Britta Koch1, Anne K Meyer1,2, Linda Helbig1, Stefan M Harazim1, Alexander Storch2,3,4, Samuel Sanchez1,5, Oliver G Schmidt1,6,7. 1. †Institute for Integrative Nanosciences, Leibniz Institute for Solid State and Materials Research Dresden, D-01069 Dresden, Germany. 2. ‡Division of Neurodegenerative Diseases, Department of Neurology, Technische Universität Dresden, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. 3. §German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE) Dresden, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. 4. ⊥Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden (CRTD), Technische Universität Dresden, D-01307 Dresden, Germany. 5. ¶Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany. 6. ∥Material Systems for Nanoelectronics, Technische Universität Chemnitz, D-09107 Chemnitz, Germany. 7. #Center for Advancing Electronics Dresden, Technische Universität Dresden, D-01187 Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
We employ glass microtube structures fabricated by rolled-up nanotechnology to infer the influence of scaffold dimensionality and cell confinement on neural stem cell (NSC) migration. Thereby, we observe a pronounced morphology change that marks a reversible mesenchymal to amoeboid migration mode transition. Space restrictions preset by the diameter of nanomembrane topography modify the cell shape toward characteristics found in living tissue. We demonstrate the importance of substrate dimensionality for the migration mode of NSCs and thereby define rolled-up nanomembranes as the ultimate tool for single-cell migration studies.
We employ glass microtube structures fabricated by rolled-up nanotechnology to infer the influence of scaffold dimensionality and cell confinement on neural stem cell (NSC) migration. Thereby, we observe a pronounced morphology change that marks a reversible mesenchymal to amoeboid migration mode transition. Space restrictions preset by the diameter of nanomembrane topography modify the cell shape toward characteristics found in living tissue. We demonstrate the importance of substrate dimensionality for the migration mode of NSCs and thereby define rolled-up nanomembranes as the ultimate tool for single-cell migration studies.
Regulated migration
of cells
is crucial for the correct development and tissue homeostasis of multicellular
organisms. Although cell movement has been studied on two-dimensional
(2D) substrates, the inferred findings can only to some extent help
to understand the mechanisms that drive cell migration in
vivo.[1] Importantly, the three-dimensional
(3D) architecture of tissues cannot be reflected in the 2D nature
of planar substrates,[2−5] where migrating cells possess an artificial apical–basal
polarity with adhesions only formed at the basolateral side of the
cells.[6] To address this issue, in vitro cell culture scaffolds have been designed to investigate
cell migration strategies in a 3D context.[2] Hydrogels composed of either natural or synthetic fibrillar proteins
have been employed frequently to study cell migration in a 3D environment.[7−10] However, hydrogel characteristics like porosity and compliance influence
the cell migration response, and the deduction of a purely dimensionality-dependent
scaffold effect remains challenging. To determine the mere impact
of environment dimensionality on cell behavior, it is therefore desirable
to exclude any additional influence caused by complex scaffold properties.
More reductionistic cell culture scaffolds can help to reproduce distinct
features of the extracellular environment and to separately infer
their respective impact on cell migration. Micropatterned model systems
like microchannels,[11−14] micropillars[15] or 3D free-form constructs[16,17] have for example been fabricated to demonstrate that the topography
of the scaffolds affects cell morphology and orientation as well as
motility and migration mechanism. However, because of their inherent
asymmetric (e.g., rectangular) design, these model systems fail to
provide a homogeneous, completely surrounding cell environment. Scaffolds
that completely encompass cells[18,19] are usually limited
in their optical transparency and therefore the study of single-cell
motility.Another property that is tightly linked to scaffold
dimensionality
is the physical restriction of cell movement through the 3D topography.
This confinement in vivo causes cells to employ different
strategies like enzymatic matrix degradation or adapted cytoskeletal
organization to navigate through tissues.[1,20,21] It was for instance shown that a protease-inhibitor
treatment targeting the matrix degradation ability of tumor cells
alone was not effective in stopping cancer spreading.[22−25] Similarly, cell confinement mediated by sandwiching cells between
two nonadhesive surfaces led to a switch in migration phenotype in
several cell lines instead of preventing cell movement.[26] In an attempt to classify morphologically distinct
migration phenotypes, the terms mesenchymal and amoeboid migration
modes have emerged. Mesenchymal migration is commonly found for spread
cells on planar substrates and relies on a tight cell anchorage to
the surface via focal adhesions. Amoeboid-like migration on the contrary
is found for low-adhesive, rounded cells[27,28] and is mechanistically less well-defined, ranging from contractility-driven
blebbing motility to purely actin polymerization-driven gliding.[29,30] Geometrically well-defined cell culture scaffolds can help to identify
the cell type-dependent plasticity of migration strategies in response
to physical confinement and to investigate the mechanistic differences
in more detail. Overall, cells show a marked plasticity in 3D migration
strategies, and a precise control of physical parameters of the cell
environment will be necessary for the investigation of tissue-relevant
migration characteristics.So far, cell migration has not yet
been studied under a well-defined,
more than one-dimensional (1D) isotropic confinement. To address this
issue, we employed nanopatterning and strain-engineering of prestressed
glass nanomembranes to confront cells with a 3D, tubular environment
of defined dimensions. The optically transparent microtubes have already
been shown to support the growth of humanosteosarcomaU2OS cells[31] and to allow for the study of HeLa cell division
in confined space.[32] Here we demonstrate
that rolled-up nanomembranes are ideally suited as 3D scaffolds for
neural stem cell (NSC) motility studies under determinable 2D confinement.
Although only a tight regulation of NSC proliferation, migration,
and differentiation leads to the correct structuring of the central
nervous system, especially the brain,[33] the migration of NSCs that give rise to cortical neurons has not
gained much attention yet. It is known that subclasses of neuronal
progenitor cells localize to at least two proliferative layers in
the brain,[34−37] but how the translocation of the progenitor cells takes place remains
elusive.[38] Therefore, we study the spontaneous
migration of murine NSCs within single-cell confining, 3D rolled-up
nanomembranes with life-cell imaging. We observe that the scaffold
dimensionality leads to a morphologically distinct mesenchymal to
amoeboid migration mode transition for NSCs entering a microtube. In vivo studies confirm the convergence toward a native
cell morphology for cells being confined by the microtube walls. Interestingly,
we observe the absence of lamellipodia protrusions in the 3D environment,
although the 3D locomotion strategy of NSCs is still dependent mainly
on actin polymerization. Thereby, we provide experimental evidence
that the planarity of traditional cell culture substrates is a factor
that introduces artificial deviation from cell morphology and motility
observed in live tissues. Strain engineering of nanomembranes offers
the means to study single cell migration characteristics in a 3D context
and to mimic the space-restricting aspect of the native cell environment.In conventional 2D murine NSC culture protocols, cells are routinely
cultured as a monolayer on fibronectin-coated polystyrene substrates.[39] The spread cell morphology observed on planar
substrates differs strikingly from the appearance of cells in brain
tissue, which we tried to mimic in vitro by confining
NSCs within cylindrical microtubes (Figure a). The microtube structures were fabricated
by angular deposition of silicon monoxide/silicon dioxide nanomembranes
onto a photolithographically structured polymer sacrificial layer
and selective dissolution of the polymer.[40] Because of the chosen deposition parameters, the nanomembrane bilayer
was prestressed and, upon release, self-assembled into an array of
tubular structures (for details, please see Supporting
Information). We demonstrate here that fibronectin-functionalized
glass microtube substrates were suitable for the culture of NSCs and
could sustain their undifferentiated character for more than 1 week
(Supplementary Figure S1a, Supporting Information). On the planar regions of the microtube samples, we observed the
reported predominant spread and fibroblastic as well as a less frequent
small and round cell morphology[38] (Figure b). Surprisingly,
the rounded morphology prevailed for NSCs that had entered one of
the microtubes, where 90% of the cells were round compared to only
17% on the planar (2D) substrate (Figure b,c). Importantly, the round phenotype was
not associated with cell death, as was proven with life-dead staining
and the observation of cell divisions (Supplementary
Figure S1b,c). The morphology transition occurred reversibly
so that upon leaving the microtube environment, the round cells elongated
and spread again (Figure d; Supplementary Video S1). Moreover,
we observed that the microtube confinement modified the cell shape
(Figure e). If the
microtube diameter was larger than the spherical NSCs, cells were
not restricted in the lateral and vertical directions by the tubular
structure. When the microtube diameter was smaller, cells experienced
a 2D confinement that was conveyed by the microtube walls, leading
to an elongation of the round cell body.
Figure 1
Dimensionality of the
environment dictates NSCs morphology. (a)
Schematic depicting the varying appearance of NSCs in different environments.
(b) Differential interference contrast (DIC) and fluorescence top
view images of a spread (left panel) and rounded
(middle panel) NSC on a planar substrate compared to a round NSC inside
a microtube (right panel). (c) Percentage of cells with spread or
round morphology on planar (2D) substrates and inside microtubes.
(d) DIC images of the morphology transition of an NSC leaving a microtube.
The three different time points are indicated as h:min, white arrows
highlight the cell (Supplementary Video S1). (e) DIC images of a single NSC inside a microtube with increasing
diameter (top to bottom: 7/12/14/23 μm). (f) Fluorescence images
of the actin cytoskeletal organization within a focal plane (i) next
to the contact area of the cell and the substrate or (ii) at half
of the cell height. The dotted white lines indicate the position of
the microtube walls. (g) Left panel: overlay of the DIC and fluorescence
top view images of an NSC growing within a 13 μm wide and 7
μm deep trench. The dashed white lines (i–iv) indicate
the positions of the cut views (xz-plane) shown in
the right panels. The SU8 fluorescence facilitates the visualization
of the substrate in the cut views. All scale bars equal 10 μm.
Dimensionality of the
environment dictates NSCs morphology. (a)
Schematic depicting the varying appearance of NSCs in different environments.
(b) Differential interference contrast (DIC) and fluorescence top
view images of a spread (left panel) and rounded
(middle panel) NSC on a planar substrate compared to a round NSC inside
a microtube (right panel). (c) Percentage of cells with spread or
round morphology on planar (2D) substrates and inside microtubes.
(d) DIC images of the morphology transition of an NSC leaving a microtube.
The three different time points are indicated as h:min, white arrows
highlight the cell (Supplementary Video S1). (e) DIC images of a single NSC inside a microtube with increasing
diameter (top to bottom: 7/12/14/23 μm). (f) Fluorescence images
of the actin cytoskeletal organization within a focal plane (i) next
to the contact area of the cell and the substrate or (ii) at half
of the cell height. The dotted white lines indicate the position of
the microtube walls. (g) Left panel: overlay of the DIC and fluorescence
top view images of an NSC growing within a 13 μm wide and 7
μm deep trench. The dashed white lines (i–iv) indicate
the positions of the cut views (xz-plane) shown in
the right panels. The SU8 fluorescence facilitates the visualization
of the substrate in the cut views. All scale bars equal 10 μm.Since the morphology of a cell
is supported by its cytoskeleton,
we investigated the respective distribution of actin filaments for
the different morphology types either next to the contact region with
the sample surface or at half of the cell height (Figure f). On the planar surface,
it became obvious that thickened actin fibers were present in the
contact region for both spread and rounded cells, whereas for completely
spherical NSCs inside the microtubes, the confocal imaging did not
resolve the actin organization into pronounced stress fibers. This
indicates a tight anchoring of the cells to the planar substrate[1] that is not required inside the microtubes. To
investigate whether the cell rounding and reduced anchorage to the
substrate was caused by the curvature of the microtube walls rather
than the increased dimensionality of the microtube topography, we
fabricated trenches with comparable surface characteristics like roughness
and functionalization to provide the curvature without the dimensionality
aspect (Figure g).
The trenches did not trigger the cell rounding that we had observed
inside the microtubes. Instead, the cells elongated along the recess
on the bottom of the structure (Supplementary
Video S2). We therefore conclude that the dimensionality of
the microtube topography triggers the rounded cell morphology. Although
it is reckoned that the dimensionality of a scaffold is a crucial
cell fate determinant, experimental evidence that directly addresses
the influence of scaffold dimensionality on cell behavior is still
scarce due to the inherent complexity of 3D systems. In extracellular
matrix (ECM)-derived or ECM-mimicking hydrogels, for example, the
polymer content and matrix cross-linking correlate directly with matrix
stiffness, pore size, and therefore cell restriction and number of
adhesion sites,[3] which all have the potential
to impact cell functioning. Additionally, the matrix composition of
the scaffold material itself can introduce discrepancies, which was
for instance shown for human bone marrow stromal cell morphology[41] or fibroblast adhesion and migration.[8] In a recent approach where single fibroblasts
were cultured in 3D polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) microwells[42] or on 2D microfabricated adhesive islands, Ochsner
et al.[43] showed that the dimensionality
and rigidity of the cell environment in dependence of each other affected
actin organization and cell metabolism. In this context, strain-engineering
and 3D assembly of nanomembranes offer a straightforward approach
to create cell culture scaffolds that match 2D control substrates
in material and surface functionalization so that adhesion site density,
substrate stiffness, and composition are alike. The microtube samples
differ from the planar substrates only in their topographical structuring
so that the 3D assembled nanomembranes provides the means to microscopically
observe the impact of scaffold dimensionality on cell response.It is generally thought that 3D cell culture scaffolds allow for
the deduction of more physiologically relevant mechanisms.[44] However, only a comparison to the situation
in the tissue assesses the relevance for the real in vivo environment. We therefore compared the observed cell phenotypes
with NSCs grown in their native brain environment (Figure ).
Figure 2
Comparison of in vitro cell shapes with in vivo morphology.
(a) Slices of z-stacks
for the 3D reconstruction of the immunofluorescently labeled cell
bodies on a planar substrate, inside a microtube, and in brain tissue
(for 3D reconstructions, please see Supplementary
Video S3). The scale bars equal 10 μm. (b) Cell spread
area of NSCs growing on planar (2D) substrates, inside microtubes,
and in the developing brain in vivo (3D). Each data
set is depicted as a scatter and a Tukey box plot (the box frames
data between the 25th and 75th percentiles; the line shows the median;
the square, the mean value, and the whiskers indicate the upper and
lower fence of the data set). ∗ p < 0.05;
∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001 (Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s
post test). (c) Cell volumes of NSCs growing on a planar substrate,
inside microtubes, and in the 3D environment of the developing brain in vivo (cells are oriented in the x-y plane). Error bars show the SD for n =
the number of cells indicated in the figures. (d, e) Dependence of
the shape descriptors aspect ratio (long to short axis length of the
projection area) and circularity (1 for a perfect circle) on the confinement
(microtube to cell diameter ratio). In red color, parameters of the
3D in vivo situation are indicated.
Comparison of in vitro cell shapes with in vivo morphology.
(a) Slices of z-stacks
for the 3D reconstruction of the immunofluorescently labeled cell
bodies on a planar substrate, inside a microtube, and in brain tissue
(for 3D reconstructions, please see Supplementary
Video S3). The scale bars equal 10 μm. (b) Cell spread
area of NSCs growing on planar (2D) substrates, inside microtubes,
and in the developing brain in vivo (3D). Each data
set is depicted as a scatter and a Tukey box plot (the box frames
data between the 25th and 75th percentiles; the line shows the median;
the square, the mean value, and the whiskers indicate the upper and
lower fence of the data set). ∗ p < 0.05;
∗∗ p < 0.01; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001 (Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s
post test). (c) Cell volumes of NSCs growing on a planar substrate,
inside microtubes, and in the 3D environment of the developing brain in vivo (cells are oriented in the x-y plane). Error bars show the SD for n =
the number of cells indicated in the figures. (d, e) Dependence of
the shape descriptors aspect ratio (long to short axis length of the
projection area) and circularity (1 for a perfect circle) on the confinement
(microtube to cell diameter ratio). In red color, parameters of the
3D in vivo situation are indicated.The in vitro grown NSCs were fixed
and stained
for filamentous actin to visualize the cell body. For in vivo reference experiments, we prepared fixed brain sections of E14mouse
embryos expressing GFP-labeled Tbr2, a transcription factor found
in proliferating and migrating intermediate progenitor cells in the
neocortex.[45,46] Fluorescence imaging at different
focal planes (z-stacks, Figure ) allowed for the 3D reconstruction of
cell shapes (Supplementary Video S3) and
the analysis of cell spread area (Figure b) as well as volume (Figure c). While the culturing of NSCs on the 2D
substrate led to a multitude of cell spread areas, indicating various
different cell shapes and an increase in cell volume not observed
in the native environment, the microtube framework helped to counteract
these peculiarities. Inside microtubes, cell volumes were significantly
reduced toward values of densely packed cells in native brain tissue,
and because of the prevalence of the round morphology, the distribution
of cell shapes was narrower than on the planar surface. This demonstrates
that the increase in topographical information is already sufficient
to trigger a more in vivo relevant NSC morphology,
although the rigidity of the glass microtubes is much larger than
the elasticity of brain tissue. To investigate this resemblance more
closely, we analyzed measures of cell morphology with more emphasis
on cell roundness (Figure d,e). The aspect ratio (Figure d) relates the long axis of the cell projection area
to its short axis, and the circularity (Figure e) describes in how far this area resembles
a perfect circle (circularity = 1). Since we observed the modification
of the round cell shape by the microtube width (compare Figure e), we took into account the
dependence on cell confinement, expressed as ratio of microtube to
cell diameter. Unconfined NSCs (microtube to cell diameter ratio >1)
were highly spherical with circularities and aspect ratios close to
1. With decreasing microtube diameter, the NSCs were forced into a
more elongated and flattened shape so that the circularity values
decreased, whereas the aspect ratio increased. When the microtube
diameter was reduced to about half the size of unconfined spherical
NSCs (d (cell) = 13.6 ± 0.7 μm, n = 30), the shape descriptors of the confined cells approached
the respective values of NSCs in the brain (circularity = 0.54 ±
0.07, aspect ratio = 2.6 ± 0.6, n = 11). Together
with the small in vivo spread areas, this finding
suggests that NSCs experience a certain confinement in the 3D environment
of the developing brain where the space available for the growth of
cells is limited. While the dimensionality of rolled-up nanomembranes
prevents the artificial cell spreading found on planar substrates,
the microtube confinement fine-tunes the cell morphology toward in vivo-like characteristics. This is supported by recent
literature[47] that reports on a dense packing
of cells in the neuroepithelium and that names 2D mechanical stress
as one of the factors driving NSCs out of the layer of birth into
their destined regions. Therefore, the rolled-up nanomembranes not
only provide a cell-surrounding environment, but also can be designed
to mimic space restrictions of the cell’s native tissue.During the observation of NSC behavior inside microtubes, it became
evident that the round cell bodies always possessed filamentous structures
protruding from the cell front and pointing in the direction of movement
(Figure a; Supplementary Video S4). In contrary to the basal
localization of cell extensions in spread NSPCs either on the planar
substrate (Supplementary Video S3) or within
the trenches (compare Figure g), these filamentous structures evolved from the center of
the cell front and not close to the microtube bottom (Movie S3), hinting at the absence of apical–basal
cell polarity within the microtubes.
Figure 3
Cell morphology upon inhibition of filopodia
(Cdc42 inhibitor)
or lamellipodia (Arp2/3 complex inhibitor). For simplicity, only the
abbreviated name of the inhibited protein is given. (a) DIC images
at different time points (h:min) depicting an NSC that migrates within
a microtube and changes its direction twice (Supplementary
Video S4). (b, c) DIC image series (time points after drug
treatment, h:min) of a Cdc42 inhibitor or Arp2/3 complex inhibitor
treated NSC, respectively. The top image shows each cell before addition
of the drug. Scale bars equal 10 μm, please see as well Supplementary Videos S5 and S6. (d) Comparison
of the fluorescent staining for actin (cytoskeleton) and fascin (filopodia)
in control and inhibitor treated cells either on a planar substrate
or within a microtube. The scale bars equal 5 μm each. (e) Percentage
of cells that show filopodia or blebbing, or no specific structures
at the cell periphery (“Others”). (f) Percentage of
cells with spread or round morphology for the indicated conditions. n = number of quantified cells.
Cell morphology upon inhibition of filopodia
(Cdc42 inhibitor)
or lamellipodia (Arp2/3 complex inhibitor). For simplicity, only the
abbreviated name of the inhibited protein is given. (a) DIC images
at different time points (h:min) depicting an NSC that migrates within
a microtube and changes its direction twice (Supplementary
Video S4). (b, c) DIC image series (time points after drug
treatment, h:min) of a Cdc42 inhibitor or Arp2/3 complex inhibitor
treated NSC, respectively. The top image shows each cell before addition
of the drug. Scale bars equal 10 μm, please see as well Supplementary Videos S5 and S6. (d) Comparison
of the fluorescent staining for actin (cytoskeleton) and fascin (filopodia)
in control and inhibitor treated cells either on a planar substrate
or within a microtube. The scale bars equal 5 μm each. (e) Percentage
of cells that show filopodia or blebbing, or no specific structures
at the cell periphery (“Others”). (f) Percentage of
cells with spread or round morphology for the indicated conditions. n = number of quantified cells.For spread cells migrating across planar substrates, it is
known
that the cell front assumes different shapes but in most cases consists
of a sheet of branched actin filaments named lamellipolium and bundled
actin filaments at the leading edge termed filopodia. To identify
the finger-like cell protrusions observed in the microtubes as filopodia
and to clarify the presence of a lamellipodium, we studied the cell
behavior under the influence of small molecule inhibitors that are
known to impede the respective protrusions on 2D (Figure b,c; Supplementary
Videos S5 and S6). We employed an inhibitor against Cdc42,
a small GTPase that induces the formation of filopodia at the cell
leading edge.[48,49] A second inhibitor was targeted
against the Arp2/3 complex, which is an actin-binding protein that
nucleates the branching of actin filaments in the lamellipodium.[50,51] Additionally, we used immunofluorescent staining of filamentous
actin and the filament-bundling protein fascin, which is found in
filopodia,[52] to visualize and identify
cell protrusions (Figure d). For control cells on the planar substrate, the fluorescent
staining revealed the presence of both a dendritic actin network in
a spread lamellipodium as well as fascin-bundled actin filaments in
filopodia at the cell front. For NSCs inside microtubes, however,
the sheet-like lamellipodia structure could not be detected. Instead,
the colocalization of filamentous actin and fascin identified the
finger-like structures at the cell front as filopodia. Consistently,
a Cdc42 inhibitor treatment caused the disappearance of the finger-like
protrusions, while the reduction of the Arp2/3 complex activity did
not prevent protrusion formation (Figure e). Strikingly, the filopodia inhibition
additionally led to a reversal of cell rounding (Figure b), which was found for more
than half of the treated cells (Figure f). The Arp2/3-activity reduced cells still maintained
the rounded morphology with filopodia protrusions, occasionally disrupted
by cell blebbing (Figure c). The appearance of blebs after Arp2/3 complex inhibition
supports recent findings that this protein is involved in the maintenance
of cell cortex integrity[53,54] and the control of
cortical tension,[20] thus favoring bleb
initiation upon Arp2/3 complex activity reduction.[55] We here monitored bleb formation on the entire surface
