4.8 Article

Protein Ligand Nanopattern Size Selects for Cellular Adhesion via Hemidesmosomes over Focal Adhesions

期刊

SMALL METHODS
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/smtd.202200152

关键词

laminin 332; focal adhesions; hemidesmosomes; protein patterning

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation center grant CellPAT [DNRF135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that the pattern of Ln332 determines the type of cellular adhesion, with a size-dependent initiation and maturation of hemidesmosomes. The protein nanopatterning approach presented here provides a new in vitro route to study the role of hemidesmosomes in cell signaling and function.
Hemidesmosomes (HDs) are multiprotein complexes that firmly anchor epidermal cells to the basement membrane of skin through the interconnection of the cytoplasmic intermediate filaments with extracellular laminin 332 (Ln332). Considerably less attention has been paid to HDs compared to focal complexes/focal adhesions (FC/FAs) in mechanistic single-cell structures due to the lack of suitable in vitro model systems. Here nanopatterns of Ln332 (100-1000 nm) are created to direct and study the formation of HD in adherent HaCaT cells. It is observed that HaCaT cells at Ln 332 nanopatterns adhere via hemidesmosomes, in stark contrast to cells at homogeneous Ln332 surfaces that adhere via FC/FAs. Clustering of alpha 6 integrin is observed at nanopatterned Ln332 of 300 nm patches and larger. Cells at 500 nm diameter patterns show strong colocalization of alpha 6 integrin with CoIXVII or pan-cytokeratin compared to 300 nm/1000 nm indicating a threshold for HD initiation >100 nm but a pattern size selection for maturation of HDs. It is demonstrated that the pattern of Ln332 can determine the cellular selection of adhesion types with a size-dependent initiation and maturation of HDs. The protein nanopatterning approach that is presented provides a new in vitro route to study the role of HDs in cell signaling and function.

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

4.8
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