3.8 Article

Neutrophils Display Biphasic Relationship Between Migration and Substrate Stiffness

期刊

CELL MOTILITY AND THE CYTOSKELETON
卷 66, 期 6, 页码 328-341

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/cm.20363

关键词

leukocyte; cell motility; polyacrylamide gel; substrate stiffness; chemokinesis

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship [CMMI-0643783]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Neutrophils are one type of migrating cell in the body's innate immune system and are the first line of defense against inflammation or infection. While extensive work exists on the effect of adhesive proteins on neutrophil motility, little is known about how neutrophil motility is affected by the mechanical properties of their physical environment. This study investigated the effects of substrate stiffness on the morphology, random motility coefficient, track speed (v), spreading area, and distribution of turning angles of neutrophils during chemokinesis. Human neutrophils were plated onto polyacrylamide gels of varying stiffness, ranging from 3 to 13 kPa, and coated with the extracellular matrix protein fibronectin, and timelapse images were taken with phase contrast microscopy. Our results show a biphasic behavior between neutrophil motility and substrate stiffness, with the optimum stiffness for motility depending on the concentration of fibronectin on the surface of the gel. On 100 mu g/mL fibronectin, the optimum Stiffness is 4 kPa (v = 6.9 +/- 1.6 mu m/min) while on 10 mu g/mL fibronectin, the optimum stiffness increases to 7 kPa (v = 4.5 +/- 2.0 mu m/min). This biphasic behavior most likely arises because neutrophils on soft gels are less adherent, preventing production of traction forces, while neutrophils on stiff gels adhere strongly, resulting in decreased migration. At intermediate stiffness, however, neutrophils can attain optimal motility its a function of extracellular matrix coating. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 66: 328-341, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss. Inc.

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

3.8
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