Capturing extracellular matrix properties in vitro: Microengineering materials to decipher cell and tissue level processes

Experimental Biology and Medicine

Volumn 241, Issue 9, 2016, Pages 930-938

  Abdeen, Amr A ^a   Lee, Junmin ^a   Kilian, Kristopher A ^a  

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

Author keywords

Biomaterials; extracellular matrix; micropatterning

Indexed keywords

CELL FUNCTION; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; TISSUE LEVEL; ANIMAL; CELL SHAPE; CHEMISTRY; CYTOLOGY; IMMUNE SYSTEM; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; SINGLE CELL ANALYSIS; TISSUE ENGINEERING;

LIGAND;

ANIMALS; CELL SHAPE; CYTOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; EXTRACELLULAR MATRIX; HUMANS; IMMUNE SYSTEM; LIGANDS; SINGLE-CELL ANALYSIS; TISSUE ENGINEERING;

EID: 84971601378     PISSN: 15353702     EISSN: 15353699     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1535370216644532     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. P.HughesD.MarshallY.ReidH.ParkesC.Gelber. The costs of using unauthenticated, over-passaged cell lines: How much more data do we need?Biotechniques2007; 43: 575–86.
2. B.Soediono. Mechanical forces: their effects on cells and tissues, Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1997.
3. M.Théry. Micropatterning as a tool to decipher cell morphogenesis and functions. J Cell Sci2010; 123: 4201–13.
4. C.C.DuFortM.J.PaszekV.M.Weaver. Balancing forces: architectural control of mechanotransduction. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2011; 12: 308–19.
5. C.FrantzK.M.StewartV.M.Weaver. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J Cell Sci2010; 123: 4195–200.
6. W.P.DaleyS.B.PetersM.Larsen. Extracellular matrix dynamics in development and regenerative medicine. J Cell Sci2008; 121: 255–64.
7. J.K.MouwG.OuV.M.Weaver. Extracellular matrix assembly: a multiscale deconstruction. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2014; 15: 771–85.
8. C.M.NelsonM.J.Bissell. Of extracellular matrix, scaffolds, and signaling: tissue architecture regulates development, homeostasis, and cancer. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol2006; 22: 287–309.
9. J.C.AdamsF.M.Watt. Regulation of development and differentiation by the extracellular matrix. Development1993; 117: 1183–98.
10. J.D.HumphreyE.R.DufresneM.A.Schwartz. Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2014; 15: 802–12.
11. K.S.KolahiM.R.K.Mofrad. Mechanotransduction: a major regulator of homeostasis and development. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med2010; 2: 625–39.
12. H.Y.KimC.M.Nelson. Extracellular matrix and cytoskeletal dynamics during branching morphogenesis. Organogenesis2012; 8: 56–64.
13. C.-P.HeisenbergY.Bellaïche. Forces in tissue morphogenesis and patterning. Cell2013; 153: 948–62.
14. J.H.-C.WangB.P.Thampatty. Mechanobiology of adult and stem cells. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol2008; 271: 301–46.
15. C.BonnansJ.ChouZ.Werb. Remodelling the extracellular matrix in development and disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2014; 15: 786–801.
16. M.E.LukashevZ.Werb. ECM signalling: orchestrating cell behaviour and misbehaviour. Trends Cell Biol1998; 8: 437–41.
17. L.G.GriffithM.A.Swartz. Capturing complex 3D tissue physiology in vitro. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2006; 7: 211–24.
18. S.B.Carter. Haptotactic islands: a method of confining single cells to study individual cell reactions and clone formation. Exp Cell Res1967; 48: 189–93.
19. R.S.KaneS.TakayamaE.OstuniD.E.IngberG.M.Whitesides. Patterning proteins and cells using soft lithography. Biomaterials1999; 20: 2363–76.
20. G.Velve-CasquillasM.Le BerreM.PielP.T.Tran. Microfluidic tools for cell biological research. Nano Today2010; 5: 28–47.
21. R.PelhamY.Wang. Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1997; 94: 13661–5.
22. B.DhandayuthapaniY.YoshidaT.MaekawaD.S.Kumar. Polymeric scaffolds in tissue engineering application: a review. Int J Polym Sci2011; 2011: 1–19.
23. M.W.TibbittK.S.Anseth. Hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics for 3D cell culture. Biotechnol Bioeng2009; 103: 655–63.
24. P.M.KharkarK.L.KiickA.M.Kloxin. Designing degradable hydrogels for orthogonal control of cell microenvironments. Chem Soc Rev2013; 42: 7335–72.
25. S.Eliyahu-GrossR.Bitton. Environmentally responsive hydrogels with dynamically tunable properties as extracellular matrix mimetic. Rev Chem Eng2013; 29: 1–10.
26. S.V.MurphyA.Atala. 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nat Biotechnol2014; 32: 773–85.
27. A.V.SinghR.PatilD.K.ThombreW.N.Gade. Micro-nanopatterning as tool to study the role of physicochemical properties on cell-surface interactions. J Biomed Mater Res A2013; 101: 3019–32.
28. F.RossoA.GiordanoM.BarbarisiA.Barbarisi. From cell-ECM interactions to tissue engineering. J Cell Physiol2004; 199: 174–80.
29. S.H.KimJ.TurnbullS.Guimond. Extracellular matrix and cell signalling: the dynamic cooperation of integrin, proteoglycan and growth factor receptor. J Endocrinol2011; 209: 139–51.
30. V.VogelM.Sheetz. Local force and geometry sensing regulate cell functions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2006; 7: 265–75.
31. I.D.CampbellM.J.Humphries. Integrin structure, activation, and interactions. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol2011; 3: a004994–a004994.
32. M.A.Schwartz. Integrins and extracellular matrix in mechanotransduction. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol2010; 2: a005066–a005066.
33. U.S.SchwarzM.L.Gardel. United we stand: integrating the actin cytoskeleton and cell-matrix adhesions in cellular mechanotransduction. J Cell Sci2012; 125: 3051–60.
34. E.K.PaluchC.M.NelsonN.BiaisB.FabryJ.MoellerB.L.PruittC.WollnikG.KudryashevaF.RehfeldtW.Federle. Mechanotransduction: use the force(s). BMC Biol2015; 13: 47–47.
35. Y.SunC.S.ChenJ.Fu. Forcing stem cells to behave: a biophysical perspective of the cellular microenvironment. Annu Rev Biophys2012; 41: 519–42.
36. M.P.LutolfP.M.GilbertH.M.Blau. Designing materials to direct stem-cell fate. Nature2009; 462: 433–41.
37. D.A.LeeM.M.KnightJ.J.CampbellD.L.Bader. Stem cell mechanobiology. J Cell Biochem2011; 112: 1–9.
38. A.A.AbdeenJ.B.WeissJ.LeeK.A.Kilian. Matrix composition and mechanics direct proangiogenic signaling from mesenchymal stem cells. Tissue Eng Part A2014; 20: 2737–45.
39. J.LeeA.A.AbdeenD.ZhangK.A.Kilian. Directing stem cell fate on hydrogel substrates by controlling cell geometry, matrix mechanics and adhesion ligand composition. Biomaterials2013; 34: 8140–8.
40. D.AydinI.LoubanN.PerschmannJ.BlümmelT.LohmüllerE.A.Cavalcanti-AdamT.L.HaasH.WalczakH.KesslerR.FiammengoJ.P.Spatz. Polymeric substrates with tunable elasticity and nanoscopically controlled biomolecule presentation. Langmuir2010; 26: 15472–80.
41. C.A.DeForestK.S.Anseth. Photoreversible patterning of biomolecules within click-based hydrogels. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl2012; 51: 1816–9.
42. T.L.DowningJ.SotoC.MorezT.HoussinA.FritzF.YuanJ.ChuS.PatelD.V.SchafferS.Li. Biophysical regulation of epigenetic state and cell reprogramming. Nat Mater2013; 12: 1154–62.
43. K.A.KilianB.BugarijaB.T.LahnM.Mrksich. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2010; 107: 4872–7.
44. T.RozarioD.W.DeSimone. The extracellular matrix in development and morphogenesis: a dynamic view. Dev Biol2010; 341: 126–40.
45. C.J.WilsonR.E.CleggD.I.LeavesleyM.J.Pearcy. Mediation of biomaterial—cell interactions by adsorbed proteins: a review. Tissue Eng2005; 11: 1–18.
46. G.T.HermansonBioconjugation in the study of protein interactions. In: (eds). Bioconjugate techniques, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2013, pp. 989–1016.
47. P.ThevenotW.HuL.Tang. Surface chemistry influences implant biocompatibility. Curr Top Med Chem2008; 8: 270–80.
48. J.F.ManoG.A.SilvaH.S.AzevedoP.B.MalafayaR.A.SousaS.S.SilvaL.F.BoeselJ.M.OliveiraT.C.SantosA.P.MarquesN.M.NevesR.L.Reis. Natural origin biodegradable systems in tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: present status and some moving trends. J R Soc Interface2007; 4: 999–1030.
49. P.M.CrapoT.W.GilbertS.F.Badylak. An overview of tissue and whole organ decellularization processes. Biomaterials2011; 32: 3233–43.
50. H.P.ReuschG.ChanH.E.IvesR.A.Nemenoff. Activation of JNK/SAPK and ERK by mechanical strain in vascular smooth muscle cells depends on extracellular matrix composition. Biochem Biophys Res Commun1997; 237: 239–44.
51. J.A.MadriB.M.PrattA.M.Tucker. Phenotypic modulation of endothelial cells by transforming growth factor-beta depends upon the composition and organization of the extracellular matrix. J Cell Biol1988; 106: 1375–84.
52. P.LuV.M.WeaverZ.Werb. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J Cell Biol2012; 196: 395–406.
53. F.M.WattW.T.S.Huck. Role of the extracellular matrix in regulating stem cell fate. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2013; 14: 467–73.
54. A.S.RowlandsP.A.GeorgeJ.J.Cooper-White. Directing osteogenic and myogenic differentiation of MSCs: interplay of stiffness and adhesive ligand presentation. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol2008; 295: 1037–44.
55. L.E.FitzpatrickT.C.McDevitt. Cell-derived matrices for tissue engineering and regenerative medicine applications. Biomater Sci2015; 3: 12–24.
56. G.A.HudallaW.L.Murphy. Biomaterials that regulate growth factor activity via bioinspired interactions. Adv Funct Mater2011; 21: 1754–68.
57. B.GeigerJ.P.SpatzA.D.Bershadsky. Environmental sensing through focal adhesions. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2009; 10: 21–33.
58. E.A.Cavalcanti-AdamD.AydinV.C.Hirschfeld-WarnekenJ.P.Spatz. Cell adhesion and response to synthetic nanopatterned environments by steering receptor clustering and spatial location. HFSP J2008; 2: 276–85.
59. K.Minton. Cell adhesion: integrating the integrin response. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2013; 14: 3605–3605.
60. T.SatavJ.HuskensP.Jonkheijm. Effects of variations in ligand density on cell signaling. Small2015; 11: 5184–99.
61. M.M.MartinoM.MochizukiD.A.RothenfluhS.A.RempelJ.A.HubbellT.H.Barker. Controlling integrin specificity and stem cell differentiation in 2D and 3D environments through regulation of fibronectin domain stability. Biomaterials2009; 30: 1089–97.
62. M.Mrksich. Using self-assembled monolayers to model the extracellular matrix. Acta Biomater2010; 5: 832–41.
63. K.A.KilianM.Mrksich. Directing stem cell fate by controlling the affinity and density of ligand-receptor interactions at the biomaterials interface. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl2012; 51: 4891–5.
64. T.LohmüllerD.AydinM.SchwiederC.MorhardI.LoubanC.PacholskiJ.P.Spatz. Nanopatterning by block copolymer micelle nanolithography and bioinspired applications. Biointerphases2011; 6: MR1–12.
65. P.Roca-CusachsT.IskratschM.P.Sheetz. Finding the weakest link: exploring integrin-mediated mechanical molecular pathways. J Cell Sci2012; 125: 3025–38.
66. P.Roca-CusachsA.del RioE.Puklin-FaucherN.C.GauthierN.BiaisM.P.Sheetz. Integrin-dependent force transmission to the extracellular matrix by alpha-actinin triggers adhesion maturation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2013; 110: E1361–70.
67. M.ArnoldE.A.Cavalcanti-AdamR.GlassJ.BlümmelW.EckM.KantlehnerH.KesslerJ.P.Spatz. Activation of integrin function by nanopatterned adhesive interfaces. ChemPhysChem2004; 5: 383–8.
68. J.A.DeegI.LoubanD.AydinC.Selhuber-UnkelH.KesslerJ.P.Spatz. Impact of local versus global ligand density on cellular adhesion. Nano Lett2011; 11: 1469–76.
69. B.TrappmannJ.E.GautrotJ.T.ConnellyD.G.T.StrangeY.LiM.L.OyenM.Cohen StuartH.BoehmB.LiV.VogelJ.P.SpatzF.M.WattW.T.S.Huck. Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. Nat Mater2012; 11: 642–9.
70. M.ThéryA.PépinE.DressaireY.ChenM.Bornens. Cell distribution of stress fibres in response to the geometry of the adhesive environment. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton2006; 63: 341–55.
71. E.TumarkinL.TzaduE.CsaszarM.SeoH.ZhangA.LeeR.PeeraniK.PurpuraP.W.ZandstraE.Kumacheva. High-throughput combinatorial cell co-culture using microfluidics. Integr Biol (Camb)2011; 3: 653–62.
72. S.Alom RuizC.S.Chen. Microcontact printing: a tool to pattern. Soft Matter2007; 3: 168–168.
73. L.D.HughesS.G.Boxer. DNA-based patterning of tethered membrane patches. Langmuir2013; 29: 12220–7.
74. F.-C.ChienC.W.KuoZ.-H.YangD.-Y.ChuehP.Chen. Exploring the formation of focal adhesions on patterned surfaces using super-resolution imaging. Small2011; 7: 2906–13.
75. S.H.ShabbirM.M.ClelandR.D.GoldmanM.Mrksich. Geometric control of vimentin intermediate filaments. Biomaterials2014; 35: 1359–66.
76. M.ThéryV.RacineM.PielA.PépinA.DimitrovY.ChenJ.-B.SibaritaM.Bornens. Anisotropy of cell adhesive microenvironment governs cell internal organization and orientation of polarity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2006; 103: 19771–6.
77. M.VersaevelT.GrevesseS.Gabriele. Spatial coordination between cell and nuclear shape within micropatterned endothelial cells. Nat Commun2012; 3: 671–671.
78. N.JainK.V.IyerA.KumarG.V.Shivashankar. Cell geometric constraints induce modular gene-expression patterns via redistribution of HDAC3 regulated by actomyosin contractility. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2013; 110: 3–8.
79. J.Le BeyecR.XuS.-Y.LeeC.M.NelsonA.RizkiJ.AlcarazM.J.Bissell. Cell shape regulates global histone acetylation in human mammary epithelial cells. Exp Cell Res2007; 313: 3066–75.
80. C.S.ChenM.MrksichS.HuangG.M.WhitesidesD.E.Ingber. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science1997; 276: 1425–8.
81. D.ZhangK.A.Kilian. The effect of mesenchymal stem cell shape on the maintenance of multipotency. Biomaterials2013; 34: 3962–9.
82. R.McBeathD.M.PironeC.M.NelsonK.BhadrirajuC.S.Chen. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev Cell2004; 6: 483–95.
83. J.LeeA.A.AbdeenX.TangT.A.SaifK.A.Kilian. Geometric guidance of integrin mediated traction stress during stem cell differentiation. Biomaterials2015; 69: 174–83.
84. R.AkhtarM.J.SherrattJ.K.CruickshankB.Derby. Characterizing the elastic properties of tissues. Mater Today2011; 14: 96–105.
85. D.E.JaaloukJ.Lammerding. Mechanotransduction gone awry. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2009; 10: 63–73.
86. K.TakahashiY.KakimotoK.TodaK.Naruse. Mechanobiology in cardiac physiology and diseases. J Cell Mol Med2013; 17: 225–32.
87. D.E.DischerP.JanmeyY.-L.Wang. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science2005; 310: 1139–43.
88. J.SolonI.LeventalK.SenguptaP.C.GeorgesP.A.Janmey. Fibroblast adaptation and stiffness matching to soft elastic substrates. Biophys J2007; 93: 4453–61.
89. C.StormJ.J.PastoreF.C.MacKintoshT.C.LubenskyP.A.Janmey. Nonlinear elasticity in biological gels. Nature2005; 435: 191–4.
90. S.J.HanK.S.BielawskiL.H.TingM.L.RodriguezN.J.Sniadecki. Decoupling substrate stiffness, spread area, and micropost density: a close spatial relationship between traction forces and focal adhesions. Biophys J2012; 103: 640–8.
91. S.DupontL.MorsutM.AragonaE.EnzoS.GiulittiM.CordenonsiF.ZanconatoJ.Le DigabelM.ForcatoS.BicciatoN.ElvassoreS.Piccolo. Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature2011; 474: 179–83.
92. J.SwiftI.L.IvanovskaA.BuxboimT.HaradaP.C.D.P.DingalJ.PinterJ.D.PajerowskiK.R.SpinlerJ.-W.ShinM.TewariF.RehfeldtD.W.SpeicherD.E.Discher. Nuclear lamin-A scales with tissue stiffness and enhances matrix-directed differentiation. Science2013; 341: 1240104–1240104.
93. N.WangJ.D.TytellD.E.Ingber. Mechanotransduction at a distance: mechanically coupling the extracellular matrix with the nucleus. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2009; 10: 75–82.
94. A.J.EnglerS.SenH.L.SweeneyD.E.Discher. Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell2006; 126: 677–89.
95. A.J.EnglerM.A.GriffinS.SenC.G.BönnemannH.L.SweeneyD.E.Discher. Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness: pathological implications for soft or stiff microenvironments. J Cell Biol2004; 166: 877–87.
96. F.HanC.ZhuQ.GuoH.YangB.Li. Cellular modulation by the elasticity of biomaterials. J Mater Chem B2016; 4: 9–26.
97. C.YangM.W.TibbittL.BastaK.S.Anseth. Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate. Nat Mater2014; 13: 645–52.
98. J.LeeA.A.AbdeenK.A.Kilian. Rewiring mesenchymal stem cell lineage specification by switching the biophysical microenvironment. Sci Rep2014; 4: 5188–5188.
99. J.H.WenL.G.VincentA.FuhrmannY.S.ChoiK.C.HribarH.Taylor-WeinerS.ChenA.J.Engler. Interplay of matrix stiffness and protein tethering in stem cell differentiation. Nat Mater2014; 13: 979–87.
100. N.HuebschE.LippensK.LeeM.MehtaS.T.KoshyM.C.DarnellR.DesaiC.M.MadlM.XuX.ZhaoO.ChaudhuriC.VerbekeW.S.KimK.Alim. Matrix elasticity of void-forming hydrogels controls matrix elasticity of void-forming hydrogels controls transplanted stem cell-mediated bone. Nat Mater2015; 14: 1–19.
101. A.R.CameronJ.E.FrithJ.J.Cooper-White. The influence of substrate creep on mesenchymal stem cell behaviour and phenotype. Biomaterials2011; 32: 5979–93.
102. S.KhetanM.GuvendirenW.R.LegantD.M.CohenC.S.ChenJ.A.Burdick. Degradation-mediated cellular traction directs stem cell fate in covalently crosslinked three-dimensional hydrogels. Nat Mater2013; 12: 458–65.
103. O.ChaudhuriL.GuD.KlumpersM.DarnellS.A.BencherifJ.C.WeaverN.HuebschH.LeeE.LippensG.N.DudaD.J.Mooney. Hydrogels with tunable stress relaxation regulate stem cell fate and activity. Nat Mater2015; 15: 326–34.
104. D.-H.KimP.P.ProvenzanoC.L.SmithA.Levchenko. Matrix nanotopography as a regulator of cell function. J Cell Biol2012; 197: 351–60.
105. J.J.NormanT.A.Desai. Methods for fabrication of nanoscale topography for tissue engineering scaffolds. Ann Biomed Eng2006; 34: 89–101.
106. C.J.BettingerR.LangerJ.T.Borenstein. Engineering substrate topography at the micro- and nanoscale to control cell function. Angew Chemie Int Ed2009; 48: 5406–15.
107. E.K.F.YimS.W.PangK.W.Leong. Synthetic nanostructures inducing differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells into neuronal lineage. Exp Cell Res2007; 313: 1820–9.
108. M.J.DalbyN.GadegaardR.TareA.AndarM.O.RiehleP.HerzykC.D.W.WilkinsonR.O.C.Oreffo. The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. Nat Mater2007; 6: 997–1003.
109. T.R.CoxJ.T.Erler. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Dis Model Mech2011; 4: 165–78.
110. B.L.BanikJ.L.Brown8—interaction of responsive/switchable surfaces with cells. In: (eds). Switchable and responsive surfaces and materials for biomedical applications, Oxford: Woodhead Publishing, 2015, pp. 45–64.
111. J.KimR.C.Hayward. Mimicking dynamic in vivo environments with stimuli-responsive materials for cell culture. Trends Biotechnol2012; 30: 426–39.
112. G.P.RaeberM.P.LutolfJ.A.Hubbell. Molecularly engineered PEG hydrogels: a novel model system for proteolytically mediated cell migration. Biophys J2005; 89: 1374–88.
113. A.M.KloxinC.J.KloxinC.N.BowmanK.S.Anseth. Mechanical properties of cellularly responsive hydrogels and their experimental determination. Adv Mater2010; 22: 3484–94.
114. J.A.BurdickW.L.Murphy. Moving from static to dynamic complexity in hydrogel design. Nat Commun2012; 3: 1269–1269.
115. B.M.BakerC.S.Chen. Deconstructing the third dimension: how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues. J Cell Sci2012; 125: 3015–24.
116. C.FischbachH.J.KongS.X.HsiongM.B.EvangelistaW.YuenD.J.Mooney. Cancer cell angiogenic capability is regulated by 3D culture and integrin engagement. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2009; 106: 399–404.
117. R.DeVolderH.-J.Kong. Hydrogels for in vivo-like three-dimensional cellular studies. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med2012; 4: 351–65.
118. D.LeckbandA.Prakasam. Mechanism and dynamics of cadherin adhesion. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2006; 8: 259–87.
119. C.A.GoubkoX.Cao. Patterning multiple cell types in co-cultures: a review. Mater Sci Eng C2009; 29: 1855–68.
120. S.HuangC.P.BrangwynneK.K.ParkerD.E.Ingber. Symmetry-breaking in mammalian cell cohort migration during tissue pattern formation: Role of random-walk persistence. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton2005; 61: 201–13.
121. L.PetitjeanM.ReffayE.Grasland-MongrainM.PoujadeB.LadouxA.BuguinP.Silberzan. Velocity fields in a collectively migrating epithelium. Biophys J2010; 98: 1790–800.
122. Q.TsengE.Duchemin-PelletierA.DeshiereM.BallandH.GuillouO.FilholM.Thery. Spatial organization of the extracellular matrix regulates cell-cell junction positioning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2012; 109: 1506–11.
123. T.LecuitP.-F.Lenne. Cell surface mechanics and the control of cell shape, tissue patterns and morphogenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2007; 8: 633–44.
124. K.JakabC.NorotteF.MargaK.MurphyG.Vunjak-NovakovicG.Forgacs. Tissue engineering by self-assembly and bio-printing of living cells. Biofabrication2010; 2: 022001–022001.
125. K.ShenS.LukD.F.HicksJ.S.ElmanS.BohrY.IwamotoR.MurrayK.PenaF.WangE.SekerR.WeisslederM.L.YarmushM.TonerD.SgroiB.Parekkadan. Resolving cancer–stroma interfacial signalling and interventions with micropatterned tumour–stromal assays. Nat Commun2014; 5: 5662–5662.
126. R.A.FotyM.S.Steinberg. Differential adhesion in model systems. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol2013; 2: 631–45.
127. D.A.BeysensG.ForgacsJ.A.Glazier. Cell sorting is analogous to phase ordering in fluids. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2000; 97: 9467–71.
128. M.L.ManningR.A.FotyM.S.SteinbergE.-M.Schoetz. Coaction of intercellular adhesion and cortical tension specifies tissue surface tension. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2010; 107: 12517–22.
129. C.M.NelsonR.P.JeanJ.L.TanW.F.LiuN.J.SniadeckiA.A.SpectorC.S.Chen. Emergent patterns of growth controlled by multicellular form and mechanics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2005; 102: 11594–9.
130. E.W.GomezQ.K.ChenN.GjorevskiC.M.Nelson. Tissue geometry patterns epithelial-mesenchymal transition via intercellular mechanotransduction. J Cell Biochem2010; 110: 44–51.
131. C.M.NelsonM.M.VanduijnJ.L.InmanD.A.FletcherM.J.Bissell. Tissue geometry determines sites of mammary branching morphogenesis in organotypic cultures. Science2006; 314: 298–300.
132. T.M.KeenanA.Folch. Biomolecular gradients in cell culture systems. Lab Chip2008; 8: 34–57.
133. D.B.KoleskyR.L.TrubyA.S.GladmanT.A.BusbeeK.A.HomanJ.A.Lewis. 3D bioprinting of vascularized, heterogeneous cell-laden tissue constructs. Adv Mater2014; 26: 3124–30.
134. D.M.MosserJ.P.Edwards. Exploring the full spectrum of macrophage activation. Nat Rev Immunol2008; 8: 958–69.
135. S.FranzS.RammeltD.ScharnweberJ.C.Simon. Immune responses to implants—a review of the implications for the design of immunomodulatory biomaterials. Biomaterials2011; 32: 6692–709.
136. R.SridharanA.R.CameronD.J.KellyC.J.KearneyF.J.O’Brien. Biomaterial based modulation of macrophage polarization: a review and suggested design principles. Mater Today2015; 18: 313–25.
137. A.R.de FougerollesV.E.Koteliansky. Regulation of monocyte gene expression by the extracellular matrix and its functional implications. Immunol Rev2002; 186: 208–20.
138. A.K.BlakneyM.D.SwartzlanderS.J.Bryant. The effects of substrate stiffness on the in vitro activation ofmacrophages and in vivo host response to poly(ethyleneglycol)-based hydrogels. J Biomed Mater Res A2012; 100A: 1375–86.
139. F.Y.McWhorterT.WangP.NguyenT.ChungW.F.Liu. Modulation of macrophage phenotype by cell shape. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2013; 110: 17253–8.
140. J.M.AndersonA.RodriguezD.T.Chang. Foreign body reaction to biomaterials. Semin Immunol2008; 20: 86–100.
141. L.Sorokin. The impact of the extracellular matrix on inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol2010; 10: 712–23.
142. L.VinetA.Zhedanov. Biomaterials in regenerative medicine and the immune system, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
143. J.DohD.J.Irvine. Immunological synapse arrays: patterned protein surfaces that modulate immunological synapse structure formation in T cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2006; 103: 5700–5.
144. E.TabdanovS.GondarenkoS.KumariA.LiapisM.L.DustinM.P.SheetzL.C.KamT.Iskratsch. Micropatterning of TCR and LFA-1 ligands reveals complementary effects on cytoskeleton mechanics in T cells. Integr Biol2015; 7: 1272–84.
145. K.D.MossmanG.CampiJ.T.GrovesM.L.Dustin. Altered TCR signaling from geometrically repatterned immunological synapses. Science2005; 310: 1191–3.
146. H.MajdS.S.SchererS.BooS.RamondettiE.CambridgeW.RaffoulM.FriedrichB.PittetD.PiolettiB.HinzG.Pietramaggiori. Novel micropatterns mechanically control fibrotic reactions at the surface of silicone implants. Biomaterials2015; 54: 136–47.
147. J.T.GrovesM.L.Dustin. Supported planar bilayers in studies on immune cell adhesion and communication. J Immunol Methods2003; 278: 19–32.
148. Y.TrescosE.TessierC.RougeauxP.L.GoossensJ.-N.Tournier. Micropatterned macrophage analysis reveals global cytoskeleton constraints induced by Bacillus anthracis edema toxin. Infect Immun2015; 83: 3114–25.