4.6 Article

The role of mechanical forces in the planar-to-bulk transition in growing Escherichia coli microcolonies

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0400

关键词

bacterial microcolony; bacterial biofilm; mechanics; cell growth

资金

  1. Royal Society University Research Fellowship
  2. Leverhulme Trust
  3. EPSRC
  4. International Human Frontier Science Programme Organization [RGY0069/2009-C, RGY0081/2012]
  5. EPSRC [EP/J007404]
  6. EPSRC [EP/J007404/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/J007404/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mechanical forces are obviously important in the assembly of three-dimensional multicellular structures, but their detailed role is often unclear. We have used growing microcolonies of the bacterium Escherichia coli to investigate the role of mechanical forces in the transition from two-dimensional growth (on the interface between a hard surface and a soft agarose pad) to three-dimensional growth (invasion of the agarose). We measure the position within the colony where the invasion transition happens, the cell density within the colony and the colony size at the transition as functions of the concentration of the agarose. We use a phenomenological theory, combined with individual-based computer simulations, to show how mechanical forces acting between the bacterial cells, and between the bacteria and the surrounding matrix, lead to the complex phenomena observed in our experiments-in particular the observation that agarose concentration non-trivially affects the colony size at transition. Matching these approaches leads to a prediction for how the friction between the bacteria and the agarose should vary with agarose concentration. Our experimental conditions mimic numerous clinical and environmental scenarios in which bacteria invade soft matrices, as well as shedding more general light on the transition between two-and three-dimensional growth in multicellular assemblies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据