Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-12
Regulation of C2C12 Differentiation and Control of the Beating Dynamics of Contractile Cells for a Muscle-Driven Biosyncretic Crawler by Electrical Stimulation
Biosyncretic robots have potential advantages associated with both living organisms and electromechanical systems. Skeletal muscle tissue is a candidate as bioactuators for biosyncretic robots because of its excellent contraction force and controllability. However, the low quality of myoblast (C2C12) differentiation into contractile myotubes and the lack of control research on biosyncretic robots are two of the main challenges in the development of biosyncretic robots. In this study, an approach with circularly distributed multiple electrodes (CEs) is proposed to improve C2C12 differentiation and to control the movement of a myotube-based biosyncretic crawling robot. To analyze the advantages of the proposed CEs, the electrical characteristics of CEs and a pair of traditional parallel stimulation electrodes (PEs) were simulated and compared with each other. Then, to determine the optimal electrical stimulation parameters and demonstrate the superiorities of the proposed CEs, electrical pulses with different parameters were used to stimulate two-dimensional and three-dimensional cells during culture with the proposed CEs and PEs. After this the control characteristics of the muscle tissue by the CEs were investigated from the relevance of pulse width–threshold voltage, voltage–contractility, frequency–contractility, and electric field direction–contractility by measuring the real-time responses of myotubes to different electrical stimulations. Moreover, to demonstrate the control of biosyncretic robots by the CEs, a biomimetic biosyncretic crawler actuated by myotubes was designed, fabricated, and controlled to move at different speeds by varying directions of electric field. This study not only provides a potential tool for the development and control of biosyncretic robots but is also informative for muscle tissue engineering and cardiomyocyte culture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FeinbergAW, FeigelA, ShevkoplyasSS, et al.Muscular thin films for building actuators and powering devices. Science, 2007; 317:1366–1370.
2.
HolleyMT, NagarajanN, DanielsonC, et al.Development and characterization of muscle-based actuators for self-stabilizing swimming biorobots. Lab Chip, 2016; 16:3473–3484.
3.
CvetkovicC, RamanR, ChanV, et al.Three-dimensionally printed biological machines powered by skeletal muscle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2014; 111:10125–10130.
4.
JinM, LeeJ, ChangPH, et al.Practical nonsingular terminal sliding-mode control of robot manipulators for high-accuracy tracking control. IEEE Trans Ind Electron, 2009; 56:3593–3601.
5.
BlanchardCZ, WaldropGL. Modeling, identification, and control of a pneumatically actuated, force controllable robot. IEEE Trans Rob Autom, 1981; 45 Pt 1:732–742.
6.
ChanV, AsadaHH, BashirR. Utilization and control of bioactuators across multiple length scales. Lab Chip, 2014; 14:653–670.
7.
ParkSJ, GazzolaM, ParkKS, et al.Phototactic guidance of a tissue-engineered soft-robotic ray. Science, 2016; 353:158–162.
8.
ZhangC, XieS, WangW, et al.Bio-syncretic tweezers actuated by microorganisms: modeling and analysis. Soft Matter, 2016; 12:7485–7494.
9.
YamamotoY, ItoA, KawabeY, et al.Magnetic force-based tissue engineering of skeletal muscle. J Biotechnol, 2010; 150:S441.
10.
RanatungaKW. Force and power generating mechanism(s) in active muscle as revealed from temperature perturbation studies. J Physiol, 2010; 588:3657–3670.
11.
AkiyamaY, OdairaK, SakiyamaK, et al.Rapidly-moving insect muscle-powered microrobot and its chemical acceleration. Biomed Microdevices, 2012; 14:979–986.
12.
YurkeB, TurberfieldAJ, MillsAP, et al.A DNA-fuelled molecular machine made of DNA. Nature, 2000; 406:605–608.
13.
BustamanteC, BryantZ, SmithSB. Ten years of tension: single-molecule DNA mechanics. Nature, 2003; 421:423–427.
14.
WeibelDB, GarsteckiP, RyanD, et al.Microoxen: microorganisms to move microscale loads. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2005; 102:11963–11967.
15.
SokolovA, ApodacaMM, GrzybowskiBA, et al.Swimming bacteria power microscopic gears. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2010; 107:969–974.
16.
ParkSJ, ParkSH, ChoS, et al.New paradigm for tumor theranostic methodology using bacteria-based microrobot. Sci Rep, 2013; 3:3394.
17.
CarlsenRW, SittiM. Bio-hybrid cell-based actuators for microsystems. Small, 2014; 10:3831–3851.
TanakaY, SatoK, ShimizuT, et al.Biological cells on microchips: new technologies and applications. Biosens Bioelectron, 2007; 23:449–458.
20.
KimJ, ParkJ, YangS, et al.Establishment of a fabrication method for a long-term actuated hybrid cell robot. Lab Chip, 2007; 7:1504–1508.
21.
ChanV, ParkK, CollensMB, et al.Development of miniaturized walking biological machines. Sci Rep, 2012; 2:857.
22.
WilliamsBJ, AnandSV, RajagopalanJ, et al.A self-propelled biohybrid swimmer at low Reynolds number. Nat Commun, 2014; 5:3081.
23.
LiuX, ZhaoH, LuY, et al.In vitro cardiomyocyte-driven biogenerator based on aligned piezoelectric nanofibers. Nanoscale, 2016; 8:7278–7286.
24.
YoonJ, EysterTW, MisraAC, et al.Cardiomyocyte-driven actuation in biohybrid microcylinders. Adv Mater, 2015; 27:4509–4515.
25.
AkiyamaY, IwabuchiK, FurukawaY, et al.Long-term and room temperature operable bioactuator powered by insect dorsal vessel tissue. Lab Chip, 2009; 9:140–144.
26.
AkiyamaY, HoshinoT, IwabuchiK, et al.Room temperature operable autonomously moving bio-microrobot powered by insect dorsal vessel tissue. PLoS One, 2012; 7:e38274.
27.
UesugiK, ShimizuK, AkiyamaY, et al.Contractile performance and controllability of insect muscle-powered bioactuator with different stimulation strategies for soft robotics. Soft Robot, 2016; 3:13–22.
28.
RibeiroPF, JohnsonBK, CrowML, et al.Energy storage systems for advanced power applications. Proc IEEE, 2001; 89:1744–1756.
29.
RamanR, CvetkovicC, UzelSG, et al.Optogenetic skeletal muscle-powered adaptive biological machines. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2016; 113:3497–3502.
30.
HillJA, OlsonEN, GriendlingKK, et al. Muscle: Fundamental Biology and Mechanisms of Disease. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2012.
31.
RossJJ, DuxsonMJ, HarrisAJ. Neural determination of muscle fibre numbers in embryonic rat lumbrical muscles. Development, 1987; 100:395–409.
32.
FredetteBJ, LandmesserLT. A reevaluation of the role of innervation in primary and secondary myogenesis in developing chick muscle. Dev Biol, 1991; 143:19–35.
33.
HarrisAJ, FitzsimonsRB, McewanJC. Neural control of the sequence of expression of myosin heavy chain isoforms in foetal mammalian muscles. Development, 1989; 107:751–769.
34.
GutmannE, GuttmannL. Effect of electrotherapy on denervated muscles in rabbits. Lancet, 1942; 239:169–170.
35.
AhadianS, OstrovidovS, HosseiniV, et al.Electrical stimulation as a biomimicry tool for regulating muscle cell behavior. Organogenesis, 2013; 9:87–92.
36.
BrevetA, PintoE, PeacockJ, et al.Myosin synthesis increased by electrical stimulation of skeletal muscle cell cultures. Science, 1976; 193:1152–1154.
37.
Stern-StraeterJ, BachAD, StangenbergL, et al.Impact of electrical stimulation on three-dimensional myoblast cultures—a real-time RT-PCR study. J Cell Mol Med, 2005; 9:883–892.
38.
PutmanCT, DüsterhöftS, PetteD. Satellite cell proliferation in low frequency-stimulated fast muscle of hypothyroid rat. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, 2000; 279:C682–C690.
39.
PedrottyDM, KohJ, DavisBH, et al.Engineering skeletal myoblasts: roles of three-dimensional culture and electrical stimulation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol, 2005; 288:H1620–H1626.
40.
LangelaanML, BoonenKJ, Rosaria-ChakKY, et al.Advanced maturation by electrical stimulation: differences in response between C2C12 and primary muscle progenitor cells. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2011; 5:529–539.
41.
AhadianS, Ramón-AzcónJ, OstrovidovS, et al.Interdigitated array of Pt electrodes for electrical stimulation and engineering of aligned muscle tissue. Lab Chip, 2012; 12:3491–3503.
42.
HosseiniV, AhadianS, OstrovidovS, et al.Engineered contractile skeletal muscle tissue on a microgrooved methacrylated gelatin substrate. Tissue Eng Part A, 2012; 18:2453–2465.
43.
KhodabukusA, BaarK. Defined electrical stimulation emphasizing excitability for the development and testing of engineered skeletal muscle. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 2012; 18:349–357.
44.
RadisicM, ParkH, ShingH, et al.Functional assembly of engineered myocardium by electrical stimulation of cardiac myocytes cultured on scaffolds. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2004; 101:18129–18134.
45.
DennisRG, DowDE. Excitability of skeletal muscle during development, denervation, and tissue culture. Tissue Eng, 2007; 13:2395–2404.
46.
Ghafar-ZadehE, WaldeisenJR, LeeLP. Engineered approaches to the stem cell microenvironment for cardiac tissue regeneration. Lab Chip, 2011; 11:3031–3048.
47.
TandonN, MarsanoA, MaidhofR, et al.Optimization of electrical stimulation parameters for cardiac tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med, 2011; 5:e115–e125.
48.
KostrominovaTY, DowDE, DennisRG, et al.Comparison of gene expression of 2-mo denervated, 2-mo stimulated-denervated, and control rat skeletal muscles. Physiol Genomics, 2005; 22:227–243.
49.
DonnellyK, KhodabukusA, PhilpA, et al.A novel bioreactor for stimulating skeletal muscle in vitro. Tissue Eng Part C Methods, 2010; 16:711–718.
50.
KajiH, IshibashiT, NagamineK, et al.Electrically induced contraction of C2C12 myotubes cultured on a porous membrane-based substrate with muscle tissue-like stiffness. Biomaterials, 2010; 31:6981–6986.
51.
ShinSR, JungSM, ZalabanyM, et al.Carbon-nanotube-embedded hydrogel sheets for engineering cardiac constructs and bioactuators. ACS Nano, 2013; 7:2369–2380.
52.
Ramón-AzcónJ, AhadianS, ObregónR, et al.Gelatin methacrylate as a promising hydrogel for 3D microscale organization and proliferation of dielectrophoretically patterned cells. Lab Chip, 2012; 12:2959–2969.
53.
AhadianS, Ramón-AzcónJ, OstrovidovS, et al.A contactless electrical stimulator: application to fabricate functional skeletal muscle tissue. Biomed Microdevices, 2013; 15:109–115.
54.
ThelenMH, SimonidesWS, VanHC. Electrical stimulation of C2C12 myotubes induces contractions and represses thyroid-hormone-dependent transcription of the fast-type sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase gene. Biochem J, 1997; 321(Pt 3):845–848.
55.
TandonN, MarsanoA, CannizzaroC, et al.Design of electrical stimulation bioreactors for cardiac tissue engineering. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc, 2008; 2008:3594–3597.
56.
ShroffSG, SanerDR, LalR. Dynamic micromechanical properties of cultured rat atrial myocytes measured by atomic force microscopy. Am J Physiol, 1995; 269:C286–C292.
57.
TaubmanMB, SmithCW, IzumoS, et al.The expression of sarcomeric muscle-specific contractile protein genes in BC3H1 cells: BC3H1 cells resemble skeletal myoblasts that are defective for commitment to terminal differentiation. J Cell Biol, 1989; 108:1799–1806.
58.
HuangYC, DennisRG, LarkinL, et al.Rapid formation of functional muscle in vitro using fibrin gels. J Appl Physiol, 2005; 98:706–713.
59.
WilsonSJ, HarrisAJ. Formation of myotubes in aneural rat muscles. Dev Biol, 1993; 156:509–518.
60.
LiaoH, ZhouGQ. Development and progress of engineering of skeletal muscle tissue. Tissue Eng Part B Rev, 2009; 15:319–331.
61.
BianW, JuhasM, PfeilerTW, et al.Local tissue geometry determines contractile force generation of engineered muscle networks. Tissue Eng Part A, 2012; 18:957–967.
62.
KoryakYA. Functional and clinical significance of the architecture of human skeletal muscles. Hum Physiol, 2008; 34:482–492.
63.
FlaibaniM, BoldrinL, CimettaE, et al.Muscle differentiation and myotubes alignment is influenced by micropatterned surfaces and exogenous electrical stimulation. Tissue Eng Part A, 2009; 15:2447–2457.
64.
GowrishankarTR, PliquettU, LeeRC. Dynamics of membrane sealing in transient electropermeabilization of skeletal muscle membranes. Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1999; 888:195–210.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
