4.7 Article

Synthetic Extracellular Matrices with Nonlinear Elasticity Regulate Cellular Organization

期刊

BIOMACROMOLECULES
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 826-834

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.biomac.8b01445

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant [642687, 626934]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the promises of synthetic materials in cell culturing is that control over their molecular structures may ultimately be used to control their biological processes. Synthetic polymer hydrogels from polyisocyanides (PIC) are a new class of minimal synthetic biomaterials for threedimensional cell culturing. The macromolecular lengths and densities of biofunctional groups that decorate the polymer can be readily manipulated while preserving the intrinsic nonlinear mechanics, a feature commonly displayed by fibrous biological networks. In this work, we propose the use of PIC gels as cell culture platforms with decoupled mechanical inputs and biological cues. For this purpose, different types of cells were encapsulated in PIC gels of tailored compositions that systematically vary in adhesive peptide (GRGDS) density, polymer length, and concentration; with the last two parameters controlling the gel mechanics. Both cancer and smooth muscle cells grew into multicellular spheroids with proliferation rates that depend on the adhesive GRGDS density, regardless of the polymer length, suggesting that for these cells, the biological input prevails over the mechanical cues. In contrast, human adipose-derived stem cells do not form spheroids but rather spread out. We find that the morphological changes strongly depend on the adhesive ligand density and the network mechanics; gels with the highest GRGDS densities and the strongest stiffening response to stress show the strongest spreading. Our results highlight the role of the nonlinear mechanics of the extracellular matrix and its synthetic mimics in the regulation of cell functions.

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