4.6 Review

A toolbox to explore the mechanics of living embryonic tissues

Journal

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 119-130

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.03.011

Keywords

Mechanobiology; Biophysics; Cellular force; Tissue mechanics; Embryonic development; Morphogenesis; Mechanotransduction

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health [1R21HD084285-01, 1R01GM113241-01]
  3. National Science Foundation [MCB-1329722]
  4. Human Frontier Science Program
  5. Direct For Biological Sciences [1329722] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Div Of Molecular and Cellular Bioscience [1329722] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The sculpting of embryonic tissues and organs into their functional morphologies involves the spatial and temporal regulation of mechanics at cell and tissue scales. Decades of in vitro work, complemented by some in vivo studies, have shown the relevance of mechanical cues in the control of cell behaviors that are central to developmental processes, but the lack of methodologies enabling precise, quantitative measurements of mechanical cues in vivo have hindered our understanding of the role of mechanics in embryonic development. Several methodologies are starting to enable quantitative studies of mechanics in vivo and in situ, opening new avenues to explore how mechanics contributes to shaping embryonic tissues and how it affects cell behavior within developing embryos. Here we review the present methodologies to study the role of mechanics in living embryonic tissues, considering their strengths and drawbacks as well as the conditions in which they are most suitable. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available