ELECTROCHEMICALLY ENGINEERED SURFACE OF HYDROGELS, PARTICULARLY PEG HYDROGELS, FOR ENHANCED CELLULAR PENETRATION

Abstract

The invention relates to a polymer structure (1) formed by at least a polymer, wherein said structure (1) comprises a volume (2) and a surface (3), wherein said polymer comprises a plurality of polymer chains connected by linkings, characterized by a linking density, wherein said linking density increases, particularly monotonously, from the surface (3) into the volume (2) of the polymer structure (1).

Claims

1. A method for embedding cells into a polymer structure, the method comprising the steps of: providing a polymer structure formed by at least one polymer, wherein said polymer structure comprises a volume and a surface, wherein said polymer comprises a plurality of polymer chains connected by linkings, wherein the polymer structure is characterized by a linking density, wherein said linking density increases monotonously from the surface into the volume of the polymer structure, wherein the linking density is minimal at the surface and reaches a maximum in the volume, thereby forming a linking density gradient, and seeding cells or cell aggregates comprising said cells on said surface of said polymer structure, such that the cells migrate into the volume of the polymer structure along said linking density gradient to become embedded within the volume.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the linking density is zero at the surface.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the linking density reaches said maximum at a distance from the surface ranging between 1 m and 1000 m.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said linking density of the polymer structure increases monotonously along a gradient direction which is perpendicular to the surface.

5. The method according to claim 4, wherein said linking density of the polymer structure is uniform along the entire surface of the polymer structure.

6. The method according to claim 1, wherein said surface of the polymer structure extends along a horizontal direction.

7. The method according to claim 1, wherein said cells are seeded on said surface of the polymer structure at a plurality of positions, which positions form a two-dimensional array on said surface.

8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer is a natural polymer, particularly one of the following polymers: fibrin, alginate, chitosan, hyaluronic acid, chondroitin sulfate, heparin; or a synthetic polymer, particularly one of the following polymers: polyethylene glycol (PEG), polyactic acid, SU-8; or any polymer consisting ofor includinga combination of monomers, e.g. of dopamine, amine-containing groups such as lysine, cathecols, phosphate containing groups, thiol containing groups, alcohol containing groups, active esters and any dendrimer containing any of said groups.

9. The method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer structure is a composite polymer structure comprising a plurality of different polymers, wherein each polymer comprises a linking density gradient, wherein the linking density gradients span over different directions and/or different distances.

10. The method according to claim 1, wherein the polymer structure or volume comprises one of the following shapes: spherical, semi-spherical, cylindrical, ellipsoidal, pyramidal, cubical, cuboidal, and prismatoidal.

11. The method according to claim 1, wherein said polymer structure is hydrogel.

12. The method according to claim 1, wherein said surface of the polymer structure comprises a recess, wherein said cells are provided in said recess to seed the cells on said surface, such that the cells migrate into the volume of the polymer structure along said linking density gradient to become embedded within the volume.

13. The method according to claim 12, wherein said cells or cell aggregates are provided in said recess to seed the cells on the surface, such that the cells migrate into the volume of the polymer structure along said linking density gradient to become embedded within the volume

14. The method according to claim 1, wherein said polymer structure comprises a channel crossing the polymer structure, wherein said surface of the polymer structure forms an interface between a lumen of said channel and the volume of the polymer structure.

15. The method according to claim 1, wherein a container is provided, and wherein said polymer structure is provided in said container.

16. The method according to claim 15, wherein said polymer structure is formed in said container such that the surface of the polymer structure is not in contact with the container.

17. The method according to claim 15, wherein the container comprises a bottom wall, at least one side wall adjacent to said bottom wall, and an opening opposite said bottom wall, wherein the bottom wall and the at least one side wall delimit a chamber, in which the volume of the polymer structure is formed, wherein the cells are seeded on the surface of the polymer structure through the opening.

18. The method according to claim 17, wherein the surface of the polymer structure is extended parallel to said bottom wall and perpendicular to said at least one side wall.

19. The method according to claim 15, wherein said container comprises a plurality of wells, wherein a polymer structure formed by at least one polymer is provided in each well, wherein each of said polymer structures comprises a respective volume and a respective surface, wherein said polymer comprises a plurality of polymer chains connected by linkings, wherein each of the polymer structures is characterized by a linking density, wherein said linking density increases monotonously from the respective surface into the respective volume of the polymer structure, wherein the respective linking density is minimal at the respective surface and reaches a maximum in the respective volume, thereby forming a respective linking density gradient, wherein cells are seeded on each surface of each polymer structure, such that the cells migrate into the volume of the polymer structure along said respective linking density gradient to become embedded within the respective volume.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0070] In the following further features, embodiments and examples of the present invention will be described with reference to the Figures. Wherein

[0071] FIG. 1 schematically shows a representation of the experimental setup: approximately 50 L PDMS chambers of a device according to the invention, accommodating the counter electrode (second electrode) in which the hydrogel precursors were poured; and on which a flat working electrode (first electrode) was placed during polymerization;

