| Literature DB >> 35271203 |
Viktoria Sergunova1, Stanislav Leesment2, Aleksandr Kozlov3, Vladimir Inozemtsev1, Polina Platitsina4, Snezhanna Lyapunova1, Alexander Onufrievich5, Vyacheslav Polyakov2, Ekaterina Sherstyukova1,3.
Abstract
Currently, much research is devoted to the study of biological objects using atomic force microscopy (AFM). This method's resolution is superior to the other non-scanning techniques. Our study aims to further emphasize some of the advantages of using AFM as a clinical screening tool. The study focused on red blood cells exposed to various physical and chemical factors, namely hemin, zinc ions, and long-term storage. AFM was used to investigate the morphological, nanostructural, cytoskeletal, and mechanical properties of red blood cells (RBCs). Based on experimental data, a set of important biomarkers determining the status of blood cells have been identified.Entities:
Keywords: atomic force microscopy; cytoskeleton; imaging; membrane stiffness; morphology; nanostructure; red blood cells
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35271203 PMCID: PMC8914789 DOI: 10.3390/s22052055
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The principles of the atomic force microscopy operation. (a) Block diagram of AFM; (b) Measurement of blood cell membrane stiffness by AFM. I: the scanner is brought to the cell membrane; the laser spot is located in the center of the photodiode. II: the probe indents the cell membrane; the laser spot moves up relative to the center (located in the upper sections). III: the probe is detached from the cell membrane; the laser spot moves down relative to the center (located in lower sections). IV: the piezo scanner is taken away from the cell; the laser spot is located in the center of the photodiode. (c) Empirical force curve. The forward motion is black, the reverse motion is red.
Figure 2AFM image of the red blood cell (RBC) morphology (10 × 10 µm2) in air and their profiles, respectively: (a) Control; (b) RBC after exposure to hemin, 3D AFM image of a 2000 × 2400 nm2 area with granular structures after exposure to hemin and domain structure profile; (c) RBC after exposure to zinc ions; (d) RBC on day 31 of storage; (e) Force curves of RBCs in liquid on exposure to different agents, the curves are the average over all the curves for a specific condition; (f) Change in Young’s modulus depending on pathogenic factors. Data are presented as box plots. One-way ANOVA test followed by post hoc. Tukey was used: ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 compared to control.
Cell membrane parameters (L1, h1; L2, h2) of controls and cells exposed to hemin and zinc, and after 31 days of storage.
| Exposure | L1, nm | h1, nm | L2, nm | h2, nm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1133 ± 152 | 5.6 ± 1.5 | 90 ± 10 | 1.1 ± 0.5 |
| Hemin | 1109 ± 115 | 19.0 ± 4.0 | 152 ± 59 | 2.0 ± 0.6 |
| Zinc | 1092 ± 111 | 55.0 ± 16.0 | 202 ± 50 | 9.0 ± 1.5 |
| Storage for 31 days | 995 ± 194 | 9.1 ± 1.5 | 122 ± 32 | 3.3 ± 0.8 |
Figure 3AFM images of the cytoskeleton: (a) Monolayer of ghost control cells (35 × 35 μm2); (b) Single RBC ghost (10 × 10 μm2); (c) Cytoskeleton section (1.8 × 1.6 μm2); (d) 3D AFM image of a section of the RBC cytoskeleton (0.8 × 0.7 μm2); (e) Model of the RBC cytoskeleton.
Figure 42D AFM image of a ghost cell: (a) Day 4 of storage; (b) Day 31 of storage; (c) After exposure to hemin. 3D AFM image of the cytoskeleton fragment: (d) Day 4 of storage; (e) Day 31 of storage; (f) After exposure to hemin. Histograms for the average size of ghost fragments are given: (g) Day 4 of storage; (h) Day 31 of storage; (i) After exposure to hemin.