Extracellular matrix stiffness and architecture govern intracellular rheology in cancer.
Little is known about the complex interplay between the extracellular mechanical environment and the mechanical properties that characterize the dynamic intracellular environment. To elucidate this relationship in cancer, we probe the intracellular environment using particle-tracking microrheology. In three-dimensional (3D) matrices, intracellular effective creep compliance of prostate cancer cells is shown to increase with increasing extracellular matrix (ECM) stiffness, whereas modulating ECM stiffness does not significantly affect the intracellular mechanical state when cells are attached to two-dimensional (2D) matrices. Switching from 2D to 3D matrices induces an order-of-magnitude shift in intracellular effective creep compliance and apparent elastic modulus. However, for a given matrix stiffness, partial blocking of beta1 integrins mitigates the shift in intracellular mechanical state that is invoked by switching from a 2D to 3D matrix architecture. This finding suggests that the increased cell-matrix engagement inherent to a 3D matrix architecture may contribute to differences observed in viscoelastic properties between cells attached to 2D matrices and cells embedded within 3D matrices. In total, our observations show that ECM stiffness and architecture can strongly influence the intracellular mechanical state of cancer cells.
Baker
Erin L
EL
Department of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Bonnecaze
Roger T
RT
Zaman
Muhammad H
MH
D018929:Cell Culture Techniques / Q000379:methods; D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D003198:Computer Simulation; D055119:Elastic Modulus; D005109:Extracellular Matrix; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D040542:Mechanotransduction, Cellular; D008954:Models, Biological; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000503:physiopathology*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D014783:Viscosity
Acta Biomater. 2007 Jul;3(4):413-38
17540628
Eur Biophys J. 2006 Oct;35(8):713-9
16871382
Neuroreport. 2002 Dec 20;13(18):2411-5
12499839
Biomacromolecules. 2003 May-Jun;4(3):713-22
12741789
Nature. 1981 Mar 19;290(5803):249-51
7207616
Biophys J. 2000 Jul;79(1):144-52
10866943
Methods Cell Biol. 2007;83:115-40
17613307
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2007 Nov;293(5):C1568-75
17670893
Soft Matter. 2007 Feb 14;3(3):299-306
32900146
Cell. 1996 Feb 9;84(3):359-69
8608589
Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 2005 Jan;60(1):24-34
15573414
Br J Dermatol. 2006 May;154 Suppl 1:11-5
16712711
Biophys J. 2006 Dec 1;91(11):4296-305
16963507
Genes Dev. 2008 May 1;22(9):1231-43
18451110
Mol Oncol. 2007 Jun;1(1):84-96
18516279
Phys Fluids (1994). 2007;19(10):103102
19816550
Science. 2005 Nov 18;310(5751):1139-43
16293750
Biophys J. 2008 Apr 1;94(7):2914-25
18178662
Biophys J. 2006 Jun 15;90(12):4712-9
16581841
Science. 2001 Nov 23;294(5547):1708-12
11721053
Biophys J. 2001 Apr;80(4):1744-57
11259288
Biophys J. 2008 Dec 15;95(12):6052-9
18805929
Biophys J. 2006 Apr 15;90(8):3012-8
16461391
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2005 Apr;98(4):1547-53
15772065
J Cell Biol. 2003 Jan 20;160(2):267-77
12527751
J Cell Biol. 1997 Apr 7;137(1):231-45
9105051
Biomech Model Mechanobiol. 2008 Jun;7(3):215-25
17619206
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jul 5;103(27):10259-10264
16793927
Cell. 2000 Jan 7;100(1):57-70
10647931
Trends Cell Biol. 2004 Apr;14(4):160-6
15066633
Cancer Cell. 2005 Sep;8(3):241-54
16169468
J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2004 Oct;9(4):325-42
15838603
Biophys J. 2004 Jan;86(1 Pt 1):617-28
14695306
Biophys J. 2006 Nov 1;91(9):3499-507
16891369
Biophys J. 2007 Dec 15;93(12):4453-61
18045965
Biophys J. 2002 Dec;83(6):3162-76
12496086
J Biol Chem. 2003 Dec 12;278(50):50393-401
13679362
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jul 18;103(29):10889-94
16832052
J Cell Sci. 2006 May 1;119(Pt 9):1760-8
16636071
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2000 Nov;279(5):C1345-50
11029281