Advertisement

Histochemistry and Cell Biology

, Volume 133, Issue 4, pp 405–415 | Cite as

Tissue stretch induces nuclear remodeling in connective tissue fibroblasts

  • Helene M. LangevinEmail author
  • Kirsten N. Storch
  • Robert R. Snapp
  • Nicole A. Bouffard
  • Gary J. Badger
  • Alan K. Howe
  • Douglas J. Taatjes
Original Paper

Abstract

Studies in cultured cells have shown that nuclear shape is an important factor influencing nuclear function, and that mechanical forces applied to the cell can directly affect nuclear shape. In a previous study, we demonstrated that stretching of whole mouse subcutaneous tissue causes dynamic cytoskeletal remodeling with perinuclear redistribution of α-actin in fibroblasts within the tissue. We have further shown that the nuclei of these fibroblasts have deep invaginations containing α-actin. In the current study, we hypothesized that tissue stretch would cause nuclear remodeling with a reduced amount of nuclear invagination, measurable as a change in nuclear concavity. Subcutaneous areolar connective tissue samples were excised from 28 mice and randomized to either tissue stretch or no stretch for 30 min, then examined with histochemistry and confocal microscopy. In stretched tissue (vs. non-stretched), fibroblast nuclei had a larger cross-sectional area (P < 0.001), smaller thickness (P < 0.03) in the plane of the tissue, and smaller relative concavity (P < 0.005) indicating an increase in nuclear convexity. The stretch-induced loss of invaginations may have important influences on gene expression, RNA trafficking and/or cell differentiation.

Keywords

Cytoskeleton Subcutaneous Nucleus Mechanotransduction Invagination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Drs. Nicholas Heintz and William C. Eanrshaw for helpful discussions. This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine research Grant RO1-AT01121 and by National Institutes of Health Grant P20 RR16435 from the Center of Biomedical Research Excellence Program of the National Center for Research Resources. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Conflict of interest statement

Helene M. Langevin is a partner of Stromatec, Inc.

References

  1. Abe T, Takano K, Suzuki A, Shimada Y, Inagaki M, Sato N, Obinata T, Endo T (2004) Myocyte differentiation generates nuclear invaginations traversed by myofibrils associating with sarcomeric protein mRNAs. J Cell Sci 117:6523–6534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ben-Ze’ev A, Farmer SR, Penman S (1980) Protein synthesis requires cell-surface contact while nuclear events respond to cell shape in anchorage-dependent fibroblasts. Cell 21:365–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom S, Lockard VG, Bloom M (1996) Intermediate filament-mediated stretch-induced changes in chromatin: a hypothesis for growth initiation in cardiac myocytes. J Mol Cell Cardiol 28:2123–2127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourgeois CA, Hemon D, Bouteille M (1979) Structural relationship between the nucleolus and the nuclear envelope. J Ultrastruct Res 68:328–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Burridge K, Wennerberg K (2004) Rho and Rac take center stage. Cell 116:167–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen CS, Mrksich M, Huang S, Whitesides GM, Ingber DE (1997) Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 276:1425–1428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl KN, Engler AJ, Pajerowski JD, Discher DE (2005) Power-law rheology of isolated nuclei with deformation mapping of nuclear substructures. Biophys J 89:2855–2864CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalby MJ (2005) Topographically induced direct cell mechanotransduction. Med Eng Phys 27:730–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalby MJ, Gadegaard N, Herzyk P, Sutherland D, Agheli H, Wilkinson CD, Curtis AS (2007) Nanomechanotransduction and interphase nuclear organization influence on genomic control. J Cell Biochem 102:1234–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. de Berg M (1997) Computational geometry: algorithms and applications. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  11. Deguchi S, Maeda K, Ohashi T, Sato M (2005) Flow-induced hardening of endothelial nucleus as an intracellular stress-bearing organelle. J Biomech 38:1751–1759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dundr M, Misteli T (2001) Functional architecture in the cell nucleus. Biochem J 356:297–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Dupuy-Coin AM, Moens P, Bouteille M (1986) Three-dimensional analysis of given cell structures: nucleolus, nucleoskeleton and nuclear inclusions. Methods Achiev Exp Pathol 12:1–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Echevarria W, Leite MF, Guerra MT, Zipfel WR, Nathanson MH (2003) Regulation of calcium signals in the nucleus by a nucleoplasmic reticulum. Nat Cell Biol 5:440–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Flaherty JT, Pierce JE, Ferrans VJ, Patel DJ, Tucker WK, Fry DL (1972) Endothelial nuclear patterns in the canine arterial tree with particular reference to hemodynamic events. Circ Res 30:23–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricker M, Hollinshead M, White N, Vaux D (1997) Interphase nuclei of many mammalian cell types contain deep, dynamic, tubular membrane-bound invaginations of the nuclear envelope. J Cell Biol 136:531–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gieni RS, Hendzel MJ (2007) Mechanotransduction from the ECM to the genome: are the pieces now in place? J Cell Biochem 104:1964–1987Google Scholar
  18. Guilak F (1995) Compression-induced changes in the shape and volume of the chondrocyte nucleus. J Biomech 28:1529–1541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Guilak F, Tedrow JR, Burgkart R (2000) Viscoelastic properties of the cell nucleus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 269:781–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Horn B (1986) Robot vision. MIT Press/McGraw-Hill, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Hu S, Chen J, Butler JP, Wang N (2005) Prestress mediates force propagation into the nucleus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 329:423–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang HY, Liao J, Sacks MS (2007) In situ deformation of the aortic valve interstitial cell nucleus under diastolic loading. J Biomech Eng 129:880–889CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ingber DE, Madri JA, Folkman J (1987) Endothelial growth factors and extracellular matrix regulate DNA synthesis through modulation of cell and nuclear expansion. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 23:387–394CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Itano N, Okamoto S, Zhang D, Lipton SA, Ruoslahti E (2003) Cell spreading controls endoplasmic and nuclear calcium: a physical gene regulation pathway from the cell surface to the nucleus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:5181–5186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson N, Krebs M, Boudreau R, Giorgi G, LeGros M, Larabell C (2003) Actin-filled nuclear invaginations indicate degree of cell de-differentiation. Differentiation 71:414–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim YB, Yu J, Lee SY, Lee MS, Ko SG, Ye SK, Jong HS, Kim TY, Bang YJ, Lee JW (2005) Cell adhesion status-dependent histone acetylation is regulated through intracellular contractility-related signaling activities. J Biol Chem 280:28357–28364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Lammerding J, Schulze PC, Takahashi T, Kozlov S, Sullivan T, Kamm RD, Stewart CL, Lee RT (2004) Lamin A/C deficiency causes defective nuclear mechanics and mechanotransduction. J Clin Invest 113:370–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Langevin HM, Cornbrooks CJ, Taatjes DJ (2004) Fibroblasts form a body-wide cellular network. Histochem Cell Biol 122:7–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Langevin HM, Bouffard NA, Badger GJ, Iatridis JC, Howe AK (2005) Dynamic fibroblast cytoskeletal response to subcutaneous tissue stretch ex vivo and in vivo. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 288:C747–C756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Langevin HM, Storch KN, Cipolla MJ, White SL, Buttolph TR, Taatjes DJ (2006) Fibroblast spreading induced by connective tissue stretch involves intracellular redistribution of alpha- and beta-actin. Histochem Cell Biol 125:487–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mandadapu KK, Govindjee S, Mofrad MR (2008) On the cytoskeleton and soft glassy rheology. J Biomech 41:1467–1478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Maniotis AJ, Chen CS, Ingber DE (1997) Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:849–854CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. McBeath R, Pirone DM, Nelson CM, Bhadriraju K, Chen CS (2004) Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell 6:483–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Philip JT, Dahl KN (2008) Nuclear mechanotransduction: response of the lamina to extracellular stress with implications in aging. J Biomech 41:3164–3170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Pratt WK (1991) Digital image processing. Wiley, NY, pp 636–644Google Scholar
  36. Ridley AJ, Hall A (1992) The small GTP-binding protein rho regulates the assembly of focal adhesions and actin stress fibers in response to growth factors. Cell 70:389–399CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ridley AJ, Paterson HF, Johnston CL, Diekmann D, Hall A (1992) The small GTP-binding protein rac regulates growth factor-induced membrane ruffling. Cell 70:401–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowat AC, Lammerding J, Ipsen JH (2006) Mechanical properties of the cell nucleus and the effect of emerin deficiency. Biophys J 91:4649–4664CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Storch KN, Taatjes DJ, Bouffard NA, Locknar S, Bishop NM, Langevin HM (2007) Alpha smooth muscle actin distribution in cytoplasm and nuclear invaginations of connective tissue fibroblasts. Histochem Cell Biol 127:523–530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas CH, Collier JH, Sfeir CS, Healy KE (2002) Engineering gene expression and protein synthesis by modulation of nuclear shape. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99:1972–1977CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Vaziri A, Mofrad MR (2007) Mechanics and deformation of the nucleus in micropipette aspiration experiment. J Biomech 40:2053–2062CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helene M. Langevin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kirsten N. Storch
    • 1
  • Robert R. Snapp
    • 3
  • Nicole A. Bouffard
    • 1
  • Gary J. Badger
    • 4
  • Alan K. Howe
    • 5
  • Douglas J. Taatjes
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics and RehabilitationUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  4. 4.Department of Medical BiostatisticsUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA
  5. 5.Department of Pharmacology, Vermont Cancer CenterUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA
  6. 6.Department of PathologyUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations