Herein we aimed to understand how nanoscale clustering of RGD ligands alters the mechano-regulation of their integrin receptors. We combined molecular tension fluorescence microscopy with block copolymer micelle nanolithography to fabricate substrates with arrays of precisely spaced probes that can generate a 10-fold fluorescence response to pN-forces. We found that the mechanism of sensing ligand spacing is force-mediated. This strategy is broadly applicable to investigating receptor clustering and its role in mechanotransduction pathways.
Herein we aimed to understand how nanoscale clustering of RGD ligands alters the mechano-regulation of their integrin receptors. We combined molecular tension fluorescence microscopy with block copolymer micelle nanolithography to fabricate substrates with arrays of precisely spaced probes that can generate a 10-fold fluorescence response to pN-forces. We found that the mechanism of sensing ligand spacing is force-mediated. This strategy is broadly applicable to investigating receptor clustering and its role in mechanotransduction pathways.
Because cell membrane receptors
reside at the interface between a cell and its external surroundings,
these molecules have evolved to sense and transduce both chemical
and physical cues with high fidelity. One common mechanism to trigger
or modulate surface receptor activation involves ligand-induced clustering,
which in turn contributes to a robust biochemical response. For example,
T-cell receptors,[1,2] Fc-ε receptors,[3] EphA2 receptor tyrosine kinases,[4] Notch receptors,[5] and epidermal
growth factor receptors (EGFR)[6] oligomerize
at the plasma membrane upon activation. Intriguingly, the majority
of oligomerized ligand–receptor complexes subsequently couple
with the cytoskeleton and are actively transported by retrograde flow.[4,7,8] Many of these assemblies experience
resistance during active transport through the plasma membrane, resulting
in mechanical tension that is likely to modulate signaling outcome.
Accordingly, the coupling between receptor clustering, mechanical
tension, and signal transduction at the plasma membrane is receiving
increased interest.[9−13] However, one of the greatest challenges in this area pertains to
the lack of methods that can control clustering while also reporting
on molecular tension during the signaling activity of live cells.
In this paper, we report the development and application of an approach
to address this need, thus showing the ability to simultaneously control
receptor clustering with nanometer precision while also recording
receptor mechanical forces with pN force resolution.Integrins
are α-, β- heterodimeric cell surface receptors
that span the plasma membrane and recognize specific ligand molecules
within the extracellular matrix (ECM).[14] At the sites of activated integrin receptors, hundreds of different
structural and adapter proteins will assemble into a three-dimensional
cross-linked structure that spans many microns in length and is described
as the focal adhesion (FA).[15] Importantly,
FAs regulate many cellular processes such as migration, differentiation,
and proliferation.[16] By providing a physical
linkage bridging the FA and the ECM, integrins experience mechanical
forces that are exerted by the cell and countered by the ECM.[17] These forces play critical roles in integrin
function and activation, allowing cells to recognize and respond to
specific physical features of their microenvironment.[18,19] Another essential parameter that modulates integrin activation is
ligand spacing, where it has been shown that the interligand spacing
needs to be at least 60–70 nm in order for FA maturation to
proceed.[20−22] Therefore, it seems intuitive to conclude that there
is an intimate connection between integrin receptor clustering and
force transmission[23] but the details remain
obscure.To visualize the forces exerted by cell surface receptors,
we recently
developed molecular tension fluorescence microscopy (MTFM), which
generates pN-range force maps with high spatial and temporal resolution.[24] The probe in MTFM is comprised of a flexible
linker molecule flanked by a donor fluorophore and ligand at one terminus
and a quencher or a second fluorophore at the other terminus. The
MTFM probe is typically immobilized onto a surface, such that the
flexible linker is in a collapsed resting state, where the donor fluorophore
is highly quenched. Upon the application of mechanical tension, the
linker is extended, thus separating the fluorophore from the quencher
and increasing the fluorescence intensity by 10–20-fold. Recently,
we developed integrin-specific MTFM probes by conjugating a fluorescent
cyclized Arg-Gly-Asp-dPhe-Lys (c(RGDfK)) peptide at one terminus of
a polyethylene glycol (PEG)-linker and using a thiol at the other
terminus to immobilize this probe onto a 15 nm gold nanoparticle (AuNP).[25] The AuNP provides a physical scaffold to anchor
the probe and also efficiently quenches fluorescence when the PEG
is in a relaxed conformation. To our surprise, we also found that
integrin-specific MTFM probes immobilized through biotin–streptavidin
are ruptured due to integrin-mediated forces that dissociate the biotin–streptavidin
complex.[26] Therefore, the use of thiol-gold
binding minimizes the possibility of force-induced dissociation of
these probes. To the best of our knowledge, MTFM[24] and its recent variants[25−100] provide the only known method
to visualize the pN forces exerted by cell surface receptors.To test the relationship between integrin tension and ligand spacing,
it is necessary to nanopattern MTFM probes. In principle, this could
be achieved using a number of methods ranging from microcontact printing[28] to dip-pen nanolithography[29] and e-beam lithography.[30] However,
few approaches are amenable to rapid prototyping, soft matter patterning,
high-end fluorescence microscopy compatibility, as well as sub-10
nm resolution registry over cm2 areas.[31,101] Fulfilling these requirements is needed to control integrin spacing
at the relevant nanometer length scales, while also providing the
throughput necessary to study the inherent heterogeneity of cells
and to permit simultaneous biochemical analysis.Addressing
this need, Spatz and colleagues have developed elegant
methods to nanopattern RGD ligands.[32] This
approach, named block copolymer micellar nanolithography (BCMN), generates
arrays of immobilized AuNPs with tunable spacings that range from
∼30 nm up to ∼300 nm across the entire substrate (cm-scales).
RGD-decorated AuNPs confine the integrin receptors to minimum distances
defined by the interparticle spacing. Herein, we combine MTFM with
BCMN (Scheme 1) to provide evidence showing
that the mechanism of ligand density sensing is force-mediated; only
sufficiently spaced ligands (<60–70 nm) allow for the transmission
of myosin-generated tension to individual integrin receptors.
Scheme 1
Combining Block Copolymer Micellar Nanolithography (BCMN) with AuNP-Based
Molecular Fluorescence Tension Microscopy (AuNP-Based MTFM) for Investigating
the Role of Ligand Density in Modulating Integrin Tension
(a) Illustration showing the
procedure used to generate BCMN patterned MTFM tension probes. (b,c)
Schematic showing the expected mechanism of how cell-generated forces
activate the tension probe. (d) Chemical structure of the MTFM tension
probe ligand that was synthesized (see, Supporting
Information) and used in this work.
Combining Block Copolymer Micellar Nanolithography (BCMN) with AuNP-Based
Molecular Fluorescence Tension Microscopy (AuNP-Based MTFM) for Investigating
the Role of Ligand Density in Modulating Integrin Tension
(a) Illustration showing the
procedure used to generate BCMN patterned MTFM tension probes. (b,c)
Schematic showing the expected mechanism of how cell-generated forces
activate the tension probe. (d) Chemical structure of the MTFM tension
probe ligand that was synthesized (see, Supporting
Information) and used in this work.Given that the 50 and 100 nm interparticle spacings are known to
promote and destabilize FA formation, respectively, we tuned the dip-coating
speed in BCMN to generate substrates with these AuNP spacings.[20] The hexagonal arrangement of the AuNP pattern
as well as the interparticle distances and heights were evaluated
by atomic force microscopy (AFM) (Figure 1a,
b) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (Figure S1, Supporting Information). On the basis of this
analysis, the AuNPs height was 8.4 ± 1.0 nm (Figure S2, Supporting Information), and the spacing on the
two types of substrates was determined to be 99 ± 12 nm and 49
± 9 nm.
Figure 1
(a,b) Representative AFM topography images of BCMN-patterned
9
nm AuNP arrays with a mean spacing of 99 nm ± 12 nm and 49 nm
± 9 nm. Scale bar, 500 nm. (c) NSET calibration plot showing
quenching efficiency of Cy3B fluorophore as a function of distance
from AuNP surface as set by a range of DNA duplexes (Table S1, Supporting Information). The data was fit to
the R4 NSET model and d0 (50% quenching distance) was determined to be 14.5 ±
0.5 nm. (d) Theoretical plot showing the change in fluorescence as
a function of applied tension based on combining the WLC and NSET
models. The dynamic range of the probe corresponds to quenching efficiency
values ranging from 90 to 10%.
(a,b) Representative AFM topography images of BCMN-patterned
9
nm AuNP arrays with a mean spacing of 99 nm ± 12 nm and 49 nm
± 9 nm. Scale bar, 500 nm. (c) NSET calibration plot showing
quenching efficiency of Cy3B fluorophore as a function of distance
from AuNP surface as set by a range of DNA duplexes (Table S1, Supporting Information). The data was fit to
the R4 NSET model and d0 (50% quenching distance) was determined to be 14.5 ±
0.5 nm. (d) Theoretical plot showing the change in fluorescence as
a function of applied tension based on combining the WLC and NSET
models. The dynamic range of the probe corresponds to quenching efficiency
values ranging from 90 to 10%.Although it is known that AuNPs with greater diameters are
more
efficient at quenching fluorescence,[33] we
avoided larger AuNPs because of the potential for multiple integrin
binding to each particle. On the basis of structural data and previous
literature reports, we selected 9 nm AuNPs because this is the most
efficient quenching AuNP that would still ensure a maximum of one
integrin engaged to each particle.[32] Accordingly,
we measured the nanometal surface energy transfer (NSET) radius between
a 9 nm AuNP and Cy3B dye and found this to be 14.5 ± 0.5 nm by
using highly packed duplex DNA as a molecular ruler (Figure 1c, Table S1 and Figure S3, Supporting
Information). This NSET radius is in agreement with a value
of 14.7 nm that was reported for 8 nm AuNPs and Cy3B dye.[33] Note that the Cy3B dye was used in this work
to leave the enhanced green fluorescent protein (eGFP) fluorescence
channel available for genetically encoding markers of FAs. On the
basis of this NSET radius and the predicted wormlike chain (WLC) model
of PEG80,[34] we would expect
a force dynamic range that saturates at 27 pN, assuming the ability
to detect quenching efficiency values from 90 to 10% (Figure 1d).To prevent nonspecific protein adsorption
and cell binding, the
plasma-treated AuNP array substrate was passivated using a 0.1 mg/mL
solution of poly(l-lysine)-graft-poly(ethylene
glycol) (PLL-g-PEG)(PLL(20 kDa)-g[3.5]-PEG(2 kDa)) in 0.1 M HEPES buffer for 1 h. Subsequently, unbound
PLL-g-PEG was removed by rigorously rinsing with
DI water. We found that this protocol minimized the nonspecific interaction
of NIH/3T3 fibroblasts to substrate (Figure S4, Supporting Information).The final step of substrate
fabrication involves modifying AuNPs
with the molecular tension ligand. To maintain the collapsed mushroom
conformation of the tension ligand, it was necessary to functionalize
the AuNP with low densities of the fluorescent probe. It was also
important to block the remaining AuNP surface, thus minimizing potential
nonspecific protein interactions. Accordingly, the AuNP was modified
with a binary mixture of the tension ligand and the short thiolated
PEG, SH(CH2)2(OCH2CH2)8COOH. The synthesis of the SH-PEG80-c(RGDfK)-Cy3B
molecular tension ligand was adapted from our previous work (Figures
S5 and S6, Supporting Information). Briefly,
a terminal cysteine residue that presents an amine and thiol was incorporated
in the c(RGDfK) peptide. The amine group was initially modified with
an NHS-azide with high yield (>90%). In the following two steps,
the
maleimide-Cy3B dye and alkyne-terminated polyethylene glycol (Alkyne-PEG80-SH, MW 3400) were further coupled to the thiol and azide
groups, respectively. After HPLC purification, thiolated MTFM ligands
were allowed to self-assemble onto the surface of the AuNP. By varying
the concentration of tension ligands from 400 to 20 nM, while maintaining
a constant thiol concentration of 40 μM using SH(CH2)2(OCH2CH2)8COOH, we
tuned the density of tension probe ligands per AuNP. By empirically
testing the cell adhesion onto these different substrates, we found
that the 200 nM ligand concentration was the minimum concentration
sufficient for allowing significant cell adhesion and spreading (Figure
S4, Supporting Information). Given that
lower ligand densities are desirable for minimizing background signal,
we selected this concentration for subsequent cell studies.To quantify the number of molecular tension ligands per AuNP we
performed a quantitative fluorescence calibration and found that particles
incubated with a 200 nM concentration of tension probe (39.8 μM
SH(CH2)2(OCH2CH2)8COOH) had an average of 5.1 ± 0.5 probes per AuNP (Figure
S7, Supporting Information). Because of
the significant excess of the thiol ligand compared to the concentration
of AuNPs, this average number is valid for both 50 and 100 nm spaced
substrates. When these particles are immobilized onto the glass coverslip,
only part of the Au surface is available for sensor modification due
primarily to the steric blocking of the surface bound PLL-g-PEG brush. The estimated thickness of the PLL-g-PEG layer in the hydrated state is approximately 4–6
nm,[35] which is comparable to the size of
AuNP radius. Therefore, we assumed that at most only half of the AuNP
surface area was available for binding tension sensors, thus allowing
a maximum average number of 2.5 probes per particle. This number strongly
suggests that each AuNPs was loaded with a low density of the tension
probe, thus ensuring that the PEG was in the collapsed mushroom conformation
at resting.[36]Analysis of FA proteins
and integrin tension colocalization. (a)
Representative TIRFM-488 (GFP channel, green) and Cy3B epifluorescence
(integrin-tension channel, red) images of NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells
cultured on randomly arranged AuNP sensor substrates for 1–2
h. The cells were transiently transfected to express GFP β3-integrin, paxillin, zyxin, and LifeAct, and this signal was
found to colocalize with the integrin tension signal. (b–e)
Representative zoom-in images showing the distribution of GFP-tagged
β3-integrin, paxillin, zyxin, and LifeAct with the
integrin–tension signal. The integrin–tension signal
was quantified and found to highly colocalize with FA markers (see
line scan analysis). Tension values were dynamic (see below) and varied
across subcellular regions reaching maxima that ranged from ∼10–20
pN. Note that the reported tension values represent the average tension
per ligand, thus likely underestimating the forces applied by integrins.Toward investigating the relationship
between force transmission
and FA formation, we next demonstrated the compatibility of MTFM with
genetically encoded tagging of FA markers. NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells
were transiently transfected with β3-integrin, paxillin,
zyxin, and LifeAct and then cultured onto substrates modified with
randomly arranged 9 nm diameter AuNP tension sensors for ∼1–2
h and subsequently imaged using total-internal reflection fluorescence
microscopy (TIRFM) (Figure 2a). The density
of disordered AuNP sensors on these substrates is ∼100 nm,
which is sufficiently broad to allow FA maturation and force transmission.[22] In all cases, we found strong integrin tension
colocalization with the early markers of FAs such as β3-integrin, and paxillin. In contrast, the zyxin and LifeAct signals
were distributed across the entire cell but preferentially localized
to the actin bundles, which is in agreement with previous reports.[37] The integrin tension signal was mainly detected
at the cell perimeter, coinciding with the greatest zyxin and LifeAct
intensities at the tips of the actin bundles. In some cases, the signal
observed at the center of the cell was due to autofluorescence from
the nucleus. However, in other cases the signal was due to focal adhesion
generated forces. The distinction between the two types of signal
is clearer upon examination of the β3-integrin-GFP
channel.
Figure 2
Analysis of FA proteins
and integrin tension colocalization. (a)
Representative TIRFM-488 (GFP channel, green) and Cy3B epifluorescence
(integrin-tension channel, red) images of NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells
cultured on randomly arranged AuNP sensor substrates for 1–2
h. The cells were transiently transfected to express GFP β3-integrin, paxillin, zyxin, and LifeAct, and this signal was
found to colocalize with the integrin tension signal. (b–e)
Representative zoom-in images showing the distribution of GFP-tagged
β3-integrin, paxillin, zyxin, and LifeAct with the
integrin–tension signal. The integrin–tension signal
was quantified and found to highly colocalize with FA markers (see
line scan analysis). Tension values were dynamic (see below) and varied
across subcellular regions reaching maxima that ranged from ∼10–20
pN. Note that the reported tension values represent the average tension
per ligand, thus likely underestimating the forces applied by integrins.
Upon analysis of subcellular regions (Figure 2b–e), we found that the maximum integrin
tension within each
FA typically appeared near the center of the rod-shaped elongated
structure. Note that in these zoom-in images we observed that the
peak position of tension can be offset from the peak position of the
focal adhesion, either proximal or distal, by submicron distances,
or in some cases it may perfectly overlap with the peak position of
the focal adhesion marker, thus demonstrating the dynamic tension
fluctuations during FA formation.[38] By
quantifying the quenching efficiency of the tension ligands at resting
and employing the ligand density of 2.5 per AuNP, we were also able
to estimate the average force per ligand, which ranged from 1 to 20
pN (Figure S8, Supporting Information),
which is consist with the observation of integrin force mediated biotin–streptavidin
dissociation.[26] Note that this value is
significantly greater than that reported by Dunn and colleagues (1–5
pN) and may be due to the limited dynamic range of their spider-silk
based probes or the nature of the linear RGD peptide used in their
studies.[27](a) Representative images of GFP-paxillin
expressing NIH/3T3 cells
seeded onto the 50 and 100 nm spaced AuNP substrates. Images are shown
for the 0.5 and 3 h time-points, highlighting the differences in integrin
tension, cell shape, and FA size at these two time points. (b) Plot
of GFP-paxillin cluster size (which is indicative of FA size) as a
function of time for n = 10 cells. The plot shows
a steady increase in FA size over 5 h after cell seeding on the 50
nm-spaced substrate, which is in contrast to the 100 nm spaced substrate,
which shows limited FA maturation. (c) Plot showing the average tension
per integrin ligand across the entire cell for n =
10 cells. Integrin tension increased rapidly within the first hour
and was then maintained for cells cultured on AuNP arrays spaced at
50 nm. This is in contrast to cells cultured on the AuNP arrays spaced
at 100 nm where tension decreased by the later time points. (d) Representative
images showing the change in integrin tension before and after treating
the same cell with Y-27632 (40 μM) and cytochalasin D (10 μM).
Corresponding timelapse movies are included in Movies S2 and S3 (see Supporting Information). (e) Stepwise blebbistatin
and cytochalasin D treatment of cells (n = 4) led
to significant reduction of mean ligand tension. (f) Blebbistatin
treatment of cells (n = 4 cells) led to over 80%
reduction in the total cell traction force and FA area.We next investigated the relationship between integrin
clustering
and tension by culturing GFP-paxillin transfected cells onto MTFM-patterned
substrates with 50 and 100 nm spacing. The cells were continuously
monitored using TIRFM (GFP-paxillin) and epi-fluorescence microscopy
(integrin tension) for over 5 h. Representative cell images are shown
in Figure 3a, and the data indicated that the
footprint of the cells cultured on the 100 nm spacing remained small
(300–1000 μm2) in contrast to cells grown
on the substrate with 50 nm spacing (2000–5000 μm2). The difference in cell spreading was observed at the earliest
time points (∼30 min) and became more pronounced at all later
time points (Figure 3a). Although cells start
spreading almost immediately upon plating on the 50 nm spaced AuNP
arrays, only a few cells spread onto the 100 nm spaced substrate before
the 30 min time point, which is in agreement with literature.[20] Surprisingly, both the average FA size (as measured
by GFP-paxillin, Figure 3b) and the average
tension per ligand (Figure 3c) were similar
for the cells cultured on both substrate spacings at the early time
point of 30 min (each data point represents n = 10
cells). At later time points, FA area and the average tension per
ligand diverged; cells on the 50 nm spacing formed significantly larger
FAs with greater values of tension (Figure 3b,c, Figure S9, Supporting Information). It is notable that for the substrate of 50 nm spacing, the average
size of FAs continues to grow over the time course of the experiment
(from nascent focal adhesion to mature and elongated focal adhesion).
However, the average tension per integrin ligand only rises to a threshold
level that is maintained across the 5 h experiment. To verify this
observation, we added 30 μM oleoyl-l-α-lysophosphatidic
acid (LPA), a stimulant of myosin-contractility, to cells that have
been cultured for 5.5 h in serum supplemented media (Figure S10, Supporting Information). Statistical analysis
showed no significant increase in mean tension per integrin or total
traction per cells. In contrast, addition of LPA to serum-starved
fibroblasts led to a significant increase in tension and FA area,
recovering to levels similar to that of cells cultured in serum-supplemented
conditions. This data clearly indicates that although the total tension
generated by the cell is growing, the tension per integrin ligand
is maintained at a constant value; thus, individual integrin tension
does not increase continuously during FA maturation and cell spreading.
Our finding has two implications. First, it suggests that the mechanism
of how cells continuously increase the exerted traction force is through
increasing the number of surface-engaged integrins (and cell area)
rather than mounting greater force per ligand.[39] Second, this observed level of force maybe related to the
universal peak tension that was recently reported by Wang and Ha.[40]
Figure 3
(a) Representative images of GFP-paxillin
expressing NIH/3T3 cells
seeded onto the 50 and 100 nm spaced AuNP substrates. Images are shown
for the 0.5 and 3 h time-points, highlighting the differences in integrin
tension, cell shape, and FA size at these two time points. (b) Plot
of GFP-paxillin cluster size (which is indicative of FA size) as a
function of time for n = 10 cells. The plot shows
a steady increase in FA size over 5 h after cell seeding on the 50
nm-spaced substrate, which is in contrast to the 100 nm spaced substrate,
which shows limited FA maturation. (c) Plot showing the average tension
per integrin ligand across the entire cell for n =
10 cells. Integrin tension increased rapidly within the first hour
and was then maintained for cells cultured on AuNP arrays spaced at
50 nm. This is in contrast to cells cultured on the AuNP arrays spaced
at 100 nm where tension decreased by the later time points. (d) Representative
images showing the change in integrin tension before and after treating
the same cell with Y-27632 (40 μM) and cytochalasin D (10 μM).
Corresponding timelapse movies are included in Movies S2 and S3 (see Supporting Information). (e) Stepwise blebbistatin
and cytochalasin D treatment of cells (n = 4) led
to significant reduction of mean ligand tension. (f) Blebbistatin
treatment of cells (n = 4 cells) led to over 80%
reduction in the total cell traction force and FA area.
The results also suggest that at early
time points (∼30
min), the mechanism of integrin force generation is independent of
integrin clustering, and increasing the average tension beyond 2−3
pN per ligand requires a greater ligand density (< ∼ 60
nm spacing). On the basis of previous literature, the early time point
forces are likely generated by actin polymerization, rather than myosin
contraction.[41] To distinguish the contributions
of actin polymerization and myosin contractility to integrin tension,
we imaged NIH 3T3 fibroblasts before and after treatment with the
Rho kinase inhibitor Y-27632, and cytochalasin D (Figure 3d, Figure S11, Movies S2 and S3, Supporting Information). Analysis from n =
5 cells treated with Y-27632 for 30 min shows that integrin tension
signal generated by mature FAs decreased significantly to values of
∼2–3 pN per ligand and were exclusively localized to
a submicron structure at the cell edge. In contrast, addition of 10
μM cytochalasin D rapidly (∼5 min) abolished all integrin
tension signal to background levels, likely due to the disruption
of actin polymerization. To further confirm that actin polymerization
and myosin contractility are the two main contributors to integrin
tension, we performed a stepwise inhibition of both processes in the
same cells. We first performed timelapse imaging on fibroblasts (n = 4 cells) that were treated with a myosin II inhibitor
(25 μM blebbistatin). In this experiment, the average ligand
tension was reduced from ∼6 to ∼3 pN and reached a steady
state value within 5 min of adding the drug, which is similar to the
effect of Y-27632 and suggests the loss of myosin-driven tension at
this time point. Interestingly, this level of tension coincides with
the magnitude of ligand tension during initial cell spreading (Figure 3c, t = 30 min). When these cells
were further treated with 10 μM cytochalasin D, the mean integrin
ligand tension was immediately reduced (within 1 min) to approximately
2 pN and was gradually reduced to ∼1 pN within 15 min (Figure 3e). This ∼2 pN decrease in tension is likely
due to the loss of actin-driven forces and associated membrane tension.
Exclusively treating cells with blebbistatin led to an 80% decrease
in FA size as well as >80% decrease in the total tension per cell
(Figure 3f), which is in agreement with literature
precedent.[42] When comparing the total decrease
in cell tension with the loss of tension per ligand, it is clear that
myosin-inhibition leads to a decrease in the number of engaged integrins
and not only a decrease in integrin tension. Taken together, this
data suggests that during initial FA formation, actin polymerization
drives integrin tension to an average of 1−3 pN per ligand.
This is closely followed by actomyosin-contractility that increases
the average tension to ∼6–8 pN and is associated with
FA maturation. Note that this value of mean ligand tension was also
observed in two additional cell lines, rat embryonic fibroblasts (REFs)
and humanbone osteosarcoma epithelial cells (U2OS) (Figure S12, Supporting Information).To better understand
the relationship between FA maturation and
force transmission for the high ligand density substrate, we captured
timelapse movies of integrin tension with F-actin dynamics (Figure 4a-b). At initial time points, we observed diffuse
integrin tension over the lamellipodium, which was similar to the
intensity of tension in cells grown on the 100 nm spaced substrate.
At subsequent time points, we observed high integrin tension puncta
that localized to the tips of f-actin bundles (Figure 4b (white arrow), and Movie S1, Supporting
Information), which is the location of the linkage between
the FA and cytoskeleton.[43] We tracked a
single integrin tension puncta (white arrow, Figure 4b) and observed that within the time frame (from t = 25 to 41 min) the maximum integrin ligand tension within the single
FA increased 1 order of magnitude from ∼3 pN to ∼12
pN. For this single FA, we found that integrin tension increased concomitantly
with FA growth (Figure S13, Supporting Information). Interestingly, micron-scale actin fiber assembly coincides with
the increase of integrin tension (Figure S14, Supporting Information), in agreement with literature suggesting
the importance of stress fibers as a template for tension mounting
and FA maturation.[44]
Figure 4
Integrin tension and
actin dynamics during early FA maturation.
(a) Representative brightfield, reflection-interference contrast microscopy
(RICM), LifeAct GFP (TIRFM 488, red), integrin tension (epifluorescence
Cy3B, green), and overlay of GFP and tension signals for a single
NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells adhered on sensor substrate immediately following
cell seeding. The full timelapse movie from t = 5
min to t = 43 min after cell seeding is available
as Movie S1 in Supporting Information.
(b) Zoom-in timelapse overlay images of integrin tension for t = 19 to 41 min.
Integrin tension and
actin dynamics during early FA maturation.
(a) Representative brightfield, reflection-interference contrast microscopy
(RICM), LifeAct GFP (TIRFM 488, red), integrin tension (epifluorescence
Cy3B, green), and overlay of GFP and tension signals for a single
NIH/3T3 fibroblast cells adhered on sensor substrate immediately following
cell seeding. The full timelapse movie from t = 5
min to t = 43 min after cell seeding is available
as Movie S1 in Supporting Information.
(b) Zoom-in timelapse overlay images of integrin tension for t = 19 to 41 min.
Conclusion
We have combined BCMN with MTFM to simultaneously
control ligand spacing with sub-5 nm resolution while also recording
integrin tension with pN force sensitively and high temporal resolution
in living cells. We found that integrin receptors placed 100 nm apart
displayed significantly reduced tension as well as diminished capacity
for FA formation compared to receptors with 50 nm spacing. On the
basis of our data, we propose that integrin ligand sensing occurs
by the following steps: (1) F-actin polymerization drives an increase
in the mean integrin ligand tension to 1–3 pN during nascent
adhesion formation; 2) critical ligand spacing (<60–70 nm)
allows bound integrins to harness actomyosin-driven tension to increase
their average tension to ∼6–8 pN, thus stabilizing FA
and facilitating its maturation process. With larger ligand spacings
(>100 nm), integrin clusters may be destabilized by the increase
of
tension, as indicated by the small FA size and high turnover rate
of FA proteins.[20] This physical model of
FA maturation complements structural models of integrin clustering
that relate the dimensions of α-actinin and talin1 to the minimal
ligand spacing required for nascent adhesion maturation.[45−47] This model may also shed light on how cells exert specific mechanical
forces upon recognizing the nanoscale organization of cell binding
sites of the ECM in tissues, such as the ∼66 nm band periodicity
of collagen fibers[48] and the nanometer-spaced
epitope in fibronectin fibers.[49] We also
show that the mechanism of increasing cell traction force occurs through
the recruitment of a greater number of integrins under tension rather
than maintaining a constant number of integrin receptors and ramping
the tension per receptor.Note that the reported values of tension
represent an average for each ligand, and this does not preclude that
some ligand-receptor complexes will experience greater or lower values
of force. For example, each pixel of an image collected from cells
on the 50 nm spacing reports on the average force for 9 MTFM probes,
and it is unlikely that all of these probes are engaged by integrin
receptors. Therefore, the values of tension reporter here represent
the lower bound estimate of force, and this is not inconsistent with
our recent finding of integrin force-driven biotin–streptavidin
dissociation[26] and the recent report of
40 pN universal peak tension for integrin activation.[40] It would be of interest to compare forces exerted onto
more physiological integrin ligands such as fibronectin and collagen
that can engage different classes of adhesion receptors and thus may
display important differences in force magnitude and dynamics.Combining MTFM with BCMN-based patterning is highly modular and
adaptable, and thus this technique can be applied to study the complex
relationships between receptor clustering and mechanical tension in
many other receptor signaling pathways, such as T cell receptor activation
and the EGFR pathway. Our approach is certainly more facile than the
most commonly used approaches to measure receptor tension, such as
traction force microscopy (TFM)[50] and PDMS
micropost arrays,[39] both of which employ
elastomeric substrates that deform under mechanical stress. Therefore,
we expect that this strategy will likely become a workhorse tool in
studying the molecular biophysics of cell receptor signaling.
Authors: Louise R Giam; Matthew D Massich; Liangliang Hao; Lu Shin Wong; Christopher C Mader; Chad A Mirkin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-03-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pere Roca-Cusachs; Armando del Rio; Eileen Puklin-Faucher; Nils C Gauthier; Nicolas Biais; Michael P Sheetz Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Khalid Salaita; Pradeep M Nair; Rebecca S Petit; Richard M Neve; Debopriya Das; Joe W Gray; Jay T Groves Journal: Science Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Janosch Deeg; Markus Axmann; Jovana Matic; Anastasia Liapis; David Depoil; Jehan Afrose; Silvia Curado; Michael L Dustin; Joachim P Spatz Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 11.189
Authors: Jaron Liu; Yilin Wang; Wah Ing Goh; Honzhen Goh; Michelle A Baird; Svenja Ruehland; Shijia Teo; Neil Bate; David R Critchley; Michael W Davidson; Pakorn Kanchanawong Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Roger Oria; Tina Wiegand; Jorge Escribano; Alberto Elosegui-Artola; Juan Jose Uriarte; Cristian Moreno-Pulido; Ilia Platzman; Pietro Delcanale; Lorenzo Albertazzi; Daniel Navajas; Xavier Trepat; José Manuel García-Aznar; Elisabetta Ada Cavalcanti-Adam; Pere Roca-Cusachs Journal: Nature Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Victor Pui-Yan Ma; Yang Liu; Lori Blanchfield; Hanquan Su; Brian D Evavold; Khalid Salaita Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 11.189