| Literature DB >> 30023016 |
Mustafa Unal1, Yunus Alapan1,2, Hao Jia3, Adrienn G Varga4, Keith Angelino5, Mahmut Aslan1,2, Ismail Sayin2,4, Chanjuan Han6, Yanxia Jiang1, Zhehao Zhang5, Umut A Gurkan1,2,7,8.
Abstract
Cell mechanics is a multidisciplinary field that bridges cell biology, fundamental mechanics, and micro and nanotechnology, which synergize to help us better understand the intricacies and the complex nature of cells in their native environment. With recent advances in nanotechnology, microfabrication methods and micro-electro-mechanical-systems (MEMS), we are now well situated to tap into the complex micro world of cells. The field that brings biology and MEMS together is known as Biological MEMS (BioMEMS). BioMEMS take advantage of systematic design and fabrication methods to create platforms that allow us to study cells like never before. These new technologies have been rapidly advancing the study of cell mechanics. This review article provides a succinct overview of cell mechanics and comprehensively surveys micro and nano-scale technologies that have been specifically developed for and are relevant to the mechanics of cells. Here we focus on micro and nano-scale technologies, and their applications in biology and medicine, including imaging, single cell analysis, cancer cell mechanics, organ-on-a-chip systems, pathogen detection, implantable devices, neuroscience and neurophysiology. We also provide a perspective on the future directions and challenges of technologies that relate to the mechanics of cells.Entities:
Keywords: Biophysics; Mechanical Manipulation; Microfabrication; Microfluidics; Nanofabrication; Single Cell Analysis
Year: 2014 PMID: 30023016 PMCID: PMC6029242 DOI: 10.5772/59379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanobiomedicine (Rij) ISSN: 1849-5435
Figure 1.Cells respond to different microenvironmental stimulus in vivo. A schematic showing the different factors, (i) physical forces, (ii) shear flow, (iii) soluable factors, (iv) cell-cell interactions and (v) matrix rigity that trigger the cells to undergo changes in their behaviors and functions such as (a) apoptosis, (b) differentiation, (c) migration, (d) proliferation and (e) quiescene.
Mechanical properties of cells reported in the literature
| Aspects of cell mechanics | Cell type | Magnitude | Tool/Technique | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stiffness | Fibroblasts | 0.02 N/m | Mcropipette | [ |
| Elastic modulus | Cancer MCF-7 cell | 0.95 – 1.19 kPa | Atomic force microscopy | |
| Viscoelasticity | Cytoplasm | 210 Pa s | Magnetic bead microrheology | [ |
| Cell adhesion force | Human cervical carcinoma cell | 19–204 nN | Atomic force microscopy | [ |
| Cell traction forces | Fibroblasts | 100 nN | Microcantilevers micro pads | [ |
| Shear stress | Endothelial cells | 1–15 dyn/cm2 | Microfluidics | [ |
Figure 2.BioMEMS devices in cell mechanics. The tools can be divided into two main categories: characterization tools, for the measurement of the different physical properties of cells, and manipulation tools, for the exertion of an extrinsic effect. (a) The adhesion strength characterization of cells in microfluidic channels is performed by simply counting the cells remaining after shear flow application. (b-c) Measurement of cell mass (b) in microfluidic chip and (c) on pedestals. Both tools are based on the resonance frequency change of the cantilevers or pad after cell attachment. (d) Cellular deformation measurement is performed by using piezoelectric nanoribbons. (e-i) The characterization of traction forces; (e-f) on 2D or in 3D bead embedded gels from the relative displacement of beads on (g) cantilever pads and (h) vertical micropillars is performed by measuring the deflection of cantilevers or micropillars, and (i) on micropillars under shear flow from micropillar displacement. (j-k) The manipulation of the cells by substrate alterations with micropillar configurations of (j) variable stiffness or (k) anisotropic pillar geometry. (l) Deformation application is performed using magnetic nanowires embedded in micropillars in a magnetic field. (m) The generation of substrate gradients is performed via microfluidics. (n) The manipulation of cell shape and phenotype is performed using nanoridge topography. (o) The generation of substrate patterns is performed using microcontact printing. Micropillar and microfluidic based approaches were found to have a variety of applications as both characterization and manipulation tools.
Figure 3.Major techniques for cancer cell mechanics study. (a) Atomic force spectroscopy; (b) magnetic twisting cytometry; (c) cytoindentation; (d) microplate stretcher; (e) micropipette aspiration; (f) laser/optical tweezers; (g) optical stretcher; (h) shear flow; (i) microfluidic assay; (j) microfabricated post array; (k) particle tracking microrheology; (l) magnetic nanoparticle-based stimuli. This figure [26] is reused with permission from Elsevier.
Methods for studying cancer cells mechanics and mechanical properties of cancer cells reported in the literature
| Methods | Induced force | Advantages | Disadvantages | Applications | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case study | Major observations | Typical values | |||||||
| Cancer cells | Normal cells | ||||||||
| Atomic force microscopy (AFM) | Partial of cell | 10−7–10−11N | 1) High resolution; | 1) Can be used only for cells that adhered to a substrate; | Stiffness of metastatic cancer cells from lung, breast and pancreas [ | Stiffness of metastatic cancer cells is more than 70% softer than the benign cells | Lung: 0.56±0.09kPa; Breast: 0.50±0.08kPa; Pancreas: 0.54±0.08kPa; | Lung: 2.10±0.79kPa; Breast: 1.93±0.50kPa; Pancreas: 0.54±0.12kPa; | [ |
| Stiffness and adhesion forces of metastatic cancer cells and benign mesothelial cells [ | Metastatic tumour cells are more than 80% softer than benign cells and surface adhesion is ∼33% less than normal cells. | Stiffness: 0.38±0.20kPa; Adhesion force: 34.2±5.3pN. | Stiffness: 2.53±1.30kPa; Adhesion force: 51.1±15.2pN. | ||||||
| Magnetic twisting cytometry (MTC) | Partial of cell | 10−10–10−12N | Probe the single cell with very small deformations and over wide ranges of time scale and amplitude. | 1) The bead localization on the cell is random; | The effects of tubeimoside I (TBMS I) on human hepatoma (HepG2) cells[ | The stiffness of HepG2 cells decreased consistently with the increased concentration of TBMS I exposure. In addition, the HepG2 cells responded to TBMS I much faster than the normal liver (L-02) cells. | Stiffness (HepG2): 0.44±0.01 Pa/nm; Respond time: 73s. | Stiffness(L-02): 0.88±0.04 Pa/nm, Respond time: 109s. | [ |
| Cytoindentation | Partial of cell | 10−7–10−9N | 1) Simple modelling of the viscoelastic behaviour of the cells; | The response may depend significantly on the precise probing location. | The elasticity of benign (MCF-10A) and cancerous (MCF-7) human breast epithelial cells [ | Apparent Young's modulus of malignant (MCF-7) cells significantly decreased, (1.4–1.8 times) than that of non-malignant (MCF-10A) cells at physiological temperature (37°C), and their apparent Young's modulus increased with loading rate. | – | – | [ |
| Microplate stretcher | Single cell | 10−7–10−9N | Sufficient to induce significant deformation of an entire cell. | 1) Time consuming; | Elastic response and energy dissipation under repeated tensile loading of epithelial pancreatic cancer cells [ | The elastic modulus of Panc-1 pancreatic cancer cells decreased after treatment with SPC. | Before SPC: 28.8 ± 2.6 mN m−1. After SPC: 16.3 ± 1.1 mN m−1. | – | [ |
| Micropipette aspiration(MA) | Single cell | 10−7N- 10−10N | 1) Allows for real time correlation of pressure and whole cell deformation; | Analytical or computational models are often necessary to derive material properties and the underlying assumptions may at times be difficult to validate. | Viscoelastic properties of human hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells[ | HCC cells have higherelastic coefficients but not viscous coefficients compared to than hepatocytes. | Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): K1=103.6±12.6N.m−2; K2=42.5±10.4N.m−2; μ=4.5±1.9Pa.s. | Hepatocytes: Kl=87.5±12.1N.m−2; K2=33.3±10.3N.m−2; μ=5.9±3.0Pa.s. | [ |
| Laser/optical tweezers(OT) | Single cell | 10−11–10−14N | A focused laser beam allows precise bead manipulation in all directions. | 1) Force level is limited to induce larger deformation; | Elasticity of myeloblasts (62–71 CD33+CD34+cells and 57–63 CD33+CD34-cells) from AML patients[ | The induced deformation of CD33+CD+cells is greater than CD33+CD34-cells under the same stretching force. | The elastic area compressibility modulus, kα= 1.40±0.71 N/m (CD33+CD34-). | The elastic area compressibility modulus, kα= 0.25±0.15 N/m (CD33+CD34+). | [168–171, 267] |
| Optical stretcher | Single cell | 10−9–10−11N | 1) Cells can be suspended to eliminate mechanical contact; | 1) Laser power should be controlled without damaging the cells; | Optical deformation (OD) of mouse fibroblasts and human breast epithelial cells [ | Optical deformability of the SV-T2 cells is significantly increased compared to the BALB/3T3 cells; the cancerous MCF-7 cells are deformed more than the normal MCF-10 cells, and the metastatic modMCF-7 are deformed even more than the nonmetastatic MCF-7. | ODSV-T2 = 11.7±1.1 ODMCF-7 = 21.4±1.1; ODmodMCF-7 = 30.4±1.8. | ODBALB/3T3 = 8.4±1.0; ODMCF-10 = 10.5±0.8. | [ |
| Shear flow | Cell populations | 1–100Pa | Cone and plate rheometers allow precise control over the applied shear stress. | 1) Difficult to visualize induced cellular deformations; | Influence of shear flow on the adhesion of nonmetastatic (MCF-7) and highly metastatic (MDA-MB-435) cells[ | Detachment of the nonmetastatic MCF-7 cell line decreased significantly while detachment of the highly metastatic MDA-MB-435 significantly increased after 15 hour exposure of a 15 dyn/cm2 shear stress. | Detachment (MCF-7) decreased from 44.0±4.6% to 12.1±3.7%; Detachment (MDA-MB-435) ncreased from 37.2±6.3% to 36.2±2.1%. | – | [ |
| Microfluidic assay | Cell populations | – | 1) High throughput; | Microfluidic channels need to be properly designed. | Deformability of benign breast epithelial cells (MCF-10A) and nonmetastatic tumour breast cells (MCF-7) [ | Transit velocity is not significantly affected by cell type. MCF-10A cells were found to have longer entry time than MCF-7 cells of similar sizes, MCF-10A is stiffer than MCF-7 cells. | MCF-10A intry time: 1.698±0.201s; ilongation index: 1.231±0.01191; Transit velocity: 187.0±7.920μm/s. | MCF-7 Entry time: 0.433±0.045s; Elongation index 1.281±0.01505; Transit velocity: 177.3±9.836 μm/s. | [ |
| Microfabricated post array | Single cell/Cell populations | 10−7–10−9N | 1) Force application is localized and can be measured with high resolution; | 1) Substrate has a nontrivial topology that might affect cell adhesion and bias the measurements; | Traction forces exerted by cancer cells [ | Cancer cell exhibits a larger traction force than the normal cell by ∼20% for a HeLa cell and ∼50% for a L929 cell. | Traction forces of Hela cell: 2.84±0.49 | Traction forces: 2.3210.16μN. | [ |
| Nanoparticle-based techniques | Cell populations | – | It can provide insight into intracellular dynamics and structure, as well as into active transport processes. | 1) Hard transferring of experimental observations to theoretical and phenomenological models; | ECM stiffness on the intracellular rheology of cancer cells [ | In 3D matrices, the intracellular effective creep compliance of prostate cancer cells is shown to increase with increasing ECM stiffness, whereas modulating ECM stiffness does not significantly affect the intracellular mechanical state when cells are attached to 2D matrices. | – | – | [ |
| Partial of cell/Cell population | 10−7 −10−9N | 1) High spatially and resolved force with long duration and repeats. | 1) System is complex, which limits its real application; | The influence of mechanical forces on single-cell behaviour [ | Nanoparticle-induced tension generates filopodia asymmetry and bias metaphase-plate orientation of Hela cells. | – | – | ||
Figure 4.Different forms of electrophysiological recording techniques. Shown above are schematic illustrations of traditional electrodeneuron interface configurations and BioMEMS microelectrode arrays. In the schematics, neurons are depicted in light blue (somas are marked with orange) (a) Extracellular recording electrode. The electrode does not penetrate any of the cells, thus it can record the activity of multiple neurons. (b) Intracellular recording with a sharp glass microelectrode. (c) Whole-cell patch clamp technique. This technique allows us to study single or multiple ion channels (marked with purple) located on a membrane patch of a single cell. (d) Gold mushroom-shaped microelectrodes are actively engulfed by neurons because of their dendritic spine-like shapes. The mushroom-shaped protrusion is 1.42μm high. (e) A vertical nanowire electrode array (VNEA) that penetrates the cell membrane providing direct contact with the cell. (f) A pillar-shaped protruding nanowire is the sensing gate electrode of the FET.