A model of fibroblast motility on substrates with different rigidities

Biophysical Journal

Volumn 98, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 2794-2803

  Dokukina, Irina V ^a   Gracheva, Maria E ^a  

^a CLARKSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953596738     PISSN: 00063495     EISSN: 15420086     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpj.2010.03.026     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Lo, C.-M., H.-B. Wang, Y. L. Wang. 2000. Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys. J. 79:144-152.
2. Discher, D. E., P. Janmey, and Y.-L. Wang. 2005. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science. 310:1139-1143.
3. Chicurel, M. 2002. Cell biology. Cell migration research is on the move. Science. 295:606-609.
4. Bray, D. 2001. Cell Movements: From Molecules to Motility. Garland Publishing, New York.
5. Izzard, C. S., and L. R. Lochner. 1980. Formation of cell-to-substrate contacts during fibroblast motility: an interference-reflection study. J. Cell Sci. 80:81-116.
6. Lewis, L., J.-M. Verna, E. Bell, 1982. The relationship of fibroblast translocations to cell morphology and stress fiber density. J. Cell Sci. 53:21-36.
7. Pelham, Jr., R. J., and Y.-L. Wang. 1997. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94:13661-13665.
8. Yeung, T., P. C. Georges, P. A. Janmey. 2005. Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 60:24-34.
9. Peyton, S. R., and A. J. Putnam. 2005. Extracellular matrix rigidity governs smooth muscle cell motility in a biphasic fashion. J. Cell. Physiol. 204:198-209.
10. Georges, P. C., and P. A. Janmey. 2005. Cell type-specific response to growth on soft materials. J. Appl. Physiol. 98:1547-1553.
11. Bischofs, I. B., and U. S. Schwarz. 2003. Cell organization in soft media due to active mechanosensing. Proc. Natl, Acad, Sci. USA. 100: 9274-9279.
12. Giannone, G., and M. P. Sheetz. 2006. Substrate rigidity and force define form through tyrosine phosphatase and kinase pathways. Trends Cell. Biol. 16:213-223.
13. Gracheva, M. E., and H. G. Othmer. 2004. A continuum model of motility in amoeboid cells. Bull. Math. Biol. 66:167-193.
14. Paul, R., P. Heil, U. S. Schwarz. 2008. Propagation of mechanical stress through the actin cytoskeleton toward focal adhesions: model and experiment. Biophys. J. 94:1470-1482.
15. Bottino, D., A. Mogilner, G. Oster. 2002. How nematode sperm crawl. J. Cell Sci, 115:367-384.
16. Stéphanou, A., E. Mylona, P. Tracqui. 2008. A computational model of cell migration coupling the growth of focal adhesions with oscillatory cell protrusions. J. Theor. Biol. 253:701-716.
17. DiMilla, P. A., K. Barbee, and D. A. Lauffenburger. 1991. Mathematical model for the effects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed. Biophys. J. 60:15-37.
18. Mogilner, A., and D. W. Verzi, 2003. A simple 1-D physical model for the crawling nematode sperm cell. J. Stat. Phys. 110:1169-1189. (Pubitemid 38104323)
19. Marée, A. F. M., A. Jilkine, L. Edelstein-Keshet. 2006. Polarization and movement of keratocytes: a multiscale modeling approach. Bull. Math. Biol. 68:1169-1211. (Pubitemid 44195545)
20. Satulovsky, J., R. Lui, and Y.-L. Wang. 2008. Exploring the control circuit of cell migration by mathematical modeling. Biophys. J. 94:3671-3683.
21. Gunji, Y.-P., T. Shirakawa, T. Haruna. 2008. Minimal model of a cell connecting amoebic motion and adaptive transport networks. J. Theor. Biol. 253:659-667.
22. Zaman, M. H., R. D. Kamm, D. A. Lauffenburger. 2005. Computational model for cell migration in three-dimensional matrices. Biophys. J. 89:1389-1397. (Pubitemid 41099020)
23. Mogilner, A. 2009. Mathematics of cell motility: have we got its number? J. Math. Biol. 58:105-134.
24. Flaherty, B., J. P. McGarry, and P. E. McHugh. 2007. Mathematical models of cell motility. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 49:14-28.
25. Lim, C. T., E. H. Zhou, and S. T. Quek. 2006. Mechanical models for living cells-a review. J. Biomech. 39:195-216.
26. Mogilner, A., E. Marland, and D. Bottino. 2000. A minimal model of locomotion applied to the steady gliding movement of fish keratocyte cells. In Mathematical Models for Biological Pattern Formation. P. K. Maini and H. G. Othmer, editors. Springer, New York.
27. Bottino, D. 2000. Computer simulations of mechanochemical coupling in a deforming domain: application to cell motion. In Mathematical Model for Biological Pattern Formation. P. K. Maini and H. G. Othmer, editors. Springer, New York.
28. Coskun, H., Y. Li, and M. A. Mackey. 2007. Amoeboid cell motility: a model and inverse problem, with an application to live cell imaging data. J. Theor. Biol. 244:169-179. (Pubitemid 44779635)
29. Palsson, E., and H. G. Othmer. 2000. A. model for individual and collective cell movement in Dictyostelium discoideum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 97:10448-10453.
30. Dallon, J. C., and H. G. Othmer. 2004. How cellular movement determines the collective force generated by the Dictyostelium discoideum slug. J. Theor. Biol. 231:203-222.
31. Kuusela, E., and W. Alt. 2009. Continuum model of cell adhesion and migration. J. Math. Biol. 58:135-161.
32. Munevar, S., Y.-L. Wang, and M. Dembo. 2001. Distinct roles of frontal and rear cell-substrate adhesions in fibroblast migration. Mol. Biol. Cell. 12: 3947-3954. (Pubitemid 34001084)
33. Nagayama, M., H. Haga, and K. Kawabata. 2001. Drastic change of local stiffness distribution correlating to cell migration in living fibroblasts. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 50:173-179. (Pubitemid 34024375)
34. Laurent, V. M., S. Kasas, J. J. Meister. 2005. Gradient of rigidity in the lamellipodia of migrating cells revealed by atomic force microscopy. Biophys. J. 89:667-675.
35. Kuznetsova, T. G., M. N. Starodubtseva, R. I. Zhdanov. 2007. Atomic force microscopy probing of cell elasticity. Micron. 38: 824-833. (Pubitemid 47554622)
36. Revell, C. M., J. A. Dietrich, K. A. Athanasiou. 2006. Characterization of fibroblast morphology on bioactive surfaces using vertical scanning interferometry. Matrix Biol. 25:523-533.
37. Ridley, A. J., M. A. Schwartz, A. R. Horwitz. 2003. Cell migration: integrating signals from front to back. Science. 302:1704-1709.
38. Bershadsky, A., M. Kozlov, and B. Geiger. 2006. Adhesion-mediated mechanosensitiviry: a time to experiment, and a time to theorize. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 18: 472-481.
39. Wakatsuki, T., M. S. Kolodney, E. L. Elson. 2000. Cell mechanics studied by a reconstituted model tissue. Biophys. J. 79: 2353-2368.
40. Thoumine, O., and A. Ott. 1997. Time scale dependent viscoelastic and contractile regimes in fibroblasts probed by microplate manipulation. J. Cell Sci, 110:2109-2116.
41. Hadjipanayi, E., V. Mudera, and R. A. Brown. 2009. Guiding cell migration in 3D: a collagen matrix with graded directional stiffness. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 66:121-128.
42. Schwartz, U. 2007. Soft matters in cell adhesion: rigidity sensing on soft elastic substrates. Soft Matter. 3:263-266.
43. Choquet, D., D. P. Felsenfeld, and M. P. Sheetz. 1997. Extracellular matrix rigidity causes strengthening of integrin-cytoskeleton linkages. Cell. 88:39-48.
44. Saez, A., A. Buguin, B. Ladoux. 2005. Is the mechanical activity of epithelial cells controlled by deformations or forces? Biophys. J. 89:L52-L54.
45. Solon, J., I. Levental, P. A. Janmey. 2007. Fibroblast adaptation and stiffness matching to soft elastic substrates. Biophys. J. 93:4453-4461.
46. Palecek, S. P., J. C. Loftus, A. F. Horwitz. 1997. Integrin-ligand binding properties govern cell migration speed through cell-substratum adhesiveness. Nature. 385:537-540.
47. Zaman, M. H., L. M. Trapani, P. Matsudaira. 2006. Migration of tumor cells in 3D matrices is governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 103:10889-10894.
48. Zaari, N., P. Rajagopalan,J. Y. Wong. 2004. Photopolymerization in microfluidic gradient generators: microscale control of substrate compliance to manipulate cell response. Adv. Mater. 16:2133-2137.
49. Kuntanawat, P., C. D. W. Wilkinson, and M. O. Riehle. 2007. Cell response to wedge hydrogel on glass substrate as a continuous gradient of stiffness. In 9th Meeting of the Surface Science of Biologically Important Interfaces Group. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
50. Stroka, K. M., and H. Aranda-Espinoza. 2009. Neutrophils display hiphasic relationship between migration and substrate stiffness. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton. 66:328-341.
51. Schlunck, G., H. Han,F. Grehn. 2008. Substrate rigidity modulates cell matrix interactions and protein expression in human trabecular meshwork cells. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 49: 262-269.
52. Ulrich, T. A., E. M. de Juan Pardo, and S. Kumar. 2009. The mechanical rigidity of the extracellular matrix regulates the structure, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Cancer Res. 69: 4167-4174.
53. Bruinsma, R. 2005. Theory of force regulation by nascent adhesion sites. Biophys. J. 89: 87-94.
54. Nicolas, A., B. Geiger, and S. A. Safran. 2004. Cell mechanosensitivity controls the anisotropy of focal adhesions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 101:12520-12525.
55. Shemesh, T., B. Geiger, M. M. Kozlov. 2005. Focal adhesions as mechanosensors: a physical mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 102:12383-12388.
56. Gillespie, D. 1977. Exact stochastic simulation of coupled chemical reactions. J. Phys. Chem. 81:2340-2361.
57. Gracheva, M. E., R. Toral, and J. D. Gunton, 2001. Stochastic effects in intercellular calcium spiking in hepatocytes. J. Theor. Biol. 212: 111-125.
58. Munevar, S., Y.-L. Wang, and M. Dembo. 2001. Traction force microscopy of migrating normal and H-Ras transformed 3T3 fibroblasts. Biophys. J. 80:1744-1757.