Bulletin of Mathematical Biology

, Volume 80, Issue 5, pp 1017–1045 | Cite as

How Nucleus Mechanics and ECM Microstructure Influence the Invasion of Single Cells and Multicellular Aggregates

  • Chiara Giverso
  • Alessandro Arduino
  • Luigi Preziosi
Special Issue : Mathematical Oncology

Abstract

In order to move in a three-dimensional extracellular matrix, the nucleus of a cell must squeeze through the narrow spacing among the fibers and, by adhering to them, the cell needs to exert sufficiently strong traction forces. If the nucleus is too stiff, the spacing too narrow, or traction forces too weak, the cell is not able to penetrate the network. In this article, we formulate a mathematical model based on an energetic approach, for cells entering cylindrical channels composed of extracellular matrix fibers. Treating the nucleus as an elastic body covered by an elastic membrane, the energetic balance leads to the definition of a necessary criterion for cells to pass through the regular network of fibers, depending on the traction forces exerted by the cells (or possibly passive stresses), the stretchability of the nuclear membrane, the stiffness of the nucleus, and the ratio of the pore size within the extracellular matrix with respect to the nucleus diameter. The results obtained highlight the importance of the interplay between mechanical properties of the cell and microscopic geometric characteristics of the extracellular matrix and give an estimate for a critical value of the pore size that represents the physical limit of migration and can be used in tumor growth models to predict their invasive potential in thick regions of ECM.

