Methods : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (2)
The reduction of Alamar blue was measured at 560 nm (reference wavelength 610 nm) after 5-h incubation at 37 °C using a microplate reader (Infinite 200, Tecan).
Generation of BMP2 expressing C2C12 cells
C2C12 cells were electroporated together with 0.4 μg of a BMP-2 expression vector (a kind gift from Dr. Katagiri) and 0.1 μg of pCMV-Tag, which expresses a neomycin-resistance gene. Culture medium was supplemented with 300 μg/ml of G418 (Fisher, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for 9 days. Clones were picked, amplified, and screened by alkaline phosphatase (ALPL; a downstream target for BMP-2 signaling) staining.
Zymography and Western blotting
Protein samples from the transfected cells were prepared in 1× SDS gel-loading buffer (Laemmli buffer) without adding β-mercaptoethanol and quantified using the Pierce™ Coomassie Plus Assay kit (Thermo Scientific, Rockford, IL, USA). Without heat denaturation, equal amount of protein samples (50 μg) were loaded on a 10% SDS-polyacrylamide gel. After electrophoresis, the gel was incubated in NBT/BCIP (Roche, Mannheim, Germany) staining solution until the bands corresponding to ALPL were clearly visible. Same protein extracts upon heat denaturation in the presence of β-mercaptoethanol were used for Western blotting. The primary antibody used for the analysis was anti-actin (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA). An anti-actin antibody raised in rabbit anti-actin (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA). The secondary antibody was anti-rabbit HRP-IgG (Cell Signaling Technology, Beverly, MA, USA).
Cell proliferation
Nuclear staining was done by H33258 (Sigma-Aldrich, Saint Louis, MO, USA). After washing in PBS, cells grown on the implants were imaged using an inverted fluorescent microscope (EVOS FL, Thermo Fisher Scientific) and cell nuclei were counted.
Serial posts:
- In vitro comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments
- Background : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments
- Methods : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (1)
- Results : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments
- Methods : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (2)
- Methods : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (3)
- Discussion : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (1)
- Discussion : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (2)
- Discussion : Comparison of two titanium dental implant surface treatments (3)
- Figure 1. Preparation of specimens
- Figure 2. Implant surface characterization under SEM
- Figure 3. Increased proliferation of C2C12 cells grown
- Figure 4. a C2C12 cells (control) and pBMP-2-transfected C2C12 cells
- Figure 5. Florescence microscopy