Search bioRxivSearch

bioRxiv · 10.1101/040048

Rigidity of silicone substrates controls cell spreading and stem cell differentiation

Abstract

Multiple functions of cells cultured on flat substrates have been shown to depend on the elastic modulus of the substrate, E, with the dependence being strongest in a physiological range of soft tissues, corresponding to E from 0.1 to 100 kPa. Among those functions are stem cell differentiation, cell spreading, and cell signaling [1]. In the context of differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), substrates with E in the ranges of <4 kPa, 8-17 kPa, and >25 kPa, have been classified as soft (adipogenic) [2,3], medium rigidity (myogenic)1, and hard (osteogenic) [1], respectively. In most studies, the soft substrates are hydrogels, and variations in their elastic moduli are usually accompanied by variations in the dry mass and porosity. The paradigm of the effect of substrate rigidity on the cellular functions has been challenged by Trappmann et al. [4], who claimed that cell spreading and differentiation on hydrogel substrates depend not on the elastic moduli of the substrates, but rather on their porosity, which affects the density of adhesion points between the substrate surface and the extracellular matrix (ECM) coating on it. This claim has been rebutted by Wen at al. [3], who have used hydrogel substrates with different porosities but identical elastic moduli to show that it is the elastic modulus rather than the porosity that is key to the effect of the substrate on cell spreading and differentiation. Both publications agree, however, that there is no appreciable effect of the substrate rigidity on either cell spreading or differentiation, if the substrate is made of a silicone gel rather than a hydrogel. This conclusion appears to contradict the findings of several other groups, who reported that when cells are plated on an array of flexible silicone microposts, their spreading and differentiation depend on the rigidity of the substrate [5], and that when cell are plated on silicone gels, their differentiation depends on the gel rigidity [6]. To resolve this contradiction, we used soft, medium, and hard silicone gel substrates with elastic moduli of 0.5, 16, and 64 kPa, respectively, (Fig.1) to perform experiments similar to those reported in Refs.4 and 3, testing the dependence of differentiation and spreading of MSCs and of spreading of fibroblasts and keratinocytes on the substrate rigidity.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Grigory Vertelov, Edgar Gutierrez, Sin-Ae Lee, Edward Ronan, Alex Groisman, Eugene Tkachenko. 2016-02-19. Rigidity of silicone substrates controls cell spreading and stem cell differentiation. https://doi.org/10.1101/040048

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

Microtubule stabilization drives centrosome migration to initiate primary ciliogenesis

Primary cilia are sensory organelles located at the cell surface. Their assembly is primed by centrosome migration to the apical surface. Yet surprisingly little is known about this initiating step. To gain insight into the mechanisms driving centrosome migration, we exploited the reproducibility of cell architecture on adhesive micropatterns to investigate the cytoskeletal remodeling supporting it. Microtubule network densification and bundling, with the transient formation of an array of cold-stable microtubules, and actin cytoskeleton asymmetric contraction participated in concert to destabilize basal centrosome position and drive apical centrosome migration. The distal appendage protein Cep164 appeared to be a key actor involved in the cytoskeleton remodeling and centrosome migration, whereas IFT88's role seemed to be restricted to axoneme elongation. Together our data elucidate the hitherto unexplored mechanism of centrosome migration and show that it is driven by the increase and clustering of mechanical forces to push the centrosome toward the cell apical pole.

Cell Biology

The duration of mitosis and daughter cell size are modulated by nutrients in budding yeast

The size of nearly all cells is modulated by nutrients. Thus, cells growing in poor nutrients can be nearly half the size of cells in rich nutrients. In budding yeast, cell size is thought to be controlled almost entirely by a mechanism that delays cell cycle entry until sufficient growth has occurred in G1 phase. Here, we show that most growth of a new daughter cell occurs in mitosis. When the rate of growth is slowed by poor nutrients, the duration of mitosis is increased, which suggests that cells compensate for slow growth in mitosis by increasing the duration of growth. The amount of growth required to complete mitosis is reduced in poor nutrients, leading to a large reduction in cell size. Together, these observations suggest that mechanisms that control the extent of growth in mitosis play a major role in cell size control in budding yeast.

Cell Biology

Size-Dependent Accumulation of the Mitotic Activator Cdc25 as a Mechanism of Size Control in Fission Yeast

Proper cell size is essential for cellular function (Hall et al., 2004). Nonetheless, despite more than 100 years of work on the subject, the mechanisms that maintain cell size homeostasis are largely mysterious (Marshall et al., 2012). Cells in growing populations maintain cell size within a narrow range by coordinating growth and division. Bacterial and eukaryotic cells both demonstrate homeostatic size control, which maintains population-level variation in cell size within a certain range, and returns the population average to that range if it is perturbed (Marshall et al., 2012; Turner et al., 2012; Amodeo and Skotheim, 2015). Recent work has proposed two different strategies for size control: budding yeast has been proposed to use an inhibitor-dilution strategy to regulate size at the G1/S transition (Schmoller et al., 2015), while bacteria appear to use an adder strategy, in which a fixed amount of growth each generation causes cell size to converge on a stable average, a mechanism also suggested for budding yeast (Campos et al., 2014; Jun and Taheri-Araghi, 2015; Taheri-Araghi et al., 2015; Tanouchi et al., 2015; Soifer et al., 2016). Here we present evidence that cell size in the fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe is regulated by a third strategy: the size dependent expression of the mitotic activator Cdc25. The cdc25 transcript levels are regulated such that smaller cells express less Cdc25 and larger cells express more Cdc25, creating an increasing concentration of Cdc25 as cell grow and providing a mechanism for cell to trigger cell division when they reach a threshold concentration of Cdc25. Since regulation of mitotic entry by Cdc25 is well conserved, this mechanism may provide a wide spread solution to the problem of size control in eukaryotes.

Cell Biology