source toolkit for high content screens of neuronal
Morphogenesis. BMC neuroscience. 2011; 12(1):100. [PubMed: 21989414]
49. Morimoto K, et al. Molecular weight-dependent gene transfection activity of unmodified and
galactosylated polyethyleneimine on hepatoma cells and mouse liver. Molecular Therapy. 2003;
7(2):254–261. [PubMed: 12597914]
50. Rajnicek A, et al. Contact guidance of CNS neurites on grooved quartz: influence of groove
dimensions, neuronal age and cell type. Journal of cell science. 1997; 110(23):2905–2913.
[PubMed: 9359873]
51. Sørensen A, et al. Long-term neurite orientation on astrocyte monolayers aligned by
microtopography. Biomaterials. 2007; 28(36):5498–5508. [PubMed: 17905429]
Author Manuscript

52. Nisbet D, et al. Interaction of embryonic cortical neurons on nanofibrous scaffolds for neural tissue
engineering. Journal of neural engineering. 2007; 4:35. [PubMed: 17409478]
53. Clark P, et al. Cell guidance by ultrafine topography in vitro. Journal of cell science. 1991; 99(1):
73–77. [PubMed: 1757503]
54. Bubert H, et al. Basic analytical investigation of plasma-chemically modified carbon fibers.
Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy. 2002; 57(10):1601–1610.
55. Walther F, et al. Surface hydrophilization of SU-8 by plasma and wet chemical processes. Surface
and Interface Analysis. 2010; 42(12–13):1735–1744.
56. Branch DW, et al. Long-term stability of grafted polyethylene glycol surfaces for use with
microstamped substrates in neuronal cell culture. Biomaterials. 2001; 22(10):1035–1047.
[PubMed: 11352085]
57. Georges PC, et al. Matrices with compliance comparable to that of brain tissue select neuronal over
glial growth in mixed cortical cultures. Biophysical journal. 2006; 90(8):3012–3018. [PubMed:
16461391]
Author Manuscript

58. Palchesko RN, et al. Development of polydimethylsiloxane substrates with tunable elastic modulus
to study cell mechanobiology in muscle and nerve. PLoS ONE. 2012; 7(12):e51499. [PubMed:
23240031]
59. Moore SW, Sheetz MP. Biophysics of substrate interaction: influence on neural motility,
differentiation, and repair. Dev Neurobiol. 2011; 71(11):1090–1101. [PubMed: 21739614]
60. Jao, PF., et al. Fabrication of carbon nanofibrous microelectrode array (CNF-MEA) using
nanofiber immersion photolithography; Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), 2014 IEEE
27th International Conference on; 2014. p. 498-501.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
SEM micrographs of nanomaterials. Variations in scale can be seen between (A) CNT-9, (B)
CNT-3, (C) carbonized nanofibers, and (D) SU-8 nanofibers (scale bar = 3 µm). Insets of
(C–D) are patterned carbonized and SU-8 nanofibers, respectively (scale bar = 200 µm). All
nanofiber and thin film samples are patterned similarly.
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Nanofibers and thin films treated with 0.1 % PEI have a significantly higher positively
charged zeta potential values. The measured zeta potentials for varying surface treatments
on SU-8 nanofibers, thin films, and silicon controls. In the plasma and 0.1 % PEI groups, all
surfaces tested were significantly different from each other (*p < 0.001). All surfaces were
treated with O2 plasma prior to any PEI treatment.
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
The concentration of PEI directly affects the viability of neurons on- and off-pattern across
substrates. The cell viabilities for CNT-3 and CNT-9 are comparable to their respective
controls. The on-pattern and off-pattern cell viabilities of the CNF, NF, CTF, and TF groups
depend greatly on the concentration of the PEI treatment (n = 4; *p < 0.01, †p < 0.05).
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
Neurite outgrowth on 0.001 % PEI-treated substrates varies depending on substrate
topography. Contrasting neural outgrowth can be observed between (A) SU-8 nanofibers
(NF), (B) SU-8 thin film (TF), (C) carbonized nanofibers (CNF), and (D) carbon thin film
(CTF). Silicon (Si) control areas are indicated next to the nanofiber and thin film patterns.
No significant differences were detected in neural cells per unit area on- and off-pattern
across all substrates. The neurite coverage on the (A) SU-8 nanofibers is significantly higher
than off-pattern controls and most other substrates
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 18
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 5.
Author Manuscript

Neurite outgrowth is significantly higher on SU-8 nanofibers with and without PEI
treatment (*p < 0.05). (A) There was no significance detected for the number of cell bodies
per mm2. (B) The percentage of cell coverage shows significantly higher outgrowth on SU-8
nanofibers. (C) The total length of neurites per unit area shows that the neurite outgrowth on
SU-8 nanofibers was significantly higher than off-pattern controls; additionally, there was
significantly less neurite length per area on PEI-treated SU-8 thin films.

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 19
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 6.
Adhesion was significantly higher on all nanofiber substrates in comparison to paired
controls regardless of surface treatment (*p < 0.005). The CNT groups were statistically
similar to their 0.1 % PEI controls.
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.
 Franca et al. Page 20

TABLE I

Average Roughness and Feature Width for Each Substrate

Author Manuscript

Sample Average Average Feature Width

Roughness (nm) (nm)

Carbon Nanotubes (3) 12.4 ± 1.12 34.2 ± 4.15

Carbon Nanotubes (9) 16.9 ± 1.89 34.0 ± 4.25
Carbonized Nanofibers 164 ± 19.6 286 ± 58.0
SU-8 Nanofibers 83.7 ± 11.7 781 ± 187
Carbon Thin Film 0.27 ± 0.02 N/A
SU-8 Thin Film 0.72 ± 0.07 N/A

Average Neurite† N/A 850 ± 101

*
Carbon Nanotubes (3) and (9) refer to carbon nanotube samples with 3 and 9 bilayers, respectively.
Author Manuscript

†
For a biological size reference, the average width of a cortical neurite was measured with fluorescence images in ImageJ.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

IEEE Trans Nanobioscience. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 January 25.