Reviakine, I.

Ilya Reviakine

Springer - Publisher Connector

EDITORIAL Open Access
The new faces of biointerfaces?
Ilya Reviakine1
The nature of living things is to change
This year’s Biological Surfaces and Interfaces, or
Biointerfaces, meeting that took place between the 30th
of June and the 5th of July, 2013 in Sant Feliu de Guixols
(Spain), [1] was different.
It was the latest in the series of meetings covering …
interfaces between synthetic materials and biological sys-
tems or within biological systems – biointerfaces…. These
meetings took place every other year between 2003 and
2013. By providing a unique interdisciplinary forum for
an eclectic group of researchers to exchange ideas, they
became an integral part of the process of forging of a
new field. Each meeting incorporated a Forward Look
session, where the grand challenges facing the field were
discussed. The discussion was moderated by a panel of
senior and young scientists. With the shifting priorities
at the European Science Foundation, a long-time spon-
sor, the longevity of this very successful and stimulating
event is in danger. Indeed, it is only thanks to the quick
action of the current chairs, Ralf Richter and Catherine
Picart, that the support from FEBS and other sources
could be secured for the 2013 meeting.
Historically, the biointerfaces community was nucle-
ated by the surface scientists who took the bold step
from ultra-high vacuum (UHV) into liquid, [2] driven by
the desire to find out at the molecular level what goes
on when biological systems encounter artificial surfaces,
and by the idea that surface science methodologies could
provide a unique perspective on interfaces that occur in
the biological world. Over the years, it has crystallized
around these two underlying concepts that propelled
the field forward, fostering collaborations between
biologists and material scientists—the all important
human factor—as well as the appearance of new tech-
niques for designing and studying dynamic, hydrated
biological interfaces: what could be called “a biosurface
science toolbox” [3]. Inspiration came from numerous
challenges—organizing molecules and cells at interfaces,
understanding how cells interpret chemistry, topography,
and stiffness; designing selective sensors; controlling/
restricting non-specific interactions between surfaces and
biomolecules; and understanding biocompatibility—to
name a few. An insightful historical perspective can be
found in M. Grunze’s editorial written for the opening of a
new journal, Biointerphases [2]. Similarly, B. Kasemo’s re-
view Biological Surface Science continues to inspire gene-
rations of young scientists [3]. I have also selected several
references to illustrate how some of the techniques and
approaches from the toolbox gained wider acceptance
[4-12] and fostered conceptual advances in disparate re-
search areas; [13-17] the selection is meant to be illustra-
tive rather than exhaustive.
In previous years, artificial surfaces, bio/non-bio inter-
faces, and the surrounding tools, were very much present
as a unifying concept of the meetings. They did not make
such a center stage appearance in 2013. Featured promin-
ently in their stead were the concepts surrounding the
extracellular matrix, intercellular communication, and the
interactions between cells and the extracellular matrix.
What is behind this shift in focus? Have we solved all the
problems, is it time to move on and do something else?
Not likely. The Forward Look session of 2011 focused on
a number of challenges that included 3D cell culture tools,
interactive, “smart” interfaces, quantifying biological re-
sponses, [18] uncovering the simple underlying principles
(the “Bohr atom” or the “Ising model”) of biointerfaces,
water structure at interfaces, and biocompatibility. These
challenges are still there. Blood compatibility catastrophe
[19,20] is still exactly that, [21] modern interfaces are as
simplistic as ever (as opposed to intelligent/self-healing/
self-replicating), and any discussion of interfacial water
brings smiles to the faces of most scientists. Yet the com-
munity appears to be melting in the process of searching
for a new identity.
In my view, there are two currents underlying this
process. On the one hand, the surface-science driven ap-
proach has reached a plateau of sorts on the technical
front. We need new ways of looking at interfaces, ways
that will radically change our current views. That will
Correspondence: Ilya.Reviakine@kit.edu
1Institute for Functional Interfaces (IFG), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
(KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,
Germany
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2013 Reviakine; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reviakine Biointerphases 2013, 8:26
http://www.biointerphases.com/content/8/1/26
surely be realized in the future with some sort of a new
technique that is probably already brewing in someone’s
laboratory. On the other hand, and this is much more
important, it is becoming apparent that the answers to
the half-a-century old questions of how cells see artificial
surfaces just might come from understanding the lan-
guage cells use to communicate with each other. We
need to learn their alphabet. Decrypt their ciphers and
eavesdrop on their conversations. Figure out who is
talking to whom and what they are saying. How the
biointerfaces community will take on this challenge,
how will cross-fertilization with the biosurfaces/bio-
compatibility topics occur, and what will become of the
community in process, will surely be interesting to see.
Topic evolution aside, the Biointerfaces meetings have
always had one unique feature: they provided an inter-
face between scientists from different, often exceedingly
diverse, fields. Scientists who were trained to speak dif-
ferent languages but saw the benefit of venturing into
the great unknown of the foreign “speak”. This has been
aided by the particular organization of the meetings, and
it is poised to continue into the future. Thanks to this
aspect, these meetings are very much likely to con-
tinue serving their role as a center stage for new ideas
whatever the direction in which these ideas evolve.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges Dr. Ralf Richter and Ms. Danijela Gregurec
(both at CIC biomaGUNE, San Sebastian, Spain) for enlightening discussions.
Author details
1Institute for Functional Interfaces (IFG), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
(KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,
Germany. 2Faculty of Engineering, the University of the Basque Country
(UPV/EHU), Alameda Urquijo s/n., 48013, Bilbao, Spain.
Received: 11 September 2013 Accepted: 9 October 2013
Published: 18 October 2013
References
1. More information about the meeting can be found at http://www.esf.org/
index.php?id=9738 Accessed October 4th, 2013
2. Grunze M, Exarhos G (2006) A surface scientist's perspective on
Biointerphases, or "Out of the Vacuum, into the Liquid". Biointerphases
1:CL1–CL2
3. Kasemo B (2002) Biological surface science. Surf Sci 500:656–677
4. Cho NJ, Frank CW, Kasemo B, Hook F (2010) Quartz crystal microbalance
with dissipation monitoring of supported lipid bilayers on various
substrates. Nat Protoc 5:1096–1106
5. Reviakine I, Johannsmann D, Richter RP (2011) Hearing what you can’t see
and visualizing what you hear: interpreting quartz crystal microbalance data
from solvated interfaces. Anal Chem 83:8838–8848
6. Kraft ML, Weber PK, Longo ML, Hutcheon ID, Boxer SG (2006) Phase
separation of lipid membranes analyzed with high-resolution secondary ion
mass spectrometry. Science 313:1948–1951
7. Michel R, Pasche S, Textor M, Castner DG (2005) Influence of PEG
architecture on protein adsorption and conformation. Langmuir
21:12327–12332
8. Lee BP, Messersmith PB, Israelachvili JN, Waite JH (2011) Mussel-Inspired
Adhesives and Coatings. Annu Rev Mater Res 41:99–132
9. Falconnet D, Csucs G, Grandin HM, Textor M (2006) Surface engineering
approaches to micropattern surfaces for cell-based assays. Biomaterials
27:3044–3063
10. Reviakine I, Brisson A (2000) Formation of supported phospholipid bilayers
from unilamellar vesicles investigated by atomic force microscopy.
Langmuir 16:1806–1815
11. Richter RP, Berat R, Brisson AR (2006) Formation of solid-supported lipid
bilayers: An integrated view. Langmuir 22:3497–3505
12. Castellana ET, Cremer PS (2006) Solid supported lipid bilayers: From
biophysical studies to sensor design. Surf Sci Rep 61:429–444
13. Bouter A, Gounou C, Berat R, Tan S, Gallois B, Granier T, d'Estaintot BL,
Poschl E, Brachvogel B, Brisson AR (2010) Annexin-A5 assembled into
two-dimensional arrays promotes cell membrane repair. Nat Commun 2:270
14. Cavalcanti-Adam EA, Volberg T, Micoulet A, Kessler H, Geiger B, Spatz JP
(2007) Cell spreading and focal adhesion dynamics are regulated by
spacing of integrin ligands. Biophys J 92:2964–2974
15. Discher DE, Mooney DJ, Zandstra PW (2009) Growth factors, matrices, and
forces combine and control stem cells. Science 324:1673–1677
16. Frisz JF, Lou KY, Klitzing HA, Hanafin WP, Lizunov V, Wilson RL, Carpenter KJ,
Kim R, Hutcheon ID, Zimmerberg J, Weber PK, Kraft ML (2013) Direct
chemical evidence for sphingolipid domains in the plasma membranes of
fibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:E613–E622
17. Groves JT, Dustin ML (2003) Supported planar bilayers in studies on
immune cell adhesion and communication. J Immunol Methods 278:19–32
18. Hook F, Kasemo B, Grunze M, Zauscher S (2008) Quantitative biological
surface science: challenges and recent advances. ACS Nano 2:2428–2436
19. Ratner BD (1993) The blood compatibility catastrophe. J Biomed Mater
Res 27:283–287
20. Ratner BD (2007) The catastrophe revisited: Blood compatibility in the
21st century. Biomaterials 28:5144–5147
21. Ratner BD (2011) The biocompatibility manifesto: biocompatibility for the
twenty-first century. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 4:523–527
doi:10.1186/1559-4106-8-26
Cite this article as: Reviakine: The new faces of biointerfaces?.
Biointerphases 2013 8:26.
Submit your manuscript to a 
journal and beneﬁ t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the ﬁ eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
    Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Reviakine Biointerphases 2013, 8:26 Page 2 of 2
http://www.biointerphases.com/content/8/1/26


The new faces of biointerfaces?

KITopen

Reviakine Biointerphases 2013, 8:26http://www.biointerphases.com/content/8/1/26EDITORIAL Open AccessThe new faces of biointerfaces?Ilya Reviakine1The nature of living things is to changeThis year’s Biological Surfaces and Interfaces, orBiointerfaces, meeting that took place between the 30thof June and the 5th of July, 2013 in Sant Feliu de Guixols(Spain), [1] was different.It was the latest in the series of meetings covering …interfaces between synthetic materials and biological sys-tems or within biological systems – biointerfaces…. Thesemeetings took place every other year between 2003 and2013. By providing a unique interdisciplinary forum foran eclectic group of researchers to exchange ideas, theybecame an integral part of the process of forging of anew field. Each meeting incorporated a Forward Looksession, where the grand challenges facing the field werediscussed. The discussion was moderated by a panel ofsenior and young scientists. With the shifting prioritiesat the European Science Foundation, a long-time spon-sor, the longevity of this very successful and stimulatingevent is in danger. Indeed, it is only thanks to the quickaction of the current chairs, Ralf Richter and CatherinePicart, that the support from FEBS and other sourcescould be secured for the 2013 meeting.Historically, the biointerfaces community was nucle-ated by the surface scientists who took the bold stepfrom ultra-high vacuum (UHV) into liquid, [2] driven bythe desire to find out at the molecular level what goeson when biological systems encounter artificial surfaces,and by the idea that surface science methodologies couldprovide a unique perspective on interfaces that occur inthe biological world. Over the years, it has crystallizedaround these two underlying concepts that propelledthe field forward, fostering collaborations betweenbiologists and material scientists—the all importanthuman factor—as well as the appearance of new tech-niques for designing and studying dynamic, hydratedbiological interfaces: what could be called “a biosurfacescience toolbox” [3]. Inspiration came from numerousCorrespondence: Ilya.Reviakine@kit.edu1Institute for Functional Interfaces (IFG), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology(KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,GermanyFull list of author information is available at the end of the article© 2013 Reviakine; licensee Springer. This is anAttribution License (http://creativecommons.orin any medium, provided the original work is pchallenges—organizing molecules and cells at interfaces,understanding how cells interpret chemistry, topography,and stiffness; designing selective sensors; controlling/restricting non-specific interactions between surfaces andbiomolecules; and understanding biocompatibility—toname a few. An insightful historical perspective can befound in M. Grunze’s editorial written for the opening of anew journal, Biointerphases [2]. Similarly, B. Kasemo’s re-view Biological Surface Science continues to inspire gene-rations of young scientists [3]. I have also selected severalreferences to illustrate how some of the techniques andapproaches from the toolbox gained wider acceptance[4-12] and fostered conceptual advances in disparate re-search areas; [13-17] the selection is meant to be illustra-tive rather than exhaustive.In previous years, artificial surfaces, bio/non-bio inter-faces, and the surrounding tools, were very much presentas a unifying concept of the meetings. They did not makesuch a center stage appearance in 2013. Featured promin-ently in their stead were the concepts surrounding theextracellular matrix, intercellular communication, and theinteractions between cells and the extracellular matrix.What is behind this shift in focus? Have we solved all theproblems, is it time to move on and do something else?Not likely. The Forward Look session of 2011 focused ona number of challenges that included 3D cell culture tools,interactive, “smart” interfaces, quantifying biological re-sponses, [18] uncovering the simple underlying principles(the “Bohr atom” or the “Ising model”) of biointerfaces,water structure at interfaces, and biocompatibility. Thesechallenges are still there. Blood compatibility catastrophe[19,20] is still exactly that, [21] modern interfaces are assimplistic as ever (as opposed to intelligent/self-healing/self-replicating), and any discussion of interfacial waterbrings smiles to the faces of most scientists. Yet the com-munity appears to be melting in the process of searchingfor a new identity.In my view, there are two currents underlying thisprocess. On the one hand, the surface-science driven ap-proach has reached a plateau of sorts on the technicalfront. We need new ways of looking at interfaces, waysthat will radically change our current views. That willOpen Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commonsg/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproductionroperly cited.Reviakine Biointerphases 2013, 8:26 Page 2 of 2http://www.biointerphases.com/content/8/1/26surely be realized in the future with some sort of a newtechnique that is probably already brewing in someone’slaboratory. On the other hand, and this is much moreimportant, it is becoming apparent that the answers tothe half-a-century old questions of how cells see artificialsurfaces just might come from understanding the lan-guage cells use to communicate with each other. Weneed to learn their alphabet. Decrypt their ciphers andeavesdrop on their conversations. Figure out who istalking to whom and what they are saying. How thebiointerfaces community will take on this challenge,how will cross-fertilization with the biosurfaces/bio-compatibility topics occur, and what will become of thecommunity in process, will surely be interesting to see.Topic evolution aside, the Biointerfaces meetings havealways had one unique feature: they provided an inter-face between scientists from different, often exceedinglydiverse, fields. Scientists who were trained to speak dif-ferent languages but saw the benefit of venturing intothe great unknown of the foreign “speak”. This has beenaided by the particular organization of the meetings, andit is poised to continue into the future. Thanks to thisaspect, these meetings are very much likely to con-tinue serving their role as a center stage for new ideaswhatever the direction in which these ideas evolve.Competing interestsThe author declares that he has no competing interests.AcknowledgementsThe author acknowledges Dr. Ralf Richter and Ms. Danijela Gregurec(both at CIC biomaGUNE, San Sebastian, Spain) for enlightening discussions.Author details1Institute for Functional Interfaces (IFG), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology(KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344, Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen,Germany. 2Faculty of Engineering, the University of the Basque Country(UPV/EHU), Alameda Urquijo s/n., 48013, Bilbao, Spain.Received: 11 September 2013 Accepted: 9 October 2013Published: 18 October 2013References1. More information about the meeting can be found at http://www.esf.org/index.php?id=9738 Accessed October 4th, 20132. Grunze M, Exarhos G (2006) A surface scientist's perspective onBiointerphases, or "Out of the Vacuum, into the Liquid". Biointerphases1:CL1–CL23. Kasemo B (2002) Biological surface science. Surf Sci 500:656–6774. Cho NJ, Frank CW, Kasemo B, Hook F (2010) Quartz crystal microbalancewith dissipation monitoring of supported lipid bilayers on varioussubstrates. Nat Protoc 5:1096–11065. Reviakine I, Johannsmann D, Richter RP (2011) Hearing what you can’t seeand visualizing what you hear: interpreting quartz crystal microbalance datafrom solvated interfaces. Anal Chem 83:8838–88486. Kraft ML, Weber PK, Longo ML, Hutcheon ID, Boxer SG (2006) Phaseseparation of lipid membranes analyzed with high-resolution secondary ionmass spectrometry. Science 313:1948–19517. Michel R, Pasche S, Textor M, Castner DG (2005) Influence of PEGarchitecture on protein adsorption and conformation. Langmuir21:12327–123328. Lee BP, Messersmith PB, Israelachvili JN, Waite JH (2011) Mussel-InspiredAdhesives and Coatings. Annu Rev Mater Res 41:99–1329. Falconnet D, Csucs G, Grandin HM, Textor M (2006) Surface engineeringapproaches to micropattern surfaces for cell-based assays. Biomaterials27:3044–306310. Reviakine I, Brisson A (2000) Formation of supported phospholipid bilayersfrom unilamellar vesicles investigated by atomic force microscopy.Langmuir 16:1806–181511. Richter RP, Berat R, Brisson AR (2006) Formation of solid-supported lipidbilayers: An integrated view. Langmuir 22:3497–350512. Castellana ET, Cremer PS (2006) Solid supported lipid bilayers: Frombiophysical studies to sensor design. Surf Sci Rep 61:429–44413. Bouter A, Gounou C, Berat R, Tan S, Gallois B, Granier T, d'Estaintot BL,Poschl E, Brachvogel B, Brisson AR (2010) Annexin-A5 assembled intotwo-dimensional arrays promotes cell membrane repair. Nat Commun 2:27014. Cavalcanti-Adam EA, Volberg T, Micoulet A, Kessler H, Geiger B, Spatz JP(2007) Cell spreading and focal adhesion dynamics are regulated byspacing of integrin ligands. Biophys J 92:2964–297415. Discher DE, Mooney DJ, Zandstra PW (2009) Growth factors, matrices, andforces combine and control stem cells. Science 324:1673–167716. Frisz JF, Lou KY, Klitzing HA, Hanafin WP, Lizunov V, Wilson RL, Carpenter KJ,Kim R, Hutcheon ID, Zimmerberg J, Weber PK, Kraft ML (2013) Directchemical evidence for sphingolipid domains in the plasma membranes offibroblasts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:E613–E62217. Groves JT, Dustin ML (2003) Supported planar bilayers in studies onimmune cell adhesion and communication. J Immunol Methods 278:19–3218. Hook F, Kasemo B, Grunze M, Zauscher S (2008) Quantitative biologicalsurface science: challenges and recent advances. ACS Nano 2:2428–243619. Ratner BD (1993) The blood compatibility catastrophe. J Biomed MaterRes 27:283–28720. Ratner BD (2007) The catastrophe revisited: Blood compatibility in the21st century. Biomaterials 28:5144–514721. Ratner BD (2011) The biocompatibility manifesto: biocompatibility for thetwenty-first century. J Cardiovasc Transl Res 4:523–527doi:10.1186/1559-4106-8-26Cite this article as: Reviakine: The new faces of biointerfaces?.Biointerphases 2013 8:26.Submit your manuscript to a journal and beneﬁ t from:7 Convenient online submission7 Rigorous peer review7 Immediate publication on acceptance7 Open access: articles freely available online7 High visibility within the ﬁ eld7 Retaining the copyright to your article    Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000040426/3048272

The new faces of biointerfaces?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Springer - Publisher Connector

KITopen