Modulation of nuclear shape by substrate rigidity

Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering

Volumn 6, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 230-238

  Lovett, David B ^a   Shekhar, Nandini ^a   Nickerson, Jeffrey A ^b   Roux, Kyle J ^c   Lele, Tanmay P ^a  

^a University of Florida   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

LINC complex; Mechanosensing; Nucleus; Polyacrylamide gels; Substrate rigidity

Indexed keywords

MYOSIN ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATASE;

ARTICLE; CELL MOTILITY; CELL SPREADING; COMPLEX FORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS LINKING; CYTOSKELETON; FIBROBLAST; GENE OVEREXPRESSION; MECHANOTRANSDUCTION; NUCLEAR SHAPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RIGIDITY; SUBSTRATE RIGIDITY; YOUNG MODULUS;

EID: 84879500072     PISSN: 18655025     EISSN: 18655033     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12195-013-0270-2     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Ben-Ze'ev, A., S. R. Farmer, and S. Penman. Protein synthesis requires cell-surface contact while nuclear events respond to cell shape in anchorage-dependent fibroblasts. Cell 21(2):365-372, 1980.
2. Bissell, M. J., and J. Aggeler. Dynamic reciprocity: how do extracellular matrix and hormones direct gene expression? Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 249:251-262, 1987.
3. Bissell, M. J., and M. H. Barcellos-Hoff. The influence of extracellular matrix on gene expression: is structure the message? J. Cell Sci. Suppl. 8:327-343, 1987.
4. Bissell, M. J., H. G. Hall, and G. Parry. How does the extracellular matrix direct gene expression? J. Theor. Biol. 99(1):31-68, 1982.
5. Boudou, T., et al. An extended relationship for the characterization of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio of tunable polyacrylamide gels. Biorheology 43(6):721-728, 2006.
6. Bray, M. A., et al. Nuclear morphology and deformation in engineered cardiac myocytes and tissues. Biomaterials 31(19):5143-5150, 2010.
7. Brosig, M., et al. Interfering with the connection between the nucleus and the cytoskeleton affects nuclear rotation, mechanotransduction and myogenesis. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 42(10):1717-1728, 2010.
8. Burke, B., and K. J. Roux. Nuclei take a position: managing nuclear location. Dev. Cell 17(5):587-597, 2009.
9. Buxboim, A., et al. How deeply cells feel: methods for thin gels. J. Phys. Condens. Matter. 22(19):194116.
10. Buxboim, A., I. L. Ivanovska, and D. E. Discher. Matrix elasticity, cytoskeletal forces and physics of the nucleus: how deeply do cells 'feel' outside and in? J. Cell Sci. 123(Pt 3):297-308, 2010.
11. Chancellor, T. J., et al. Actomyosin tension exerted on the nucleus through nesprin-1 connections influences endothelial cell adhesion, migration, and cyclic strain-induced reorientation. Biophys. J. 99(1):115-123, 2010.
12. Chen, C. S., et al. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 276(5317):1425-1428, 1997.
13. Chiu, J. J., S. Usami, and S. Chien. Vascular endothelial responses to altered shear stress: pathologic implications for atherosclerosis. Ann. Med. 41(1):19-28, 2009.
14. Crisp, M., et al. Coupling of the nucleus and cytoplasm: role of the LINC complex. J. Cell Biol. 172(1):41-53, 2006.
15. Discher, D. E., P. Janmey, and Y. L. Wang. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310(5751):1139-1143, 2005.
16. Engler, A. J., et al. Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness: pathological implications for soft or stiff microenvironments. J. Cell Biol. 166(6):877-887, 2004.
17. Engler, A. J., et al. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126(4):677-689, 2006.
18. Farmer, S. R., et al. Regulation of actin mRNA levels and translation responds to changes in cell configuration. Mol. Cell. Biol. 3(2):182-189, 1983.
19. Fereol, S., et al. Prestress and adhesion site dynamics control cell sensitivity to extracellular stiffness. Biophys. J. 96(5):2009-2022, 2009.
20. Fischer-Vize, J. A., and K. L. Mosley. Marbles mutants: uncoupling cell determination and nuclear migration in the developing Drosophila eye. Development 120(9):2609-2618, 1994.
21. Georges, P. C., and P. A. Janmey. Cell type-specific response to growth on soft materials. J. Appl. Physiol. 98(4):1547-1553, 2005.
22. Ghibaudo, M., A. Saez, L. Trichet, A. Xayaphoummine, J. Browaeys, P. Silberzan, A. Buguin, and B. Ladoux. Traction forces and rigidity sensing regulate cell functions. Soft Matter 4:1836-1843, 2008.
23. Goeckeler, Z. M., P. C. Bridgman, and R. B. Wysolmerski. Nonmuscle myosin II is responsible for maintaining endothelial cell basal tone and stress fiber integrity. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 295(4):C994-C1006, 2008.
24. Hague, F., D. Lloyd, D. T. Smallwood, C. L. Dent, C. Shanahan, A. Fry, R. Trembath, and S. Shackleton. SUN1 interacts with nuclear lamin A and cytoplasmic nesprins to provide a physical connection between the nuclear lamina and the cytoskeleton. Mol. Cell Biol. 26(10):3738-3751, 2006.
25. Huang, N. F., and S. Li. Regulation of the matrix microenvironment for stem cell engineering and regenerative medicine. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39(4):1201-1214, 2011.
26. Ingber, D. E., and I. Tensegrity. Cell structure and hierarchical systems biology. J. Cell Sci. 116(Pt 7):1157-1173, 2003.
27. Itano, N., et al. Cell spreading controls endoplasmic and nuclear calcium: a physical gene regulation pathway from the cell surface to the nucleus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 100(9):5181-5186, 2003.
28. Ketema, M., and A. Sonnenberg. Nesprin-3: a versatile connector between the nucleus and the cytoskeleton. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 39(6):1719-1724.
29. Khatau, S. B., et al. A perinuclear actin cap regulates nuclear shape. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 106(45):19017-19022, 2009.
30. Kovacs, M., et al. Mechanism of blebbistatin inhibition of myosin II. J. Biol. Chem. 279(34):35557-35563, 2004.
31. Kuypers, L. C., et al. A procedure to determine the correct thickness of an object with confocal microscopy in case of refractive index mismatch. J. Microsc. 218(Pt 1):68-78, 2005.
32. Lele, T. P., et al. Mechanical forces alter zyxin unbinding kinetics within focal adhesions of living cells. J. Cell. Physiol. 207(1):187-194, 2006.
33. Lo, C. M., et al. Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys. J. 79(1):144-152, 2000.
34. Lombardi, M. L., et al. The Interaction between Nesprins and Sun Proteins at the Nuclear Envelope Is Critical for Force Transmission between the Nucleus and Cytoskeleton. J. Biol. Chem. 286(30):26743-26753, 2011.
35. Luxton, G. W., et al. Linear arrays of nuclear envelope proteins harness retrograde actin flow for nuclear movement. Science 329(5994):956-959, 2010.
36. Malone, C. J., et al. UNC-84 localizes to the nuclear envelope and is required for nuclear migration and anchoring during C. elegans development. Development 126(14):3171-3181, 1999.
37. Maniotis, A. J., C. S. Chen, and D. E. Ingber. Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 94(3):849-854, 1997.
38. Mosley-Bishop, K. L., et al. Molecular analysis of the klarsicht gene and its role in nuclear migration within differentiating cells of the Drosophila eye. Curr. Biol. 9(21):1211-1220, 1999.
39. Nagayama, K., Y. Yahiro, and T. Matsumoto. Stress fibers stabilize the position of intranuclear DNA through mechanical connection with the nucleus in vascular smooth muscle cells. FEBS Lett. 585(24):3992-3997, 2011.
40. Pelham, R. J., Jr., and Y. Wang. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 94(25):13661-13665, 1997.
41. Peyton, S. R., and A. J. Putnam. Extracellular matrix rigidity governs smooth muscle cell motility in a biphasic fashion. J. Cell. Physiol. 204(1):198-209, 2005.
42. Reiter, T., S. Penman, and D. G. Capco. Shape-dependent regulation of cytoskeletal protein synthesis in anchorage-dependent and anchorage-independent cells. J. Cell Sci. 76:17-33, 1985.
43. Roux, K. J., et al. Nesprin 4 is an outer nuclear membrane protein that can induce kinesin-mediated cell polarization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 106(7):2194-2199, 2009.
44. Saez, A., et al. Is the mechanical activity of epithelial cells controlled by deformations or forces? Biophys. J. 89(6):L52-L54, 2005.
45. Schlunck, G., et al. Substrate rigidity modulates cell matrix interactions and protein expression in human trabecular meshwork cells. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 49(1):262-269, 2008.
46. Seliktar, D., R. M. Nerem, and Z. S. Galis. Mechanical strain-stimulated remodeling of tissue-engineered blood vessel constructs. Tissue Eng. 9(4):657-666, 2003.
47. Sen, S., A. J. Engler, and D. E. Discher. Matrix strains induced by cells: Computing how far cells can feel. Cell. Mol. Bioeng. 2(1):39-48, 2009.
48. Sims, J. R., S. Karp, and D. E. Ingber. Altering the cellular mechanical force balance results in integrated changes in cell, cytoskeletal and nuclear shape. J. Cell Sci. 103(Pt 4):1215-1222, 1992.
49. Solon, J., et al. Fibroblast adaptation and stiffness matching to soft elastic substrates. Biophys. J. 93(12):4453-4461, 2007.
50. Starr, D. A., and H. N. Fridolfsson. Interactions between nuclei and the cytoskeleton are mediated by SUN-KASH nuclear-envelope bridges. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 26:421-444, 2010.
51. Starr, D. A., and M. Han. Role of ANC-1 in tethering nuclei to the actin cytoskeleton. Science 298(5592):406-409, 2002.
52. Stewart-Hutchinson, P. J., et al. Structural requirements for the assembly of LINC complexes and their function in cellular mechanical stiffness. Exp. Cell Res. 314(8):1892-1905, 2008.
53. Thomas, C. H., et al. Engineering gene expression and protein synthesis by modulation of nuclear shape. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 99(4):1972-1977, 2002.
54. Towbin, B. D., P. Meister, and S. M. Gasser. The nuclear envelope-a scaffold for silencing? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 19(2):180-186, 2009.
55. Trappmann, B., et al. Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. Nat. Mater. 11(7):642-649, 2012.
56. Tzur, Y. B., K. L. Wilson, and Y. Gruenbaum. SUN-domain proteins: 'Velcro' that links the nucleoskeleton to the cytoskeleton. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7(10):782-788, 2006.
57. Ulrich, T. A., E. M. de Juan Pardo, and S. Kumar. The mechanical rigidity of the extracellular matrix regulates the structure, motility, and proliferation of glioma cells. Cancer Res. 69(10):4167-4174, 2009.
58. Wilhelmsen, K., et al. Nesprin-3, a novel outer nuclear membrane protein, associates with the cytoskeletal linker protein plectin. J. Cell Biol. 171(5):799-810, 2005.
59. Wittelsberger, S. C., K. Kleene, and S. Penman. Progressive loss of shape-responsive metabolic controls in cells with increasingly transformed phenotype. Cell 24(3):859-866, 1981.
60. Weng, S., and J. Fu. Synergistic regulation of cell function by matrix rigidity and adhesive pattern. Biomaterials 32(36):9584-93.
61. Simon, D. N., and K. L. Wilson. The nucleoskeleton as a genome-associated dynamic 'network of networks'. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 12(11):695-708.
62. Zemel, A., et al. Optimal matrix rigidity for stress fiber polarization in stem cells. Nat. Phys. 6(6):468-473.
63. Fouchard, J., D. Mitrossilis, and A. Asnacios. Acto-myosin based response to stiffness and rigidity sensing. Cell Adh. Migr. 5(1):16-19.
64. Yen, A., and A. B. Pardee. Role of nuclear size in cell growth initiation. Science 204(4399):1315-1317, 1979.
65. Yeung, T., et al. Effects of substrate stiffness on cell morphology, cytoskeletal structure, and adhesion. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 60(1):24-34, 2005.
66. Zhang, J., et al. Nesprin 1 is critical for nuclear positioning and anchorage. Hum. Mol. Genet. 19(2):329-341, 2010.
67. Zhou, Z., et al. Structure of Sad1-UNC84 homology (SUN) domain defines features of molecular bridge in nuclear envelope. J. Biol. Chem. 287(8):5317-5326, 2011.