Advertisement

In Vitro

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 128–142 | Cite as

Contact inhibition in tissue culture

  • M. Abercrombie
Article

Conclusions

Contact inhibition of movement is here defined simply as the stopping of the continued locomotion of a cell in the direction which has produced a collision with another cell; so that one cell does not use another as a substratum. Amongst fibroblasts and epithelial cells this inhibition seems to be brought about by a mechanism which it is suggested consists essentially of a spasm of contraction in the region of the contact, set off by some signal from the cell contacted. Many other kinds of cells show the general phenomenon of contact inhibition; but there is no certainty that they have the same contractile mechanism.

The survey of the literature which this review has entailed suggests that it might be useful to end with four somewhat negative points: (1) Contact inhibition as originally defined is not concerned with mitosis. It may of course become so. (2) Contact inhibition of movement is difficult to analyse reliably without quantitative estimations and deliberate experiments. Anecdotes are not enough. (3) Malignant cells are not properly described as being devoid of contact inhibition. It is suggested that they are defective as compared with their cells of origin. (4) From the point of view invasion interest. It is the heterologous inhibition of tumour cells by normal cells that is relevant.

Keywords

Sarcoma Cell Normal Epithelium Normal Fibroblast Contact Inhibition Polyoma Virus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abercrombie, M., and J. E. M. Heaysman. 1954. Social behaviour of cells in tissue culture. II. “Monolayering” of fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res. 6: 293–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weiss, P. 1950. Perspectives in the field of morphogenesis. Quart. Rev. Biol. 25: 177–198.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abercrombie, M., and E. J. Ambrose. 1958. Interference microscope studies of cell contacts in tissue culture. Exp. Cell Res. 15: 332–345.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loeb, L. 1921 Moeboid movement, tissue formation and consistency of protoplasm. Amer. J. Physiol. 56: 140–167.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abercombie, M., and E. J. Ambrose. 1962. The surface properties of cancer cells: a review Cancer Res. 22: 525–548.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abercrombie, M., and C. A. Middleton. 1968. Epithelial-mesenchymal interactions affecting locomotion of cells in culture. In:Epithelial-Mesenchymal Interactions. Edited by R. Fleischmajer and R. E. Bilingham, p. 56. Williams and Wilkins. Baltimore.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stoker, M. G. P., and H. Rubin. 1967. Density dependent inhibition of cell growth in culture. Nature. London 215: 171–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abercrombie, M. 1967. Contact inhibition: the phenomenon and its biological implications. Nat. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 26: 249–277.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ingram, V. M. 1969. A side view of moving fibroblasts. Nature, London 222: 641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyde, A., F. Grainger, and D. W. James 1969. Scanning electron microscopic observations of chick embryo fibroblastsin vitro, with particular reference to the movement of cells under others. Z. Zellforsch. 94: 46–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weiss, P. 1958 Cell contact. Int. Rev. Cytol., 7: 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Abercrombie, H. 1961. The bases of the locomotory behaviour of fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res. Suppl. 8: 188–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devis, R., and D. W. James 1962. Electron microscopic appearance of close relationships between adult guinea pig fibroblasts in tissue culture. Nature, London 194: 695–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Potter, D. D., E. J. Furshpan, and E. S. Lennox. 1966. Connections between cells of the developing squid as revealed by electrophysiological methods. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 55: 328–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Abercrombie, M., and J. E. M. Heaysman. 1953. Social behaviour of cells in tissue culture. I. Speed of movement of chick heart fibroblasts in relation to their mutual contacts. Exp. Cell Res. 5: 111–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abercrombie, M., J. E. M. Heaysman, and H. M. Karthauser. 1957. Social behaviour of cells in tissue culture. III. Mutual influence of sarcoma cells and fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res. 13: 276–291.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abercrombie, M., D. M. Lamont, and E. M. Stephenson. 1968. The monolayering in tissue culture of fibroblasts from different sources. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 170: 349–360.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abercrombie, M. 1962. Contact-dependent behaviour of normal cells and the possible significance of surface changes in virus-induced transformations. Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 27: 427–431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carter, S. B. 1965. Principles of cell motility: the direction of cell movement and cancer invasion. Nature, London 208: 1183–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curtis, A. S. G. 1961. Control of some cell-contact reactions in tissue culture. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 26: 253–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Curtis, A. S. G. 1967.The Cell Surface: Its Molecular Role in Morphogenesis. Logos Academic Press, London. pp. X +405.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curtis, A. S. G. 1960. Cell contacts: some physical considerations. Amer. Nat. 94: 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carter, S. B. 1967. Haptotaxis and the mechanism of cell motility. Nature, London 213: 256–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steinberg, M. S. 1965. Reconstruction of tissues by dissociated cells. Science 141: 401–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abererombie, M. 1964. Cell contacts in morphogenesis. Arch. Biol. (Liège) 75: 351–367.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rubin, H. 1966. Fact and theory about the cell surface in carcinogenesis. InMajor Problems in Developmental Biology. Ed. M. Locke, p. 315, 25th Symposium, Society for Developmental Biology, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Curtis, A. S. G. and M. Vardé. 1964. Control of cell behaviour: topological factors. J. Nat. Cancer Inst., 33: 15–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gustafson, T. and L. Wolpert. 1967. Cellular movement and contact in sea urchin morphogenesis. Biol. Rev. 42: 442–498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wolpert, L. and D. Gingell. 1968. Cell surface membrane and amoeboid movement. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 22: 169–198.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ambrose, E. J. 1961. The movements of fibrocytes. Exp. Cell Res. Suppl. 8: 54–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Loewenstein, W. R. and R. D. Penn. 1967. Intercellular communication and tissue growth. II. Tissue regeneration. J. Cell Biol. 33: 235–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hay, E. D. 1968. Organization of fine structure of epithelium and mesenchyme in the developing chick embryo. In:Epithelial-Mesenchymal Interaction. Ed. R. Fleischmajer and R. E. Billingham, p. 31. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lowenstein, W. R. 1968. Communication through cell junctions. Implications in growth control and differentiation. Devel. Biol. Suppl. 2: 151–183.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abercrombie, M., and J. E. M. Heaysman. 1966. The directional movement of fibroblasts emigrating from cultured explants. Ann. Med. Exp. Fenn. 44: 161–165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abercrombie, M., and G. Gitlin. 1965. The locomotory behaviour of small groups of fibroblasts. Proc. Roy. Soc. B. 162: 289–302.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fischer, A. 1930. Regeneration. Versuche an Gewebskulturen in vitro. Virchows Arch. 279: 94–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Todaro, G. J., G. K. Lazar, and H. Green. 1965. The initiation of cell division in a contact-inhibited mammalian cell line. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 66: 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Castor, L. N. 1968. Contact regulation of cell division in an epithelial-like cell line. J. Cell Physiol. 72: 161–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vasiliev, J. M., I. M. Gelfand, L. V. Domina and R. I. Rappoport. 1969. Wound healing processes in cell cultures. Exp. Cell Res. 54: 83–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Abercrombie, M., M. L., Johnson, and G. A. Thomas. 1949. The influence of nerve fibres on Schwann cell migration investigated in tissue culture. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 136: 448–460.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer, E. 1933. Frombildung und Wachstum von gezüchteten Zellverbänder (“Reinkulturen”). Roux Arch. Ent. Mech. Organ. 130: 382–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    James, D. W., and J. F. Taylor. 1969. The stress developed by sheets of chick fibroblasts in vitro. Exp. Cell Res. 54: 107–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Abercrombie, M., M.H. Flint, and D. W. James. 1956. Wound contraction in relation to collagen formation in scrobutic guineapigs. J. Embryol. Exp. Morph. 4: 167–175.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Saxén, L., and J. Wartiovaara. 1966. Cell contact and cell adhesion during tissue organization. Int. J. Cancer 1: 271–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Trinkaus, J. P., and J. P. Lentz. 1964. Direct observation of type-specific segregation in mixed cell aggregates. Devel. Biol. 9: 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Elsdale, T. R. 1968. Parallel orientation of fibroblasts in vitro. Exp. Cell Res. 51: 439–450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Macpherson, I., and M. Stoker. 1962. Polyoma transformation of hamster cell clones-an investigation of genetic factors affecting cell competence. Virology 16: 147–151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Macieira-Coelho, A. 1967. Dissociation between inhibition of movement and inhibition of division in RSV transformed human fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res. 47: 193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sanford, K. K., B. E. Barker, M. W. Wood, R. Parshad, and L. W. Law. 1967. Search for “indicators” of neoplastic conversionin vitro. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 39: 705–733.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Defendi, V. 1966. Transformationin vitro of mammalian cells by polyoma and simian40 viruses. Prog. Exp. Tumor Res. 8: 125–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Borek, C., and L. Sachs. 1966In vitro cell transformation by x-irradiation. Nature, London 210: 276–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Berwald, Y. and L. Sachs. 1963.In vitro cell transformation with chemical carcinogens. Nature, London 200: 1182–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Heidelberger, C., and P. T. Iype. 1967. Malignant transformation in vitro by carcinogenic hydrocarbons. Science 155: 214–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kuroki, T. and H. Sato. 1968. Transformation and neoplastic developmentin vitro of hamster embryonic cells by 4-nitroquinoline-1-oxide and its derivatives. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 41: 53–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Enders, J. F., and G. T. Diamandopoulos. 1969. A study of variation and progression in oncogenicity in an SV40-transformed hamster heart cell line and its clones. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 171: 431–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Defendi, V., and J. M. Lehman. 1966. Transformation of hamster embryo cellsin vitro by polyoma virus: morphological, karological, immunological and transplantation characteristics. J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. 66: 351–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Aaronson, S. A., and G. J. Todaro. 1968. Basis for the acquisition of malignant potential by mouse cells cultivated in vitro. Science 162: 1024–1026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Defendi, V., J. Lehman, and P. Kraemer. 1963. “Morphologically normal” hamster cells with malignant properties. Virology 19: 592–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Carrel, A., and A. H. Ebeling. 1928. The fundamental properties of the fibroblast and the macrophage. III. The malignant fibroblasts of sarcoma 10 of the Crocker Foundation. J. Exp. Med. 48: 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jacoby, F. 1940. Architecture of colonies of a pure strain of fibroblastic sarcomatous cells derived from a dibenzanthracene mouse tumour. Nature, London 146: 301–302.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hellström, I., K. E. Hellström, and H. O. Sjögren. 1962. Further studies on superinfection of polyoma-induced mouse tumors with polyoma virus in vitro. Virology 16: 282–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Canti, R. G. 1928. Cinematograph demonstration of living cells growingin vitro. Arch. exp. Zellforsch. 6: 86–97.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Abercombie, M. 1961. Behaviour of normal and malignant connective tissue cellsin vitro. Canad. Cancer Conf. 4: 101–117.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Vaughan, R. B. and J. P. Trinkaus. 1966. Movements of epithelial cell sheetsin vitro. J. Cell Sci. 1: 407–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Wilbanks, G. D., and R. M. Richart. 1966. Thein vitro interaction of intra-epithelial neoplasia, normal epithelium, and fibroblasts from the adult human unterine cervix. Cancer Res. 26: 1641–1647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Trinkaus, J. P., and T. L. Lentz. 1967. Surface specializations ofFundulus cells and their relation to cell movements during gastrulation. J. Cell Biol. 32: 139–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wilbur, K. M., and R. Chambers. 1941. Cell movements in the healing of microwounds in vitro. J. Exp. Zool. 91: 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Bereiter-Hahn, J.. 1967. Dissoziation und Reaggregation von Epidermiszellen der Larven vonXenopus laevis (Daudin) in vitro. Zeitrafferlaufbild-und Teilbildanalyse. Z. Zellforsch. 79: 118–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Holmes, S. J.. 1913. Behavior of ectodermic epithelium of tadpoles when cultivated in plasma. Univ. California Publ. Zool. 11: 155–172.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chambers, R. and R. J. Ludford. 1932. Microdissection studies on malignant and nonmalignant tissue cells. Arch. Exp. Zellforsch. 12: 555–569.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Coman, D. R. 1944. Decreased mutual adhesiveness, a property of cells from squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Res. 4: 625–629.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    McCutcheon, M., D. R. Coman, and F. B. Moore. 