Sensitivity of alveolar macrophages to substrate mechanical and adhesive properties
- 21 April 2006
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cell Motility
- Vol. 63 (6) , 321-340
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cm.20130
Abstract
In order to understand the sensitivity of alveolar macrophages (AMs) to substrate properties, we have developed a new model of macrophages cultured on substrates of increasing Young's modulus: (i) a monolayer of alveolar epithelial cells representing the supple (˜0.1 kPa) physiological substrate, (ii) polyacrylamide gels with two concentrations of bis‐acrylamide representing low and high intermediate stiffness (respectively 40 kPa and 160 kPa) and, (iii) a highly rigid surface of plastic or glass (respectively 3 MPa and 70 MPa), the two latter being or not functionalized with type I‐collagen. The macrophage response was studied through their shape (characterized by 3D‐reconstructions of F‐actin structure) and their cytoskeletal stiffness (estimated by transient twisting of magnetic RGD‐coated beads and corrected for actual bead immersion). Macrophage shape dramatically changed from rounded to flattened as substrate stiffness increased from soft ((i) and (ii)) to rigid (iii) substrates, indicating a net sensitivity of alveolar macrophages to substrate stiffness but without generating F‐actin stress fibers. Macrophage stiffness was also increased by large substrate stiffness increase but this increase was not due to an increase in internal tension assessed by the negligible effect of a F‐actin depolymerizing drug (cytochalasine D) on bead twisting. The mechanical sensitivity of AMs could be partly explained by an idealized numerical model describing how low cell height enhances the substrate‐stiffness‐dependence of the apparent (measured) AM stiffness. Altogether, these results suggest that macrophages are able to probe their physical environment but the mechanosensitive mechanism behind appears quite different from tissue cells, since it occurs at no significant cell‐scale prestress, shape changes through minimal actin remodeling and finally an AMs stiffness not affected by the loss in F‐actin integrity. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 2006.Keywords
This publication has 80 references indexed in Scilit:
- Prestress mediates force propagation into the nucleusBiochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 2005
- Mechanical interactions between collagen and proteoglycans: implications for the stability of lung tissueJournal of Applied Physiology, 2005
- Cell spreading controls balance of prestress by microtubules and extracellular matrixFrontiers in Bioscience-Landmark, 2004
- Podosomes Display Actin Turnover and Dynamic Self-Organization in Osteoclasts Expressing Actin-Green Fluorescent ProteinMolecular Biology of the Cell, 2003
- Mechanical Implications of the Domain Structure of Fiber-Forming Collagens: Comparison of the Molecular and Fibrillar Flexibilities of the α1-Chains Found in Types I–III CollagenJournal of Theoretical Biology, 2002
- Role of cellular tone and microenvironmental conditions on cytoskeleton stiffness assessed by tensegrity modelThe European Physical Journal Applied Physics, 2000
- Regulation of the Adhesion versus Cytotoxic Functions of the Mac-1/CR3/αMβ2 - lntegrin GlycoproteinCritical Reviews in Immunology, 2000
- Rho-stimulated contractility drives the formation of stress fibers and focal adhesions.The Journal of cell biology, 1996
- Stress-strain curve and young's modulus of a collagen molecule as determined by the X-ray diffraction techniqueJournal of Biomechanics, 1996
- Association of the actin cytoskeleton with glass‐adherent proteins in mouse peritoneal macrophagesBiology of the Cell, 1993