4.5 Article

In silico stress fibre content affects peak strain in cytoplasm and nucleus but not in the membrane for uniaxial substrate stretch

期刊

MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING & COMPUTING
卷 59, 期 9, 页码 1933-1944

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11517-021-02393-z

关键词

Cell mechanics; Cytoskeleton; Micromechanical homogenization; Mori-Tanaka scheme

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of South Africa [92531, 93542]
  2. South African Medical Research Council [SIR 328148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a micromechanical hierarchical approach to capture the mechanical contribution of actin stress fibres in single cells, employing the Mori-Tanaka homogenization method. By utilizing a finite element model, the impact of stress fibre volume fractions and substrate elastic modulus on strain in cell membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus was assessed, showing changes in peak strain in these regions.
Existing in silico models for single cell mechanics feature limited representations of cytoskeletal structures that contribute substantially to the mechanics of a cell. We propose a micromechanical hierarchical approach to capture the mechanical contribution of actin stress fibres. For a cell-specific fibroblast geometry with membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus, the Mori-Tanaka homogenization method was employed to describe cytoplasmic inhomogeneities and constitutive contribution of actin stress fibres. The homogenization was implemented in a finite element model of the fibroblast attached to a substrate through focal adhesions. Strain in cell membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus due to uniaxial substrate stretch was assessed for different stress fibre volume fractions and different elastic modulus of the substrate. A considerable decrease of the peak strain with increasing stress fibre content was observed in cytoplasm and nucleus but not the membrane, whereas the peak strain in cytoplasm, nucleus and membrane increased for increasing elastic modulus of the substrate.

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

4.5
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