How Matrix Properties Control the Self-Assembly and Maintenance of Tissues

Article

Abstract

The mechanism by which cells organize into tissues is fundamental to developmental biology and tissue engineering. Likewise, the disruption of cellular order within tissues is a hallmark of many diseases including cancer and atherosclerosis. Tissue formation is regulated, in part, by a balance between cell–cell cohesion and cell–extracellular matrix (ECM) adhesion. Here, experiments and approaches to alter this balance are discussed, and the nature of this balance in the formation of microvasculature is explored. Using matrices of tailored stiffness and matrix presentation, the role of the mechanical properties and ligand density in angiogenesis has been investigated. Decreasing cell–matrix adhesion by either reducing matrix stiffness or matrix ligand density induces the self-assembly of endothelial cells into network-like structures. These structures are stabilized by the polymerization of the extracellular matrix protein fibronectin. When fibronectin polymerization is inhibited, network formation does not occur. Interestingly, this interplay between substrate mechanics, ECM assembly, and tissue self-assembly is not limited to endothelial cells and has been observed in other cell types as well. These results suggest novel approaches to foster stable cell–cell adhesion and engineer tissues.

Keywords

Endothelial cells Cell mechanics Substrate stiffness Fibronectin 

References

  1. 1.
    Asthagiri, A. R., C. A. Reinhart, A. F. Horwitz, and D. A. Lauffenburger. The role of transient ERK2 signals in fibronectin- and insulin-mediated DNA synthesis. J. Cell Sci. 113(Pt 24):4499–4510, 2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhatia, S. K. Tissue engineering for clinical applications. Biotechnol. J. 5(12):1309–1323, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Califano, J. P., and C. A. Reinhart-King. A balance of substrate mechanics and matrix chemistry regulates endothelial cell network assembly. Cell. Mol. Bioeng. 1(2–3):122–132, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Califano, J. P., and C. A. Reinhart-King. The effects of substrate elasticity on endothelial cell network formation and traction force generation. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2009:3343–3345, 2009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Califano, J. P., and C. A. Reinhart-King. Substrate stiffness and cell area predict cellular traction stresses in single cells and cells in contact. Cell Mol. Bioeng. 3(1):68–75, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Califano, J. P., and C. A. Reinhart-King. Exogenous and endogenous force regulation of endothelial cell behavior. J. Biomech. 43(1):79–86, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choquet, D., D. P. Felsenfeld, and M. P. Sheetz. Extracellular matrix rigidity causes strengthening of integrin-cytoskeleton linkages. Cell 88(1):39–48, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cukierman, E., and D. E. Bassi. Physico-mechanical aspects of extracellular matrix influences on tumorigenic behaviors. Semin. Cancer Biol. 20(3):139–145, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, G. E., K. J. Bayless, and A. Mavila. Molecular basis of endothelial cell morphogenesis in three-dimensional extracellular matrices. Anat. Rec. 268(3):252–275, 2002.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Discher, D. E., P. Janmey, and Y. L. Wang. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310(5751):1139–1143, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engler, A. J., S. Sen, H. L. Sweeney, and D. E. Discher. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4):677–689, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Folkman, J. Angiogenesis in cancer, vascular, rheumatoid and other disease. Nat. Med. 1(1):27–31, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gaudet, C., W. A. Marganski, S. Kim, C. T. Brown, V. Gunderia, M. Dembo, and J. Y. Wong. Influence of type I collagen surface density on fibroblast spreading, motility, and contractility. Biophys. J. 85(5):3329–3335, 2003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grayson, W. L., T. P. Martens, G. M. Eng, M. Radisic, and G. Vunjak-Novakovic. Biomimetic approach to tissue engineering. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 20(6):665–673, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guo, W. H., M. T. Frey, N. A. Burnham, and Y. L. Wang. Substrate rigidity regulates the formation and maintenance of tissues. Biophys. J. 90(6):2213–2220, 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jain, R. K. Normalizing tumor vasculature with anti-angiogenic therapy: a new paradigm for combination therapy. Nat. Med. 7(9):987–989, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jain, R. K. Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science 307(5706):58–62, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kandow, C. E., P. C. Georges, P. A. Janmey, and K. A. Beningo. Polyacrylamide hydrogels for cell mechanics: steps toward optimization and alternative uses. Methods Cell Biol. 83:29–46, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kubota, Y., H. K. Kleinman, G. R. Martin, and T. J. Lawley. Role of laminin and basement membrane in the morphological differentiation of human endothelial cells into capillary-like structures. J. Cell Biol. 107(4):1589–1598, 1988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lauffenburger, D. A., and L. G. Griffith. Who’s got pull around here? Cell organization in development and tissue engineering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(8):4282–4284, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McBeath, R., D. M. Pirone, C. M. Nelson, K. Bhadriraju, and C. S. Chen. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell 6(4):483–495, 2004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paszek, M. J., N. Zahir, K. R. Johnson, J. N. Lakins, G. I. Rozenberg, A. Gefen, C. A. Reinhart-King, S. S. Margulies, M. Dembo, D. Boettiger, D. A. Hammer, and V. M. Weaver. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8(3):241–254, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pelham, R. J., Jr., and Y. Wang. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94(25):13661–13665, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Powers, M. J., and L. G. Griffith. Adhesion-guided in vitro morphogenesis in pure and mixed cell cultures. Microsc. Res. Tech. 43(5):379–384, 1998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reinhart-King, C. A. Endothelial cell adhesion and migration. Methods Enzymol. 443:45–64, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reinhart-King, C. A., M. Dembo, and D. A. Hammer. Endothelial cell traction forces on RGD-derivatized polyacrylamide substrata. Langmuir 19(5):1573–1579, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reinhart-King, C. A., M. Dembo, and D. A. Hammer. The dynamics and mechanics of endothelial cell spreading. Biophys. J. 89(1):676–689, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Reinhart-King, C. A., M. Dembo, and D. A. Hammer. Cell-cell mechanical communication through compliant substrates. Biophys. J. 95(12):6044–6051, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Reinhart-King, C. A., K. Fujiwara, and B. C. Berk. Physiologic stress-mediated signaling in the endothelium. Methods Enzymol. 443:25–44, 2008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ryan, P. L., R. A. Foty, J. Kohn, and M. S. Steinberg. Tissue spreading on implantable substrates is a competitive outcome of cell–cell vs. cell–substratum adhesivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(8):4323–4327, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwarz, U. S., and I. B. Bischofs. Physical determinants of cell organization in soft media. Med. Eng. Phys. 27(9):763–772, 2005.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stephanou, A., G. Meskaoui, B. Vailhe, and P. Tracqui. The rigidity in fibrin gels as a contributing factor to the dynamics of in vitro vascular cord formation. Microvasc. Res. 73(3):182–190, 2007.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tse, J. R., and A. J. Engler. Preparation of hydrogel substrates with tunable mechanical properties. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. Chapter 10: Unit 10.16, 2010.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ulrich, T. A., E. M. de Juan Pardo, and S. Kumar. The mechanical rigidity of the extracellular matrix regulates the structure, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Cancer Res. 69(10):4167–4174, 2009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vailhe, B., X. Ronot, P. Tracqui, Y. Usson, and L. Tranqui. In vitro angiogenesis is modulated by the mechanical properties of fibrin gels and is related to alpha(v)beta3 integrin localization. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Anim. 33(10):763–773, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang, H. B., M. Dembo, S. K. Hanks, and Y. Wang. Focal adhesion kinase is involved in mechanosensing during fibroblast migration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98(20):11295–11300, 2001.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yang, Y., and K. W. Leong. Nanoscale surfacing for regenerative medicine. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2(5):478–495, 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yeung, T., P. C. Georges, L. A. Flanagan, B. Marg, M. Ortiz, M. Funaki, N. Zahir, W. Ming, V. Weaver, and P. A. Janmey. Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil. Cytoskelet. 60(1):24–34, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations