Investigation of Cell Adhesion, Contraction and Physical Restructuring on Shear Sensitive Liquid Crystals

  • Chin Fhong Soon
  • Mansour Youseffi
  • Nick Blagden
  • Morgan Denyer
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 90)

Abstract

In this study, the nature of cell attachment and contraction on the surface of a shear sensitive cholesteryl ester liquid crystal (LC) was examined. This interaction has the potential to be utilized as a novel cell force transducing assay. Preliminary studies indicated that cells cultured on the LC induce deformations in the underlying LC layer. This study aimed at determining if those deformations resulted from the weight of the cell or from forces generated within the cell being transmitted to the LC surface by focal adhesions (FA). In order to study this cell-surface relationship, the forces generated within the cell by the actin cytoskeleton were inhibited by treatment with 30 ?M cytochalasin-B and cell surface attachment via integrins was broken by treatment of cells with, 0.25% Trypsin–EDTA. In the study of the morphology changes of cells and their interfacial interactions within the LC were investigated using fluorescence staining of the actin cytoskeleton and Widefield Surface Plasmon Resonance (WSPR) microscopy. Both cytochalasin-B and trypsin treatments caused deformations in the shear sensitive LC surface to decrease and disappear. This indicates that the deformations in the LC were induced by forces generated in the actin cytoskeleton being transmitted to the LC surface via FA. Fluorescent staining of the actin cytoskeleton and immunofluorescent vinculin staining indicated that cells cultured on the soft LC substrate developed a diffuse actin cytoskeleton and vinculin staining revealed FA around the periphery of the cells. These finding were confirmed by WSPR microscopy which indicated that cell surface attachments formed around the periphery of cells grown on the liquid crystals.

Keywords

Liquid Crystal Actin Filament Actin Cytoskeleton Focal Adhesion HaCaT Cell 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Also, we wish to thank Dr. Steve Britland, Dr. Peter Twigg and Dr. Samira Batista for their helpful discussions about this work. Appreciation to Dr. Samira Batista Lobo, Dr. ShuGang Liu and Sali Khagani for their technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M (2000) Molecular biology of the cell. Garland Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beningo A, Wang YL (2002) Flexible substrata for the detection of cellular traction forces. TRENDS Cell Biol 12(2):79–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Engler A, Bacakova L, Newman C, Hategan A, Griffin M, Discher D (2002) Substrate compliance versus ligand density in cell on gel responses. Biophys J 86:617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soon CF, Youseffi M, Blagden N, Lobo SB, Javid FA, Denyer MCT (2009) Interaction of cells with elastic cholesteryl liquid crystal. IFBME Proc 25/X:9–12Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Soon CF, Youseffi M, Blagden N, Denyer MCT (2010) Effects of an enzyme, depolymerization and polymerization drugs to cells adhesion and contraction on lyotropic liquid crystals. In: Lecture notes in engineering and computer science: proceedings of the world congress on engineering 2010, WCE 2010, vol. 1, 30 June–2 July, 2010, London, UK, pp 556–561Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soon CF, Youseffi M, Blagden N, Lobo SB, Javid FA, Denyer MCT (2009) Characterization and biocompatibility study of nematic and cholesteryl liquid crystals. In: Lecture notes in engineering and computer science: Proceedings of world congress on engineering, WCE 2009, vol 2, 1–2 July, 2009, London, UK, pp 1872–1875Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Small DM (1977) Liquid crystals in living and dying systems. J Colloid Interface Sci 58(3):581–602MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hata Y, John J, Insull W (1974) Cholesteryl ester-rich inclusions from human aortic fatty streak and fibrous plaque lesions of atherosclerosis. Am J Pathol 75(3):423–456Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Theodoropoulos PA (1974) Cytochalasin B may shorten actin filaments by a mechanism independent of barbed end capping. Biochem Pharmacol 47(10):1875–1881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith GF, Rider MAC, Janet F (1967) Action of cytochalasin B on cultured human lymphocytes. Nature 216:1134–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stournaras C, Köhler R, Rössle M, Zentel R (1996) Altered actin polymerization dynamics in various malignant cell types: evidence for differential sensitivity to cytochalasin B. Biochem Pharmacol 2:1339–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morioka S, Lazarus GS, Baird JL, Jensen P (1987) Migrating keratinocytes express urokinase-type plasminogen activator. J Investig Dermatol 88:418–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jamil MMA, Denyer MCT, Youseffi M, Britland S, Liu ST, See CW, Somekh MG, Zhang J (2008) Imaging of the cell surface interface using objective coupled wide field surface plasmon microscopy. J Struct Biol 164:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Geiger B, Bershadsky A (2001) Assembly and mechanosensory function of focal contacts. Curr Opin Cell Biol 13(5):584–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bershadsky A, Balaban NQ, Geiger B (2003) Adhesion-dependent cell mechanosensitivity. Ann Rev Cell Dev Biol 19:677–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirfel G, Herzog H (2004) Migration of epidermal keratinocytes: mechanisms, regulation and biological significance. Protoplasma 223:67–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O’ Toole EA (2001) Extracellular matrix and keratinocyte migration. Clin Exp Dermatol 26:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oliver T, Dembo M, Jacobson K (1995) Traction forces in locomoting cells. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 31:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pelligrin S, Mellor H (2007) Actin stress fibres. J Cells Sci 120:3491–3499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yeung T, Georges PC, Flanagan LA, Marg B, Ortiz M, Funaki M, Zahir N, Ming W, Weaver V, Janmey PA (2005) Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton 60:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Discher DE, Janmey P, Wang YL (2005) Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310:1139–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koegel H, Tobel LV, Schafer M, Alberti S, Kremmer E, Mauch C, Hohl D, Wang XJ, Beer HD, Bloch W, Nordheim A, Werner S (2009) Loss of serum response factor in keratinocytes results in hyperproliferative skin disease in mice. J Clin Invest 119(4):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lo CM, Wang HB, Dembo M, Wang YL (2000) Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J 79:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engler A, Griffin MA, Sen S, Bonnemann CG, Sweeney HL, Discher DE (2004) Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness pathological implications for soft or stiff microenvironments. J Cell Biol 166(6):877–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Geiger B, Bershadsky A (2002) Exploring the neighborhood: adhesion-coupled cell mechanosensors. Cell Press J 110(2):139–142Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chin Fhong Soon
    • 1
  • Mansour Youseffi
    • 2
  • Nick Blagden
    • 1
  • Morgan Denyer
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Life SciencesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK
  2. 2.School of Engineering Design and Technology-Medical EngineeringUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations