4.6 Article

A comparison of type I collagen, fibronectin, and vitronectin in supporting adhesion of mechanically strained osteoblasts

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND MINERAL RESEARCH
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 481-492

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1359/jbmr.2002.17.3.481

Keywords

bone; vitronectin; collagen; integrins; mechanical forces

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We used an adhesion assay for cells cultured under high dynamic strain to measure human osteoblast-like HOS cell adherence to immobilized type I collagen, fibronectin, and vitronectin. These conditions were designed to model the increased forces present at unstable fractures or loose joint prostheses. At a constant, low protein-coating density (1000 molecules/mum(2)) and 20% cyclic strain for 24 h, type I collagen, fibronectin, and vitronectin supported 24.6 +/- 2%, 16.7 +/- 3%, and 1.1 +/- 1% adherence, respectively, which paralleled the relative number of integrin-binding sites in each protein. Thus, when the number of available binding sites was limited, strain resistance was proportional to the number of integrin-ligand interactions. In contrast, at high protein-coating densities (greater than or equal to2,500 molecule/mum(2)), vitronectin supported greater adherence (45.7 +/- 2%) when compared with type I collagen (37 +/- 2%) or fibronectin (34.8 +/- 2%) and directed constitutive expression of osteopontin (OPN), which suggested that there exist discrete signals on vitronectin receptor occupancy that promoted cell adherence and survival under strain. Integrin-mediated binding was necessary for resistance to strain, as evidenced by the low levels of strain resistance observed when cells were adherent in a nonintegrin-dependent manner. These findings support the utilization of at least two distinct mechanisms (i.e., tensegrity and integrin-mediated signal transduction) by HOS cells to remain adherent and viable on exposure to mechanical forces.

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