From Cellular Mechanotransduction to Biologically Inspired Engineering
- 664 Downloads
This article is based on a lecture I presented as the recipient of the 2009 Pritzker Distinguished Lecturer Award at the Biomedical Engineering Society annual meeting in October 2009. Here, I review more than thirty years of research from my laboratory, beginning with studies designed to test the theory that cells use tensegrity (tensional integrity) architecture to stabilize their shape and sense mechanical signals, which I believed to be critical for control of cell function and tissue development. Although I was trained as a cell biologist, I found that the tools I had at my disposal were insufficient to experimentally test these theories, and thus I ventured into engineering to find critical solutions. This path has been extremely fruitful as it has led to confirmation of the critical role that physical forces play in developmental control, as well as how cells sense and respond to mechanical signals at the molecular level through a process known as cellular mechanotransduction. Many of the predictions of the cellular tensegrity model relating to cell mechanical behaviors have been shown to be valid, and this vision of cell structure led to discovery of the central role that transmembrane adhesion receptors, such as integrins, and the cytoskeleton play in mechanosensing and mechanochemical conversion. In addition, these fundamental studies have led to significant unexpected technology fallout, including development of micromagnetic actuators for non-invasive control of cellular signaling, microfluidic systems as therapeutic extracorporeal devices for sepsis therapy, and new DNA-based nanobiotechnology approaches that permit construction of artificial tensegrities that mimic properties of living materials for applications in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine.
KeywordsMechanotransduction Tensegrity Cell mechanics Prestress Cytoskeleton Integrin Biomimetic
The research described in this lecture was supported by grants from NIH, NASA, NSF, DARPA, DoD, CIMIT, ARO, and Wyss Institute, and the author is a recipient of a DoD Breast Cancer Innovator Award.
- 9.Eckes, B., D. Dogic, E. Colucci-Guyon, N. Wang, A. Maniotis, D. E. Ingber, A. Merckling, M. Aumailley, V. Koteliansky, C. Babinet, and T. Krieg. Impaired mechanical stability, migration, and contractile capacity in vimentin-deficient fibroblasts. J. Cell Sci. 111:1897–1907, 1998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Fuller, B. Tensegrity. Portfolio Artnews Annu. 4:112–127, 1961.Google Scholar
- 24.Ingber, D. E., and J. D. Jamieson. Cells as tensegrity structures: architectural regulation of histodifferentiation by physical forces tranduced over basement membrane. In: Gene Expression During Normal and Malignant Differentiation, edited by L. C. Andersson, C. G. Gahmberg, and P. Ekblom. Orlando: Academic Press, 1985, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
- 29.Liedl, T., B. Högberg, J. Tytell, D. E. Ingber, and W. M. Shih. Self-assembly of 3D prestressed tensegrity structures from DNA. Nature Nanotech. (in press).Google Scholar
- 42.Oslakovic, K., R. Matsuura, J. Kumailil, E. Roberts, D. Vaughn, D. Clifford, R. Ezzell, and D. E. Ingber. Cell-based biomimetic materials. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Materials, edited by P. F. Gobin and J. Tatibouet. Japan: Technomics, 1999.Google Scholar
- 43.Parker, K. K., A. L. Brock, C. Brangwynne, R. J. Mannix, N. Wang, E. Ostuni, N. Geisse, J. C. Adams, G. M. Whitesides, and D. E. Ingber. Directional control of lamellipodia extension by constraining cell shape and orienting cell tractional forces. FASEB J. 16:1195–1204, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 45.Riveline, D., E. Zamir, N. Q. Balaban, U. S. Schwarz, T. Ishizaki, S. Narumiya, Z. Kam, B. Geiger, and A. D. Bershadsky. Focal contacts as mechanosensors: externally applied local mechanical force induces growth of focal contacts by an mDia1-dependent and ROCK-independent mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 153:1175–1186, 2001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar