4.8 Article

Tissue spreading on implantable substrates is a competitive outcome of cell-cell vs. cell-substratum adhesivity

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.071615398

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [HD30345] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM39455] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

While the interactions of cells with polymeric substrata are widely studied, the influence of cell-cell cohesivity on tissue spreading has not been rigorously investigated. Here we demonstrate that the rate of tissue spreading over a two-dimensional substratum reflects a competition or tug-of-war between cell-cell and cell-substratum adhesions. We have generated both a library of structurally related copolymeric substrata varying in their adhesivity to cells and a library of genetically engineered cell populations varying only in cohesivity. Cell-substratum adhesivity was varied through the poly(ethylene glycol) content of a series of copolymeric substrata, whereas cell-cell cohesivity was varied through the expression of the hemophilic cohesion molecules Nand R-cadherin by otherwise noncohesive L929 cells. In the key experiment, multicellular aggregates containing about 600 cells were allowed to spread onto copolymeric surfaces. We compared the spreading behavior of aggregates having different levels of cell-cell cohesivity on a series of copolymeric substrata having different levers of cell-substratum adhesivity. In these experiments, cell-cell cohesivity was measured by tissue surface tensiometry, and cell-substratum adhesivity was assessed by a distractive method. Tissue spreading was assayed by confocal microscopy as the rate of cell emigration from similar-sized, fluorescence-labeled, multicellular aggregates deposited on each of the substrata. We demonstrate that either decreasing substratum adhesivity or increasing cell-cell cohesivity dramatically slowed the spreading rate of cell aggregates.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available