1948. Studies on invasiveness of cancer. Adhesiveness of malignant cells in various human adenocarcinomas. Cancer 1: 460–467.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Borland, R., and A. J. Webber. 1966. An electron microscopic study of squamous cell carcinoma in merino sheep associated with keratin-filled cysts of the skin. Cancer Res. 26: 172–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Shingleton, H. M., R. M. Richart, J. Wiener, and D. Spiro. 1968. Human cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: fine structure of dysplasia and carcinomain situ. Cancer Res. 28: 695–706.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Richart, R. M. 1964. The growth characteristicsin vitro of normal epithelium, dysplasia, and carcinoma-in-situ of the uterine cervix. Cancer Res. 24: 662–669.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Coman, D. R. 1942. Human neoplasms in tissue culture. Cancer Res. 2: 618–625.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Hanes, F. M., and R. A. Lambert. 1912. Amöboide Bewegungen von Krebszellen als ein Faktor des invasiven und metastatischen Wachstums maligner Tumoren. Virchows Arch. Path. Anat. 209: 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Auersperg, N., and A. Worth. 1966. Growth patternsin vitro of invasive squamous carcinomas of the cervix. A correlation of cultural, histologic, cytogenetic and clinical features. Int. J. Cancer 1: 219–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Trevan, D. J., and D. C. Roberts. 1960. Sheet formation by cells of an ascites tumourin vitro. Brit. J. Cancer 14: 724–729.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Santesson, L. 1935. Characteristics of epithelial mouse tumour cellsin vitro and tumour strainsin vivo. Acta Path. Microbiol. Scandinav. (Suppl.) 24: 1–237.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Easty, G. C., and E. H. Mercer. 1960. An electron microscope study of the surface of normal and malignant cells in culture. Cancer Res. 20: 1608–1613.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Oldfield, F. E. 1963. Orientation behavior of chick leucocytes in tissue culture and their interactions with fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res. 30: 125–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chang, Y. T. 1964. Long term cultivation of mouse peritoneal macrophages. J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 32: 19–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Jacoby, F. 1965. Macrophages. In: Cells and Tissues in Culture, vol. 2, Ed. E. N. Willmer, p. 1. Academic Press, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Chiakulas, J. J. 1952. The role of tissue specificity in the healing of epithelial wounds. J. Exp. Zool. 121: 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ludford, R. J., and H. Barlow. 1944. The influence of malignant cells upon the growth of fibroblasts. Cancer Res. 4: 694–703.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Rubin, H. 1966. The inhibition of chick embryo cell growth by medium obtained from cultures of Rous sarcoma cells. Exp. Cell Res. 41: 149–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Barski, G., and J. Belehradek. 1965. Etude microcinématographique du mécanisme d'invasion cancereuse en cultures de tissu normal associé aux cellules malignes. Exp. Cell Res. 37: 464–480.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stoker, M. 1964. Regulation of growth and orientation in hamster cells transformed by polyoma virus. Virology 24: 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Weiss, L. 1967.The Cell Periphery, Metastasis and Other Contact Phenomena. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Fischer, A., H. Laser, and H. Meyer. 1929. Wechselbeziehungen zwischen normalen und bösartigen Geweben. Z. Krebsforsch. 29: 270–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Earle, W. R. 1937. A further study of the Walker rat mammary carcinoma Nr. 256 in vitro. Arch. Exp. Zellforsch. 20: 140–155.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chlopin, N. 1932. Über das Wachstum und die Organisationsfähigkeit einiger Epithelgewebe ausserhalb des Organismus. Z. Krebsforsch. 37: 256–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Leighton, J., R. L. Kalla, and M. Belkin. 1959. Pathogenesis of tumor invasion. I. Interaction between normal tissues and transformed cells in tissue culture. Cancer Res. 19: 23–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Castor, L. N. 1968. Contact regulation of cell division in an epithelial-like cell line. J. Cell Physiol. 72: 161–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Swann, M. M. 1958. The control of cell division: a review. II. Special mechanisms. Cancer Res. 18: 1118–1160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Macieira-Coelho, A. 1967. Relationship between DNA synthesis and cell density in normal and virus-transformed cells. Int. J. Cancer. 2: 297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tissue Culture Association 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Abercrombie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ZoologyUniversity CollegeLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations