4.7 Article

Cells in fluidic environments are sensitive to flow frequency

Journal

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 204, Issue 1, Pages 329-335

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.20281

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL67246, HL60407] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM/HL49039] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Virtually all cells accommodate to their mechanical environment. In particular, cells subject to flow respond to rapid changes in fluid shear stress (SS), cyclic stretch (CS), and pressure. Recent studies have focused on the effect of pulsatility on cellular behavior. Since cells of many different tissue beds are constantly exposed to fluid flows over a narrow range of frequencies, we hypothesized that an intrinsic flow frequency that is optimal for determining cell phenotype exists. We report here that cells from various tissue beds (bovine aortic endothelial cells (BAEC), rat small intestine epithelial cells (RSIEC), and rat lung epithelia( cells (RLEC)) proliferate maximally when cultured in a perfusion bioreactor under pulsatile conditions at a specific frequency, independent of the applied SS. Vascular endothelial and pulmonary epithelial cell proliferation peaked under 1 Hz pulsatile flow. In contrast, proliferation of gastrointestinal cells, which in their physiological context are subject to no flow or higher wavelength signal, was maximum at 0.125 Hz or under no flow. Moreover, exposure of BAEC to pulsatile flow of varying frequency influenced their nitric oxide synthase activity and prostacyclin production, which reached maximum values at 1 Hz. Notably, the optimal frequencies for the cell types examined correspond to the physiologic operating range of the organs from where they were initially derived. These findings suggest that frequency, independent of shear, is an essential determinant of cell response in pulsatile environments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available