Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can common adhesion molecules and microtopography affect cellular elasticity? A combined atomic force microscopy and optical study

  • Special Issue - Original Article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The phenomenon that cells respond to chemical and topographic cues in their surroundings has been widely examined and exploited in many fields ranging from basic life science research to biomedical therapeutics. Adhesion promoting molecules such as poly-l-lysine (PLL) and fibronectin (Fn) are commonly used for in vitro cell assays to promote cell spreading/proliferation on tissue culture plastic and to enhance the biocompatibility of biomedical devices. Likewise, engineered topography is often used to guide cell growth and differentiation. Little is known about how these cues affect the biomechanical properties of cells and subsequent cell function. In this study we have applied atomic force microscopy (AFM) to investigate these biomechanical properties. In the first stage of the study we formulated a rigorous approach to quantify cellular elasticity using AFM. Operational factors, including indentation depth and speed, and mathematical models for data fitting have been systematically evaluated. We then quantified how PLL, Fn and microtopography affected cellular elasticity and the organization of the cytoskeleton. Cellular elasticity after 1 day in culture was greater on a Fn-coated surface as compared to PLL or glass. These statistically significant differences disappeared after two more days in culture. In contrast, the significantly higher elasticity associated with cells grown on micrometric grooves remained for at least 3 days. This work sheds light on the apparently simple but debatable questions: “Are engineered chemical cues eventually masked by a cell’s own matrix proteins and so only exert short-term influence? Does engineered topography as well as engineered chemistry affect cell elasticity?”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A-Hassan E et al (1998) Relative microelastic mapping of living cells by atomic force microscopy. Biophys J 74(3):1564–1578

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Berdyyeva TK, Woodworth CD, Sokolov I (2005) Human epithelial cells increase their rigidity with ageing in vitro: direct measurements. Phys Med Biol 50(1):81–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burridge K, ChrzanowskaWodnicka M (1996) Focal adhesions, contractility, and signaling. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 12:463–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Butt HJ, Cappella B, Kappl M (2005) Force measurements with the atomic force microscope: technique, interpretation and applications. Surf Sci Rep 59(1–6):1–152

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen CS et al (1997) Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 276(5317):1425–1428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen CS et al (2003) Cell shape provides global control of focal adhesion assembly. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 307(2):355–361

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark P et al (1990) Topographical control of cell behavior. 2. multiple grooved substrate. Development 108(4):635–644

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Costa KD, Yin FCP (1999) Analysis of indentation: Implications for measuring mechanical properties with atomic force microscopy. J Biomech Eng Trans ASME 121(5):462–471

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cross SE et al (2007) Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat Nanotechnol 2(12):780–783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Curtis A, Wilkinson C (1997) Topographical control of cells. Biomaterials 18(24):1573–1583

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dalby MJ (2005) Topographically induced direct cell mechanotransduction. Med Eng Phys 27(9):730–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Darling EM et al (2008) Viscoelastic properties of human mesenchymally-derived stem cells and primary osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and adipocytes. J Biomech 41(2):454–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Discher D et al (2009) Biomechanics: cell research and applications for the next decade. Annu Biomed Eng 37(5):847–859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dulinska I et al (2006) Stiffness of normal and pathological erythrocytes studied by means of atomic force microscopy. J Biochem Biophys Methods 66(1–3):1–11

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Engler AJ et al (2006) Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4):677–689

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Engler AJ et al (2008) Embryonic cardiomyocytes beat best on a matrix with heart-like elasticity: scar-like rigidity inhibits beating. J Cell Sci 121(22):3794–3802

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fabry B et al (2001) Signal transduction in smooth muscle—selected contribution: time course and heterogeneity of contractile responses in cultured human airway smooth muscle cells. J Appl Physiol 91(2):986–994

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Faulstich H, Trischmann H, Mayer D (1983) Preparation of tetramethylrhodaminyl-phalloidin and uptake of the toxin into short-term cultured-hepatocytes by endocytosis. Exp Cell Res 144(1):73–82

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Folch A, Toner M (2000) Microengineering of cellular interactions. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2:227–235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Guck J et al (2005) Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. Biophys J 88(5):3689–3698

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guilak F et al (2009) Control of stem cell fate by physical interactions with the extracellular matrix. Cell Stem Cell 5(1):17–26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hochmuth RM (2000) Micropipette aspiration of living cells. J Biomech 33(1):15–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ingber DE et al (1994) Celluar tensegrity—exploring how mechanical changes in the cytoskeleton regulate cell—growth, migration, and tissue pattern during morphogenesis. In: International review of cytology—a survey of cell biology, vol 150. Academic Press Inc, San Diego, pp 173–224

  24. Janmey PA (1998) The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: component localization and mechanical coupling. Physiol Rev 78(3):763–781

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Janmey PA, McCulloch CA (2007) Cell mechanics: integrating cell responses to mechanical stimuli. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 9:1–34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kramer RH, Shen XD, Zhou H (2005) Tumor cell invasion and survival in head and neck cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 24(1):35–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kuznetsova TG et al (2007) Atomic force microscopy probing of cell elasticity. Micron 38(8):824–833

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Li QS et al (2008) AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 374(4):609–613

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lieber SC et al (2004) Aging increases stiffness of cardiac myocytes measured by atomic force microscopy nanoindentation. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 287(2):H645–H651

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lussi JW et al (2006) Pattern stability under cell culture conditions—a comparative study of patterning methods based on PLL-g-PEG background passivation. Biomaterials 27(12):2534–2541

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mahaffy RE et al (2004) Quantitative analysis of the viscoelastic properties of thin regions of fibroblasts using atomic force microscopy. Biophys J 86(3):1777–1793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mathur AB et al (2001) Endothelial, cardiac muscle and skeletal muscle exhibit different viscous and elastic properties as determined by atomic force microscopy. J Biomech 34(12):1545–1553

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Moffitt JR et al (2008) Recent advances in optical tweezers. Annu Rev Biochem 77:205–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pajerowski JD et al (2007) Physical plasticity of the nucleus in stem cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(40):15619–15624

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Parker KK et al (2002) Directional control of lamellipodia extension by constraining cell shape and orienting cell tractional forces. FASEB J 16(10):10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Paszek MJ et al (2005) Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8(3):241–254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Radmacher M (1997) Measuring the elastic properties of biological samples with the AFM. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag 16(2):47–57

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenbluth MJ, Lam WA, Fletcher DA (2006) Force microscopy of nonadherent cells: a comparison of leukemia cell deformability. Biophys J 90(8):2994–3003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rotsch C, Radmacher M (2000) Drug-induced changes of cytoskeletal structure and mechanics in fibroblasts: an atomic force microscopy study. Biophys J 78(1):520–535

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Smith BA et al (2005) Probing the viscoelastic behavior of cultured airway smooth muscle cells with atomic force microscopy: Stiffening induced by contractile agonist. Biophys J 88(4):2994–3007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sørensen A et al (2007) Long-term neurite orientation on astrocyte monolayers aligned by microtopography. Biomaterials 28(36):5498–5508

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Takai E et al (2005) Osteoblast elastic modulus measured by atomic force microscopy is substrate dependent. Annu Biomed Eng 33(7):963–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tao NJ, Lindsay SM, Lees S (1992) Measuring the microelastic properties of biological—material. Biophys J 63(4):1165–1169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang N et al (2002) Cell prestress. I. Stiffness and prestress are closely associated in adherent contractile cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 282(3):C606–C616

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wozniak MJ et al (2009) Monitoring of mechanical properties of serially passaged bovine articular chondrocytes by atomic force microscopy. Micron 40(8):870–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yim EKF et al (2010) Nanotopography-induced changes in focal adhesions, cytoskeletal organization, and mechanical properties of human mesenchymal stem cells. Biomaterials 31(6):1299–1306

    Google Scholar 

  47. Yu LMY, Leipzig ND, Shoichet MS (2008) Promoting neuron adhesion and growth. Mater Today 11(5):36–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Jochen Guck, Dr. Kristian Franze, Professor Jon Cooper, Dr. Andrew Glidle and Dr. Phil Dobson for their continuous support for this work and inspiring discussions. We would also like to acknowledge the valuable assistance offered by JPK Instruments Ltd. in this study. G. McPhee is supported by the EPSRC. The Royal Society of Edinburgh supports HY as a Personal Research Fellow.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bioelectronics Research Centre, Department of Electronics & Electrical Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Gordon McPhee & Huabing Yin

  2. The Centre for Cell Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Gordon McPhee, Matthew J. Dalby & Mathis Riehle

Authors
  1. Gordon McPhee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew J. Dalby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mathis Riehle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huabing Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huabing Yin.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1975 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McPhee, G., Dalby, M.J., Riehle, M. et al. Can common adhesion molecules and microtopography affect cellular elasticity? A combined atomic force microscopy and optical study. Med Biol Eng Comput 48, 1043–1053 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-010-0657-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-010-0657-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation