4.7 Article

Biomechanical interplay between anisotropic re-organization of cells and the surrounding matrix underlies transition to invasive cancer spread

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-32010-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R43 CA221659, P30 CA015704, U01 CA155758, U54 CA2101732, P50 CA103175, U54 CA143868, R01 HL107361]
  2. Human Frontier Science Program Research [RGP0038/2018]
  3. American Cancer Society [RSG-12-141-01-CSM]
  4. Cigarette Restitution Fund Award through the State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
  5. Johns Hopkins University
  6. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [U54CA209992, U54CA210173, R43CA221659, P30CA015704] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The root cause of cancer mortality and morbidity is the metastatic spread of the primary tumor, but underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Here we investigate biomechanical interactions that may accompany invasive spread of melanoma cells. We find that metastatic cells can exert considerable traction forces and modify local collagen organization within a 3D matrix. When this re-organization is mimicked using a nano-fabricated model of aligned extracellular matrix fibers, metastatic cells, including less invasive melanoma cells, were in turn induced to align, elongate and migrate, guided by the local ridge orientations. Strikingly, we found that this aligned migration of melanoma cells was accompanied by long-range regulation of cytoskeletal remodeling that show anisotropic stiffening in the direction of fiber orientation suggestive of a positive feedback between ECM fiber alignment and forces exerted by cancer cells. Taken together, our findings suggest that the invasive spread of cancer cells can be defined by complex interplay with the surrounding matrix, during which they both modify the matrix and use the matrix alignment as a persistent migration cue, leading to more extensive and rapid invasive spread.

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

4.7
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