[0072] FIG. 2 shows a schematic representation of the hydrogel boundaries production: controls are left to be polymerized conventionally (Air-hydrogel), or covered with an anode to which no current, a low (0.1 A/mm.sup.2) or high current density (1 A/mm.sup.2) was imposed during polymerization;

[0073] FIG. 3 shows fluorescence intensity profiles of FITC-tagged hydrogel boundaries prepared in air or covered with an electrode without current or with current densities varying from 0.1 to 1 A/mm.sup.2; and

[0074] FIG. 4 shows corresponding representative confocal fluorescence images of FITC-tagged hydrogels boundaries;

[0075] FIG. 5 shows mechanical characterization of the hydrogel boundary. Force-displacement measurements acquired by colloidal force spectroscopy of Air-, No current-, 0.1 A/mm.sup.2- and 1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel surfaces;

[0076] FIGS. 6A-6H show cell infiltration in the engineered hydrogel surface 1 day (FIGS. 6A, 6C, 6E and 6G) and 3 days (FIGS. 6B, 6D, 6F and 6H) after cell seeding on top of the engineered surfaces. Hydrogel surfaces were produced in absence of electrodes (FIGS. 6A and 6B), or covered with an anode, without imposing any current (FIGS. 6C and 6D) or applying 0.1 A/mm.sup.2 (FIGS. 6E and 6F) and 1 A/mm.sup.2 (FIGS. 6G and 6H);

[0077] FIGS. 7A-7D show cell infiltration that was quantified 1 day and 3 days after seeding, by analyzing the fraction of cells at different depth in the hydrogel (FIGS. 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D). Averages and standard deviations (n=3) are presented;

[0078] FIG. 8 shows engineering of a hydrogel-hydrogel interface. To emulate additive manufacturing, a gel containing cells was poured on top of hydrogels with engineered surfaces: air (left) and 1 A/mm.sup.2 (right);

[0079] FIG. 9 shows cell infiltration from the top gel in the bottom hydrogel that was quantified at day 3, by analyzing the fraction of cells at different depth in the bottom hydrogel;

[0080] FIGS. 10A-10B show 3D reconstructions of stacks (1005 m stacks) acquired by LSCM of the constructs containing a bottom hydrogel with an engineered surface (102) (green), a second gel (101) (red) containing cells (100) (white); in FIG. 10A the surface of the bottom hydrogel was not engineered, while in FIG. 10B 1 A/mm.sup.2 was applied during polymerization;

[0081] FIGS. 11A-11D show disruption of the hydrogel when removal of the metal electrode when no current was applied. Schematic representation and photograph of the experimental phenomenon: electrode is placed on top of the chamber during polymerization and evaluation of gel disruption upon electrode removal: when no current was applied disrupted hydrogel stayed on the electrode (FIG. 11A), while no hydrogel was left when anodic currents were applied to the electrode (FIG. 11B). When electrodes were coated with PLL-g-PEG, gel adhesion to the surface could be prevented (FIG. 11C), which was not the case when using Teflon surfaces (FIG. 11D).

[0082] FIGS. 12A-12B show microbeads on 1 A/mm.sup.2 hydrogel surface. 3 m and 20 m diameter fluorescent beads (Fluoresbrite Plain YG, Polyscience Inc.) were poured on the hydrogel surface and left to sediment for 1 hour, and their distribution was monitored by acquiring 150 m thick Z-stacks of the hydrogel surface using a SP5 confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Germany);

[0083] FIG. 13 shows a mechanical characterization of the hydrogel cross-section, particularly a schematic representation of the experimental setup: Hydrogels prepared as described previously were cut perpendicularly to the surface and flipped (cut showing upwards). 50 m beads (200) were poured on the sections and used to probe the mechanical properties of the hydrogel at different positions;

[0084] FIGS. 14A-14B and 15A-15B show representative force-displacement curves acquired on the bulk hydrogel (at least 500 m from the surface) confirm that Air-hydrogel and 0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel have similar bulk mechanical properties (FIG. 14A). By comparing bulk and surface force-displacement curves, it was confirmed that the No current-hydrogel has homogenous mechanical properties (FIG. 15A), while the Air-hydrogel has a stiffer surface compared to the bulk (FIG. 14B), and the 0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel a softer surface compared to the bulk (FIG. 15B);

[0085] FIG. 16 shows cell migration within the hydrogel. MSCs were embedded in TG-PEG hydrogels (final concentration: 0.5106 ml-1). For migration assays, three random positions were selected using an inverted microscope (Leica DM16000 B) equipped with a motorized focus and stage and images were acquired every 20 min for 24 hours. Cell migration was followed for 24 hours using the manual tracking plugin in ImageJ. 30 tracked cells had an average migration of 22644 m in 24 h.

[0086] FIGS. 17A-H show cells seeded on softer hydrogels. Human derived bone marrow MSCs were seeded on PEG gels prepared conventionally (in absence of electrode during polymerization) with lower PEG densities (respectively 0.8%, 1.1%, 1.4% and 1.7%). FIGS. 17A, 17C, 17E and 17G are 3D reconstructions of 250 m thick stacks (consisting of 50 images acquired every 5 m, unless for the 1.7% condition for which 125 images every 2 m) acquired by LSCM, 3 days after seeding: cells formed a 2D sheet on the gel regardless of the stiffness. Cell morphology (top view, right column) show that cells respond to the gel stiffness by spreading more on stiffer gels, as shown in previous studies [20];

[0087] FIG. 18 shows a device according to the invention comprising several chambers for receiving the polymer structure/hydrogel according to the invention; and

[0088] FIG. 19-26 shows embodiments (possible geometries) of polymer structures according to the invention having e.g. recesses, channels (e.g. microchannels etc. as well as embodiments of polymer structures having the shape of e.g. a sphere etc.; and

[0089] FIG. 27 shows another embodiment of the device according to the invention allowing for generating a channel in the polymer structure/hydrogel according to the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND EXAMPLES

[0090] The present invention describes how to electrochemically modulate a PEG hydrogel surface 3 to form density gradients increasing towards the bulk (volume) 2. Previously, the possibility to locally inhibit the enzymatic crosslinking reaction of PEG hydrogels in the vicinity of electrodes by exploiting the acidic gradient at the anode-liquid interface generated upon electrolysis of water has been shown[7].

[0091] By placing an anodized electrode 21 at the surface 3 of the PEG precursor solution during polymerization, one can produce hydrogels 1 with surface density gradients. First, a confocal laser scanning microscopy was used to qualitatively describe the density gradients. Then, the mechanical properties of the hydrogel surfaces have been characterized by colloidal probe force spectroscopy. Finally, the enhanced penetration of human derived bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from the electrochemically modulated hydrogel surface into the bulk using confocal laser scanning microscopy was shown.

[0092] To perform all the experiments described here, devices 50 comprising a special polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) mould (container) 40 accommodating a platinum counter electrode (second electrode) 22 and in which the PEG precursor solution was casted were designed (cf. FIG. 1). The container 40 comprises a circumferential wall 41 surrounding a chamber 43 which is delimited by a bottom 42.

[0093] The PEG monomers used here contained peptidic substrates previously described, which make possible the crosslinking of PEG via transglutamination (hence referred to as TG-PEG) [8]. The chamber 43 of the container 40 was covered with a flat gold electrode (first electrode) 21 during polymerization (cf. FIG. 1), which was anodized with different current densities to locally inhibit the enzymatic polymerization of TG-PEG (samples referred to as 0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel and 1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel). As a first control, the gel 1 was prepared in absence of the electrode 21, as conventionally done (from here referred to as Air-hydrogel). In order to account for the possible water evaporation at the surface of the gel, the gel precursors were covered with a gold surface without imposing any electric current during polymerization (from here referred to as No current-hydrogel, see FIG. 2). Because of the strong adhesion of the PEG hydrogel to gold and Teflon, the removal of any of these surfaces after polymerization resulted in the disruption of the gel (see FIGS. 11A and 11D). The gold surface (e.g. surface of the first electrode 21) was coated with a layer of PLL-g-PEG to drastically reduce the adhesion to PEG hydrogels 1 (see FIG. 11C). The adhesion was inhibited because the PEG chains extending from the gold surface did not contain the peptidic crosslinking substrate and therefore acted as an inert film. Coating the anode surface was not needed because the inhibited polymerization in its proximity is sufficient to eliminate the adhesion problem, as previously shown (FIG. 11B and [7]).

[0094] To characterize the electrochemically engineered hydrogel surfaces 3, FITC-tagged Lys substrates (Lys-FITC) were admixed to TG-PEG hydrogel precursors. Since the fluorescent dye is covalently incorporated into the TG-PEG matrix by the same crosslinking reactions, the fluorescence signal is indicative of the crosslinking density [9]. Sections cut perpendicularly to the hydrogel surface 3 were inspected by confocal fluorescence microscopy. The surface boundaries produced in presence of anodic currents showed a gradient of intensity. In particular, the distance from the surface at which the fluorescence intensity reached a plateau increased from 250 m (0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel) to 500 m (1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel) (see FIGS. 3 and 4). These observations correlate with a previous study describing that gel polymerization is inhibited at the anode-liquid interface in a current dependent manner, due to the longer acidic gradient produced with increasing anodic currents [7]. The No current-hydrogel was characterized by a homogeneous signal intensity throughout the gel thickness, while the Air-hydrogel had a peak of fluorescence in the first 50 m close to the surface. The interfacial increase of crosslinking density was presumably due to water evaporation during polymerization and consequent local increase of monomer concentration.

