Stem cell mechanobiology: Diverse lessons from bone marrow

Trends in Cell Biology

Volumn 25, Issue 9, 2015, Pages 523-532

  Ivanovska, Irena L ^a   Shin, Jae Won ^a   Swift, Joe ^a   Discher, Dennis E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Actomyosin; Extracellular matrix; Hematopoiesis; Mechanotransduction; Nucleus; Osteogenesis

Indexed keywords

LAMIN A; LAMIN B; LAMIN C; MYOSIN ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATASE; MYOSIN II; RETINOIC ACID RECEPTOR; SCLEROPROTEIN; TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR; TRANSCRIPTIONAL COACTIVATOR WITH PDZ BINDING MOTIF; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; YES ASSOCIATED PROTEIN;

ACTIN FILAMENT; ADIPOGENESIS; BONE DEVELOPMENT; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL FATE; CELL NUCLEUS; CELL SPREADING; CYTOSKELETON; ELASTICITY; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; HEMATOPOIETIC STEM CELL; HUMAN; MECHANICAL STRESS; MECHANOTRANSDUCTION; MESENCHYMAL STEM CELL; MICROENVIRONMENT; OSTEOBLAST; PLURIPOTENT STEM CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN LOCALIZATION; REGULATORY MECHANISM; REVIEW; STEM CELL CULTURE; STEM CELL NICHE; YOUNG MODULUS; ANIMAL; BONE MARROW; HEMATOPOIESIS; MESENCHYMAL STROMA CELL; PHYSIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; BONE MARROW; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; HEMATOPOIESIS; HUMANS; MECHANOTRANSDUCTION, CELLULAR; MESENCHYMAL STROMAL CELLS; STEM CELL NICHE;

EID: 84940467063     PISSN: 09628924     EISSN: 18793088     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tcb.2015.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Zipori D. Biology of Stem Cells and the Molecular Basis of the Stem State 2009, Humana Press.
2. Schofield R. Relationship between spleen colony-forming cell and hematopoietic stem-cell - hypothesis. Blood Cells 1978, 4:7-25.
3. Storm C., et al. Nonlinear elasticity in biological gels. Nature 2005, 435:191-194.
4. Bukka P., et al. Molecular regulation of osteoblast differentiation. Bone Formation 2004, 1-17. Springer. F. Bronner, M.C. Farach-Carson (Eds.).
5. Coelfen H. Biomineralization: a crystal-clear view. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9:960-961.
6. McKee M.D., et al. Hierarchies of extracellular matrix and mineral organization in bone of the craniofacial complex and skeleton. Cells Tissues Organs 2005, 181:176-188.
7. Ishimoto T., et al. Degree of biological apatite c-axis orientation rather than bone mineral density controls mechanical function in bone regenerated using recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2013, 28:1170-1179.
8. Pittenger M.F., et al. Multilineage potential of adult human mesenchymal stem cells. Science 1999, 284:143-147.
9. Kern S., et al. Comparative analysis of mesenchymal stem cells from bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, or adipose tissue. Stem Cells 2006, 24:1294-1301.
10. Rosen C.J., et al. Marrow fat and the bone microenvironment: developmental, functional, and pathological implications. Crit. Rev. Eukaryot. Gene Expr. 2009, 19:109-124.
11. DiMascio L., et al. Identification of adiponectin as a novel hemopoietic stem cell growth factor. J. Immunol. 2007, 178:3511-3520.
12. Naveiras O., et al. Bone-marrow adipocytes as negative regulators of the haematopoietic microenvironment. Nature 2009, 460:259-263.
13. Zou L., et al. A simple method for deriving functional MSCs and applied for osteogenesis in 3D scaffolds. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3:2243.
14. Hynes K., et al. Generation of functional mesenchymal stem cells from different induced pluripotent stem cell lines. Stem Cells Dev. 2014, 23:1084-1096.
15. Cumano A., Godin I. Ontogeny of the hematopoietic system. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2007, 25:745-785.
16. Zovein A.C., et al. Fate tracing reveals the endothelial origin of hematopoietic stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2008, 3:625-636.
17. Georges P.C., et al. Matrices with compliance comparable to that of brain tissue select neuronal over glial growth in mixed cortical cultures. Biophys. J. 2006, 90:3012-3018.
18. Keller T.S., et al. Young modulus, bending strength, and tissue physical-properties of human compact-bone. J. Orthop. Res. 1990, 8:592-603.
19. Shin J.W., et al. Contractile forces sustain and polarize hematopoiesis from stem and progenitor cells. Cell Stem Cell 2014, 14:81-93.
20. Winer J.P., et al. Bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells become quiescent on soft substrates but remain responsive to chemical or mechanical stimuli. Tissue Eng. 2009, 15:147-154.
21. Vukicevic S., et al. Identification of multiple active growth-factors in basement-membrane Matrigel suggests caution in interpretation of cellular-activity related to extracellular-matrix components. Exp. Cell Res. 1992, 202:1-8.
22. Pelham R.J., Wang Y.L. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1997, 94:13661-13665.
23. Hynes R.O. Integrins: bidirectional, allosteric signaling machines. Cell 2002, 110:673-687.
24. Geiger B., et al. Environmental sensing through focal adhesions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10:21-33.
25. Discher D.E., et al. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 2005, 310:1139-1143.
26. Vicente-Manzanares M., et al. Non-muscle myosin II takes centre stage in cell adhesion and migration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10:778-790.
27. Engler A.J., et al. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 2006, 126:677-689.
28. Zemel A., et al. Optimal matrix rigidity for stress-fibre polarization in stem cells. Nat. Phys. 2010, 6:468-473.
29. Chaudhuri O., et al. Substrate stress relaxation regulates cell spreading. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6:7.
30. Cameron A.R., et al. The influence of substrate creep on mesenchymal stem cell behaviour and phenotype. Biomaterials 2011, 32:5979-5993.
31. Kilian K.A., et al. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2010, 107:4872-4877.
32. Dalby M.J., et al. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat. Mater. 2007, 6:997-1003.
33. McMurray R.J., et al. Nanoscale surfaces for the long-term maintenance of mesenchymal stem cell phenotype and multipotency. Nat. Mater. 2011, 10:637-644.
34. Fu J., et al. Mechanical regulation of cell function with geometrically modulated elastomeric substrates. Nat. Methods 2010, 7:733-736.
35. Ruoslahti E. RGD and other recognition sequences for integrins. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 1996, 12:697-715.
36. Derda R., et al. High-throughput discovery of synthetic surfaces that support proliferation of pluripotent cells. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2010, 132:1289-1295.
37. Derda R., et al. Defined substrates for human embryonic stem cell growth identified from surface arrays. Acs Chem. Biol. 2007, 2:347-355.
38. Hudalla G.A., Murphy W.L. Immobilization of peptides with distinct biological activities onto stem cell culture substrates using orthogonal chemistries. Langmuir 2010, 26:6449-6456.
39. Koepsel J.T., Murphy W.L. Patterning discrete stem cell culture environments via localized self-assembled monolayer replacement. Langmuir 2009, 25:12825-12834.
40. Kilian K.A., Mrksich M. Directing stem cell fate by controlling the affinity and density of ligand-receptor interactions at the biomaterials interface. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed Engl. 2012, 51:4891-4895.
41. Benzeev A., Raz A. Multinucleation and inhibition of cytokinesis in suspended cells - reversal upon reattachment to a substrate. Cell 1981, 26:107-115.
42. Shin J-W., et al. Myosin-II inhibition and soft 2D matrix maximize multinucleation and cellular projections typical of platelet-producing megakaryocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:11458-11463.
43. Junt T., et al. Dynamic visualization of thrombopoiesis within bone marrow. Science 2007, 317:1767-1770.
44. Spinler K.R., et al. Myosin-II repression favors pre/proplatelets but shear activation generates platelets and fails in macrothrombocytopenia. Blood 2015, 125:525-533.
45. Holst J., et al. Substrate elasticity provides mechanical signals for the expansion of hemopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28:1123-1128.
46. Raab M., et al. Crawling from soft to stiff matrix polarizes the cytoskeleton and phosphoregulates myosin-II heavy chain. J. Cell Biol. 2012, 199:669-683.
47. Tse J.R., Engler A.J. Stiffness gradients mimicking in vivo tissue variation regulate mesenchymal stem cell fate. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e15978.
48. Isenberg B.C., et al. Vascular smooth muscle cell durotaxis depends on substrate stiffness gradient strength. Biophys. J. 2009, 97:1313-1322.
49. Wang N., et al. Mechanotransduction at a distance: mechanically coupling the extracellular matrix with the nucleus. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10:75-82.
50. Iyer K.V., et al. Mechanical activation of cells induces chromatin remodeling preceding MKL nuclear transport. Biophys. J. 2012, 103:1416-1428.
51. Lammerding J., et al. Lamins A and C but not lamin B1 regulate nuclear mechanics. J. Biol. Chem. 2006, 281:25768-25780.
52. Swift J., et al. Nuclear lamin-A scales with tissue stiffness and enhances matrix-directed differentiation. Science 2013, 341:1240104.
53. Shin J-W., et al. Lamins regulate cell trafficking and lineage maturation of adult human hematopoietic cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110:18892-18897.
54. Harada T., et al. Nuclear lamin stiffness is a barrier to 3D migration, but softness can limit survival. J. Cell Biol. 2014, 204:669-682.
55. Crisp M., et al. Coupling of the nucleus and cytoplasm: role of the LINC complex. J. Cell Biol. 2006, 172:41-53.
56. 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. 2011, 286:26743-26753.
57. Buxboim A., et al. Matrix elasticity regulates lamin-A,C phosphorylation and turnover with feedback to actomyosin. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24:1909-1917.
58. Akter R., et al. Effect of lamin A/C knockdown on osteoblast differentiation and function. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2009, 24:283-293.
59. Scaffidi P., Misteli T. Lamin A-dependent nuclear defects in human aging. Science 2006, 312:1059-1063.
60. Wei L., et al. RhoA signaling via serum response factor plays an obligatory role in myogenic differentiation. J. Biol. Chem. 1998, 273:30287-30294.
61. Miralles F., et al. Actin dynamics control SRF activity by regulation of its coactivator MAL. Cell 2003, 113:329-342.
62. Sotiropoulos A., et al. Signal-regulated activation of serum response factor is mediated by changes in actin dynamics. Cell 1999, 98:159-169.
63. Connelly J.T., et al. Actin and serum response factor transduce physical cues from the microenvironment to regulate epidermal stem cell fate decisions. Nat. Cell Biol. 2010, 12:711-718.
64. Ho C.Y., et al. Lamin A/C and emerin regulate MKL1-SRF activity by modulating actin dynamics. Nature 2013, 497:507-511.
65. Duester G. Retinoic acid synthesis and signaling during early organogenesis. Cell 2008, 134:921-931.
66. Gudas L.J., Wagner J.A. Retinoids regulate stem cell differentiation. J. Cell. Physiol. 2011, 226:322-330.
67. Piccolo S., et al. The biology of YAP/TAZ: hippo signaling and beyond. Physiol. Rev. 2014, 94:1287-1312.
68. Low B.C., et al. YAP/TAZ as mechanosensors and mechanotransducers in regulating organ size and tumor growth. FEBS Lett. 2014, 588:2663-2670.
69. Dong J.X., et al. Elucidation of a universal size-control mechanism in Drosophila and mammals. Cell 2007, 130:1120-1133.
70. Vassilev A., et al. TEAD/TEF transcription factors utilize the activation domain of YAP65, a Src/Yes-associated protein localized in the cytoplasm. Genes Dev. 2001, 15:1229-1241.
71. Zhao B., et al. TEAD mediates YAP-dependent gene induction and growth control. Genes Dev. 2008, 22:1962-1971.
72. Aragona M., et al. A mechanical checkpoint controls multicellular growth through YAP/TAZ regulation by actin-processing factors. Cell 2013, 154:1047-1059.
73. Dupont S., et al. Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature 2011, 474:179-183.
74. Yang C., et al. Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate. Nat. Mater. 2014, 13:645-652.
75. Musah S., et al. Substratum-induced differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells reveals the coactivator YAP is a potent regulator of neuronal specification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:13805-13810.
76. Kloxin A.M., et al. Photodegradable hydrogels for dynamic tuning of physical and chemical properties. Science 2009, 324:59-63.
77. Huebsch N., et al. Harnessing traction-mediated manipulation of the cell/matrix interface to control stem-cell fate. Nat. Mater. 2010, 9:518-526.
78. Khetan S., et al. Degradation-mediated cellular traction directs stem cell fate in covalently crosslinked three-dimensional hydrogels. Nat. Mater. 2013, 12:458-465.
79. Dembo M., Wang Y.L. Stresses at the cell-to-substrate interface during locomotion of fibroblasts. Biophys. J. 1999, 76:2307-2316.
80. Rehfeldt F., et al. Hyaluronic acid matrices show matrix stiffness in 2D and 3D dictates cytoskeletal order and myosin-II phosphorylation within stem cells. Integr. Biol. 2012, 4:422-430.
81. Klingberg F., et al. Prestress in the extracellular matrix sensitizes latent TGF-beta 1 for activation. J. Cell Biol. 2014, 207:283-297.
82. McBeath R., et al. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell 2004, 6:483-495.
83. Pajerowski J.D., et al. Physical plasticity of the nucleus in stem cell differentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007, 104:15619-15624.
84. Majkut S., et al. Heart-specific stiffening in early embryos parallels matrix and myosin expression to optimize beating. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23:2434-2439.
85. Binnig G., et al. Atomic force microscope. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1986, 56:930-933.