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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khan, Ishan, Bui, Loan, Bachoo, Robert, Kim, Young-Tae, Chuong, Cheng-Jen
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