[0095] Because fluorescence measurements only provide good insights in changes of crosslinking within one sample; a colloidal probe force spectroscopy was used to compare the stiffness of the different hydrogel surfaces (see FIG. 5). To perform these measurements 50 m beads 200 were dispersed on the surface of the hydrogels 1 and it was controlled that the beads remained on the surface and did not sink into the gel (see FIG. 12). Using a FluidFM tipless cantilever, which is an AFM cantilever featuring an in-built microfluidic channel, a desired bead was approached, and after having applied a negative pressure to fix the bead to the tip of the cantilever, it was pressed into the gel 1. This method enables the acquisition of each force-distance curve with a fresh colloid, thus avoiding history effects coming from the probe [10]. FIG. 5 shows force-distance curves acquired by probing the upper surface of the hydrogels by pressing the bead into the gel. The Air-hydrogel presented the stiffest surface: the maximal measurable force (0.8 N) was reached at a penetration of approximately 3.5 m only. The No current-hydrogel presented a softer surface compared to the Air-hydrogel, reaching 0.8 N with a penetration between 15 and 17 m. This observation is in accordance with the fluorescence microscopy inspection, revealing the presence of a shell of higher crosslinking density in the Air-hydrogel. The surfaces of the hydrogels prepared electrochemically were considerably softer. In particular, the force-distance curves of the 0.1 A/mm2-hydrogel reached between 0.05 and 0.13 N at the maximal piezo displacement (50 m) and for the 1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel forces always below 0.05 N at 50 m were measured. The softness of the gel surface appeared to increase with increasing currents.

[0096] To get insights on how the surface (3) stiffness related to the bulk (2) stiffness, we sectioned the gels 1 perpendicularly to the surface 3 and probed the sections as close as possible to the surface and at least 500 m away from it (bulk), (see FIG. 13). The stiffness measured on the sections was systematically lower than the stiffness observed in FIG. 5 most likely because the probed surface was in direct contact with the cutting blade, which introduced cracks and other artifacts. Nevertheless, the equal preparation of the sections allowed confirming a few important observations. Comparable force-distance curves for the bulk of the 0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel and Air-hydrogel were measured, indicating that the electrochemical surface modification did not affect the bulk properties of the matrix (FIG. 14A). Additionally, this experiment confirmed that the No current-hydrogel was homogenous in stiffness (FIG. 15A), that the Air-hydrogel showed a stiffer surface than the bulk (FIG. 14B) and that the 0.1 A/mm.sup.2-hydrogel had a softer surface than the bulk (FIG. 15B).

[0097] After the characterization of the hydrogel surfaces, the ability of cells 100 seeded onto them to penetrate into the hydrogel bulk 2 were assessed. In particular, human derived bone marrow MSCs were seeded on top of the engineered gel surfaces and the cell distribution within the first 150 m of the hydrogel was assessed after 1 and 3 days in culture using confocal laser scanning microscopy (see FIGS. 6 and 7). The gel formulation chosen for this study was previously shown to support migration of embedded cells [11] and this was confirmed for the culture conditions used here (see FIG. 16). Cells seeded on both Air- and No current-hydrogels grew in 2D forming a monolayer and thus were almost exclusively located in the first 50 m after 1 and 3 days (see FIGS. 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D and FIGS. 7A and 7B. When placed on the electrochemically engineered hydrogel surfaces, cells could penetrate into the gel. Furthermore, the penetration depth increased with increasing current density. In particular, cells could penetrate more than 150 m into the gels prepared with the highest current density after 1 day already (FIG. 6G and FIG. 7D). The cell distribution after 3 days was quite homogenous within the first 150 m from the gel surface (see FIG. 6H and FIG. 7D).

[0098] These results show that a crosslinking density gradient increasing from the surface 3 to the bulk 2 of the hydrogel 1 enhanced cell penetration of cells seeded on the surfaces. Homogeneously reducing the stiffness of the gels was not sufficient to enhance cell penetration. In fact, even softer gels that were produced (0.8% PEG), did not allow for cell penetration from the surface into the bulk of the hydrogel after 3 days (FIG. 17). Cells are known to move along density gradients from soft to stiff regions, by a phenomenon referred as durotaxis [12], also in 3D hydrogels [13]. Anseth and colleagues produced PEG-hydrogels with soft and stiff regions with a sharp interface. Interestingly, while cells were motile regardless of the stiffness of the hydrogels, cells were not able to migrate from the soft to the stiff region and would instead migrate backwards or align along the interface [14]. It indicates that a gradualand not sharpincrease of stiffness favor durotaxis.

[0099] Hydrogel permeability to cells or tissue is an important challenge in the development of functional scaffolds for tissue engineering and other strategies have been explored. For instance, Wylie et al. observed that on similar RGD-functionalized synthetic hydrogels neural precursor cell infiltration was very limited, not exceeding 20 m after 14 days. The authors enhanced cell penetration up to 85 m after 2 weeks by creating a gradient of SHH (Sonic HedgeHog) spanning from the surface into the bulk of the hydrogel using photopatterning. This approach is very elegant, however it requires longer manufacturing times [3]. The use of different cells, culture conditions and matrices do not allow for a direct comparison of the results. A number of researchers pursued other ways to overcome the infiltration problems and developed scaffold fabrication strategies for improving cellular or tissue infiltration by creating macro-pores in the hydrogels (reviewed in [15]). While macro-pores inclusion has been shown to effectively improve cell or tissue infiltration in a variety of both natural hydrogels, i.e. collagen [6a], gelatin [6b], and synthetic hydrogels, i.e. Poly(ethylene Glycol) (PEG) [5, 6c], all these techniques nevertheless alter the bulk properties of the constructs and provide little or no spatial control over fabricated microarchitecture [16].

[0100] Post-processing cell seeding is not the only occurrence during hydrogel boundaries can present a barrier. Constructs produced by additive manufacturing feature interfaces between individually added elements. While it was shown repeatedly that cell and matrix components could be precisely deposited forming heterogeneously organized and viable constructs resembling native tissues [17], the interface between the assembled elements was so far mostly overlooked and the question how cells sense and respond to this interface remains elusive. Bordeleau et al. are among the few addressing this issue; the authors sequentially polymerized cell containing collagen gels varying in density on top of each other, and showed that cells do not migrate from a soft gel to a stiffer one, and could only migrate from a stiff gel to a softer one in very rare occurrences [18]. This observation indicates that also for additive manufacturing, the gel boundary represents a barrier to cells invasion, potentially leading to the compartmentalization of individually added elements. The approach described in this work could also be beneficial for such applications.

[0101] To investigate the interface between two gels, an Air-hydrogel and a 1 A/mm2-hydrogel was produced. on top of which a second Alexa 561-labelled gel containing MSCs was polymerized (see FIG. 8). After 3 days of culture, cells could not cross the interface of the Air-hydrogel, while cells invaded the electrochemically engineered gel (see FIG. 9 and FIG. 10A). Researchers have shown that additive manufacturing is very promising and how critical the interface between added elements can be. Here, a strategy is proposed to engineer such interfaces to reduce cell compartmentalization.

[0102] In conclusion, by electrochemically controlling the enzymatic crosslinking of the hydrogel surface density gradients can be produced that enhance cell permeability in the hydrogel bulk. Electrochemically generated surface gradients hold great promise for enabling topical cell seeding on processed hydrogels and cell migration through the interface of adjacent hydrogels additively manufactured.

Further Examples

[0103] Preparation of the PDMS frames (container of the device according to the invention). Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) frames were made as follows: the silicon elastomer and the curing agent (Sylgard 184, Dow Corning Corporation, USA) were mixed (10:1 in mass) at 2000 rpm for 3 min in a ARE-250 mixer (Thinky Corporation, Japan). The mixture was subsequently poured into poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) molds, where a 500 m in diameter stainless steel wire was positioned to create the holes for the future counter electrode. The mixture was subsequently degassed for 30 min in a vacuum chamber and baked for 4 h at 60 C. Stainless steel wire and PDMS forms were removed from the PMMA molds rinsed with isopropanol (IPA) and MilliQ water.

[0104] Preparation of TG-PEG Hydrogels: Metalloprotease (MMP)-sensitive TG-PEG hydrogels were prepared as described previously [19]. In brief, eight-arm PEG precursors containing the pending factor XIIIa substrate peptides glutamine acceptor (n-PEG-Gln) or lysine donor with an additional MMP-sensitive linker (n-PEG-MMPsensitive-Lys) were mixed stoichiometrically (final dry mass content 1.7%) in Tris-Buffer (TBS, 50 mM, pH 7.6) containing 50 mM calcium chloride. Lys-FITC, Gln-Alexa 561, Gln-RGD or combinations were added to the precursor solution prior to initiation of cross-linking by 10 U/mL thrombin-activated FXIIIa and vigorous mixing.

[0105] Electrochemical control of TG-PEG polymerization. The precursors mixture was immediately poured in the PDMS frame accommodating a platinum wire (0.5 mm in diameter, Alfa Aesar,

[0106] Ward Hill, USA) used as auxiliary electrode. Cobalt-chromium disks (15 mm in diameter and 0.8 mm in thickness) evaporated 10 nm chromium and 200 nm gold were used as working electrode to be placed on top of the PDMS chamber. The polymerization of the TG-PEG was allowed to progress during 8 minutes in presence of a DC current applied in galvanostatic mode. The current density was 100 nA/mm.sup.2 or 1 A/mm.sup.2.

[0107] Cell culture: Human bone marrow MSCs were cultured in minimal essential medium alpha (MEMalpha, Gibco Life Technologies, cat. no. 22571-020) supplemented with 10% (v/v) fetal calf serum (FCS, Gibco Life Technologies, cat. no. 10500), 1% (v/v) penicillin/streptomycin solution (Gibco Life Technologies, cat. no. 15140-122), 5 ng/mL FGF-2 (Peprotech, cat. no. 100-18B) and 50 nM PDGF (Peprotech, cat. no. 100-14B).

[0108] Gel penetration: MSCs were seeded onto hydrogel surfaces and kept in culture for 1 or 3 days. At each time point, cells were fixed with samples were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, rinsed three times and kept in PBS until staining.

[0109] Penetration across the gel-gel interface: Cells suspensions were diluted in the respective medium and added to the complete TG-PEG solution (containing Gln-Alexa 561). Cell containing gels were poured on top of hydrogels produced with an engineered surface and the assembled construct was placed in culture for 1 or 3 days. At each time point, cells were fixed with samples were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde, rinsed three times and kept in PBS until staining.

[0110] Confocal laser scanning microscopy of cells in hydrogels: Permeabilization was performed for 30 min at room temperature with 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS followed by 2 washing steps with PBS. For f-actin staining, samples were incubated over night at 4 C. with Alexa 633-labeled phalloidin (Molecular Probes, cat. no. A22284). Afterwards, samples were washed 3 times with PBS before analysis with either confocal laser scanning microscopy. The TG-PEG hydrogels and cells were imaged using a SP5 confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Germany). At least 3 samples per condition were analyzed and 3 regions per sample were acquired.

[0111] Infiltration quantification: Stacks (1252 m) acquired by LSCM were reconstructed in 3D, and a side projection was performed. The FITC channel was used to determine the gel surface and the alexa-633 channel was used to determine the position of cells in the gel cross-section. A threshold was applied to the alexa-633 channel images, which were subsequently cleaned (noise removal) and segmented into regions of 25 m thick starting from the gel surface. The amount of positive pixels was quantified in each region as a representation of the cell number. The ratio of cells in each section was calculated as a percentage of the overall amount of cells in the sample. The values represent mean values standard deviation of at least 3 scaffolds per time point, in which at least 3 regions were analyzed.

[0112] The devices according to the invention used for receiving the polymer structure/hydrogel to be produced can take various forms and shapes.

[0113] According to FIG. 18, a container 40 of such a device may comprise a plurality of chambers 43 of e.g. identical shape for a massive parallelization of experiments. The chambers 43 may be separated by wells 44. Here, the free (upper) surface 3 of the polymer structure 1 generated in the individual chambers 43 as described above may exhibit the linking density gradient so that a soft surface 3 is generated while the stiffness of the structure 1 (and the linking density gradient) increases towards the bulk/volume 2 of the structure 1.

[0114] According to FIGS. 19 to 26, the polymer structure contained in the container may exhibits one or several recesses (pits, wells etc.)

[0115] FIG. 19 shows an arrangement of a polymer structure in the form of a (polymer-) hydrogel membrane 10 featuring permeable and/or impermeable compartments A, B (wherein the membrane 10 separates said compartments A, B) for directional migration of cells 100 (103) from one surface 3 (3a) to another surface 3a (3). Thickness h can be in the range of 100 m to several centimetres. The length L and width can be in the range between 100 m and several centimetres. The length and width of the impermeable region s and of the permeable region d can be the same or different and can be in the range of 1 m to several centimetres.

[0116] FIG. 20 shows a recess 30 in the form of a channel (e.g. microchannel) 30 created through a hydrogel 1 with a portion of the inner surface 3 of the polymer structure 1 in contact with the lumen 31 featuring a (linking density) gradient (i.e. said surface 3 forms an interface between lumen 31 and polymer structure 1). Cells 100 perfused through said channel 30 will invade the hydrogel bulk 2 from this region only. The diameter of the microchannel 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several centimetres. The most interesting range is 10 m to 1000 m. The length L of the channel 30 can be in the range of 100 m to several centimetres.

[0117] FIG. 21 shows recesses 30 in form of wells (e.g. rectangular wells), particularly microwells, crypts or invaginations in a hydrogel 1 used to dispense cells 100 or cell aggregates 100. Cells 100 can invade the bulk 2 of the hydrogel 1 only from the crypts or wells 30 featuring the density gradient at the surface 3 (forming e.g. the bottom of the respective well 30), wherein the linking density is minimal or zero at the surface 3 and increase towards its maximum the bulk/volume 2. The well 30 can be of any shape (cubical, cuboidal, pyramidal, cylindrical, semi-spherical, ellipsoidal and prismatoidal), represented here is cuboidal (i.e. rectangular cross section). The depth d, width w and length of the well 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The separation between the wells 30 s can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The thickness H, length L and width of the hydrogel (polymer structure) 1 can be in the range of 100 m to several centimetres.

[0118] FIG. 22 shows a polymer structure (e.g. hydrogel) 1 comprising recesses 30 in the form of wells (e.g. microwells), crypts or invaginations in the hydrogel 1 used to dispense cells 100 or cell aggregates 100. Cells 100 can invade the bulk 2 of the hydrogel 1 only from the crypts or wells 30 featuring the density gradient at the surface 3 delimiting the respective recess (well) 30. Again, the well 30 can be of any shape (cubical, cuboidal, pyramidal, cylindrical, semi-spherical, ellipsoidal and prismatoidal), represented here is pyramidal. The depth d, width w and length of the well 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The separation s between the wells 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The thickness H, length L and width of the hydrogel 1 can be in the range of 100 m to several centimetres. The angle of the pyramidal well can vary between 10 and 180.

[0119] FIG. 23 shows recesses (e.g. microwells) 30, crypts or invaginations in a hydrogel 1 used to dispense cells 100 or cell aggregates 100. Cells 100 can invade the bulk 2 of the hydrogel 1 only from the crypts or wells 30 featuring the (linking density) gradient at the surface 3 delimiting the well 30. Again, the well 30 can be of any shape (cubical, cuboidal, pyramidal, cylindrical, semi-spherical, ellipsoidal and prismatoidal), represented here is semi-spherical or ellipsoidal shape. The depth d and radius r of the well 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The separation s between the wells 30 can be in the range of 10 m to several millimetres. The thickness H, length L and width of the hydrogel (polymer structure) 1 can be in the range of 100 m to several centimetres.

[0120] FIG. 24 shows a polymer structure 1 in the form of a hydrogel coating (thickness d may vary from 10 m to several millimetres) of a body (e.g. an implant or a device of any shape and size) featuring a density gradient at the surface 3 to promote 3D cell infiltration of cells 100 in the coating and/or avoid cell spreading in 2D on the surface 3. 2D cell spreading on the surface 3 of a body 5 is among the first steps of the foreign body response and thus this coating could prevent foreign body response.

[0121] FIG. 25 shows another polymer structure 10 in the form of a hydrogel membrane (thickness d may vary from 10 m to several millimetres) separating two liquid compartments L1, L2 and allowing directional cell invasion of cells 100 in the membrane 10 from one or both compartments L1, L2.

[0122] FIG. 26 shows polymer structures 1 (hydrogel bodies) of any shape (spherical, semi-spherical, cylindrical, ellipsoidal, pyramidal, cubical, cuboidal and prismatoidal), here represented spherical, cubical, pyramidal and cylindrical, featuring a density gradient increasing towards the center of the respective body 1 and having this gradient being present on one or more faces (surfaces) of the respective body 1. These bodies 1 can e.g. be implanted as implants in animals and promote cell infiltration inside the implant's bulk.

[0123] Particularly in the embodiments shown in FIGS. 20 to 23 the working electrode (e.g. first or second electrode) for generating the respective linking density gradient will be incorporated in a metal head of the shape of respective the recess 30. The counter electrode (e.g. second or first electrode) can be arranged in the polymer structure (i.e. in the chamber) as also described above.

[0124] Further, as shown in FIG. 27, the container 40 may comprise a wall 41 having two circumferential portions 41a, 41b, wherein a first portion 41a surrounds the chamber 43 for receiving the polymer structure/solution, and wherein a second portion 41b of the wall 41 surrounds a further chamber 45 for receiving a fluid F, particularly saline solutions, buffer solutions, chemo-attractant solution, growth-factor solution, cell suspension or mixture thereof and other solution inducing responses in cell functions). Here, the first electrode 21 (or second electrode) is slidably arranged in a first and a second recess 401, 402 in said wall 41, which recesses 401, 402 face each other, so that the first electrode 21 extends across the chamber 43, and closes said recesses 401, 402. Particularly, the first electrode 21 protrudes out of the container 40 (e.g. for moving it manually). Further, the second recess 402 is in flow connection with the further chamber 45, so thatwhen the first electrode 21 is removed from said second recess 402a fluid F (e.g. a Chemo-attractant solution, growth-factor solution, cell suspension or mixture thereof and other solution inducing responses in cell functions) stored in the further chamber 45 can flow through said second recess 402 into the (first) chamber 43, namely into a channel 30 of the polymer structure 1/hydrogel being formed with help of the electrodes 21, 22. The second portion of the wall 41b comprises a third recess 403 that is aligned with the second recess 402 (and e.g. also with the first recess 401), so that the second recess 402 can be closed by inserting a closure means (e.g. rod or pin) 60 into the second recess 402 via the third recess 403. Further, the two chambers 43, 45 are each delimited on the lower side by a bottom 42 from which said portions 41a, 41b of the wall 41 extend, wherein the bottom 42 of the first chamber 43 may comprise a counter electrode (second electrode or first electrode) 22 or may be formed as a counter electrode 22. By means of a container 40 according to FIG. 27 a polymer structure 1 can be generated that comprises a channel 30 in the polymer structure 1, particularly crossing the structure 1, and a linking density gradient at an interface 3 between the polymer structure 1 and the lumen 31 of said channel 30. Such a channel 30 can be filled with a fluid F, e.g. as described above.