of the cell, which contradicts the possibility of blebbing being an
alternative movement strategy, which would require a polarized bleb
emergence. Inside microtubes filopodia protrusions that are thought
to fulfill sensory, exploratory and probing functions[56,57] prevail over the formation of a sheet-like lamellipodium that is
associated with surface anchorage and persistent migration on planar
substrates.[56] The exploratory cell activity
is necessary for the maintenance of the round phenotype that is only
observed as long as the cells are able to form the sensing organelles.
Therefore, it is crucial to offer a 3D environment to cells to infer
migration mechanisms that are not dominated by the artificial adaption
to planar substrates. Here, the parallel processing of microtube arrays
in an on-chip format and the spontaneous migration of NSCs into the
rolled-up structures allowed us to simultaneously analyze the formed
cell protrusions of several cells in parallel. Inhibitor treatment,
live-cell imaging, and fluorescent immunostaining helped to characterize
the cell protrusions in more detail and could be read out due to the
compatibility of the glass nanomembranes with high-resolution optical
microscopy.Since the microtube scaffold had such a distinct
effect on cell
morphology, we speculated that the NSC interaction with the microtube
topography could modify their motility as well. The optical transparency
of the glass microtubes and the ability to design their dimensions
in the fabrication process make them an ideal structure to study spontaneous
migration of single cells in different degrees of confinement. Spontaneous
migration is the cell movement that is initiated randomly without
the presence of external guidance cues (“matrix-induced”)[58] and thereby allows the observation of the mere
topography-triggered cell behavior not overridden by external guidance
cues, for example, biochemical or physical stiffness gradients. We
took time-lapse images of NSCs that were moving on planar substrates
or within the microtubes and tracked their positions in 2 min time
intervals for up to 4 h (Figure a,b; Supplementary Videos S7 and
S8). The acquired tracks on the planar substrate showed constant
step distances, indicating continuous cell motion with a steady velocity,
while inside the microtubes, the NSC movement became more irregular.
To assess these differences quantitatively, we calculated the mean
velocity (Figure c)
as well as the arrest coefficient (Figure d) for each cell track. The arrest coefficient
is the percentage of time that the cells were slower than a critical
velocity[59] of 0.27 μm/min.
Figure 4
2D versus
3D single cell migration characteristics of NSCs. (a,
b) DIC images overlaid with the tracks of an NSC (a) on a planar substrate
and (b) within a microtube at three different time points (h:min).
Every red circle corresponds to the cell position tracked in 2 min
time intervals. Please see as well Supplementary
Videos S7 and S8. (c) Mean velocitiy vmean and (d) arrest coefficient of cells that migrate on a
planar (2D) substrate or within a microtube. For the planar substrate,
the data are further discriminated according to the cell shape. The
arrest coefficient is the proportion of time that the cells migrate
slower than the critical velocity of 0.27 μm/min; ns, not significant; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001
(Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post test).
(e) Mean cell velocity inside a microtube after inhibition of actin
polymerization (latrunculin A) or myosin contractility (blebbistatin).
(f) Mean squared displacement (MSD) analysis averaged
for 15–51 cell tracks. The influence of latrunctulin A and
blebbistatin drugs on cell migration efficiency on a planar surface
(filled markers) or inside microtubes is compared. (g, h) DIC image
series (time points after drug treatment, h:min) of an actin polymerization
or myosin II contractility inhibitor treated NSC inside a microtube.
The top image shows each cell before addition of the drug. Please
see as well Supplementary Videos S10 and S11. (i) Percentage of spread or round cells inside a microtube before
and after the indicated inhibitor treatment. (j) Proportion of cells
that show filopodia or bleb protrusions, or no specific structures
at the cell periphery (“Others”) upon actin polymerization
or myosin contractility inhibition, respectively. All scale bars equal
10 μm.
2D versus
3D single cell migration characteristics of NSCs. (a,
b) DIC images overlaid with the tracks of an NSC (a) on a planar substrate
and (b) within a microtube at three different time points (h:min).
Every red circle corresponds to the cell position tracked in 2 min
time intervals. Please see as well Supplementary
Videos S7 and S8. (c) Mean velocitiy vmean and (d) arrest coefficient of cells that migrate on a
planar (2D) substrate or within a microtube. For the planar substrate,
the data are further discriminated according to the cell shape. The
arrest coefficient is the proportion of time that the cells migrate
slower than the critical velocity of 0.27 μm/min; ns, not significant; ∗ p < 0.05; ∗∗∗ p < 0.001
(Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn’s post test).
(e) Mean cell velocity inside a microtube after inhibition of actin
polymerization (latrunculin A) or myosin contractility (blebbistatin).
(f) Mean squared displacement (MSD) analysis averaged
for 15–51 cell tracks. The influence of latrunctulin A and
blebbistatin drugs on cell migration efficiency on a planar surface
(filled markers) or inside microtubes is compared. (g, h) DIC image
series (time points after drug treatment, h:min) of an actin polymerization
or myosin II contractility inhibitor treated NSC inside a microtube.
The top image shows each cell before addition of the drug. Please
see as well Supplementary Videos S10 and S11. (i) Percentage of spread or round cells inside a microtube before
and after the indicated inhibitor treatment. (j) Proportion of cells
that show filopodia or bleb protrusions, or no specific structures
at the cell periphery (“Others”) upon actin polymerization
or myosin contractility inhibition, respectively. All scale bars equal
10 μm.The analysis revealed
that the spherical cells on the planar surface
moved fastest and inside the microtube slowest. The arrest coefficients
for NSCs on 2D substrates did not differ significantly and were much
smaller than the arrest coefficients inside the microtubes. For the
planar substrate, these findings are in line with the characteristics
of the mesenchymal migration mode. The necessary surface anchorage
via a broad lamellipodium counteracts cell mobility. Cells with a
rounded cell body have a reduced contact area with the substrate (compare Figure f) and can thereby
achieve higher migration velocities at comparable arrest coefficients.
In line with this reasoning, the cells inside the microtubes with
completely spherical cell bodies should be able to migrate at least
at similar rates. However, the average cell velocities were smaller,
and the arrest coefficients of the cells significantly increased,
hinting at a different cell migration strategy. Additionally, we observed
only a minor correlation of cell velocity and arrest coefficient with
cell confinement. Only inside very small microtubes (diameter ratio
< 0.5) the NSCs were appreciably slowed down and displayed bleb
formation at both cell ends (Supplementary Video
S9), confirming theoretical modeling that predicts a threshold
confinement for a stable cell membrane to cortex attachment.[60] This implies a direct impact of scaffold dimensionality,
rather than cell confinement, on the observed migration characteristics
of NSCs. This is in line with recent evidence derived mainly from
1D migration models mimicking fibrillar 3D matrices, indicating that
cell migration depends on the dimensionality of the ECM.[3,61] These models demonstrated for fibroblasts that the 3D phenotype
resembled mechanistically more the 1D uniaxial than a 2D migration.[7,62,63] Although imparting valuable insight
into migration mechanisms, these patterned lines or 1D fibers still
induced an artificial apical–basal cell polarity. Taken together,
the findings indicate that although spontaneous migration is a prominent
cell characteristic on planar substrates, it might not represent cell
motility in tissues already, due to the lack of 3D topographic information,
that we could provide the cells with inside the rolled-up glass nanomembranes.The observed differences in actin cytoskeleton organization, migration
strategies, and especially the remarkable differences in cell morphology
are characteristic of a mesenchymal to amoeboid migration mode transition.[24,64] The amoeboid migration mode is usually associated with an increased
contribution of cell contractility and blebbing motility but can also
rely on mainly actin polymerization.[20,30] To assess
the relative importance of the two mechanisms for the 3D migration
mode of NSCs, we investigated the impact of latrunculin A, which inhibits
the polymerization of actin filaments, and blebbistatin, which counteracts
cell contractility, on migration characteristics of the cells. Interfering
with the actin polymerization led to a significant reduction of mean
cell migration velocities (Figure e) and a decreased migration efficiency (Figure f). More than half of the cells
spread again inside the microtubes (Figure g,i), and filopodia formation was greatly
reduced (Figure j, Supplementary Video S10). A reduction of cell
contractility through blebbistatin treatment, however, did not change
the migration characteristics (Figure e, f) or cell morphology and protrusion formation (Figure i,j) remarkably inside
the microtubes. We only observed a prolonged attachment of the cell
membrane to the microtube walls characteristic for a reduced cell
contractility (Figure h, Supplementary Video S11), which overall
did not prevent cell motility. This indicates that NSC amoeboid migration
mainly depends on an actin polymerization mechanism and that weaker
substrate contacts are established, which upon reduction of cell contractility
can still be detached. This is in contrast to the 2D mesenchymal migration
mode, where a stronger cell anchoring to the substrate requires higher
cell contractility for contact detachment, and the blebbistatin treatment
counteracts locomotion (Figure f). This compares to the finding that NSC migration in the in vivo brain environment is not continuous and comprises
distinct phases of pausing, forward, and retrograde movement,[34] similar as in the microtube environment. Radial
migration velocities in vivo were reported to range
from 0.10 ± 0.01 μm/min to 0.33 ± 0.10 μm/min[34] and are therefore slower than the measured velocities
on 2D substrates or within the microtube samples, most likely because
neither in vitro substrate did confine cell movement
in all three dimensions. Additionally, brain tissue is much softer
than the glass substrates employed in this study so that the rigidity
or substrate elasticity is likely to further impact NSC migration
characteristics.[43,65] In follow-up studies, it remains
to be clarified which substrate parameters affect cell behavior to
what extent and ultimately how their interplay modifies cell migration in vivo. Our studies demonstrate that the dimensionality
of the cell culture substrate is crucial for the employed migration
mode of the NSCs and that physical space restrictions of the cell
environment must be taken into account. The fabrication of glass microtubes
by strain-engineering of selectively released nanomembranes offers
the means to design a geometrically well-defined cell environment
for the study of cell migration under 2D isotropic, native tissue-mimicking
space restrictions. The potential to incorporate additional functionalities
in the rolled-up fabrication process, like structured electrodes for
impedance sprectroscopy,[66] and the microfluidic
integration of glass microtubes that as well can act as optofluidic
sensors,[67] provides a versatile system
with the ultimate aim to study 3D cell responses in a lab-in-a-tube[68] approach. This will facilitate the study of
fundamental aspects of 3D cell migration characteristics that are
crucial for embryonic development as well as immune surveillance,
and are defective in fatal processes like cancer metastasis.In summary, we demonstrate that strain-engineering and self-assembly
of glass nanomembranes offer a straightforward approach to fabricate
a neural stem cell culture-compatible, 3D environment with well-defined
geometry. By applying this reductionist 3D cell culture scaffold and
thereby imposing a 2D confinement on single cells, we could approach
the in vivo cell morphology. Changing just the dimensionality
of the cell environment triggered a profound change in NSC morphology
and motility characteristics. The NSCs possessed a high plasticity
in cell shape that became apparent with the morphologically distinct
mesenchymal to amoeboid migration mode transition, but a low plasticity
in actin polymerization-dependent protrusion formation. Our findings
advance the comparison of traditional 2D cell culture, 3D biomaterial
scaffolds, and physiological cell environment with the focus on discerning
spatial aspects of the in vivo tissue that influence
cell behavior. We demonstrate that strain-engineering and self-assembly
of nanomembranes enables the study of space-restricted, 3D cell migration
characteristics with the future potential to further characterize
the single-cell behavior in a lab-in-a-tube approach. Our results
underline the need for careful identification, validation, and finally
integration of essential tissue properties to design in vivo-mimicking biomaterial scaffolds.
Authors: Andrew D Doyle; Matthew L Kutys; Mary Anne Conti; Kazue Matsumoto; Robert S Adelstein; Kenneth M Yamada Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Stefan M Harazim; Vladimir A Bolaños Quiñones; Suwit Kiravittaya; Samuel Sanchez; Oliver G Schmidt Journal: Lab Chip Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 6.799
Authors: Praveen Suraneni; Boris Rubinstein; Jay R Unruh; Michael Durnin; Dorit Hanein; Rong Li Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2012-04-09 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: Britta Koch; Samuel Sanchez; Christine K Schmidt; Anka Swiersy; Stephen P Jackson; Oliver G Schmidt Journal: Adv Healthc Mater Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 9.933
Authors: Wang Xi; Christine K Schmidt; Samuel Sanchez; David H Gracias; Rafael E Carazo-Salas; Stephen P Jackson; Oliver G Schmidt Journal: Nano Lett Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 11.189