Advertisement

Mechanical Measurements on Living Plant Cells by Micro-indentation with Cellular Force Microscopy

  • Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
  • Richard S. Smith
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1080)

Abstract

Indentation methods on the micro- and nanoscale are increasingly used to assess mechanical properties of living plant tissues. These techniques rely on recording the force resulting from indenting the cell surface with a small probe. Depending on the scale of indentation and the indenter shape, force-indentation data will reflect several factors such as cell wall elasticity, turgor pressure, cell and tip geometry, and contact angle. Cellular force microscopy is a micro-indentation method that was designed to precisely measure and apply forces on living plant cells. Here we explain how to use this method to map the apparent stiffness in single cells and tissues.

Key words

Plant mechanics Micro-indentation Turgor pressure Primary cell wall Elastic modulus Stiffness Mechanosensing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge all those involved in the development of the CFM, Dimitris Felikis, Simon Muntwyler, Felix Beyeler, Brad Nelson, Cris Kuhlemeier, and Michal Huflejt, as well as those who helped to perfect the protocol in the first experiments, Petra Kochova and Alain Weber. We thank Gabriella Mosca, Pierre Barbier de Reuille, and Sarah Robinson for discussions and Willi Tanner for custom machine work. This work was supported by SystemX.ch and the University of Bern.

References

  1. 1.
    Cosgrove DJ (2005) Growth of the plant cell wall. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 6:850–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgert I (2006) Exploring the micromechanical design of plant cell walls. Am J Bot 93:1391–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Geitmann A (2006) Experimental approaches used to quantify physical parameters at cellular and subcellular levels. Am J Bot 93:1380–1390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith AE, Moxham KE, Middelberg APJ (1998) On uniquely determining cell-wall material properties with the compression experiment. Chem Eng Sci 53:3913–3922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith AE, Moxham KE, Middelberg APJ (2000) Wall material properties of yeast cells. Part II. Analysis. Chem Eng Sci 55: 2043–2053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blewett J, Burrows K, Thomas C (2000) A micromanipulation method to measure the mechanical properties of single tomato suspension cells. Biotechnol Lett 22:1877–1883CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang CX, Wang L, Thomas CR (2004) Modelling the mechanical properties of single suspension cultured tomato cells. Ann Bot 93:443–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang CX, Wang L, McQueen-Mason SJ et al (2008) pH and expansin action on single suspension-cultured tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cells. J Plant Res 121:527–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Milani P, Gholamirad M, Traas J et al (2011) In vivo analysis of local wall stiffness at the shoot apical meristem in Arabidopsis using atomic force microscopy. Plant J 67: 1116–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fernandes AN, Chen X, Scotchford CA et al (2012) Mechanical properties of epidermal cells of whole living roots of Arabidopsis thaliana: an atomic force microscopy study. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 85:021916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radotić K, Roduit C, Simonović J et al (2012) Atomic force microscopy stiffness tomography on living Arabidopsis thaliana cells reveals the mechanical properties of surface and deep cell-wall layers during growth. Biophys J 103: 386–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parre E, Geitmann A (2005) Pectin and the role of the physical properties of the cell wall in pollen tube growth of Solanum chacoense. Planta 220:582–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bolduc J-E, Lewis LJ, Aubin C-E et al (2006) Finite-element analysis of geometrical factors in micro-indentation of pollen tubes. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 5:227–236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zerzour R, Kroeger J, Geitmann A (2009) Polar growth in pollen tubes is associated with spatially confined dynamic changes in cell mechanical properties. Dev Biol 334:437–446PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Routier-Kierzkowska A-L, Weber A, Kochova P et al (2012) Cellular force microscopy for in vivo measurements of plant tissue mechanics. Plant Phys 158:1514–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vogler H, Draeger C, Weber A et al (2013) The pollen tube: a soft shell with a hard core. Plant J. 73:617–627Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hayot CM, Forouzesh E, Goel A et al (2012) Viscoelastic properties of cell walls of single living plant cells determined by dynamic nanoindentation. J Exp Bot 63:2525–2540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forouzesh E, Goel A, Mackenzie SA et al (2012) In vivo extraction of Arabidopsis cell turgor pressure using nanoindentation in conjunction with finite element modeling. Plant J. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12042 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peaucelle A, Braybrook SA, Le Guillou L et al (2011) Pectin-induced changes in cell wall mechanics underlie organ initiation in arabidopsis. Curr Biol 21:1720–1726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felekis D, Muntwyler S, Vogler H et al (2011) Quantifying growth mechanics of living, growing plant cells in situ using microbotics. Micro Nano Lett 6:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Lise Routier-Kierzkowska
    • 1
  • Richard S. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Comparative Development and GeneticsMax Planck Institute for Plant Breeding ResearchKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations