AIM: Mechanical forces are important regulators of cell and tissue phenotype. We hypothesized that mechanical loading and boundary conditions would influence neovessel activity during angiogenesis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using an in vitro model of angiogenesis sprouting and a mechanical loading system, we evaluated the effects of boundary conditions and applied loading. The model consisted of rat microvessel fragments cultured in a 3D collagen gel, previously shown to recapitulate angiogenic sprouting observed in vivo. We examined changes in neovascular growth in response to four different mechanical conditions. Neovessel density, diameter, length and orientation were measured from volumetric confocal images of cultures exposed to no external load (free-floating shape control), intrinsic loads (fixed ends, no stretch), static external load (static stretch), or cyclic external load (cyclic stretch). Neovessels sprouted and grew by the third day of culture and continued to do so during the next 3 days of loading. The numbers of neovessels and branch points were significantly increased in the static stretch group when compared with the free-floating shape control group. In all mechanically loaded cultures, neovessel diameter and length distributions were heterogeneous, whereas they were homogeneous in shape control cultures. Neovessels were significantly more oriented along the direction of mechanical loading than those in the shape controls. Interestingly, collagen fibrils were organized parallel and adjacent to growing neovessels. CONCLUSION: Externally applied boundary conditions regulate neovessel sprouting and elongation during angiogenesis, affecting both neovessel growth characteristics and network morphometry. Furthermore, neovessels align parallel to the direction of stress/strain or internally generated traction, and this may be because of collagen fibril alignment induced by the growing neovessels themselves.
AIM: Mechanical forces are important regulators of cell and tissue phenotype. We hypothesized that mechanical loading and boundary conditions would influence neovessel activity during angiogenesis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using an in vitro model of angiogenesis sprouting and a mechanical loading system, we evaluated the effects of boundary conditions and applied loading. The model consisted of rat microvessel fragments cultured in a 3D collagen gel, previously shown to recapitulate angiogenic sprouting observed in vivo. We examined changes in neovascular growth in response to four different mechanical conditions. Neovessel density, diameter, length and orientation were measured from volumetric confocal images of cultures exposed to no external load (free-floating shape control), intrinsic loads (fixed ends, no stretch), static external load (static stretch), or cyclic external load (cyclic stretch). Neovessels sprouted and grew by the third day of culture and continued to do so during the next 3 days of loading. The numbers of neovessels and branch points were significantly increased in the static stretch group when compared with the free-floating shape control group. In all mechanically loaded cultures, neovessel diameter and length distributions were heterogeneous, whereas they were homogeneous in shape control cultures. Neovessels were significantly more oriented along the direction of mechanical loading than those in the shape controls. Interestingly, collagen fibrils were organized parallel and adjacent to growing neovessels. CONCLUSION: Externally applied boundary conditions regulate neovessel sprouting and elongation during angiogenesis, affecting both neovessel growth characteristics and network morphometry. Furthermore, neovessels align parallel to the direction of stress/strain or internally generated traction, and this may be because of collagen fibril alignment induced by the growing neovessels themselves.
Authors: Benjamin R Shepherd; Helen Y S Chen; Cynthia M Smith; Gabriel Gruionu; Stuart K Williams; James B Hoying Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2004-02-26 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Nolan L Boyd; Sara S Nunes; Jenny D Jokinen; Laxminarayanan Krishnan; Yinlu Chen; Kristyn H Smith; Steven L Stice; James B Hoying Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Sara S Nunes; Laxminarayanan Krishnan; Carter S Gerard; Jacob R Dale; Melissa A Maddie; Richard L Benton; James B Hoying Journal: Microcirculation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Sarah E Stabenfeldt; Merek Gourley; Laxminarayanan Krishnan; James B Hoying; Thomas H Barker Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Carlos C Chang; Sara S Nunes; Scott C Sibole; Laxminarayanan Krishnan; Stuart K Williams; Jeffrey A Weiss; James B Hoying Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Joel D Boerckel; Brent A Uhrig; Nick J Willett; Nathaniel Huebsch; Robert E Guldberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Laxminarayanan Krishnan; Carlos C Chang; Sara S Nunes; Stuart K Williams; Jeffrey A Weiss; James B Hoying Journal: Crit Rev Biomed Eng Date: 2013
Authors: A S Zeiger; F D Liu; J T Durham; A Jagielska; R Mahmoodian; K J Van Vliet; I M Herman Journal: Phys Biol Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Sara S Nunes; Kevin A Greer; Chad M Stiening; Helen Y S Chen; Kameha R Kidd; Mark A Schwartz; Chris J Sullivan; Harish Rekapally; James B Hoying Journal: Microvasc Res Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 3.514