Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 530–542 | Cite as

Haptotaxis is Cell Type Specific and Limited by Substrate Adhesiveness

  • Jessica H. Wen
  • Onkiu Choi
  • Hermes Taylor-Weiner
  • Alexander Fuhrmann
  • Jerome V. Karpiak
  • Adah Almutairi
  • Adam J. Engler
Article

Abstract

Motile cells navigate through tissue by relying on tactile cues from gradients provided by extracellular matrix such as ligand density or stiffness. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and fibroblasts encounter adhesive or ‘haptotactic’ gradients at the interface between healthy and fibrotic tissue as they migrate towards an injury site. Mimicking this phenomenon, we developed tunable RGD and collagen gradients in polyacrylamide hydrogels of physiologically relevant stiffness using density gradient multilayer polymerization to better understand how such ligand gradients regulate migratory behaviors. Independent of ligand composition and fiber deformation, haptotaxis was observed in mouse 3T3 fibroblasts. Human MSCs however, haptotaxed only when cell-substrate adhesion was indirectly reduced via addition of free soluble matrix ligand mimetic peptides. Under basal conditions, MSCs were more contractile than fibroblasts. However, the presence of soluble adhesive peptides reduced MSC-induced substrate deformations; increased contractility may contribute to limited migration, but modulating cytoskeletal assembly was ineffective at promoting MSC haptotaxis. When introduced to gradients of increased absolute ligand concentrations, 3T3s displayed increased contractility and no longer haptotaxed. These data suggest that haptotactic behaviors are limited by adhesion and that although both cell types may home to tissue to aid in repair, fibroblasts may be more responsive to ligand gradients than MSCs.

Keywords

Migration Mesenchymal stem cell Fibroblast Ligand gradient Surface modification Elasticity 

