Substrate stiffness and matrix composition coordinately control the differentiation of liver progenitor cells

Biomaterials

Volumn 99, Issue , 2016, Pages 82-94

  Kourouklis, Andreas P ^a   Kaylan, Kerim B ^a   Underhill, Gregory H ^a  

^a University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign   (United States)

Author keywords

Cellular microarrays; Extracellular matrix; Liver progenitor cells; Substrate stiffness; Traction force microscopy

Indexed keywords

BIOMECHANICS; CYTOLOGY; PROTEINS; STIFFNESS; STIFFNESS MATRIX; SUBSTRATES; TRACTION (FRICTION);

CELLULAR MICROARRAYS; EXTRACELLULAR MATRICES; PROGENITOR CELL; SUBSTRATE STIFFNESS; TRACTION FORCE MICROSCOPIES;

STEM CELLS;

COLLAGEN TYPE 4; FIBRONECTIN; MITOGEN ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE; RHO KINASE; ACRYLIC ACID RESIN; COLLAGEN; POLYACRYLAMIDE GELS; SCLEROPROTEIN; SIGNAL PEPTIDE;

ARTICLE; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CONTRACTION STRESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; LIVER PROGENITOR CELL; MORPHOGENESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RIGIDITY; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; STEM CELL; ANIMAL; CELL CULTURE; CELL LINE; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; EMBRYONIC STEM CELL; HUMAN; LIVER; MECHANICS; METABOLISM; MOUSE; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

ACRYLIC RESINS; ANIMALS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CELL LINE; CELLS, CULTURED; COLLAGEN; EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX PROTEINS; FIBRONECTINS; HUMANS; INTERCELLULAR SIGNALING PEPTIDES AND PROTEINS; LIVER; MECHANICAL PHENOMENA; MICE;

EID: 84969802809     PISSN: 01429612     EISSN: 18785905     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.05.016     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Clotman F., et al. Control of liver cell fate decision by a gradient of TGF beta signaling modulated by Onecut transcription factors. Genes Dev. 2005, 19(16):1849-1854.
2. Clotman F., Lemaigre F.P. Control of hepatic differentiation by activin/TGFbeta signaling. Cell Cycle 2006, 5(2):168-171.
3. Hofmann J.J., et al. Jagged1 in the portal vein mesenchyme regulates intrahepatic bile duct development: insights into Alagille syndrome. Development 2010, 137(23):4061-4072.
4. Jeliazkova P., et al. Canonical Notch2 signaling determines biliary cell fates of embryonic hepatoblasts and adult hepatocytes independent of Hes1. Hepatology 2013, 57(6):2469-2479.
5. Tchorz J.S., et al. Notch2 signaling promotes biliary epithelial cell fate specification and tubulogenesis during bile duct development in mice. Hepatology 2009, 50(3):871-879.
6. Zong Y., et al. Notch signaling controls liver development by regulating biliary differentiation. Development 2009, 136(10):1727-1739.
7. Tanimizu N., et al. alpha1- and alpha5-containing laminins regulate the development of bile ducts via beta1 integrin signals. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287(34):28586-28597.
8. Yanai M., et al. FGF signaling segregates biliary cell-lineage from chick hepatoblasts cooperatively with BMP4 and ECM components in vitro. Dev. Dyn. 2008, 237(5):1268-1283.
9. Tanimizu N., Miyajima A., Mostov K.E. Liver progenitor cells develop cholangiocyte-type epithelial polarity in three-dimensional culture. Mol. Biol. Cell 2007, 18(4):1472-1479.
10. Kaylan K.B., et al. Combinatorial microenvironmental regulation of liver progenitor differentiation by Notch ligands, TGFbeta, and extracellular matrix. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6(23490).
11. Georges P.C., et al. Increased stiffness of the rat liver precedes matrix deposition: implications for fibrosis. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2007, 293(6):G1147-G1154.
12. Wells R.G. The role of matrix stiffness in regulating cell behavior. Hepatology 2008, 47(4):1394-1400.
13. Friedman S.L. Evolving challenges in hepatic fibrosis. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2010, 7(8):425-436.
14. Kai F., Laklai H., Weaver V.M. Force matters: biomechanical regulation of cell invasion and migration in disease. Trends Cell Biol. 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2016.03.007, pii: S0962-8924(16)00050-7.
15. Discher D.E., Mooney D.J., Zandstra P.W. Growth factors, matrices, and forces combine and control stem cells. Science 2009, 324(5935):1673-1677.
16. Trappmann B., Chen C.S. How cells sense extracellular matrix stiffness: a material's perspective. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2013, 24(5):948-953.
17. Ivanovska I.L., et al. Stem cell mechanobiology: diverse lessons from bone marrow. Trends Cell Biol. 2015, 25(9):523-532.
18. Kshitiz, et al. Control of stem cell fate and function by engineering physical microenvironments. Integr. Biol. Camb 2012, 4(9):1008-1018.
19. MacQueen L., Sun Y., Simmons C.A. Mesenchymal stem cell mechanobiology and emerging experimental platforms. J. R. Soc. Interface 2013, 10(84):20130179.
20. Vogel V., Sheetz M. Local force and geometry sensing regulate cell functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006, 7(4):265-275.
21. Kilian K.A., et al. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2010, 107(11):4872.
22. Desai R.A., et al. Subcellular spatial segregation of integrin subtypes by patterned multicomponent surfaces. Integr. Biol. Camb 2011, 3(5):560-567.
23. McBeath R., et al. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell 2004, 6(4):483-495.
24. Reilly G.C., Engler A.J. Intrinsic extracellular matrix properties regulate stem cell differentiation. J. Biomech. 2010, 43(1):55-62.
25. Engler A.J., et al. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 2006, 126(4):677-689.
26. Engler A., et al. Substrate compliance versus ligand density in cell on gel responses. Biophys. J. 2004, 86(1 Pt 1):617-628.
27. Guvendiren M., Burdick J.A. Stiffening hydrogels to probe short- and long-term cellular responses to dynamic mechanics. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3:792.
28. Tse J.R., Engler A.J. Stiffness gradients mimicking in vivo tissue variation regulate mesenchymal stem cell fate. PLoS One 2011, 6(1):e15978.
29. Legant W.R., et al. Microfabricated tissue gauges to measure and manipulate forces from 3D microtissues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2009, 106(25):10097-10102.
30. Rape A.D., et al. A synthetic hydrogel for the high-throughput study of cell-ECM interactions. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6:8129.
31. Reticker-Flynn N.E., et al. A combinatorial extracellular matrix platform identifies cell-extracellular matrix interactions that correlate with metastasis. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3:1122.
32. Flaim C.J., Chien S., Bhatia S.N. An extracellular matrix microarray for probing cellular differentiation. Nat. Methods 2005, 2(2):119-125.
33. Flaim C.J., et al. Combinatorial signaling microenvironments for studying stem cell fate. Stem Cells Dev. 2008, 17(1):29-39.
34. Brafman D.A., et al. Investigating the role of the extracellular environment in modulating hepatic stellate cell biology with arrayed combinatorial microenvironments. Integr. Biol. Camb 2009, 1(8-9):513-524.
35. Balaban N.Q., et al. Force and focal adhesion assembly: a close relationship studied using elastic micropatterned substrates. Nat. Cell Biol. 2001, 3(5):466-472.
36. Trepat X., et al. Physical forces during collective cell migration. Nat. Phys. 2009, 5(6):426-430.
37. Wen J.H., et al. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat. Mater 2014, 13(10):979-987.
38. Butler J.P., et al. Traction fields, moments, and strain energy that cells exert on their surroundings. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2002, 282(3):C595-C605.
39. Style R.W., et al. Traction force microscopy in physics and biology. Soft Matter 2014, 10(23):4047-4055.
40. Tang X., et al. A novel cell traction force microscopy to study multi-cellular system. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10(6):e1003631.
41. Wang J.H., Lin J.S. Cell traction force and measurement methods. Biomech. Model Mechanobiol. 2007, 6(6):361-371.
42. Strick-Marchand H., Weiss M.C. Inducible differentiation and morphogenesis of bipotential liver cell lines from wild-type mouse embryos. Hepatology 2002, 36(4 Pt 1):794-804.
43. Aratyn-Schaus Y., et al. Preparation of complaint matrices for quantifying cellular contraction. J. Vis. Exp. 2010, 46. e2173-e2173.
44. Tse J.R., Engler A.J. Preparation of hydrogel substrates with tunable mechanical properties. Curr. Protoc. Cell Biol. 2010, 10.16.1-10.16.16.
45. Brafman D.A., Chien S., Willert K. Arrayed cellular microenvironments for identifying culture and differentiation conditions for stem, primary and rare cell populations. Nat. Protoc. 2012, 7(4):703-717.
46. Underhill G.H., Flaim C.J., Bhatia S.N. Extracellular matrix microarrays and stem cell fate. Methods in Bioengineering: Stem Cell Bioengineering 2009, 63-73. Artech House Publishers, Boston, MA. B. Parekkadan, M. Yarmush (Eds.).
47. Wang N., et al. Cell prestress. I. Stiffness and prestress are closely associated in adherent contractile cells. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2002, 282(3):C606-C616.
48. Schneider C.A., Rasband W.S., Eliceiri K.W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9(7):671-675.
49. Schindelin J., et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9(7):676-682.
50. Kamentsky L., et al. Improved structure, function and compatibility for CellProfiler: modular high-throughput image analysis software. Bioinformatics 2011, 27(8):1179-1180.
51. Strick-Marchand H., et al. Bipotential mouse embryonic liver stem cell lines contribute to liver regeneration and differentiate as bile ducts and hepatocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2004, 101(22):8360-8365.
52. Antoniou A., et al. Intrahepatic bile ducts develop according to a new mode of tubulogenesis regulated by the transcription factor SOX9. Gastroenterology 2009, 136(7):2325-2333.
53. Desai S.S., et al. Physiological ranges of matrix rigidity modulate primary mouse hepatocyte function in Part Through hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha. Hepatology 2016, 10.1002/hep.28450.
54. Li Z., et al. Transforming growth factor-beta and substrate stiffness regulate portal fibroblast activation in culture. Hepatology 2007, 46(4):1246-1256.
55. Komatsu T., et al. Effect of extracellular matrix stiffness on ductular formation of biliary epithelial cells. 6th World Congress of Biomechanics (2010) 2010, 31:1095-1098.
56. Riveline D., et al. Focal contacts as mechanosensors: externally applied local mechanical force induces growth of focal contacts by an mDia1-dependent and ROCK-independent mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 2001, 153(6):1175-1185.
57. Riento K., Ridley A.J. Rocks: multifunctional kinases in cell behaviour. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2003, 4(6):446-456.
58. Ingber D.E. Cellular mechanotransduction: putting all the pieces together again. FASEB J. 2006, 20(7):811-827.
59. Wozniak M.A., Chen C.S. Mechanotransduction in development: a growing role for contractility. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2009, 10(1):34-43.
60. Krishnan R., et al. Substrate stiffening promotes endothelial monolayer disruption through enhanced physical forces. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2011, 300(1):C146-C154.
61. Lai C.F., et al. Erk is essential for growth, differentiation, integrin expression, and cell function in human osteoblastic cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2001, 276(17):14443-14450.
62. Aplin A.E., et al. Integrin-mediated adhesion regulates ERK nuclear translocation and phosphorylation of Elk-1. J. Cell Biol. 2001, 153(2):273-282.
63. Amano M., et al. Phosphorylation and activation of myosin by Rho-associated kinase (Rho-kinase). J. Biol. Chem. 1996, 271(34):20246-20249.
64. El-Sibai M., et al. RhoA/ROCK-mediated switching between Cdc42- and Rac1-dependent protrusion in MTLn3 carcinoma cells. Exp. Cell Res. 2008, 314(7):1540-1552.
65. Sahai E., Marshall C.J. ROCK and Dia have opposing effects on adherens junctions downstream of Rho. Nat. Cell Biol. 2002, 4(6):408-415.
66. Barr R.K., Bogoyevitch M.A. The c-Jun N-terminal protein kinase family of mitogen-activated protein kinases (JNK MAPKs). Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2001, 33(11):1047-1063.
67. Johnson G.L., Lapadat R. Mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways mediated by ERK, JNK, and p38 protein kinases. Science 2002, 298(5600):1911-1912.
68. Discher D.E., Janmey P., Wang Y.L. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 2005, 310(5751):1139-1143.
69. Frantz C., Stewart K.M., Weaver V.M. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2010, 123(Pt 24):4195-4200.
70. Park J.S., et al. The effect of matrix stiffness on the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells in response to TGF-beta. Biomaterials 2011, 32(16):3921-3930.
71. Rosenfeldt H., Grinnell F. Fibroblast quiescence and the disruption of ERK signaling in mechanically unloaded collagen matrices. J. Biol. Chem. 2000, 275(5):3088-3092.
72. Klein E.A., et al. Cell cycle control by physiological matrix elasticity and in vivo tissue stiffening. Curr. Biol. CB 2009, 19(18):1511-1518.
73. Li Z., et al. Transforming growth factor-β and substrate stiffness regulate portal fibroblast activation in culture. Hepatology 2007, 46(4):1246-1256.
74. Yeh W.C., et al. Elastic modulus measurements of human liver and correlation with pathology. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2002, 28(4):467-474.
75. Venkatesh S.K., Ehman R.L. Magnetic resonance elastography of liver. Magn. Reson Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2014, 22(3):433-446.
76. Yin M., et al. Assessment of hepatic fibrosis with magnetic resonance elastography. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2007, 5(10). pp. 1207-1213.e2.
77. Roskams T.A., et al. Nomenclature of the finer branches of the biliary tree: canals, ductules, and ductular reactions in human livers. Hepatology 2004, 39(6):1739-1745.
78. Gouw A.S., Clouston A.D., Theise N.D. Ductular reactions in human liver: diversity at the interface. Hepatology 2011, 54(5):1853-1863.
79. Baneyx G., Baugh L., Vogel V. Fibronectin extension and unfolding within cell matrix fibrils controlled by cytoskeletal tension. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002, 99(8):5139-5143.
80. Smith M.L., et al. Force-induced unfolding of fibronectin in the extracellular matrix of living cells. Plos Biol. 2007, 5(10):2243-2254.
81. Friedland J.C., Lee M.H., Boettiger D. Mechanically activated integrin switch controls alpha5beta1 function. Science 2009, 323(5914):642-644.
82. Yurchenco P.D., Ruben G.C. Basement membrane structure in situ: evidence for lateral associations in the type IV collagen network. J. Cell Biol. 1987, 105(6 Pt 1):2559-2568.
83. Eble J.A., et al. The alpha-1-beta-1-integrin recognition site of the basement-membrane collagen molecule [Alpha-1(Iv)](2)Alpha-2(Iv). Embo J. 1993, 12(12):4795-4802.
84. Louis H., et al. Role of alpha1beta1-integrin in arterial stiffness and angiotensin-induced arterial wall hypertrophy in mice. Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 2007, 293(4). p. H2597-604.
85. Sit S.T., Manser E. Rho GTPases and their role in organizing the actin cytoskeleton. J. Cell Sci. 2011, 124(Pt 5):679-683.
86. Frasa M.A., et al. Armus is a Rac1 effector that inactivates Rab7 and regulates E-cadherin degradation. Curr. Biol. 2010, 20(3):198-208.
87. Borghi N., et al. E-cadherin is under constitutive actomyosin-generated tension that is increased at cell-cell contacts upon externally applied stretch. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2012, 109(31):12568-12573.
88. Kim T.J., et al. Dynamic visualization of alpha-catenin reveals rapid, reversible conformation switching between tension states. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25(2):218-224.
89. Giancotti F.G. Complexity and specificity of integrin signalling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2000, 2(1). p. E13-4.
90. Schrader J., et al. Matrix stiffness modulates proliferation, chemotherapeutic response, and dormancy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Hepatology 2011, 53(4):1192-1205.