Keywords

Cell migration Cancer invasion Metastasis 

Mathematics Subject Classification

92B05 92C15 92C42 92C17 

References

  1. Arduino A, Preziosi L (2015) A multiphase model of tumour segregation in situ by a heterogeneous extracellular matrix. Int J Nonlinear Mech 75:22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balzer EM, Tong Z, Paul CD, Hung WC, Stroka KM, Boggs AE, Martin SS, Konstantopoulos K (2012) Physical confinement alters tumor cell adhesion and migration phenotypes. FASEB J 26(10):4045–4056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beadle C, Assanah MC, Monzo P, Vallee R, Rosenfeld SS, Canoll P (2008) The role of myosin II in glioma invasion of the brain. Mol Biol Cell 19:3357–3368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birk DE, Trelstad RL (1984) Extracellular compartments in matrix morphogenesis: collagen fibril, bundle, and lamellar formation by corneal fibroblast. J Cell Biol 99:2024–2033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broers JL, Peeters EA, Kuijpers HJ, Endert J, Bouten CV, Oomens CW, Baaijens FP, Ramaekers FC (2004) Decreased mechanical stiffness in LMNA\(-\)/\(-\)cells is caused by defective nucleo-cytoskeletal integrity: implications for the development of laminopathies. Hum Mol Genet 13:2567–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 92:2964–2974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaplain MAJ, Graziano L, Preziosi L (2006) Mathematical modelling of the loss of tissue compression responsiveness and its role in solid tumour development. Math Med Biol 23:197–229CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Coyer SR, Singh A, Dumbauld DW, Calderwood DA, Craig SW, Delamarche E, García AJ (2012) Nanopatterning reveals an ECM area threshold for focal adhesion assembly and force transmission that is regulated by integrin activation and cytoskeleton tension. J Cell Sci 125(Pt 21):5110–5123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl KN, Kahn SM, Wilson KL, Discher DE (2004) The nuclear envelope lamina network has elasticity and a compressibility limit suggestive of a molecular shock absorber. J Cell Sci 117:4779–4786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson PM, Denais C, Bakshi MC, Lammerding J (2014) Nuclear deformability constitutes a rate-limiting step during cell migration in 3-D environments. Cell Mol Bioeng 7(3):293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deguchi S, Yano M, Hashimoto K, Fukamachi H, Washio S, Tsujioka K (2007) Assessment of the mechanical properties of the nucleus inside a spherical endothelial cell based on microtensile testing. J Mech Mater Struct 2(6):1087–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans EA, Waugh R, Melnik L (1976) Elastic area compressibility modulus of red cell membrane. Biophys J 16:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fedorchak GR, Kaminski A, Lammerding J (2014) Cellular mechanosensing: getting to the nucleus of it all. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 115:76–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedl P, Brocker EB (2000) The biology of cell locomotion within three-dimensional extracellular matrix. Cell Mol Life Sci 57(1):41–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Friedl P, Sahai E, Weiss S, Yamada KM (2012) New dimensions in cell migration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13(11):743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedl P, Wolf K (2003) Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat Rev Cancer 3(5):362–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedl P, Wolf K (2010) Plasticity of cell migration: a multiscale tuning model. J Cell Biol 188(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedl P, Wolf K, Lammerding J (2011) Nuclear mechanics during cell migration. Curr Opin Cell Biol 23(1):55–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fu Y, Chin LK, Bourouina T, Liu AQ, VanDongen AM (2012) Nuclear deformation during breast cancer cell transmigration. Lab Chip 12(19):3774–3778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gerlitz G, Bustin M (2011) The role of chromatin structure in cell migration. Trends Cell Biol 21(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giverso C, Grillo A, Preziosi L (2014) Influence of nucleus deformability on cell entry into cylindrical structures. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 13(3):481–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giverso C, Scianna M, Grillo A (2015) Growing avascular tumours as elasto-plastic bodies by the theory of evolving natural configurations. Mech Res Commun 68:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graner F, Glazier JA (1992) Simulation of biological cell sorting using a two-dimensional extended potts model. Phys Rev Lett 69:2013–2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guck J, Lautenschläger F, Paschke S, Beil M (2010) Critical review: cellular mechanobiology and amoeboid migration. Integr Biol 2:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guilak F, Tedrow JR, Burgkart R (2000) Viscoelastic properties of the cell nucleus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 269:781–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harada T, Swift J, Irianto J, Shin JW, Spinler KR, Athirasala A, Diegmiller R, Dingal PC, Ivanovska IL, Discher DE (2014) Nuclear lamin stiffness is a barrier to 3D migration, but softness can limit survival. J Cell Biol 204:669–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Helfrick W (1973) Elastic properties of lipid bilayers: theory and possible experiments. Z Naturforschung 28(11):693–703Google Scholar
  28. Ho CY, Lammerding J (2012) Lamins at a glance. J Cell Sci 125(Pt 9):2087–2093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hung WC, Chen SH, Paul CD, Stroka KM, Lo YC, Yang JT, Konstantopoulos K (2013) Distinct signaling mechanisms regulate migration in unconfined versus confined spaces. J Cell Biol 202(5):807–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Isermann P, Lammerding J (2013) Nuclear mechanics and mechanotransduction in health and disease. Curr Biol 23(24):R1113–R1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jain RK (1987) Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: a review. Cancer Res 47:3039–3051Google Scholar
  32. Kaufmann A, Heinemann F, Radmacher M, Stick R (2011) Amphibian oocyte nuclei expressing lamin A with the progeria mutation E145K exhibit an increased elastic modulus. Nucleus 2:310–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim M-C, Neal DM, Kamm RD, Asada HH (2013) Dynamic modeling of cell migration and spreading behaviors on fibronectin coated planar substrates and micropatterned geometries. PLoS Comput Biol 9(2):e1002926MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Komai Y, Ushiki T (1991) Three-dimensional organization of collagen fibrils in the human cornea and sclera. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32(8):2244–2258Google Scholar
  35. Krause M, Te Riet J, Wolf K (2013) Probing the compressibility of tumor cell nuclei by combined atomic force-confocal microscopy. Phys Biol 10(6):065002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krause M, Wolf K (2015) Cancer cell migration in 3D tissue: negotiating space by proteolysis and nuclear deformability. Cell Adhes Migr 9(5):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lammerding J, Fong LG, Ji JY, Reue K, Stewart CL, Young SG, Lee RT (2006) Lamins A and C but not lamin B1 regulate nuclear mechanics. J Biol Chem 281:25768–25780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lautenschläger F, Paschke S, Schinkinger S, Bruel A, Beil M, Guck J (2009) The regulatory role of cell mechanics for migration of differentiating myeloid cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106(37):15696–15701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liu H, Wen J, Xiao Y, Liu J, Hopyan S, Radisic M, Simmons CA, Sun Y (2014) In situ mechanical characterization of the cell nucleus by atomic force microscopy. ACS Nano 8(4):3821–3828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lombardi ML, Lammerding L (2011) Keeping the LINC: the importance of nucleocytoskeletal coupling in intracellular force transmission and cellular function. Biochem Soc Trans 39:1729–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lowengrub JS, Frieboes HB, Jin F, Chuang YL, Li X, Macklin P, Wise SM, Cristini V (2010) Nonlinear modelling of cancer: bridging the gap between cells and tumours. Nonlinearity 23:R1–R91MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. Makhija E, Jokhun DS, Shivashankar GV (2015) Nuclear deformability and telomere dynamics are regulated by cell geometric constraints. Proc Natl Acad Sci 13(1):E32–E40Google Scholar
  43. Massia SP, Hubbell JA (1991) An RGD spacing of 440 nm is sufficient for integrin \(\alpha _v-\beta _3\)-mediated fibroblast spreading and 140 nm for focal contact and stress fiber formation. J Cell Biol 114(5):1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Netti PA, Jain RK (2003) Interstitial transport in solid tumours. In: Preziosi L (ed) Cancer modelling and simulation. CRC-Press, Chapman Hall, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  45. Paszek MJ et al (2005) Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Petrie RJ, Yamada KM (2012) At the leading edge of three-dimensional cell migration. J Cell Sci 125(Pt 24):5917–5926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Preziosi L, Tosin A (2009) Multiphase and multiscale trends in cancer modelling. Math Model Nat Phenom 4(3):1–11MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Rajagopalan P, Marganski WA, Brown XQ, Wong JY (2004) Direct comparison of the spread area, contractility, and migration of balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts adhered to fibronectin- and RGD-modified substrata. Biophys J 87(4):2818–2827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ribeiro AJ, Khanna P, Sukumar A, Dong C, Dahl KN (2014) Nuclear stiffening inhibits migration of invasive melanoma cells. Cell Mol Bioeng 7(4):544–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rolli CG, Seufferlein T, Kemkemer R, Spatz JP (2010) Impact of tumor cell cytoskeleton organization on invasiveness and migration: a microchannel-based approach. PLos ONE 5(1):e8726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rowat AC, Lammerding J, Herrmann H, Aebi U (2008) Towards an integrated understanding of the structure and mechanics of the cell nucleus. BioEssays 30:226–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sabeh F, Shimizu-Hirota R, Weiss SJ (2009) Protease-dependent versus -independent cancer cell invasion programs: three-dimensional amoeboid movement revisited. J Cell Biol 185(1):11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sahai E (2007) Illuminating the metastatic process. Nat Rev Cancer 7(10):737–749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Saidi IS, Jacques SL, Tittel FK (1995) Mie and Rayleigh modeling of visible-light scattering in neonatal skin. Appl Opt 34(31):7410–7418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schoumacher M, Goldman RD, Louvard D, Vignjevic DM (2010) Actin, microtubules, and vimentin intermediate filaments cooperate for elongation of invadopodia. J Cell Biol 189:541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shankar J, Messenberg A, Chan J, Underhill TM, Foster LJ, Nabi IR (2010) Pseudopodial actin dynamics control epithelial-mesenchymal transition in metastatic cancer cells. Cancer Res 70:3780–3790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shaw LM (2005) Tumor cell invasion assays. In: Guan J-L (ed) Cell migration: developmental methods and protocols, vol 294. Humana Press, New York, pp 97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Skalak R, Tozeren A, Zarda RP, Chien S (1973) Strain energy function of red blood cell membrane. Biophys J 13:245–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. te Boekhorst V, Preziosi L, Friedl P (2016) Plastiticy of cell migration in vivo and in silico. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 32:491–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tu ZC, Ou-Yang ZC (2004) Geometric theory on the elasticity of bio-membranes. J Phys A Math Gen 37:11407–11429MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  61. Tu ZC, Ou-Yang ZC (2008) Elastic theory of low-dimensional continua and its applications in bio- and nano-structures. J Comput Theor Nanosci 5:422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vargas-Pinto R, Gong H, Vahabikashi A, Johnson M (2013) The effect of the endothelial cell cortex on atomic force microscopy measurements. Biophys J 105:300–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vaziri A, Lee H, Kaazempur Mofrad MR (2006) Deformation of the cell nucleus under indentation: mechanics and mechanisms. J Mater Res 21:2126–2135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verdier C, Etienne J, Duperray A, Preziosi L (2009) Review: rheological properties of biological materials. C R Phys 10(8):790–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Versaevel M, Grevesse T, Gabriele S (2012) Spatial coordination between cell and nuclear shape within micropatterned endothelial cells. Nat Commun 3:671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weigelin B, Bakker G-J, Friedl P (2012) Intravital third harmonic generation microscopy of collective melanoma cell invasion. Principles of interface guidance and microvesicle dynamics. IntraVital 1(1):32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wiseman PW, Brown CM, Webb DJ, Hebert B, Johnson NL, Squier JA, Ellisman MH, Horwitz AF (2004) Spatial mapping of integrin interactions and dynamics during cell migration by image correlation microscopy. J Cell Sci 117:5521–5534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wolf K, Alexander S, Schacht V, Coussens LM, von Andrian UH, van Rheenen J, Deryugina E, Friedl P (2009) Collagen-based cell migration models in vitro and in vivo. Semin Cell Dev Biol 20(8):931–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolf K, Friedl P (2011) Extracellular matrix determinants of proteolytic and non-proteolytic cell migration. Trends Cell Biol 21(12):736–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolf K, Te Lindert M, Krause M, Alexander S, Te Riet J, Willis AL, Hoffman RM, Figdor CG, Weiss SJ, Friedl P (2013) Physical limits of cell migration: control by ECM space and nuclear deformation and tuning by proteolysis and traction force. J Cell Biol 201(7):1069–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolf K, Wu YI, Liu Y, Geiger J, Tam E, Overall C, Stack MS, Friedl P (2007) Multi-step pericellular proteolysis controls the transition from individual to collective cancer cell invasion. Nat Cell Biol 9:893–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Mathematical Biology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica “F. Severi”Città UniversitariaRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  3. 3.Department of EnergyPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly
  4. 4.Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca MetrologicaTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations