This difference could be attributed to differences in dosing regimens between the two studies

bserved with platelets cultured in the presence of collagen type IV. HCS data confirmed the smaller cellular area and also the weak attachment of the cells to the COL substrate. LNCaP cells dislodged as a sheet of cells during the scratch making, and it was not possible to obtain a useful scratch on COL substrate. In contrast, the data obtained from confocal fluorescence microscopy indicated that the cells grown on COL-coated glass attached well to the substrate and displayed a morphology that was similar to the control. An increase in stress fibers and in lamellipodia for the cells cultured on COL was also observed, suggesting increased cell mobility. The structures observed are the result of integrinmediated cell adhesion that re-organizes the actin cytoskeleton of the cells. This event comprises the recruitment of signaling complexes to the membrane. The disparity between PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19691102/ the results with COL coating could be due to the different surface substrate Differential Effects of Coating Substrates on Prostate Cancer Cell material used. It has been previously shown that different substratum characteristics, including surface charge, topography, hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity, surface chemistry and surface energy may influence cell behavior. The characteristics of the substrate may also affect the polymerization/conformation of the ECM protein that could exhibit different binding sites to interact with integrins. Thus, the modified cell-substrate interaction could affect the generation of intracellular signals. The experiments using RTCA, HCS and phase-contrast microscopy were performed with polystyrene plates, while glass cover slips were used for confocal fluorescence microscopy. Moreover, the response of cells to diverse ONO4059 chemical information textures is different than when they are on a smooth surface. It has been demonstrated that rough surfaces are advantageous for cell attachment. This fact is continuously used in the development of osteoimplants. LAM did not affect the CI compared to control. However, LAM decreased the cell proliferation rate and the adherence of LNCaP cells, as shown by the slightly worse scratches during the wound making process when compared to the control. PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690518 Despite this, calculation of the relative wound density revealed that cells grown on LAM substrate migrated into the wound much faster than the control or any of the other coatings. This increased cell mobility was also observed by time lapse microscopy and was also indicated by the large number of polarized cells with expanded filopodia. The effect of FN on the CI was mainly due to an improvement in adherence. LNCaP cells seeded on FN quickly attached to the substrate as observed by time-lapse microscopy. These findings were supported by the increase in cell area observed by HCS, and by the increase of cellular F-actin and filopodia. Despite the increase in stress fibers and lamellipodia, FN reduced the mobility of LNCaP cells, which may be related to the increase in attachment of the cells to the substrate and to the reduction in polarization. The observed decrease of LNCaP cell proliferation with FN is in accordance with literature data. As shown by HCS, F-actin staining and wound assay, PLO and PLL improved adherence of LNCaP cells to polystyrene and glass when compared to control. It is the first time that PLO has been reported to increase the adherence of LNCaP cells. The use of this poly-amino acid has been preferable to PLL in some applications for being less immunogenic. Th