Supplementary material

12195_2015_398_MOESM1_ESM.tif (5.5 mb)
Supp. Figure 1. Cell Spread Area and Attachment on Collagen Gradients. Dots indicate the distribution of cell spread areas, and grey bars indicate the number of cells found across the gradient region of a surface collagen density gradient substrate 15 h post-seeding.. Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 5643 kb)
12195_2015_398_MOESM2_ESM.tif (24.6 mb)
Supp. Figure 2. Characterization of MSC Migration on Collagen Gradients. A. Rose plots of MSC migratory paths beginning at the origin on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. B. Tactic index, or the ratio of displacement to total distance traveled by cells on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. Each data point indicates one cell. (mean ± S.E.M.). C. Histograms depicting initial to final position displacement vector angles of MSCs on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. 0 angle indicates migration directly up the ligand gradient. Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 25222 kb)
12195_2015_398_MOESM3_ESM.tif (27.9 mb)
Supp. Figure 3. Characterization of 3T3 Migration on Collagen Gradients. A. Rose plots of 3T3 migratory paths beginning at the origin on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. B. Tactic index, or the ratio of displacement to total distance traveled by cells on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. Each data point indicates one cell. (mean ± S.E.M.; ***p < 0.005). C. Histograms depicting initial to final position displacement vector angles of 3T3 s on low, gradient, and high collagen density regions of PA-AA hydrogels. 0 angle indicates migration directly up the ligand gradient. Supplementary material 3 (TIFF 28570 kb)
12195_2015_398_MOESM4_ESM.tif (8.3 mb)
Supp. Figure 4. Effect of Drug Treatment on 3T3 Migration Paths. A. Rose plots of migratory paths beginning at the origin on the gradient region of PA-PEG-RGD hydrogels with RGD gradients of 3T3 s treated with lysophosphatidic acid, bradykinin, nocodazole, and cytochalasin D. B. Rose plots of migratory paths beginning at the origin on the gradient region of PA-AA hydrogels with collagen gradients of 3T3 s treated with lysophosphatidic acid. Supplementary material 4 (TIFF 8495 kb)
12195_2015_398_MOESM5_ESM.tif (4.7 mb)
Supp. Figure 5. Fibronectin FRET Intensity Characterization. FRET intensity ratio map of a blebbistatin treated cell (left) and an untreated cell (center), and measured FRET intensity ratio of undeformed protein underneath a blebbistatin treated cell and an untreated cell (right) seeded on a polyacryalmide hydrogels (right). (n = 8; ***p < 0.005). Supplementary material 5 (TIFF 4801 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Affolter, M., and C. J. Weijer. Signaling to cytoskeletal dynamics during chemotaxis. Dev Cell 9(1):19–34, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aznavoorian, S., M. L. Stracke, H. Krutzsch, E. Schiffmann, and L. A. Liotta. Signal transduction for chemotaxis and haptotaxis by matrix molecules in tumor cells. J. Cell Biol. 110(4):1427–1438, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baneyx, G., L. Baugh, and V. Vogel. Fibronectin extension and unfolding within cell matrix fibrils controlled by cytoskeletal tension. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(8):5139–5143, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry, M. F., A. J. Engler, Y. J. Woo, T. J. Pirolli, L. T. Bish, V. Jayasankar, et al. Mesenchymal stem cell injection after myocardial infarction improves myocardial compliance. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 290(6):H2196–H2203, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonanni, B., A. S. Kamruzzahan, A. R. Bizzarri, C. Rankl, H. J. Gruber, P. Hinterdorfer, et al. Single molecule recognition between cytochrome C 551 and gold-immobilized azurin by force spectroscopy. Biophys. J. 89(4):2783–2791, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Burdick, J. A., A. Khademhosseini, and R. Langer. Fabrication of gradient hydrogels using a microfluidics/photopolymerization process. Langmuir 20(13):5153–5156, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cencetti, F., G. Bruno, S. Blescia, C. Bernacchioni, P. Bruni, and C. Donati. Lysophosphatidic acid stimulates cell migration of satellite cells. A role for the sphingosine kinase/sphingosine 1-phosphate axis. FEBS J. 281(19):4467–4478, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chirasatitsin, S., and A. J. Engler. Detecting cell-adhesive sites in extracellular matrix using force spectroscopy mapping. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 22(19):194102, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    del Alamo, J. C., R. Meili, B. Alvarez-Gonzalez, B. Alonso-Latorre, E. Bastounis, R. Firtel, et al. Three-dimensional quantification of cellular traction forces and mechanosensing of thin substrata by fourier traction force microscopy. PLoS ONE 8(9):e69850, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    DeLong, S. A., A. S. Gobin, and J. L. West. Covalent immobilization of RGDS on hydrogel surfaces to direct cell alignment and migration. J. Control Release 109(1–3):139–148, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    DiMilla, P. A., J. A. Stone, J. A. Quinn, S. M. Albelda, and D. A. Lauffenburger. Maximal migration of human smooth muscle cells on fibronectin and type IV collagen occurs at an intermediate attachment strength. J. Cell Biol. 122(3):729–737, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ehrlich, J. S., M. D. Hansen, and W. J. Nelson. Spatio-temporal regulation of Rac1 localization and lamellipodia dynamics during epithelial cell-cell adhesion. Dev. Cell 3(2):259–270, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Engler, A., L. Bacakova, C. Newman, A. Hategan, M. Griffin, and D. Discher. Substrate compliance versus ligand density in cell on gel responses. Biophys. J. 86(1 Pt 1):617–628, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fletcher, D. A., and R. D. Mullins. Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton. Nature 463(7280):485–492, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuhrmann, A., D. Anselmetti, R. Ros, S. Getfert, and P. Reimann. Refined procedure of evaluating experimental single-molecule force spectroscopy data. Phys. Rev. E 77(3):031912, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaudet, C., W. A. Marganski, S. Kim, C. T. Brown, V. Gunderia, M. Dembo, et al. Influence of type I collagen surface density on fibroblast spreading, motility, and contractility. Biophys. J. 85(5):3329–3335, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Georges, P. C., J. J. Hui, Z. Gombos, M. E. McCormick, A. Y. Wang, M. Uemura, et al. Increased stiffness of the rat liver precedes matrix deposition: implications for fibrosis. Am. J. Physiol Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 293(6):G1147–G1154, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giannone, G., B. J. Dubin-Thaler, H. G. Dobereiner, N. Kieffer, A. R. Bresnick, and M. P. Sheetz. Periodic lamellipodial contractions correlate with rearward actin waves. Cell 116(3):431–443, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grevesse, T., M. Versaevel, and S. Gabriele. Preparation of hydroxy-PAAm hydrogels for decoupling the effects of mechanotransduction cues. J. Vis. Exp. 90:e51010–e51010, 2014.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffman, B. D., C. Grashoff, and M. A. Schwartz. Dynamic molecular processes mediate cellular mechanotransduction. Nature 475(7356):316–323, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joshi-Barr, S., J. V. Karpiak, Y. Ner, J. H. Wen, A. J. Engler, and A. Almutairi. Density gradient multilayered polymerization (DGMP): a novel technique for creating multi-compartment, customizable scaffolds for tissue engineering. J. Vis. Exp. 72:e50018, 2013Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karpiak, J. V., Y. Ner, and A. Almutairi. Density gradient multilayer polymerization for creating complex tissue. Adv. Mater. 24(11):1466–1470, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katayama, Y., M. Battista, W. M. Kao, A. Hidalgo, A. J. Peired, S. A. Thomas, et al. Signals from the sympathetic nervous system regulate hematopoietic stem cell egress from bone marrow. Cell 124(2):407–421, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kaushik, G., A. Fuhrmann, A. Cammarato, and A. J. Engler. In situ mechanical analysis of myofibrillar perturbation and aging on soft, bilayered Drosophila myocardium. Biophys. J. 101(11):2629–2637, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim, H. D., and S. R. Peyton. Bio-inspired materials for parsing matrix physicochemical control of cell migration: a review. Integr. Biol. (Camb.) 4(1):37–52, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lauffenburger, D. A., and J. J. Linderman. Receptors: Models for Binding, Trafficking, and Signaling. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lauffenburger, D. A., and J. J. Lindermann. Receptors: Models for Binding, Trafficking, and Signaling (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, W., J. Fan, M. Chen, S. Guan, D. Sawcer, G. M. Bokoch, et al. Mechanism of human dermal fibroblast migration driven by type I collagen and platelet-derived growth factor-BB. Mol. Biol. Cell 15(1):294–309, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lo, C. M., H. B. Wang, M. Dembo, and Y. L. Wang. Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys. J. 79(1):144–152, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marklein, R. A., and J. A. Burdick. Spatially controlled hydrogel mechanics to modulate stem cell interactions. Soft Matter 6(1):136–143, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peyton, S. R., and A. J. Putnam. Extracellular matrix rigidity governs smooth muscle cell motility in a biphasic fashion. J. Cell Physiol. 204(1):198–209, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pulsipher, A., and M. N. Yousaf. Surface chemistry and cell biological tools for the analysis of cell adhesion and migration. Chembiochem 11(6):745–753, 2010; (730).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ricoult, S. G., M. Pla-Roca, R. Safavieh, G. M. Lopez-Ayon, P. Grutter, T. E. Kennedy, et al. Large dynamic range digital nanodot gradients of biomolecules made by low-cost nanocontact printing for cell haptotaxis. Small 9(19):3308–3313, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singelyn, J. M., J. A. DeQuach, S. B. Seif-Naraghi, R. B. Littlefield, P. J. Schup-Magoffin, and K. L. Christman. Naturally derived myocardial matrix as an injectable scaffold for cardiac tissue engineering. Biomaterials 30(29):5409–5416, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith, M. L., D. Gourdon, W. C. Little, K. E. Kubow, R. A. Eguiluz, S. Luna-Morris, et al. Force-induced unfolding of fibronectin in the extracellular matrix of living cells. PLoS Biol. 5(10):e268, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sullivan, K. E., K. P. Quinn, K. M. Tang, I. Georgakoudi, and L. D. Black, 3rd. Extracellular matrix remodeling following myocardial infarction influences the therapeutic potential of mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 5(1):14, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tang, N., Y. Zhao, R. Feng, Y. Liu, S. Wang, W. Wei, et al. Lysophosphatidic acid accelerates lung fibrosis by inducing differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells into myofibroblasts. J. Cell Mol. Med. 18(1):156–169, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Taylor-Weiner, H., N. Ravi, and A. J. Engler. Traction forces via integrin signaling are necessary for definitive endoderm specification. J. Cell Sci. 43(1):55–62, 2015.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Trappmann, B., J. E. Gautrot, J. T. Connelly, D. G. Strange, Y. Li, M. L. Oyen, et al. Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. Nat. Mater. 11(7):642–649, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tse, J. R., and A. J. Engler. Stiffness gradients mimicking in vivo tissue variation regulate mesenchymal stem cell fate. PLoS ONE 6(1):e15978, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vincent, L. G., Y. S. Choi, B. Alonso-Latorre, J. C. del Alamo, and A. J. Engler. Mesenchymal stem cell durotaxis depends on substrate stiffness gradient strength. Biotechnol. J. 8(4):472–484, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vogel, V., and M. Sheetz. Local force and geometry sensing regulate cell functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7(4):265–275, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wen, J. H., L. G. Vincent, A. Fuhrmann, Y. S. Choi, K. C. Hribar, H. Taylor-Weiner, et al. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat. Mater. 13(10):979–987, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zaari, N., P. Rajagopalan, S. K. Kim, A. J. Engler, and J. Y. Wong. Photopolymerization in microfluidic gradient generators: microscale control of substrate compliance to manipulate cell response. Adv. Mater. 16(23–24):2133–2137, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica H. Wen
    • 1
  • Onkiu Choi
    • 2
  • Hermes Taylor-Weiner
    • 1
  • Alexander Fuhrmann
    • 1
  • Jerome V. Karpiak
    • 3
  • Adah Almutairi
    • 3
    • 4
  • Adam J. Engler
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringUC San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical EngineeringNational Yang-Ming UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Department of Biomedical SciencesUC San DiegoLa JollaUSA
  4. 4.Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaLa JollaUSA
  5. 5.Sanford Consortium for Regenerative MedicineLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations