Cargando…
Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement
Using a microfluidic platform to apply negative aspiration pressure (–20, –25, –30, –35 and –40 cm H(2)O), we compared the differences in creep responses of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) cells while migrating in confinement and at a stationary state on a 2D substrate. Cells were either migrating in...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33998389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509 |
_version_ | 1783694581362065408 |
---|---|
author | Khan, Ishan Bui, Loan Bachoo, Robert Kim, Young-Tae Chuong, Cheng-Jen |
author_facet | Khan, Ishan Bui, Loan Bachoo, Robert Kim, Young-Tae Chuong, Cheng-Jen |
author_sort | Khan, Ishan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Using a microfluidic platform to apply negative aspiration pressure (–20, –25, –30, –35 and –40 cm H(2)O), we compared the differences in creep responses of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) cells while migrating in confinement and at a stationary state on a 2D substrate. Cells were either migrating in a channel of 5 x 5 μm cross-section or stationary at the entrance to the channel. In response to aspiration pressure, we found actively migrating GBM cells exhibited a higher stiffness than stationary cells. Additionally, migrating cells absorbed more energy elastically with a relatively small dissipative energy loss. At elevated negative pressure loads up to – 30 cm H(2)O, we observed a linear increase in elastic deformation and a higher distribution in elastic storage than energy loss, and the response plateaued at further increasing negative pressure loads. To explore the underlying cause, we carried out immuno-cytochemical studies of these cells and found a polarized actin and myosin distribution at the front and posterior ends of the migrating cells, whereas the distribution of the stationary group demonstrated no specific regional differences. These differences in creep response and cytoskeletal protein distribution demonstrate the importance of a migrating cell’s kinematic state to the mechanism of cell migration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8130729 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81307292021-06-15 Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement Khan, Ishan Bui, Loan Bachoo, Robert Kim, Young-Tae Chuong, Cheng-Jen Int Biomech Research Article Using a microfluidic platform to apply negative aspiration pressure (–20, –25, –30, –35 and –40 cm H(2)O), we compared the differences in creep responses of Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) cells while migrating in confinement and at a stationary state on a 2D substrate. Cells were either migrating in a channel of 5 x 5 μm cross-section or stationary at the entrance to the channel. In response to aspiration pressure, we found actively migrating GBM cells exhibited a higher stiffness than stationary cells. Additionally, migrating cells absorbed more energy elastically with a relatively small dissipative energy loss. At elevated negative pressure loads up to – 30 cm H(2)O, we observed a linear increase in elastic deformation and a higher distribution in elastic storage than energy loss, and the response plateaued at further increasing negative pressure loads. To explore the underlying cause, we carried out immuno-cytochemical studies of these cells and found a polarized actin and myosin distribution at the front and posterior ends of the migrating cells, whereas the distribution of the stationary group demonstrated no specific regional differences. These differences in creep response and cytoskeletal protein distribution demonstrate the importance of a migrating cell’s kinematic state to the mechanism of cell migration. Taylor & Francis 2020-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8130729/ /pubmed/33998389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509 Text en © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Khan, Ishan Bui, Loan Bachoo, Robert Kim, Young-Tae Chuong, Cheng-Jen Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title | Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title_full | Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title_fullStr | Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title_full_unstemmed | Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title_short | Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement |
title_sort | differences in creep response of gbm cells migrating in confinement |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8130729/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33998389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khanishan differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT builoan differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT bachoorobert differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT kimyoungtae differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT chuongchengjen differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement |