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 H2O), 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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | International Biomechanics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509 |
| _version_ | 1818670569407643648 |
|---|---|
| author | Ishan Khan Loan Bui Robert Bachoo Young-Tae Kim Cheng-Jen Chuong |
| author_facet | Ishan Khan Loan Bui Robert Bachoo Young-Tae Kim Cheng-Jen Chuong |
| author_sort | Ishan Khan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Using a microfluidic platform to apply negative aspiration pressure (–20, –25, –30, –35 and –40 cm H2O), 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 H2O, 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T07:10:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6ab61d0535264685904a67ee8d1eff9c |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2333-5432 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T07:10:12Z |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Biomechanics |
| spelling | doaj.art-6ab61d0535264685904a67ee8d1eff9c2022-12-21T21:59:04ZengTaylor & Francis GroupInternational Biomechanics2333-54322020-01-0171445710.1080/23335432.2020.17575091757509Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinementIshan Khan0Loan Bui1Robert Bachoo2Young-Tae Kim3Cheng-Jen Chuong4University of Texas at Arlington and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasUniversity of Texas at Arlington and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasDepartment of Neurology & Neurotherapeutics University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasUniversity of Texas at Arlington and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasUniversity of Texas at Arlington and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasUsing a microfluidic platform to apply negative aspiration pressure (–20, –25, –30, –35 and –40 cm H2O), 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 H2O, 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509cancer cellglioblastomaviscoelastic propertiescreepactomyosin contraction |
| spellingShingle | Ishan Khan Loan Bui Robert Bachoo Young-Tae Kim Cheng-Jen Chuong Differences in creep response of GBM cells migrating in confinement International Biomechanics cancer cell glioblastoma viscoelastic properties creep actomyosin contraction |
| 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 | cancer cell glioblastoma viscoelastic properties creep actomyosin contraction |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23335432.2020.1757509 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ishankhan differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT loanbui differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT robertbachoo differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT youngtaekim differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement AT chengjenchuong differencesincreepresponseofgbmcellsmigratinginconfinement |