Osteoblast Adhesion of Breast Cancer Cells with Scanning Acoustic Microscopy

  • C. Miyasaka
  • R.R. Mercer
  • A.M. Mastro
Conference paper
Part of the Acoustical Imaging book series (ACIM, volume 28)


Conditioned medium was collected from a bone-metastatic breast cancer cell line, MDA-MB-231, and cultured with an immature osteoblast cell line, MC3T3-E1. Under these conditions the osteoblasts acquired a changed morphology and appeared to adhere in a different way to the substrate and to each other. To characterize cellular adhesion, MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts were cultured with or without MDA-MB-231 conditioned medium for two days. With mechanical scanning acoustic reflection microscopy, we were able to detect a change in the adhesive condition of the interface between the cell and the substrate, but not with optical microscopy

Key words

acoustic microscope laser scanning confocal microscope cellular adhesion bone cancer osteoblasts 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S.H. Landis, T. Murray, S. Bolden, P.A. Wingo. Cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin 49(1),31, pp. 8–31, 1999Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.S. Galasko, Mechanisms of lytic and blastic metastatic disease of bone, Clin Orthop (169), pp. 20–27, 1982Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    P.D. Delmas, B. Demiaux, L. Malaval, M.C. Chapuy, C. Edouard, P.J. Meunier, ”Serum bone gamma carboxyglutamic acid-containing protein in primary hyperparathyroidism and in malignant hypercalcemia. Comparison with bone histomorphometry,” J Clin Invest 77(3), pp. 985–991, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A.F Stewart, A. Vignery, A. Silverglate, N.D. Ravin, V. LiVolsi, A.E. Broadus, R. Baron, ”Quantitative bone histomorphometry in humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy: uncoupling of bone cell activity.” J Clin Endocrinol Metab 55(2), pp. 219–227, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. Taube, I. Elomaa, C. Blomqvist, M.N. Beneton, J.A. Kanis, ”Histomorphometric evidence for osteoclast-mediated bone resorption in metastatic breast cancer,” Bone 15(2):161–166, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Atalar, C.F. Quate, H.K. Wickramasinge, “Phase imaging in reflection with acoustic microscope,” Appl. Phys. Lett, 31, p. 791, 1977CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J.A. Hildebrand, D. Rugar, R.N. Johnston, C.F. Quate, “Acoustic microscopy of living cells,” Proc. National Academy of Science, 78(3), p. 1656, 1981CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.A. Hildebrand, “Observation of Cell-Substrate Attachment with the Acoustic Microscope,” IEEE Transction on Sonic and Ultrasonics, Vol. SU-32, No. 2, pp. 332–340, 1985Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    J. Bereiter-Hahn, “Scanning acoustic microscopy visualizes cytomechanical responses to cytochalasin D,” J. Microsc. 146, p. 29, 1986Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Bereiter-Hahn, H. Lüers, “Shape changes and force distribution in locomoting cells. Investigation with reflected light and acoustic microscopy,” Eur. J. Cell Biol 53: Suppl. 31, p. 85, 1990Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    B.R. Tittmann, C. Miyasaka, “Imaging and Quantitative Data Acquisition of Biological Cells and Soft Tissues with Scanning Acoustic Microscopy”. In Science, Technology and Education of Microscopy: An Overview Fomatex: Badajoz, Spain, p. 325, 2003Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B.R. Tittmann, C. Miyasaka, “Thermal and Acoustical Insult to Cells as Studied by In-Vivo Acoustic Microscopy,” Presented at the 2002 ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference, Aug. 4–8, Vancouver, British Columbia. NDE Engineering: Applications edited by G. Ramirez, C. Miyasaka, and O. Hedden, PVP-Vol. 450, NDE-Vol. 22, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, NY, p. 43, 2002Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    D. Gingel, I. Todd, ”Interference Reflection Microscopy: A Quantitative Theory for Image Interpretation and its Application to Cell-Substrate Separation Measurement, ” Byophys J., Vol. 26, pp. 507–526, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. Bereiter-Hahn, C.H. Fox, B. Thorell, “Quantitative Reflection Contrast Microscopy of Living Cells,” J. Cell Biol Vol. 82, pp. 767–779, 1979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Mercer, C. Miyasaka, A.M. Mastro, “Metastatic Brest Cancer Cells Suppress Osteoblast Adhesion and Differentiation,” Clinical and Experimental Metastasis. (in Press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R.D. Weglein: “A model for predicting acoustic materials signatures”, Appl. Phys. Lett, Vol. 34, pp. 179 – 181, (1979)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. Parmon, and H.L. Bertoni: “Ray interpretation of the material signature in the acoustic microscope”, Electron. Lett, Vol. 15, pp. 684–686, (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Atalar: “An angular spectrum approach to contrast in reflection acoustic microscopy”, J. Appl. Phys, Vol. 49, pp. 5130–5139, (1978)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Miyasaka
    • 1
    • 2
  • R.R. Mercer
    • 1
    • 2
  • A.M. Mastro
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsIdaho National LaboratoryIdaho FallsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology431S Frear, The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations