4.6 Article

Patterns of living β-actin movement in wounded human coronary artery endothelial cells exposed to shear stress

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL CELL RESEARCH
卷 270, 期 2, 页码 223-234

出版社

ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1006/excr.2001.5351

关键词

vasculature; biomechanics; intimal healing; beta-actin; endothelium

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM59931] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously demonstrated that physiologic levels of shear stress enhance endothelial repair. Cell spreading and migration, but not proliferation, were the major mechanisms accounting for the increases in wound closure rate (Albuquerque et al., 2000, Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol. 279, H293-H302). However, the patterns and movements of beta -actin filaments responsible for cell motility and translocation in human coronary artery endothelial cells (HCAECs) have not been previously investigated under physiologic flow. HCAECs transfected with beta -actin-GFP were cultured on type I collagen-coated coverslips. Confluent cell monolayers were subjected to laminar shear stress of 12 dynes/cm(2) for 18 h in a parallel-plate flow chamber to attain cellular alignment and then wounded by scraping with a metal spatula and subsequently exposed to a laminar shear stress of 20 dynes/cm(2) (S-W-sH) or static (S-W-sT) conditions. Time-lapse imaging and deconvolution microscopy was performed during the first 3 h after imposition of S-W-sH or S-W-sT conditions. The spatial and temporal dynamics of beta -actin-GFP motility and translocation during wound closure in HCAEC monolayers were analyzed under both conditions. Compared with HCAEC under S-W-sT conditions, our data show that HCAEC under S-W-sH conditions demonstrated greater beta -actin-GFP motility, filament and clumping patterns, and filament arcs used during cellular attachment and detachment. These findings demonstrate intriguing patterns of beta -actin organization and movement during wound closure in HCAEC exposed to physiological flow. (C) 2001 Academic Press.

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

4.6
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