REFERENCES

[0125] [1] a) M. P. Lutolf, J. A. Hubbell, Nat Biotech 2005, 23, 47; b) N. Tirelli, M. P. Lutolf, A. Napoli, J. A. Hubbell, Reviews in Molecular Biotechnology 2002, 90, 3; c) M. V. Tsurkan, K. Chwalek, S. Prokoph, A. Zieris, K. R. Levental, U. Freudenberg, C. Werner, Advanced Materials 2013, 25, 2606.

[0126] [2] J. Patterson, M. M. Martino, J. A. Hubbell, Mater Today 2010, 13, 14.

[0127] [3] R. G. Wylie, S. Ahsan, Y. Aizawa, K. L. Maxwell, C. M. Morshead, M. S. Shoichet, Nature materials 2011, 10, 799.

[0128] [4] a) D. R. Griffin, J. Borrajo, A. Soon, G. F. Acosta-Velez, V. Oshita, N. Darling, J. Mack, T. Barker, M. L. Iruela-Arispe, T. Segura, Chembiochem: a European journal of chemical biology 2014, 15, 233; b) W. M. Gramlich, I. L. Kim, J. A. Burdick, Biomaterials 2013, 34, 9803; c) K. A. Mosiewicz, L. Kolb, A. J. van der Vlies, M. M. Martino, P. S. Lienemann, J. A. Hubbell, M. Ehrbar, M. P. Lutolf, Nature materials 2013, 12, 1072; d) C. A. DeForest, K. S. Anseth, Angewandte Chemie 2012, 51, 1816; e) J. C. Hoffmann, J. L. West, Integrative biology: quantitative biosciences from nano to macro 2013, 5, 817.

[0129] [5] Y. C. Chiu, J. C. Larson, A. Isom, Jr., E. M. Brey, Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2010, 16, 905.

[0130] [6] a) X. Wu, L. Black, G. Santacana-Laffitte, C. W. Patrick, Jr., J Biomed Mater Res A 2007, 81, 59; b) F. Zhang, C. He, L. Cao, W. Feng, H. Wang, X. Mo, J. Wang, Int J Biol Macromol 2011, 48, 474; c) P. B. Welzel, M. Grimmer, C. Renneberg, L. Naujox, S. Zschoche, U. Freudenberg, C. Werner, Biomacromolecules 2012, 13, 2349.

[0131] [7] V. Milleret, B. R. Simona, P. S. Lienemann, J. Voros, M. Ehrbar, Advanced healthcare materials 2014, 3, 508.

[0132] [8] M. Ehrbar, S. C. Rizzi, R. Hlushchuk, V. Djonov, A. H. Zisch, J. A. Hubbell, F. E. Weber, M. P. Lutolf, Biomaterials 2007, 28, 3856.

[0133] [9] M. Ehrbar, A. Sala, P. Lienemann, A. Ranga, K. Mosiewicz, A. Bittermann, S. C. Rizzi, F. E. Weber, M. P. Lutolf, Biophysical Journal 2011, 100, 284.

[0134] [10] P. Dorig, D. Ossola, A. M. Truong, M. Graf, F. Stauffer, J. Voros, T. Zambelli, Biophys J 2013, 105, 463.

[0135] [11] M. Ehrbar, A. Sala, P. Lienemann, A. Ranga, K. Mosiewicz, A. Bittermann, S. C. Rizzi, F. E. Weber, M. P. Lutolf, Biophys J 2011, 100, 284.

[0136] [12] C. M. Lo, Y. L. Wang, Mol Biol Cell 1999, 10, 259a.

[0137] [13] E. Hadjipanayi, V. Mudera, R. A. Brown, Cell motility and the cytoskeleton 2009, 66, 121.

[0138] [14] S. P. Singh, M. P. Schwartz, J. Y. Lee, B. D. Fairbanks, K. S. Anseth, Biomaterials science 2014, 2, 1024.

[0139] [15] N. Annabi, J. W. Nichol, X. Zhong, C. Ji, S. Koshy, A. Khademhosseini, F. Dehghani, Tissue Eng Part B Rev 2010, 16, 371.

[0140] [16] M. P. Cuchiara, A. C. Allen, T. M. Chen, J. S. Miller, J. L. West, Biomaterials 2010, 31, 5491.

[0141] [17] a) M. Verhulsel, M. Vignes, S. Descroix, L. Malaquin, D. M. Vignjevic, J. L. Viovy, Biomaterials 2014, 35, 1816; b) F. P. W. Melchels, M. A. N. Domingos, T. J. Klein, J. Maida, P. J. Bartolo, D. W. Hutmacher, Prog Polym Sci 2012, 37, 1079.

[0142] [18] F. Bordeleau, L. N. Tang, C. A. Reinhart-King, Phys Biol 2013, 10.

[0143] [19] M. Ehrbar, S. C. Rizzi, R. G. Schoenmakers, B. S. Miguel, J. A. Hubbell, F. E. Weber, M. P. Lutolf, Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 3000.

[0144] [20] A. J. Engler, S. Sen, H. L. Sweeney, D. E. Discher, Cell 2006, 126, 677.