Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness.
Every adherent eukaryotic cell exerts appreciable traction forces upon its substrate. Moreover, every resident cell within the heart, great vessels, bladder, gut or lung routinely experiences large periodic stretches. As an acute response to such stretches the cytoskeleton can stiffen, increase trac...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2009-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2675060?pdf=render |
| _version_ | 1828299786603724800 |
|---|---|
| author | Ramaswamy Krishnan Chan Young Park Yu-Chun Lin Jere Mead Richard T Jaspers Xavier Trepat Guillaume Lenormand Dhananjay Tambe Alexander V Smolensky Andrew H Knoll James P Butler Jeffrey J Fredberg |
| author_facet | Ramaswamy Krishnan Chan Young Park Yu-Chun Lin Jere Mead Richard T Jaspers Xavier Trepat Guillaume Lenormand Dhananjay Tambe Alexander V Smolensky Andrew H Knoll James P Butler Jeffrey J Fredberg |
| author_sort | Ramaswamy Krishnan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Every adherent eukaryotic cell exerts appreciable traction forces upon its substrate. Moreover, every resident cell within the heart, great vessels, bladder, gut or lung routinely experiences large periodic stretches. As an acute response to such stretches the cytoskeleton can stiffen, increase traction forces and reinforce, as reported by some, or can soften and fluidize, as reported more recently by our laboratory, but in any given circumstance it remains unknown which response might prevail or why. Using a novel nanotechnology, we show here that in loading conditions expected in most physiological circumstances the localized reinforcement response fails to scale up to the level of homogeneous cell stretch; fluidization trumps reinforcement. Whereas the reinforcement response is known to be mediated by upstream mechanosensing and downstream signaling, results presented here show the fluidization response to be altogether novel: it is a direct physical effect of mechanical force acting upon a structural lattice that is soft and fragile. Cytoskeletal softness and fragility, we argue, is consistent with early evolutionary adaptations of the eukaryotic cell to material properties of a soft inert microenvironment. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T12:59:21Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-23799046e6ae4143a519145515d80ed6 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T12:59:21Z |
| publishDate | 2009-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-23799046e6ae4143a519145515d80ed62022-12-22T02:45:58ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032009-01-0145e548610.1371/journal.pone.0005486Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness.Ramaswamy KrishnanChan Young ParkYu-Chun LinJere MeadRichard T JaspersXavier TrepatGuillaume LenormandDhananjay TambeAlexander V SmolenskyAndrew H KnollJames P ButlerJeffrey J FredbergEvery adherent eukaryotic cell exerts appreciable traction forces upon its substrate. Moreover, every resident cell within the heart, great vessels, bladder, gut or lung routinely experiences large periodic stretches. As an acute response to such stretches the cytoskeleton can stiffen, increase traction forces and reinforce, as reported by some, or can soften and fluidize, as reported more recently by our laboratory, but in any given circumstance it remains unknown which response might prevail or why. Using a novel nanotechnology, we show here that in loading conditions expected in most physiological circumstances the localized reinforcement response fails to scale up to the level of homogeneous cell stretch; fluidization trumps reinforcement. Whereas the reinforcement response is known to be mediated by upstream mechanosensing and downstream signaling, results presented here show the fluidization response to be altogether novel: it is a direct physical effect of mechanical force acting upon a structural lattice that is soft and fragile. Cytoskeletal softness and fragility, we argue, is consistent with early evolutionary adaptations of the eukaryotic cell to material properties of a soft inert microenvironment.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2675060?pdf=render |
| spellingShingle | Ramaswamy Krishnan Chan Young Park Yu-Chun Lin Jere Mead Richard T Jaspers Xavier Trepat Guillaume Lenormand Dhananjay Tambe Alexander V Smolensky Andrew H Knoll James P Butler Jeffrey J Fredberg Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. PLoS ONE |
| title | Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. |
| title_full | Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. |
| title_fullStr | Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. |
| title_short | Reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness. |
| title_sort | reinforcement versus fluidization in cytoskeletal mechanoresponsiveness |
| url | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2675060?pdf=render |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ramaswamykrishnan reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT chanyoungpark reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT yuchunlin reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT jeremead reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT richardtjaspers reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT xaviertrepat reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT guillaumelenormand reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT dhananjaytambe reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT alexandervsmolensky reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT andrewhknoll reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT jamespbutler reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness AT jeffreyjfredberg reinforcementversusfluidizationincytoskeletalmechanoresponsiveness |