Specific and Non-Specific Adhesion in Cancer Cells with Various Metastatic Potentials

  • Xin Tang
  • Tony Cappa
  • Theresa Kuhlenschmidt
  • Mark Kuhlenschmidt
  • Taher Saif


The majority of cancer deaths are caused by metastasis, not by the parent tumor. During metastasis, cancer cells detach from their neighbors in the tumor, enter the circulation system, and invade other organs. Thus metastasis initiates with the decrease of adhesion between cancer cells and regaining of adhesion to invade new organs during circulation. In this chapter, we first introduce the altered tumor cells’ behavior during malignant transition with the focus on alterations of cell adhesion. Second, we discuss the cell-cell vs. cell-matrix interaction during cancer metastasis in the context of hierarchical changes in cell-properties during metastasis. Finally, we review the current state-of-the-art devices of single-cell adhesion measurement and present our results on non-specific adhesion measurement between cancer cells and a glass micro probe, using a novel micro force sensor. Adhesion measurements are compared for malignant, metastatic cells (HCT-8), malignant, non-metastatic adenocarcinoma cells (Caco-2), and normal monkey kidney MA104 cells. The non-specific adhesion force for HCT-8 is about twice that compared to Caco-2, and insignificant for MA104. We then measured the specific homotypic cell-cell adhesion rates using a Coulter Counter for PC3M (highly metastatic human prostate cancer), PC3 (less metastatic than PC3M), HCT8 and MA104 cell lines. We found, specific cell adhesion rates decrease with increasing metastatic potential. These results suggest, while specific adhesion of malignant cancer cells are often reduced to facilitate their detachment from the parent tumor, the high non-specific adhesion force on them can strategically maximize their adherence and invasion to diverse tissues during metastasis.


Cancer metastasis Non-specific cancer adhesion Homotypic cell-cell adhesion rate Bio-MEMS force sensor Coulter-counter adhesion assay 


  1. 1.
    Chambers AF, Groom AC, and MacDonald IC (2002) Dissemination and growth of cancer cells in metastatic sites. Nature Reviews 2:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weinberg RA (2006) The Biology of Cancer. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sahai E (2007) Illuminating the metastatic process. Nature Reviews 7:737–749Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bissell MJ and Radisky D (2001) Putting tumours in context. Nature Reviews Cancer 1:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liotta LA and Kohn E (2004) Anoikis: cancer and the homeless cell. Nature 430:973–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oppenheimer SB (2006) Cellular basis of cancer metastasis: a review of fundamentals and new advances. Acta Histochemica 108:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sahai E (2005) Mechanisms of cancer cell invasion. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 15:87–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Birchmeier W and Behrens J (1994) Cadherin expression in carcinomas: role in the formation of cell junctions and the prevention of invasiveness. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1198:11–26Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lodish HA et al (2007) Molecular Cell Biology. W. H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bajpai S et al (2009) Loss of alpha-catenin decreases the strength of single e-cadherin bonds between human cancer cells. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 284:18252–18259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bajpai S et al (2008) Alpha-catenin mediates initial E-cadherin-dependent cell– cell recognition and subsequent bond strengthening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105:18331–18336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vermeulen SJ et al (1999) The alpha-E-catenin gene (CTNNA1) acts as an invasion-suppressor gene in human colon cancer cells. Oncogene 18:905–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel SD et al (2003) Cadherin mediated cell-cell adhesion: sticking together as a family. Current Opinion in Structural Biology 13:690–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Coman DR (1944) Decreased mutual adhesiveness, a property of cells from squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Research 4:625–629Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coman DR (1953) Mechanisms responsible for the origin and distribution of blood-borne tumor metastases: a review. Cancer Research 13:397–404Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wolf K et al (2007) Multi-step pericellular proteolysis controls the transition from individual to collective cancer cell invasion. Nature Cell Biology 9:893–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedl P and Gilmour D (2009) Collective cell migration in morphogenesis, regeneration and cancer. Nature Reviews 10:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilson S et al (2005) The membrane-anchored serine protease, TMPRSS2, activates PAR-2 in prostate cancer cells. Biochemistry Journal 388:967–972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mazzocca A et al (2005) A secreted form of ADAM9 promotes carcinoma invasion through tumor-stromal interactions. Cancer Research 65:4728–4738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oppenheimer SB (2004) Cancer, a Biological and Clinical Introduction. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang HB et al (2000) Substrate flexibility regulates growth and apoptosis of normal but not transformed cells. American Journal of Physiology – Cell Physiology 279:1345–1350Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kumar S and Weaver VM (2009) Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: the force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer Metastasis Review 28:113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mierke CT et al (2008) Contractile forces in tumor cell migration. European Journal of Cell Biology 87:669–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kokkinos MI (2007) Vimentin and epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer – observations in vitro and in vivo. Cells Tissues Organs 185:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pagan R (1996) Vimentin filaments follow the preexisting cytokeratin network during epithelial-mesenchymal transition of cultured neonatal rat hepatocytes. Experimental Cell Research 222:333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Willipinski-Stapelfeldt B (2005) Changes in cytoskeletal protein composition indicative of an epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human micrometastatic and primary breast carcinoma cells. Clinical Cancer Research 11:8006–8014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gao CF et al (2005) Proliferation and invasion: plasticity in tumor cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102:10528–10533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jiang WG et al (2006) Expression of autocrine motility factor (AMF) and its receptor, AMFR, in human breast cancer. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 54:231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xue C (2006) Epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression results in increased tumor cell motility in vivo coordinately with enhanced intravasation and metastasis. Cancer Research 66:192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang W et al (2005). Tumor cells caught in the act of invading: their strategy for enhanced cell motility. Trends in Cell Biology 15:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hooper S (2006) Tumor cell migration in three dimensions. Methods in Enzymology 406:625–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pinner S and Sahai E (2008) PDK1 regulates cancer cell motility by antagonising inhibition of ROCK1 by RhoE. Nature Cell Biology 10:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mierke CT (2008) Breakdown of the endothelial barrier function in tumor cell transmigration. Biophysical Journal 94:2832–2846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Boyd N (1998) Mammographic densities and breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Preview 7:1133–1144Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Boyd N (2001) Mammographic densities as a marker of human breast cancer risk and their use in chemoprevention. Current Oncology Reports 3:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Provenzano PP et al (2006) Collagen reorganization at the tumor-stromal interface facilitates local invasion. BMC Medicine 4:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Condeelis J and Pollard JW (2006) Macrophages: obligate partners for tumor cell migration, invasion, and metastasis. Cell 124:263–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pollard JW (2004) Tumour-educated macrophages promote tumour progression and metastasis. Nature Reviews 4:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Paget S (1989) The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Cancer Metastasis Review 8:98–101Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Poste G and Paruch L (1989) Stephen Paget (1855–1926): a retrospective. Cancer Metastasis Review 8:93–97Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kaplan RN (2005) VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the pre-metastatic niche. Nature 438:820–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Psaila B and Lyden D (2009) The metastatic niche: adapting the foreign soil. Nature Reviews 9:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baker EL (2009) Extracellular matrix stiffness and architecture govern intracellular rheology in cancer. Biophysical Journal 97:1013–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paszek MJ (2005) Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dalton W and Jove R (1999) Drug resistance in multiple myeloma: approaches to circumvention. Seminars in Oncology 26:23–27Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sehgal I et al (2006) Prostate cancer cells show elevated urokinase receptor in a mouse model of metastasis. Cancer Cell International 6:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ingber DE (1998) In search of cellular control: signal transduction in context. Journal of Cell Biochemistry 30:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chicurel ME (1998) Cellular control lies in the balance of forces. Current Opinion in Cell Biology 10:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Essen D (1997) A tension-based theory of morphogenesis and compact wiring in the central nervous system. Nature 385:313–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sukharev SI (1993) Two types of mechanosensitive channels in the Escherichia coli cell envelope: solubilization and functional reconstitution. Biophysical Journal 65:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vogel V and Sheetz M (2006) Local force and geometry sensing regulate cell functions. Nature Reviews 7:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Engler AJ et al (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126:677–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chen CS (1997) Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 276:1425–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Janmey PA and McCulloch CA (2007) Cell mechanics: integrating cell responses to mechanical stimuli. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 9:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pickett-Heaps JD et al (1997) Traction fibre: toward a “tensegral” model of the spindle. Cell Motility and Cytoskeleton 37:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Paszek MJ (2009) Integrin clustering is driven by mechanical resistance from the glycocalyx and the substrate. PLOS Computational Biology 5:1–16CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Palecek SP (1997) Integrin-ligand binding properties govern cell migration speed through cell-substratum adhesiveness. Nature 385:537–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Keely P (1998) Integrins and GTPases in tumour cell growth, motility and invasion. Trends in Cell Biology 8:101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Assoian RK and Klein EA (2008) Growth control by intracellular tension and extracellular stiffness. Trends of Cell Biology 18:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Walker JL (2005) Regulation of growth factor signaling and cell cycle progression by cell adhesion and adhesion-dependent changes in cellular tension. Cytokine & Growth Factor Reviews 16:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Klein EA (2007) Cell adhesion, cellular tension, and cell cycle control. In D.A Cheresh and S.P. Colowick (eds.), Methods in Enzymology. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Paszek MJ and Weaver VM (2004) The tension mounts: mechanics meets morphogenesis and malignancy. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia 9:325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Levental KR (2009) Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell 139:891–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yamaguchi H (2005) Molecular mechanisms of invadopodium formation: the role of the N-WASPArp2/3 complex pathway and cofilin. Journal of Cell Biochemistry 168:441–452Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yamaguchi H (2006) Invadopodia and podosomes in tumor invasion. European Journal of Cell Biology 85:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Yamaguchi H and Condeelis J (2007) Regulation of the actin cytoskeleton in cancer cell migration and invasion. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1773:642–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Collin O et al (2008) Self-organized podosomes are dynamic mechanosensors. Current Biology 18:1288–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Goede V et al (1999) Induction of inflammatory angiogenesis by monocyte chemoattractant protein-1. International Journal of Cancer 82:765–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Leek RD et al (1996) Association of macrophage infiltration with angiogenesis and prognosis in invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer Research 56:4625–4629Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Chaudhuri O et al (2009) Combined atomic force microscopy and side-view optical imaging for mechanical studies of cells. Nature Methods 6:383–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Choy JL et al (2007) Differential force microscope for long time-scale biophysical measurements. Review of Scientific Instruments 78:0437111–0437116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Panorchan P (2005) Single-molecule analysis of cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion. Journal of Cell Science 119:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Bacac M and Stamenkovic I (2008) Metastatic cancer cell. The Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease 3:221–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Yang S and Saif MT (2007) Force response and actin remodeling (agglomeration) in fibroblasts due to lateral indentation. Acta Biomaterialia 3:77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yang S and Saif MT (2005) Micromachined force sensors for the study of cell mechanics. Review of Scientific Instruments 76: 44301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yang S (2007) Micromachined sensors and their applications in the study of mechanical response of single living cells. In Mechanical Science and Engineering. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, p. 106Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kuhlenschmidt MS et al (1982) Studies on the intercellular adhesio of rat and chicken hepatocytes, conditions affecting cell-cell specificity. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 257:3157–3164Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lee MH (2005) The effect of non-specific interactions on cellular adhesion using model surfaces. Biomaterial 26:1721–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Xia Z (1993) Kinetics of specific and nonspecific adhesion of red blood cells on glass. Biophysical Journal 65:1073–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Busscher HJ (2008) Specific molecular recognition and nonspecific contributions to bacterial interaction forces. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74:2559–2564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Curtis AG (1970) On the occurrence of specific adhesion between cells. Journal of Embryological Experimental Morphogenesis 23:253–272Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Spits H (1986) Alloantigen Recognition is preceded by nonspecific adhesion of cytotoxic T cells and target cells. Science 18:403–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Siechen S (2009) Mechanical tension contributes to clustering of neurotransmitter vesicles at presynaptic terminals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 106:12611–12616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Hoorde VL (2000) Induction of invasion in vivo of alpha-catenin-positive HCT-8 human colon-cancer cells. International Journal of Cancer 88:751–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hamada K (2008) Liver metastasis models of colon cancer for evaluation of drug efficacy using NOD/Shi-scid IL2Rgammanull (NOG) mice. International Journal of Oncology 32:153–159Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Bosco D (2007) Differential expression of E-cadherin at the surface of rat b-cells as a marker of functional heterogeneity. Journal of Endocrinology 194:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xin Tang
  • Tony Cappa
  • Theresa Kuhlenschmidt
  • Mark Kuhlenschmidt
  • Taher Saif
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Science and EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Micro and Nanotechnology LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations