Advertisement

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 48, Issue 10, pp 1043–1053 | Cite as

Can common adhesion molecules and microtopography affect cellular elasticity? A combined atomic force microscopy and optical study

  • Gordon McPhee
  • Matthew J. Dalby
  • Mathis Riehle
  • Huabing YinEmail author
Special Issue - Original Article

Abstract

The phenomenon that cells respond to chemical and topographic cues in their surroundings has been widely examined and exploited in many fields ranging from basic life science research to biomedical therapeutics. Adhesion promoting molecules such as poly-l-lysine (PLL) and fibronectin (Fn) are commonly used for in vitro cell assays to promote cell spreading/proliferation on tissue culture plastic and to enhance the biocompatibility of biomedical devices. Likewise, engineered topography is often used to guide cell growth and differentiation. Little is known about how these cues affect the biomechanical properties of cells and subsequent cell function. In this study we have applied atomic force microscopy (AFM) to investigate these biomechanical properties. In the first stage of the study we formulated a rigorous approach to quantify cellular elasticity using AFM. Operational factors, including indentation depth and speed, and mathematical models for data fitting have been systematically evaluated. We then quantified how PLL, Fn and microtopography affected cellular elasticity and the organization of the cytoskeleton. Cellular elasticity after 1 day in culture was greater on a Fn-coated surface as compared to PLL or glass. These statistically significant differences disappeared after two more days in culture. In contrast, the significantly higher elasticity associated with cells grown on micrometric grooves remained for at least 3 days. This work sheds light on the apparently simple but debatable questions: “Are engineered chemical cues eventually masked by a cell’s own matrix proteins and so only exert short-term influence? Does engineered topography as well as engineered chemistry affect cell elasticity?”

Keywords

AFM Indentation Topography Cellular elasticity Fibroblasts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Jochen Guck, Dr. Kristian Franze, Professor Jon Cooper, Dr. Andrew Glidle and Dr. Phil Dobson for their continuous support for this work and inspiring discussions. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable assistance offered by JPK Instruments Ltd. in this study. G. McPhee is supported by the EPSRC. The Royal Society of Edinburgh supports HY as a Personal Research Fellow.

Supplementary material

11517_2010_657_MOESM1_ESM.doc (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1975 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    A-Hassan E et al (1998) Relative microelastic mapping of living cells by atomic force microscopy. Biophys J 74(3):1564–1578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berdyyeva TK, Woodworth CD, Sokolov I (2005) Human epithelial cells increase their rigidity with ageing in vitro: direct measurements. Phys Med Biol 50(1):81–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burridge K, ChrzanowskaWodnicka M (1996) Focal adhesions, contractility, and signaling. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 12:463–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Butt HJ, Cappella B, Kappl M (2005) Force measurements with the atomic force microscope: technique, interpretation and applications. Surf Sci Rep 59(1–6):1–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen CS et al (1997) Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 276(5317):1425–1428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen CS et al (2003) Cell shape provides global control of focal adhesion assembly. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 307(2):355–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark P et al (1990) Topographical control of cell behavior. 2. multiple grooved substrate. Development 108(4):635–644PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Costa KD, Yin FCP (1999) Analysis of indentation: Implications for measuring mechanical properties with atomic force microscopy. J Biomech Eng Trans ASME 121(5):462–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cross SE et al (2007) Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):780–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curtis A, Wilkinson C (1997) Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials 18(24):1573–1583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dalby MJ (2005) Topographically induced direct cell mechanotransduction. Med Eng Phys 27(9):730–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Darling EM et al (2008) Viscoelastic properties of human mesenchymally-derived stem cells and primary osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and adipocytes. J Biomech 41(2):454–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Discher D et al (2009) Biomechanics: cell research and applications for the next decade. Annu Biomed Eng 37(5):847–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dulinska I et al (2006) Stiffness of normal and pathological erythrocytes studied by means of atomic force microscopy. J Biochem Biophys Methods 66(1–3):1–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engler AJ et al (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4):677–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Engler AJ et al (2008) Embryonic cardiomyocytes beat best on a matrix with heart-like elasticity: scar-like rigidity inhibits beating. J Cell Sci 121(22):3794–3802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fabry B et al (2001) Signal transduction in smooth muscle—selected contribution: time course and heterogeneity of contractile responses in cultured human airway smooth muscle cells. J Appl Physiol 91(2):986–994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faulstich H, Trischmann H, Mayer D (1983) Preparation of tetramethylrhodaminyl-phalloidin and uptake of the toxin into short-term cultured-hepatocytes by endocytosis. Exp Cell Res 144(1):73–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Folch A, Toner M (2000) Microengineering of cellular interactions. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2:227–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guck J et al (2005) Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. Biophys J 88(5):3689–3698CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Guilak F et al (2009) Control of stem cell fate by physical interactions with the extracellular matrix. Cell Stem Cell 5(1):17–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hochmuth RM (2000) Micropipette aspiration of living cells. J Biomech 33(1):15–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ingber DE et al (1994) Celluar tensegrity—exploring how mechanical changes in the cytoskeleton regulate cell—growth, migration, and tissue pattern during morphogenesis. In: International review of cytology—a survey of cell biology, vol 150. Academic Press Inc, San Diego, pp 173–224Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Janmey PA (1998) The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: component localization and mechanical coupling. Physiol Rev 78(3):763–781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Janmey PA, McCulloch CA (2007) Cell mechanics: integrating cell responses to mechanical stimuli. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 9:1–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kramer RH, Shen XD, Zhou H (2005) Tumor cell invasion and survival in head and neck cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 24(1):35–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kuznetsova TG et al (2007) Atomic force microscopy probing of cell elasticity. Micron 38(8):824–833CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li QS et al (2008) AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 374(4):609–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lieber SC et al (2004) Aging increases stiffness of cardiac myocytes measured by atomic force microscopy nanoindentation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 287(2):H645–H651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lussi JW et al (2006) Pattern stability under cell culture conditions—a comparative study of patterning methods based on PLL-g-PEG background passivation. Biomaterials 27(12):2534–2541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahaffy RE et al (2004) Quantitative analysis of the viscoelastic properties of thin regions of fibroblasts using atomic force microscopy. Biophys J 86(3):1777–1793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mathur AB et al (2001) Endothelial, cardiac muscle and skeletal muscle exhibit different viscous and elastic properties as determined by atomic force microscopy. J Biomech 34(12):1545–1553CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moffitt JR et al (2008) Recent advances in optical tweezers. Annu Rev Biochem 77:205–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pajerowski JD et al (2007) Physical plasticity of the nucleus in stem cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(40):15619–15624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parker KK et al (2002) Directional control of lamellipodia extension by constraining cell shape and orienting cell tractional forces. FASEB J 16(10):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paszek MJ et al (2005) Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8(3):241–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Radmacher M (1997) Measuring the elastic properties of biological samples with the AFM. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 16(2):47–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosenbluth MJ, Lam WA, Fletcher DA (2006) Force microscopy of nonadherent cells: a comparison of leukemia cell deformability. Biophys J 90(8):2994–3003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rotsch C, Radmacher M (2000) Drug-induced changes of cytoskeletal structure and mechanics in fibroblasts: an atomic force microscopy study. Biophys J 78(1):520–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Smith BA et al (2005) Probing the viscoelastic behavior of cultured airway smooth muscle cells with atomic force microscopy: Stiffening induced by contractile agonist. Biophys J 88(4):2994–3007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sørensen A et al (2007) Long-term neurite orientation on astrocyte monolayers aligned by microtopography. Biomaterials 28(36):5498–5508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Takai E et al (2005) Osteoblast elastic modulus measured by atomic force microscopy is substrate dependent. Annu Biomed Eng 33(7):963–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tao NJ, Lindsay SM, Lees S (1992) Measuring the microelastic properties of biological—material. Biophys J 63(4):1165–1169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang N et al (2002) Cell prestress. I. Stiffness and prestress are closely associated in adherent contractile cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 282(3):C606–C616PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wozniak MJ et al (2009) Monitoring of mechanical properties of serially passaged bovine articular chondrocytes by atomic force microscopy. Micron 40(8):870–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yim EKF et al (2010) Nanotopography-induced changes in focal adhesions, cytoskeletal organization, and mechanical properties of human mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 31(6):1299–1306Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yu LMY, Leipzig ND, Shoichet MS (2008) Promoting neuron adhesion and growth. Mater Today 11(5):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gordon McPhee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthew J. Dalby
    • 2
  • Mathis Riehle
    • 2
  • Huabing Yin
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Bioelectronics Research Centre, Department of Electronics & Electrical EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.The Centre for Cell EngineeringUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations