Comparison summary of different methods to measure cell rheology.
1. Introduction
Over billions of years of evolution, living organisms have developed into complex biosystems, of which the basic unit is the cell. Cells have a complex molecular structure with a certain level of rigidity. Living cells, whether isolated or part of a larger collective, live under constant mechanical stress from their external environments. Cells have developed adaptive mechanisms to maintain homeostasis and viability, which interestingly follow the basic principles of classical mechanics.
Cell mechanical properties have myriad biological significance and so there has been significant interest in the past decade to measure the response of cells to external mechanical signals. Cellular mechanics and rheological properties (
A living cell is a complex dynamic system, far from static, which constantly undergoes remodeling to adapt to varying environmental conditions. The mechanical changes in cells under normal conditions and in response to external signals are highly complex and extremely difficult to measure
To understand cell mechanics we first need an appreciation of how cells operate in a mechanical context. Firstly, how do cells maintain their shape and flexibility to accommodate cellular requirements? Cell surface layers are strong, playing a crucial mechanical role in maintaining cellular shape and resisting turgor pressure, yet at the same time flexible enough to allow cell growth and division. Multi-cellular eukaryotes are arranged into specialized structures of varied composition (
Several of these questions remain unanswered, however early success studying the rheological properties of non-living materials has provided a strong foundation for studying biological systems. Over the past decade, several obstacles have been overcome and thus a new perspective of cellular mechanics is emerging [2].
1.1. Viscoelasticity in biology
If cellular metabolism could be frozen at any given moment, disrupting the production of metabolites and supra-molecular structures, the cell would simply become fluid-like with the associated mechanical properties. Living cells behave both as an elastic solid and as a viscous fluid, and so are considered viscoelastic. Such materials, including biological molecules and cells, cannot be fit using classical models of either elasticity or viscosity. Cellular viscoelasticity arises from the combination of high water content conflated with a polymerized structural matrix. On the one hand, the biopolymers which support cell shape provide strong enough mechanical properties to resist environmental pressures, but on the other hand their organization is highly dynamic and linked to metabolic conditions.
Cellular mechanical properties can be characterized using viscosity, elasticity and creep compliance. Herein we focus on viscoelasticity studies measuring either biological sample deformation induced by an external force or the force resulting from sample deformation. The cell cytosol, which contains the majority of cell fluid, can be treated as the coexistence of liquid and solid phases. The latter is composed of proteins, DNA, RNA and cytoskeleton filaments as well as organelles suspended in the viscous buffered saline, saturated with metabolites and proteins. The liquid component has a high compression modulus, meaning that without the structural components and macromolecules it would be very fluid (less viscous). In contrast, the solid phase has a lower compression modulus, exhibiting more elastic properties. In cells as a whole, the viscosity of the cytoplasm dominates the transport and movement of subcellular macromolecules (such as DNA and proteins), elasticity controls the response of the cytoplasm to mechanical stresses at shorter timescales (seconds), organelles and cytoskeleton elements over long timescales (minutes), and the contractile mechanical regime governs responses at even longer time scales (minutes to hours).
The quantitative characterization of elastic material is the elastic modulus, described as the ratio of stress to strain, but the deformation (strain) of a fluid under an external stress changes as a function of time and is referred to as strain rate. Thus fluid viscosity is the ratio of stress to strain rate. The mechanical responses of biopolymers fall into a category between that of an elastic solid and a fluid, defined as viscoelasticity.
In this chapter we will describe the methods to measure viscoelasticity in biological systems and their significance. We generalize the mechanical properties of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells since it has been argued that viscoelastic properties are universal across cell types and species, however the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon is not well understood [4]. This chapter is organized into four main sections: (i) a brief summary of various rheological methods used for cell micromanipulation and the novel application of atomic force microscopy to measure cell mechanical properties, (ii) the main mechanical load bearing components of cells and associated studies that have helped to establish a consensus understanding of cell mechanical properties, (iii) a survey of the various factors that affect cell viscoelastic properties, but which currently lack clear interpretation, and finally (iv) a future perspective on the significance of cellular viscoelasticity.
2. Methods of measuring cellular viscoelasticity
In microrheological studies, several experimental techniques and theoretical models are combined to accurately quantify cellular mechanics. Several methods that are routinely used for cell rheology are briefly reviewed in the following section. Micropipette aspiration, microplate rheometry, and optical stretching are used to probe whole cell mechanics, while probe- or particle-based techniques such as magnetic probes, optical tweezers and particle tracking cell rheology only measure local mechanical properties. The probes or particles within a structure are subjected to an external force and the subsequent response measured, usually by tracking their displacement, to characterize associated mechanical properties. Atomic force microscopy uses a probe, but attached to the end of a cantilever with well-defined rigidity able to the mechanics of whole cells and their surface layers. A schematic diagram of various devices is shown in Figure 1.
The mechanical properties measured by a probe or particle technique are highly dependent on the strength of, and relationship between the particle/probe and the structure being studied. This relationship is highly complex, varies with cell type and can lead to significant misjudgement of the stiffness. Probes can be modified with different molecules such as antibodies, peptides and cadherins to target antigens, integrins and cytoskeletal components. However these measurements do not account for interactions between the probes and cells which can lead to confounding results [5]. Cells have a heterogeneous composition and their various compartments have diverse mechanical properties. If only one cell position is probed, as is common, the mechanical properties of the whole cell will not be well represented. Comprehensive methods have been developed for measuring the mechanical properties of mammalian cells and precise methods have not yet been adequately developed for prokaryotes. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages are listed in the Table 1.
Methods | Applications | Drawbacks | References |
Measurements of non-linear deformations with high accuracy Both soft and rigid cells can be used | Quantitative measurements rely heavily on theoretical models Pipette geometry can limit measurements | [6,7] | |
Several manipulations in the same instrument are possible A large range of forces are measurable (1nN - 1μN) Control of cellular pre-stress | No subcellular resolution | [8,9] | |
No physical contact required and non-destructive Less time consuming with simple setup | Causes heating of cells Extensive modeling is required to obtain force profiles | [10,11] | |
Large range of frequencies [0.01–1,000 Hz] Parallel measurements of large number of cells possible High timescale resolution | Can only probe microenvironment inside the cell | [12,13] | |
Quantitative measurements of shear modulus possible Can be used under physiological conditions | Used only for soft tissue cells | [14-16] | |
High timescale resolution Force and position can be controlled more accurately | Local heating and prototoxicity can result Can only be used at low forces in the linear regime | [17,18] | |
High spatial resolution Measures large range of forces More precise and easy to control cantilever position | Slow scan rate | [19, 20] |
2.1. Micropipette aspiration
Micropipette aspiration is a widely used method and offers a versatile way of measuring the mechanical properties of living cells. A cell is aspired onto the end of a micropipette by a negative pressure gradient, and the aspiration length of the cell inside the micropipette is recorded as a function of time [21]. Cells experience large non-linear deformations in response to aspiration suction pressure (0.1 pN/μm2), giving rise to forces (10 - 104 pN) that allow tracking of edges with high accuracy (± 25 nm). This method can measure the elastic and viscous properties of very soft materials like red and white blood cells, and stiffer cells such as endothelial (skin) cells and chondrocytes (cartilage) [7]. Measurements are interpreted using basic continuum models to solve for elasticity and viscosity parameters.
In most cases, cells suspended in buffer or saline solution that are aspirated appear round, but shape and degree of deformation depends on cell type. Many mammalian cells are naturally spherical (
There are several draw-backs associated with this method since quantitative measurement of cell stiffness relies heavily on theoretical models [6]. The most recent application of micropipette aspiration is to capture and hold cells for manipulation [7].
2.2. Microplate rheometry
Over the past decade there has been much progress in the study of rheological behaviour for single cells, including the development of several models which explain the mechanical properties of cytoskeletal networks. A microplate rheometer, invented by Thoumine and Ott in 1997 [8], consists of two parallel microplates that support cell adhesion and spreading. The plates can be made flexible and in some cases are coated with an adhesive material. A whole cell is stretched or compressed between the two plates while the flexible microplate is used as a nN-scale force sensor. Integration with an inverted microscope allows cells that are being manipulated to be directly observed. Several adaptations to the instrumentation allow measurement of creep function, area of expansion modulus, contraction forces of single cells, adhesive interactions and stress-strain responses. The latter can be used to measure viscoelasticity.
The force applied to the cell is directly proportional to the relative stiffness of the microplate, hence measurement of cell deformation offers valuable information on cell mechanical properties. Measureable forces range between 1 nN – 1 μN, and several manipulation modes are possible, including compression, traction, aspiration and adhesive rupture. Following their invention, microplate rheometers have been improved by a number of scientists. The behaviour of cells in response to compression, traction, aspiration or adhesion, for which elastic, viscous and contractile regimes can be distinguished based on time scale, can be used to calculate the viscoelastic modulus of living cells. The instrument has been modified for probing single layers of cells at once using the novel cell monolayer rheology (CMR) technique, making possible harmonic oscillation experiments and step shear or step stress experiments which reveal different viscoelastic regimes [9].
2.3. Optical cell stretcher
The optical stretcher is a non-destructive tool that can be used to quantify cell deformation. The optical stretcher was first developed by Guck et al. [23] based on the principle that a dielectric object, when placed between two opposed and non-focused laser beams, experiences a net force. The cell is suspended or “optically trapped” and is stable only if the total force is zero. Additive surface forces are capable of stretching an object, such as a cell, along the beam axes [11]. Both the exerted force and corresponding time-dependent deformations can be quantified. An optical stretcher allows the measurement of cell mechanics without physical contact, but the intense laser exposure tends to heat cells [24]. Recently, however, it has been demonstrated that heating does not affect cell cytoskeletal structure, proliferation, motility, or viability [25]. Another potential limitation is the complexity of the force profiles, which require extensive theoretical modeling. Nonetheless, the optical stretcher has proven to be an effective way of measuring the contribution of cytoskeletal filaments to cell viscoelasticity since single suspended cells are probed as well-defined viscoelastic objects [25].
2.4. Optical tweezers
Optical tweezers can be used to capture tiny dielectric particles with a highly focused laser beam [17]. The movement of dielectric particles can be controlled with two main optical forces. The scattering force acts along the direction of beam propagation, while the electric field induces a dipole in the dielectric particles, producing an electric field gradient that pulls particles towards the focus. When the gradient force dominates, the dielectric particles can be confined in a stable three-dimensional optical trap. The trap is then moved to manipulate the bead, so the applied force and resultant particle displacement are interpreted in terms of mechanical response [26]. To obtain viscoelastic information, an oscillatory force is applied to the dielectric bead by oscillating the laser position with a movable external mirror. The resultant amplitude of the bead motion and the phase shift are interpreted in terms of viscoelastic response. The experimental data from optical tweezers can only be used to study the viscoelastic responses at low force in the linear regime [18]. Local heating and phototoxicity (“opticution” as coined by Block) can result from the intense laser powers required to trap biological samples.
2.5. Magnetic probes
Another way to explore the viscoelasticity of cells involves manipulation of their movement through an externally applied magnetic field. The earliest application of this technique was pioneered by Freundlich and other researchers [12,27], in which magnetic particles were embedded in the material of interest (
The magnetic tweezer technique involves the manipulation of a super paramagnetic bead with an applied magnetic field generated by four pairs of soft ferromagnetic cores, each wound with a separate field coil arranged at special angles [30]. The movement of the bead is monitored by its induced magnetic dipole as it interacts with the field gradient of the strong magnet to which it is exposed. The corresponding displacement of the magnetic bead is used to measure cell properties. The movement of magnetic beads can also be controlled, albeit only in one direction, by a strong magnetic field gradient arising from electromagnets generated by axis-symmetrically arranged magnetic coils on a sharp iron tip [31]. Multiple pairs of electromagnetic tips are required for more complex movements of the magnetic bead, which for these experiments are smaller than the size of the cell, and thus are limited to probing the viscoelastic response of a microenvironment rather than the whole cell.
Twisting magnetometry [32] and the more recently developed magnetic twisting cytometry [33] can also be used to measure the movement of magnetic beads, which usually consist of colloidal metal or polycrystalline iron oxide. The cell is deformed under a twisting magnetic field that is applied perpendicularly to the initial magnetic field once it has been turned off [34]. The change in the magnetic field direction causes reorientation of the magnetic bead towards the twisting field, and once both are turned off, the rate of magnetic bead rotation and the amount of recoil are measured to interpret local viscoelasticity.
2.6. Particle-tracking microrheology
In particle-tracking microrheology, fluorescent microbeads are injected into live cells and diffused randomly in their cytoplasm. These beads are so small (< 1μm) that their inertial forces are negligible and they move according to Brownian motion. The movement of the fluorescent beads can be observed by fluorescence microscopy, and route distance can be converted to bead displacement which is used to calculate frequency-dependent viscoelastic moduli and/or the creep compliance of the cytoplasm [14]. For particle-tracking microrheology of living cells, the applied deformation and resultant stress is not oscillatory and is used to probe the mechanical properties of adherent cells on planar substrates, showing strong elastic responses over short timescales but with dominant viscous responses over longer time periods [15].
Particle-tracking microrheology has been used to study the viscoelastic responses of live cells and their cytoplasm under pharmacological treatment, serum starvation and at the edge of tissue wounds, as well as the mechanical responses of their nuclei [35-37]. For these studies, target cells can be deeply embedded in a 3D matrix, a condition more similar to cells in their physiological environment and difficult to probe by other methods.
2.7. Atomic force microscopy
The advent of atomic force microscopy (AFM) provided a valuable tool to image cell surface structure at sub-nm resolution and to probe the global and local nano-mechanical properties of cells. Such a non-invasive method makes it possible to investigate live cells under physiological conditions. The key component of AFM is a sharp tip mounted on a cantilever (usually silicon or silicon nitride), which is raster-scanned over the sample surface by piezoelectric micropositioners (Figure 2). Lateral or vertical displacement of the cantilever is detected by a position sensitive photodiode, which signals the fast feedback loop to maintain a constant relationship (
AFM offers the further advantage of being able to correlate sample topography with mechanical properties across the sample surface using indentation forces as small as 10 pN. With force spectroscopy (single point) or force mapping (multiple points), the tip approaches the sample, indents the sample and then retracts at each point, generating a force versus distance curve at a specific point on the cell surface (Figure 3). Cantilever deflection as a function of distance of the tip from the cell surface is initially represented by photodiode voltage as function of piezo displacement. This voltage is then converted to cantilever deflection and finally a force or indentation distance. The extent to which the sample is deformed depends on its viscoelastic properties.
Cantilever deflection can be converted to force using Hook’s law:
where k is the cantilever spring constant, and d is cantilever deflection.
Force spectroscopy and mapping are used to quantify the mechanical behavior of the cell with the help of theoretical models. The indentation of the biological sample can be determined by subtracting the difference between cantilever deflection on hard surfaces and on soft biological surfaces. Based on the Hertz model, Sneddon [40] developed a theory describing the relationship between loading force and indentation. Most commercially available AFM tips are either conical or parabolic, and hence these two types of AFM tips are considered during modeling. The relationship between loading force and indentation are given by following equations [41]:
where R is radius of curvature for a parabolic AFM tip,
The spring constant of a fungal cell wall can be determined using the following equation:
where
Since the slope of the approach portion of the force curve provides information on sample stiffness, the spring constant determined from the equation 4 can also be used to determine the elastic modulus of round-shaped fungal spores using the following equation [43]:
where E is the elastic modulus of the spore and A is the contact area between the AFM tip and sample. The contact area between an AFM tip and spore sample can be determined from the following equation [44]:
where
where
In the above section we have outlined how to quantify the elastic behavior of microbial cells, and most of the available literature describes bacteria elastic properties with Young’s modulus. However, biological samples are not purely elastic but viscoelastic. Therefore, the microbial cell can be modeled as a combination of both properties.
Vadillo-Rodrigue et al. (2009) [19] explained the viscoelastic properties of bacterial cell walls using a standard solid model which describes both an instantaneous and a delayed elastic deformation. Based on this model they have derived the following equation that describes the experimentally obtained creep response data:
where,
The contribution of elastic and viscous components can be determined from the force-time curve taken at the center of cells when applying a constant force, F0, for at least a 10 second period. Cantilever deflection is determined and using equation 1 is converted to force and then to an indentation-time curve, which is also called creep response. The indention of the cell over time at a constant force can be theoretically determined from equation 4 and fitted to the indentation-time curve shown in Figure 5. The experimentally determined data fit very well with the theoretical data obtained from the model. Microbial cells in particular exhibit two types of responses when a force is exerted on their surface. The first is the instantaneous linear relationship of the force versus distance curve, attributed to whole cell turgor pressure, while the non-linear region is thought to correspond to the response of the cell envelope.
AFM has been employed to measure the elasticity of a wide variety of cells ranging from bacteria, fungi, cancer cells, stem cells, osteoblasts, fibroblasts, leukocytes, cardiocytes developing embryos, cells at different cell cycle stages, and those treated with drugs. A broad spectrum of new measurements is possible by exploiting and manipulating the interaction between tip and sample in a quantitative way. Elasticity is most often measured with conical AFM tips. Spherical tips give rise to elasticity measurements 2-3 times that of conical tips, likely based on the large contact surface area. In comparison with other methods, AFM is more advantageous based on its ability to image the sample surface at high resolution while measuring an indentation map of the sample. The combination of imaging and force spectroscopy provides information about how cell surface structure affects elasticity and viscoelasticity. However, measurements depend on tip shape, which cannot be determined during sample scanning. Despite some limitations, AFM applications are rapidly developing. New instrumental designs and modification of the associated theoretical models will ensure an effective way to measure the elasticity and viscoelasticity for a wide variety of biological samples.
3. Viscoelastic cellular components and super structures
Although several methods have been developed to quantify cellular responses to deformation during locomotion, adhesion and mitosis, reliable tools are not available to quantify the distribution of mechanical forces between the various sub-cellular components [26]. Biological cells range in size between 1-100 μm and are comprised of constituents that provide mechanical strength, such as the cell envelope composed of multiple complex and distinct structures, cell walls composed primarily of polysaccharides interspersed with proteins, the cell membrane composed of phospholipid bilayers and membrane proteins, complex cell organelles of different sizes and shapes made of a variety of macromolecules, the cytoskeleton composed of microtubule networks, actin and intermediate filaments, other proteins and macromolecules such as DNA and RNA. The structure and function of each of these constituents may vary depending upon cell type. For instance, fungi are encased in cell walls, whereas bacteria have more elaborate cell envelopes with a peptidoglycan (polysaccharides cross-linked with peptides) layer and one or more cell membranes. Human cells, generally by virtue of being part of more elaborate structures, have only a cell membrane. It is not well understood how cells and their associated components sense mechanical forces or deformation, and convert such signals into biological responses [46].
The small size of prokaryotes, in comparison with larger eukaryotic cells, was a considerable obstacle in the development of methods for directly measuring their mechanical properties [47], solved largely by FS methods now routinely used. Cellular mechanical strength mainly relies on the outermost layers, such as the cell wall, envelope, or membrane, in addition to internal structural components such as the cytoskeleton. Extracellular components, such as those used to help form elaborate community structures (
3.1. Cell envelopes, walls and membranes
The bacterial (prokaryotic) envelope is a structurally remarkable cell component that defines a cell from its external environment and serves a protective function. The envelope also helps maintain cell shape and mechanical integrity and is responsible for important biological functions, such as the selective transfer of material in and out of the cell, and necessary changes accommodating cell growth and division. The envelope has a multilayer geometry which withstands positive turgor pressure exerted by the cytoplasmic fluid from the cell interior, and so protects the cell from osmotic swelling and burst. Thus quantifying the cell envelope mechanical properties of prokaryotes that contribute to their mechanical strength is of interest.
The mechanical properties of the cell envelope relate to its structural composition, comprised of distinct layers made up of polysaccharides, lipids and proteins (Figure 6). Structural differences in the two different types of prokaryotic cell envelopes led to the classification of two distinct groups of bacteria namely, Gram-positive and Gram-negative. The former is named for the Gram stain retained by the thick peptidoglycan layer outside the cytoplasmic membrane (Figure 6A), while the latter having a relatively thin peptidoglycan layer sandwiched between inner cytoplasmic and outer membranes (Figure 6B) does not retain Gram stain. Many researchers have studied the flexibility of the bacterial cell envelope [48-50], for which the majority of its viscoelastic nature is attributed to the peptidoglycan layer.
Cell stiffness, required to maintain bacterial shape, is dependent on the cell envelope. When the peptidoglycan layer is removed from rod-shaped whole cells by chemical treatment, soft, highly deformable and osmotically sensitive spherical cells (spheroplasts) are the result, indicating that the elastic response of cells is largely dominated by the peptidoglycan matrix [51,52]. In isolation, peptidoglycan is very flexible, exhibiting purely elastic properties with a modulus of 25 MPa [53]. However, bacterial cell envelopes show a time dependent response to externally applied forces, meaning that their overall mechanical properties are more accurately described as viscoelastic [45].
Cell envelope composition makes a major contribution to viscoelasticity. The cell envelope of the Gram-positive bacterium
Earlier work on several fungi showed that the viscoelasticity of cell wall components allow for growth, cell division and spore germination [55-57]. The mechanical strength of fungal cells is largely attributed to their rigid but flexible cell walls which contain four major structural components: β-(1,3)‐glucan, β-(1,6)‐glucan, chitin (N-acetylglucosamine) and glycoproteins. The β-[1, 3]-glucan and β-[1,6]-glucan are more fibrous components whereas glycoproteins form a gel-like matrix, thought to impart viscoelasticity to the fungal cell wall. The mature cell wall has covalent cross-links formed between the chitin and glucan residues to provide the wall with sufficient strength and viscoelasticity. A study of the fungi
Cell wall mechanical properties of the budding yeast
Spores, another morphological form of fungi, appear in several studies describing their surface morphology [56,62,63] and adhesive properties [3,64] however, little information is available regarding their mechanical properties. Changes in the cell wall mechanical properties are a key factor in the emergence of the germ tube [55,56]. Both rodlet-covered and rodlet-free spores of
The nano-mechanical properties of whole human cells has been a topic of great interest for the past few decades and the viscoelastic properties of epithelial cells [4,65], stem cells [66], red cells [67,68] and cancer cells [69,70] are well-studied but beyond the scope of this chapter. The microbial cytoskeleton is less well studied, so the next section highlights significant data from isolated cytoskeletal components and those in the context of human cells.
3.2. Cell cytoskeleton
The filamentous network inside eukaryotic cells is a major contributor to the 3D morphology of a cell, acting as a scaffold to support the cell interior (Figure 7). This cross-linked biopolymer network has a role in cell mechanics, resisting deformation in response to external mechanical stresses. Besides being the determining factor for cellular shape, the cytoskeleton is involved in cell division, cell movement, adhesion and locomotion. Cellular viscoelastic responses can be largely dependent on the cytoskeleton, composed of three major groups of elements: microtubules, intermediate filaments and microfilaments. With the tremendous progress in biophysics, the structures of each cytoskeletal components are now well understood even at the molecular level, but we are just beginning to determine their contribution to cell mechanics.
3.2.1. Microtubules
Microtubules are the largest of the filamentous structures making up the cytoskeleton, for which the basic building block is tubulin heterodimers made up of α and β subunits. Structural analysis shows that the α and β tubulins alternately line up to form proto-filaments, which are further laterally arranged into a small lattice and closed to form a 25 nm wide cylindrical structure [71]. The α subunit forms the end of the microtubule localized to the centrosome, close to the center of the cell, and the microtubule grows out to peripheral regions of the cell ending with a β tubulin. The alternating α and β tubulins render the microtubule polar and its orientation guides the unidirectional movement of microtubule motor proteins from the kinesin and dynein families [72,73]. Microtubule aggregation is dependent on temperature and the relative amount of tubulin-GTP dimers [74]. The inherent dynamic instability caused by the hydrolysis of tubulin-GTP dimers puts microtubules in a state of continuous and rapid assembly and disassembly, depending on cell cycle phase. Given the limited generation of cellular microtubules, they are expected to play a minor role in cell mechanical responses and a major role in cell shape. Nevertheless, they do indirectly influence the mechanical properties of cells by regulating the actin network through myosin-II. In neural cells, axons, dendrites and microtubules play a more direct role in cell mechanics, because they form tight bundles in which microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) bind and stabilize parallel arrayed microtubular filaments [75-77].
Experiments carried out on gels and cross-linked networks made of microtubules demonstrate that they exhibit the strongest bending stiffness among all the cytoskeletal components. Therefore, elasticity dominates over viscosity when microtubules are deformed under an external force. Under a low external load, microtubule network stiffness exhibits a linear elastic response as a function of microtubulin unit concentration [78], which closely relates to microtubule polymerization rate and the final microtubule length of tubulin dimers formed [79,80]. Fast growing microtubules are more likely to form short filaments, based on defects in the microtubule lattice that further influence the tubulin dimer bonds and make the microtubules more flexible. Microtubule viscoelasticity also depends on the intermolecular interactions between tubulin dimers, but their lateral and longitudinal interactions along the microtubule do not equally contribute to the total mechanical response. Both the shear and circumferential moduli of the longitudinal bonds in microtubule protofilaments are several orders of magnitude higher than those of lateral bonds. Since microtubules exhibit a mechanical response with enthalpic elasticity arising from the bending and stretching of microtubule filaments, factors influencing the tubulin spacings play a critical role in determining microtubule viscoelasticity [78]. Among these factors, the microtubule-associated proteins are an important contributor as they bind to the microtubule surface through electrostatic interactions. In the presence of MAPs, the spacing of adjacent microtubules is doubled creating a cushion against compression. There is also evidence to show that the elastic modulus increases with the addition of crosslinkers to the microtubule networks [81]. Factors affecting microtubule stiffness, such as taxol and GTP analogs, also influence their mechanical properties by stabilizing and preventing their depolymerization [82]. Therefore, microtubule viscoelasticity is a function of both subunit concentration and crosslinking.
3.2.2. Intermediate filaments
Intermediate filaments are the non-polarized cylindrical fibrils of the cytoskeleton named for their size with a diameter of around 10 nm, intermediate to microtubules and microfilaments [83,84]. Intermediate filaments are constructed by a group of related proteins, which have been divided into five subgroups according to their sequence identity. All of the proteins associated with type I, II, III, and IV immediate filaments are localized to the cytoplasm, while those of type V (
Intermediate filaments have been discovered in diverse cell types, with more than 60 associated genes coded in humans [85,86]. They are found to be highly extensible compared to filamentous actin (F-actin) and microtubules, which are able to retain enormous strains while sustaining the intact filament structure [87,88]. Their unique extensibility implies their it could play a special role in cell mechanics, which would set it apart from other cytoskeletal elements. Since most genes associated with intermediate filaments are responsible for coding keratins, keratin-based intermediate filaments are considered an important player in cellular mechanics [89,90], regulating viscoelastic properties and the motility of cancer cells. The architecture of the keratin filament is regulated by phosporylation, accounting for the viscoelastic responses of carcinoma cells during large deformations, and the actin network is also regulated by phosphorylation under the regulation of kinases [91-93], phosphatases and other regulatory proteins [89,94].
The mechanical properties of intermediate filament networks have been studied by applying classical models to homogeneous and isotropical samples, which link the elastic shear modulus to the mean mesh size of the cytoskeleton [95]. This means that the viscoelastic response of the network is dependent upon its subcellular organization, filament composition, and overall protein concentration. The nonlinear relationship between the mesh size of these networks and the elastic shear modulus [96] underscores whole cell mechanical properties, elasticity and viscoelasticity of the network, which can be significantly changed by small perturbations [97]. In the non-polar network, the intermediate filaments branch in an attempt to adapt to the cellular demands of the micro-environment [98].
The crosslinking interactions between proteins making up intermediate filaments are postulated to be vital for cell mechanics, inspiring the study of the associated protein tail. Mutation of the desmin proteins at the filament tail causes slight changes in network flexibility, but does not have a significant effect on the mesh size or shear modulus [99]. The crosslinking interaction may be expected to rely on electrostatic interactions between filament proteins, and by extension the salt concentration in their local micro-environment. Indeed, an increase in cations enhances the stiffness of the intermediate filament network. In the case of small external stresses, the elasticity of the network shifts from the linear to nonlinear state as a function of stress magnitude. On the other hand, under greater stress the network has a modified nonlinear elasticity [100]. Intermediate filament networks with a greater number of bundles have higher persistence lengths and flexural stiffness, in contrast to those with a lower number of bundles, demonstrating the importance of bundle number and thus protein type on cell elasticity.
3.2.3. Actin filaments
Actin filaments are the thinnest (≈ 8nm) and most plentiful among all the components of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton [101]. Under physiological conditions, actin filaments grow by polymerization of the ATP-bound actin monomers, addition of monomers to the end of the severed filament fragments, or by branching out of the existing filaments. Actin filaments are polar fibers, with helically arranged actin monomers all pointed in the same direction, which can form a cortex underneath the cytoplasmic membrane to support cell movement. More than 100 proteins promote the formation of a single actin filament, filament cross-linking, networks and bundle formation. Actin filaments are continuously assembled and disassembled in response to cell signaling.
F-actin exhibits viscoelasticity as a semi-flexible polymer with linear and nonlinear responses to external forces [102,103]. To quantitatively evaluate the contribution of F-actins to cytoskeleton mechanics, such networks have been reconstituted
Since the elastic response of F-actin filaments is length dependent, the concentration of actin and crosslinking proteins are closely related to the magnitude of the filament elastic modulus. The characterization of F-actin filament mechanical properties is also convoluted with actin concentration, the type and concentration of crosslinking protein, and the magnitude of the applied force. If the fluctuations are deconvoluted, the inherent elastic modulus of the filament dominates its mechanical response [106]. Crosslinking proteins covalently link individual subunits, allowing the actin filament to form a bundled structure with a larger diameter. Therefore, F-actin networks in combination with cross-linking proteins could behave differently from networks formed by only F-actins, the mechanical properties of which are more akin to the properties of cells. Once the actin filament becomes stiffer with the addition of crosslinkers, its elasticity dominates, and contributions from thermal fluctuations play a smaller role in the total mechanical response [106]. The entropic elasticity is reduced as actin and cross linker concentrations increase. In this case, the deformation of the actin filament depends on the bending and stretching of the filament itself [106]. The rigidly cross-linked actin filament has a more linear response and tends to break under small strains [107,108], and such filaments can sustain much larger stresses compared to pure F-actin networks, providing a reasonable explanation for their ability to resist a broad range of external stresses or internal tension.
3.3. Biofilms contribute to viscoelasticity
Biofilms have serious implications in industry, medicine and environmental systems making the study of their physical properties imperative to shed light on their growth mechanisms and adhesion properties, key factors in biofilm control. A biofilm is a surface-associated three dimensional consortia of microbial communities, surrounded by a matrix of protective biopolymers, macromolecular debris, sediment and precipitate, making it a highly complex mechanical, compliant, and viscoelastic structure. Biofilms can also be highly heterogeneous consisting of mixed populations of bacteria, fungi, protozoa [112] with interspersed pores and channels. Biofilms exhibit enormous resistance to external stress factors, with exopolysaccharides (EPS) contributing to their overall mechanical stability and enabling them to withstand external forces. Hydrodynamic forces can have a strong influence on biofilm formation, structure and thickness, EPS production, mass and metabolic activities [109-111]. Their dynamic structure ultimately affects how we view, model and study their mechanical behaviour. A schematic presentation of biofilm dynamic behavior is depicted in Figure 8.
Several attempts have been made to study the rheological properties of biofilms, yet they remain understudied, likely for the following reasons: (i) biofilms are extremely complex and heterogeneous with no defined geometry, making the use of conventional techniques difficult, (ii) their size and diverse nature make sample handling difficult and underscore the need to study biofilms in the natural environment to best represent their complexity (Figure 8). Studies have shown that biofilms formed under low shear conditions (laminar flow) are characterized by spherical micro-colonies divided by water channels [109]. It has also been shown that biofilms formed under higher detachment forces (
A decade ago it was demonstrated that biofilms are effectively viscoelastic, a property that plays a major role in the various stages of biofilm growth [109,112,114-117]. Biofilms, all of which exhibit classic viscoelastic behaviours [109,115,116,118,119], can grow in a wide variety of environments including laboratory conditions, under flow and even in hot springs, demonstrating their ability to absorb elevated changes in shear stresses. Biofilms are elastic for shorter periods, can resist shear stresses and detachment, and over longer periods of time they flow as viscous fluids and become streamlined [109,112,114]. Viscoelasticity of the biofilm matrix has been shown to determine its structural integrity, resistance to stress, and ease of dispersion [120]. Simple stress-strain and creep tests of mixed culture and single species biofilms showed that the deformation of individual cell clusters was related to the fluid shear stress, and that both mixed species biofilms and those from pure cultures behaved like viscoelastic fluids [114]. It has been proposed that the viscoelasticity of biofilms allows them to resist detachment as demonstrated for
Several experimental models have been generated to help understand the rheology and mechanical behaviour of biofilms. Rheology of undisturbed dental plaque biofilms made up of
Although there have been a large number of techniques developed to measure various biofilm parameters, a fully effective method is pending. The diverse magnitude of viscoelasticity parameters might reflect diverse biofilm properties, growth environments and source organisms. The viscoelastic properties of biofilms are adaptations to stress factors and shear forces, and are achieved through modifications to the secreted EPS. A better understanding of biolfilm mechanical properties and viscoelastic behaviours may inform effective strategies for biofilm removal or control.
4. Factors affecting viscoelasticity of biological materials
Cell components imparting viscoelastic properties to the entire cell are well studied, but there are very few examples in the literature in which external factors are shown to affect cell viscoelasticity. The structural integrity of biological systems is partially dependent on the degree of hydration. Humidity affects the mechanical properties of biopolymers, but the intensity of this effect depends on the type of biopolymer. For example, effects of humidity on cellulose are much less severe than on peptidoglycan. Thwaites et al. [136] demonstrated that the viscoelastic behavior of
Cells also require optimal temperature conditions for their survival. Temperature affects the proper function and conformation of biomolecules, and hence indirectly affects cell mechanical properties. The rigidity of
The elastic behavior of the bacterial cell surface depends on the cell volume and ionic strength of the surrounding medium, which is related to its osmolarity. Abu-Lail and Camesano [138] observed that the elasticity of
5. Summary
In summary, the viscoelastic properties of biological structures are responsible for their mechanical behavior which in turn is required for normal cell function. Viscoelasticity of whole biological cells is the combined contribution of cellular components, and several creative methods have been put forward to measure the associated parameters. Emerging experimental tools enable quantitative deformation studies of individual cells, biological polymers and macromolecules, which have led to understanding the relationship between mechanical properties and function. Nonetheless, studying the mechanical behavior of cellular components remains challenging. There are several theoretical models to determine the mechanical properties of cells and their components, but based on diverse findings and the different cell types used to determine viscoelastic parameters, it is difficult to compare cell rheology measurements. There are uncertainties associated with the methods developed to determine mechanical properties, and any single method cannot be used for all cell types. To date, atomic force microscopy appears to be the most effective method for measuring the viscoelasticity of biological materials.
It is certain that cellular viscoelasticity plays a great role in normal cell function such as cellular homeostasis, cell-cell communication, stress adaptive mechanisms, tissue formation, and locomotive functions. The most basic requirement of cells is their mechanical strength, which has potentially led to the evolution of complex multicellular organization in higher animals and even molecular evolution in the most primitive prokaryotes. Vital components of any given cell, such as its envelope, cytoskeleton and EPS, are devoted to maintaining a unique viscoelasticity, making the significance of this property in biological systems of great importance. Considering the diversity of living cells in nature, viscoelasticity remains universal, making its study exceptionally important, but nonetheless the study of cellular viscoelasticity remains in its infancy. The contribution of the cell cytoskeleton to viscoelasticity remains the most well studied, but there are still unresolved issues regarding its contribution, such as how mechanical force propagates through the cell cytoskeleton without a change in its composition. Although it is widely thought that the mechanical characteristics of cell components are significantly affected by external physical factors, our knowledge in this area is inadequate.
6. Conclusions and outlook
Through constant adaptation and survival, cells have acquired sophisticated structures made up of simple biomolecules which have remarkable mechanical integrity. Recent progress in the development of novel experimental techniques provides almost unlimited opportunities in the field of cell mechanics. By applying the basic rheology principles of non-living materials to live cells we can establish strong connections between cellular mechanics and function. More emphasis on the viscoelastic materials of cells such as the cell membrane, wall, envelope, and elaborate structures adopted by multiple cells including biofilms and tissues, will provide further insight into their contribution to cell mechanics. Combining the powerful experimental techniques discussed in this chapter, the wealth of knowledge from biochemistry with theoretical models (not discussed here, see [139] for a review) will allow us to further explore the importance of cellular viscoelasticity. In future, the resolution of several remaining gaps will lead to a fundamental and novel understanding of cellular function associated with cytomechanics.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) grants to TESD (228206-07). SB, JD and BCP were partially supported by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (University of Regina). The authors wish to thank all those researchers, past and present, who have directly or peripherally helped pioneer our current understanding of cellular mechanics.
References
- 1.
Janmey PA. The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: component localization and mechanical coupling Physiol Rev1998 Jul;78 3 763 781 - 2.
Hoffman BD, Crocker JC. Cell mechanics: dissecting the physical responses of cells to force. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2009 Apr;11 259 288 - 3.
Bowen WR, Lovitt RW, Wright CJ. Direct Quantification of Aspergillus niger Spore Adhesion in Liquid Using an Atomic Force Microscope J Colloid Interface Sci2000 Aug;228 2 428 433 - 4.
Trepat X. Lenormand G. Fredberg J. J. Universality in cell mechanics 2008 Jul;4 1750 8 - 5.
Hoffman BD, Crocker JC. Cell mechanics: dissecting the physical responses of cells to force. Annu Rev Biomed Eng2009 Apr;11 259 288 - 6.
Guilak F. Alexopoulos L. G. MA Haider-Beall Ting. Setton H. P. L. A. Zonal uniformity in mechanical properties of the chondrocyte pericellular matrix: micropipette aspiration of canine chondrons isolated by cartilage homogenization Ann Biomed Eng2005 Oct;33 10 1312 1318 - 7.
Hochmuth RM. Micropipette aspiration of living cells. J Biomech2000 Jan;33[1]:15 22 - 8.
Thoumine O. Ott A. Time scale dependent viscoelastic and contractile regimes in fibroblasts probed by microplate manipulation. J Cell Sci1997 Sep;110 ( Pt 17)(Pt 17):2109 EOF 16 EOF - 9.
Phys Rev LettFernandez P. Ott A. Single cell. mechanics stress. stiffening kinematic hardening. 2008 Jun;100(23):238102 EOF - 10.
Balland M. Desprat N. Icard D. Fereol S. Asnacios A. Browaeys J. et al. Power laws in microrheology experiments on living cells: Comparative analysis and modeling. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys2006 Aug;74(2 Pt 1):021911 EOF - 11.
Biophys JGuck J. Ananthakrishnan R. Mahmood H. Moon T. J. Cunningham C. C. Kas J. The optical. stretcher a. novel laser. tool to. micromanipulate cells. 2001 Aug;81 2 767 784 - 12.
Ober die Elastizitat von Solen und Gelen. Zritschr. f. physik. Chem.,Freundlich H. Seifriz W. 1923 Jan;104 233 28 - 13.
Wang N. Butler J. P. Ingber D. E. Mechanotransduction across the cell surface and through the cytoskeleton. Science1993 May;260 5111 1124 1127 - 14.
Wirtz D. Particle-tracking microrheology of living cells: principles and applications Annu Rev Biophys2009 Jun;38 301 326 - 15.
Tseng Y. Kole T. P. Wirtz D. Micromechanical mapping of live cells by multiple-particle-tracking microrheology. Biophys J2002 Dec;83 6 3162 3176 - 16.
Crocker J. C. Valentine M. T. Weeks E. R. Gisler T. Kaplan P. D. Yodh A. G. et al. Two-point microrheology of inhomogeneous soft materials. Phys Rev Lett2000 Jul;85 4 888 891 - 17.
Ashkin A. Forces of a single-beam gradient laser trap on a dielectric sphere in the ray optics regime. Biophys J1992 Feb;61 2 569 582 - 18.
Pullarkat P. A. Fernandez P. A. Ott A. Rheological properties of the eukaryotic cell cytoskeleton Physics Repoarts2007 Mar;449 29 22 - 19.
Vadillo-Rodriguez V. Schooling S. R. Dutcher J. R. In situ characterization of differences in the viscoelastic response of individual gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial cells J Bacteriol2009 Sep;191 17 5518 5525 - 20.
Zhao L. Schaefer D. Xu H. Modi S. J. La Course W. R. Marten M. R. Elastic properties of the cell wall of Aspergillus nidulans studied with atomic force microscopy. Biotechnol Prog2005 Jan-Feb;21 1 292 299 - 21.
Comput Math Methods MedBidhendi A. J. Korhonen R. K. A. finite element. study of. micropipette aspiration. of single. cells effect. of compressibility. 2012 Oct;192618. - 22.
Evans E. Yeung A. Apparent viscosity and cortical tension of blood granulocytes determined by micropipet aspiration. Biophys J1989 Jul;56 1 151 160 - 23.
Biophys JGuck J. Ananthakrishnan R. Mahmood H. Moon T. J. Cunningham C. C. Kas J. The optical. stretcher a. novel laser. tool to. micromanipulate cells. 2001 Aug;81[2]:767 784 - 24.
Ebert S. Travis K. Lincoln B. Guck J. Fluorescence ratio thermometry in a microfluidic dual-beam laser trap. 2007 Nov;15 23 15493 6 - 25.
Optical Rheology of Biological Cells Physical Review LettersWottawah F. Schinkinger S. Lincoln B. Ananthakrishnan R. Romeyke M. Guck J. et al. 2005 Mar;94 098103 3 - 26.
Ou-Yang HD. Design and applications of oscillating optical tweezers for direct measurements of colloidal forces. In: Farinato RS, Dubin PL, editors. Colloid-Polymer Interactions: From Fundamentals to Practice. New York: Wiley;1999 385 320 - 27.
Eine.neue Methode zur Bestimmung der Viskositat lebender Protoplasten. Jharb. f. wissensch. Botan.,Heilbronn A. 1922 - 28.
Vonna L. Wiedemann A. Aepfelbacher M. Sackmann E. Local force induced conical protrusions of phagocytic cells. J Cell Sci2003 Mar;116(Pt 5):785 EOF 90 EOF - 29.
Puig-de-Morales-Marinkovic M. Turner K. T. Butler J. P. Fredberg J. J. Suresh S. Viscoelasticity of the human red blood cell. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol2007 Aug;293(2):C597 605 - 30.
Amblard F. Maggs A. C. Yurke B. Pargellis A. Leibler S. Subdiffusion and Anomalous Local Viscoelasticity in Actin Networks Phys Rev Lett1996 Nov;77 21 4470 - 31.
Bausch A. R. Ziemann F. AA Boulbitch Jacobson. K. Sackmann E. Local measurements of viscoelastic parameters of adherent cell surfaces by magnetic bead microrheometry. Biophys J1998 Oct;75 4 2038 2049 - 32.
Valberg PA, Albertini DF. Cytoplasmic motions, rheology, and structure probed by a novel magnetic particle method. J Cell Biol1985 Jul;101 1 130 140 - 33.
Wang N. Ingber D. E. Probing transmembrane mechanical coupling and cytomechanics using magnetic twisting cytometry. Biochem Cell Biol1995 Jul-Aug;73(7-8):327 EOF 35 EOF - 34.
Zaner KS, Valberg PA. Viscoelasticity of F-actin measured with magnetic microparticles J Cell Biol1989 Nov;109 5 2233 2243 - 35.
Tseng Y. Lee J. S. Kole T. P. Jiang I. Wirtz D. Micro-organization and visco-elasticity of the interphase nucleus revealed by particle nanotracking. J Cell Sci2004 Apr;117(Pt 10):2159 EOF 67 EOF - 36.
Yamada S. Wirtz D. Kuo S. C. Mechanics of living cells measured by laser tracking microrheology. Biophys J2000 Apr;78 4 1736 1747 - 37.
Lee J. S. Panorchan P. Hale C. M. Khatau S. B. Kole T. P. Tseng Y. et al. Ballistic intracellular nanorheology reveals ROCK-hard cytoplasmic stiffening response to fluid flow J Cell Sci2006 May;119(Pt 9):1760 EOF 1768 EOF - 38.
Viscoelastic fluid description of bacterial biofilm material properties. Biotechnol bioengKapper I. Rupp C. J. Cargo R. Purvedorj B. Stoodley P. 2002 Nov;8:190 7 - 39.
Paul B. C. El -Ganiny A. M. Abbas M. Kaminskyj S. G. Dahms T. E. Quantifying the importance of galactofuranose in Aspergillus nidulans hyphal wall surface organization by atomic force microscopy. Eu karyot Cell2011 May;10 5 646 653 - 40.
Sneddon NI. The relation between load and penetration in the axisymmetric boussinesq problem for a punch of arbitrary profile. Int Eng Sci1965 3 1 47 19 - 41.
Wright J. C. Armstrong I. The application of atomic force microscopy force measurements to the characterisation of microbial surfaces Surf Interface Anal2006 Oct;38 1419 9 - 42.
Volle CB, Ferguson MA, Aidala KE, Spain EM, Nunez ME. Spring constants and adhesive properties of native bacterial biofilm cells measured by atomic force microscopy Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2008 Nov;67 1 32 40 - 43.
Zhao L. Schaefer D. Marten M. R. Assessment of elasticity and topography of Aspergillus nidulans spores via atomic force microscopy Appl Environ Microbiol2005 Feb;71 2 955 960 - 44.
J. Mater. Res.,Field J. S. Swain M. V. A. simple predictive. model for. spherical indentation. 1993 Feb ;8 2 297 9 - 45.
Vadillo-Rodríguez V. Dutcher J. R. Viscoelasticity of the bacterial cell envelope 2011 Sep;7 4101 7 - 46.
Annu Rev Biomed EngZhu C. Bao G. Wang N. Cell mechanics. mechanical response. cell adhesion. molecular deformation. 2000 Aug;2 189 226 - 47. Shiu C, Zhang Z, Thomas CR. A comparison of the mechanical properties of different bacterial species Applied Microbiology 2002;2(4):155-6.
- 48.
Marquis RE. Salt-induced contraction of bacterial cell walls. J Bacteriol1968 Mar;95 3 775 781 - 49.
Mendelson NH, Thwaites JJ. Cell wall mechanical properties as measured with bacterial thread made from Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol1989 Feb;171 2 1055 1062 - 50.
Ou LT, Marquis RE. Electromechanical interactions in cell walls of gram-positive cocci. J Bacteriol1970 Jan;101 1 92 101 - 51.
Lederberg J. Bacterial Protoplasts Induced by Penicillin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1956 Sep;42[9]:574 577 - 52.
W. E. I. B. U. L. L. C. The isolation of protoplasts from Bacillus megaterium by controlled treatment with lysozyme. J Bacteriol1953 Dec;66 6 688 695 - 53.
Yao X. Jericho X. Pink M. Beveridge D. T. Thickness and Elasticity of Gram-Negative Murein Sacculi Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy. Bacteriol1999 Nov;181 22 6865 9 - 54.
Lopez-Montero I. Mateos-Gil P. Sferrazza M. Navajas P. L. Rivas G. Velez M. et al. Active membrane viscoelasticity by the bacterial FtsZ-division protein 2012 Mar;28 10 4744 4753 - 55.
Fine structure of the germination of Aspergillus nidulans conidia. Transactions of the British Mycological SocietyBorderd J. Trincia P. J. 1970 54 143 3 - 56.
Money NP. Osmotic adjustment and the role of turgor in mycelial fungi. In: Wessels JHG, Meinhardt F, editors. The Mycota: a Comprehensive Treatise on Fungi as Experimental Systems for Basic and Applied Research,1 Growth, Differentiation and Sexuality, Berlin: Springer;1994 67 21 - 57.
Touhami A. Hoffmann B. Vasella A. Denis F. A. Dufrene Y. F. Aggregation of yeast cells: direct measurement of discrete lectin-carbohydrate interactions. Microbiology2003 Oct;149(Pt 10):2873 EOF 8 EOF - 58.
Ma Snook H. Kaminskyj L. A. Dahms S. G. T. E. Surface ultrastructure and elasticity in growing tips and mature regions of Aspergillus hyphae describe wall maturation. Microbiology2005 Nov;151(Pt 11):3679 EOF 88 EOF - 59.
Paul B. C. El -Ganiny A. M. Abbas M. Kaminskyj S. G. Dahms T. E. Quantifying the Importance of Galactofuranose in Aspergillus nidulans Hyphal Wall Surface Organization by Atomic Force Microscopy. Eukaryot Cell2011 May;10 5 646 653 - 60.
Kaminskyj SG, Dahms TE. High spatial resolution surface imaging and analysis of fungal cells using SEM and AFM 2008 Jun;39 4 349 361 - 61.
Das SK, Das AR, Guha AK. Structural and nanomechanical properties of Termitomyces clypeatus cell wall and its interaction with chromium(VI). J Phys Chem B2009 Feb ;113 5 1485 1492 - 62.
Dufrene YF. Direct characterization of the physicochemical properties of fungal spores using functionalized AFM probes. Biophys J2000 Jun;78 6 3286 3291 - 63.
Dute RR, Peterson CM, Rushing AE. Ultrastructural Changes of the Egg Apparatus Associated with Fertilization and Proembryo Development of Soybean, Glycine max. Ann Bot1989 Jan;64 123 12 - 64.
Identification and characterization of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains isolated from West African sorghum beer. YeastAa van der Kuhle A. Jesperen L. Glover R. L. Diawara B. Jakobsen M. 2001 Aug;18 11 1069 1079 - 65.
Alcaraz J. Buscemi L. Grabulosa M. Trepat X. Fabry B. Farre R. et al. Microrheology of human lung epithelial cells measured by atomic force microscopy Biophys J2003 Mar;84 3 2071 2079 - 66.
Pelled G. Tai K. Sheyn D. Zilberman Y. Kumbar S. Nair L. S. et al. Structural and nanoindentation studies of stem cell-based tissue-engineered bone J Biomech2007 Mar;40 2 399 411 - 67.
Puig-de-Morales-Marinkovic M. Turner K. T. Butler J. P. Fredberg J. J. Suresh S. Viscoelasticity of the human red blood cell. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol2007 Aug;293(2):C597 605 - 68.
Cooper RA. Influence of increased membrane cholesterol on membrane fluidity and cell function in human red blood cells. J Supramol Struct1978 Feb;8 4 413 430 - 69.
Suresh S. Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells Acta Biomater2007 Jul;3 4 413 438 - 70.
Li QS, Lee GY, Ong CN, Lim CT. AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun2008 Oct;374 4 609 613 - 71.
Valiron O. Caudron N. Job D. Microtubule dynamics. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 2001 Dec;58 2069 24 - 72.
Böhm J. K. Stracke R. Mühlig P. Unger E. Motor protein-driven unidirectional transport of micrometer-sized cargoes across isopolar microtubule arrays 2001 Aug;12 238 6 - 73.
Iyadurai SJ, Li MG, Gilbert SP, Hays TS. Evidence for cooperative interactions between the two motor domains of cytoplasmic dynein Curr Biol1999 Jul;9 14 771 774 - 74.
Olmsted JB, Borisy GG. Ionic and nucleotide requirements for microtubule polymerization in vitro. 1975 Jul;14 13 2996 3005 - 75.
Chen J. Kanai Y. Cowan N. J. Hirokawa N. Projection domains of MAP2 and tau determine spacings between microtubules in dendrites and axons. 1992 Dec;360 6405 674 677 - 76.
Weisshaar B. Matus A. Microtubule-associated protein. . the organization. of cellular. microtubules 1993 Sep;22 727 7 - 77.
Qiang L. Yu W. Andreadis A. Luo M. Baas P. W. Tau protects microtubules in the axon from severing by katanin. J Neurosci2006 Mar;26 12 3120 3129 - 78.
Yang Y. Lin J. Kaytanli B. Salehbc O. A. Valentine M. T. Direct correlation between creep compliance and deformation in entangled and sparsely crosslinked microtubule networks 2011 Dec;8 1776 8 - 79.
Biophys JME Janson Dogterom. M. A. bending mode. analysis for. growing microtubules. evidence for. a. velocity-dependent rigidity. 2004 Oct;87 4 2723 2736 - 80.
Pampaloni F. Lattanzi G. Jonas A. Surrey T. Frey E. Florin E. L. Thermal fluctuations of grafted microtubules provide evidence of a length-dependent persistence length Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2006 Jul;103 27 10248 10253 - 81.
Lin Y. Koenderink G. H. Mac Kintosh. F. C. Weitz D. A. Viscoelastic Properties of Microtubule Networks 2007 Sep;40 1714 6 - 82.
Hawkins T. Mirigian M. Selcuk Yasar. M. Ross J. L. Mechanics of. microtubules J. Biomech 2010 Jan;43 1 23 30 - 83.
Renner W. Franke W. W. Schmid E. Geisler N. Weber K. Mandelkow E. Reconstitution of intermediate-sized filaments from denatured monomeric vimentin. J Mol Biol1981 Jun ;149 2 285 306 - 84.
Zackroff RV, Goldman RD. In vitro assembly of intermediate filaments from baby hamster kidney (BHK-21) cell s. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1979 Dec;76 12 6226 6230 - 85.
Hesse M. Magin T. M. Weber K. Genes for intermediate filament proteins and the draft sequence of the human genome: novel keratin genes and a surprisingly high number of pseudogenes related to keratin genes 8 and 18 J Cell Sci2001 Jul;114(Pt 14):2569 EOF 75 EOF - 86.
Schweizer J. Bowden P. E. Coulombe P. A. Langbein L. Lane E. B. Magin T. M. et al. . New consensus nomenclature for mammalian keratins J Cell Biol2006 Jul;174 2 169 174 - 87.
Janmey PA. The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: component localization and mechanical coupling Physiol Rev1998 Jul;78 3 763 781 - 88.
DS Fudge Gardner. K. H. Forsyth V. T. Riekel C. Gosline J. M. The mechanical properties of hydrated intermediate filaments: insights from hagfish slime threads Biophys J2003 Sep;85 3 2015 2027 - 89.
Coulombe PA, Omary MB.’Hard’ and’soft’ principles defining the structure, function and regulation of keratin intermediate filaments. Curr Opin Cell Biol2002 Feb;14 1 110 122 - 90.
Magin T. M. Vijayaraj P. Leube R. E. Structural and regulatory functions of keratins Exp Cell Res2007 Jun;313 10 2021 2032 - 91.
Beil M. Braxmeier H. Fleischer F. Schmidt V. Walther P. Quantitative analysis of keratin filament networks in scanning electron microscopy images of cancer cells J Microsc2005 Nov;220[Pt 2]:84 95 - 92.
Beil M. Eckel S. Fleischer F. Schmidt H. Schmidt V. Walther P. Fitting of random tessellation models to keratin filament networks J Theor Biol2006 Jul;241 1 62 72 - 93.
Beil M. Micoulet A. von Wichert. G. Paschke S. Walther P. Omary M. B. et al. Sphingosylphosphorylcholine regulates keratin network architecture and visco-elastic properties of human cancer cells. Nat Cell Biol2003 Sep;5 9 803 811 - 94.
Strnad P. Windoffer R. Leube R. E. Induction of rapid and reversible cytokeratin filament network remodeling by inhibition of tyrosine phosphatases. J Cell Sci2002 Nov;115(Pt 21):4133 EOF 48 EOF - 95.
Mackintosh C. Douglas P. Lillo C. Identification of a Protein That Inhibits the Phosphorylated Form of Nitrate Reductase from Spinach [Spinacia oleracea] Leaves. Plant Physiol1995 Feb;107 2 451 457 - 96.
Morse DC. Viscoelasticity of concentrated isotopic solutions of semiflexible polymers: 1. Model and stress tensor. Macromolecules1998 Sep;31 7030 13 - 97.
Fleischer F. Ananthakrishnan R. Eckel S. Schmidt H. Käs J. Svitkina T. et al. Actin network architecture and elasticity in lamellipodia of melanoma cells New J. Phys.2007 Nov;9 420 17 - 98.
Phys Rev LettHeussinger C. Frey E. Stiff polymers. foams fiber networks. 2006 Jan;96(1):017802. - 99.
Mutations in desmin’s carboxy-terminal "tail" domain severely modify filament and network mechanics. J Mol BiolBar H. Schopferer M. Sharma S. Hochstein B. Mucke N. Herrmann H. et al. 2010 Apr;397 5 1188 1198 - 100.
Lin Y. C. Yao N. Y. CP Broedersz Herrmann. H. Mackintosh F. C. Weitz D. A. Origins of elasticity in intermediate filament network s. Phys Rev Lett2010 Feb;104(5):058101. - 101.
Otterbein L. R. Cosio C. Graceffa P. Dominguez R. Crystal structures of the vitamin D-binding protein and its complex with actin: structural basis of the actin-scavenger system Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2002 Jun;99 12 8003 8008 - 102.
Gardel M. L. Shin J. H. Mac Kintosh. F. C. Mahadevan L. Matsudaira P. Weitz D. A. Elastic behavior of cross-linked and bundled actin networks. Science2004 May 28;304 5675 1301 1305 - 103.
Lin CY, Koenderink GH, MacKintoshc FC, Weitz DA. Control of non-linear elasticity in F-actin networks with microtubules 2011 Sep;7 902 4 - 104.
Schmidt C. F. Barmann M. Isenberg G. Sackmann E. Chain dynamics. mesh size. diffusive transport. in networks. of polymerized. actin a. quasielastic light. scattering microfluorescence study. 1989 Sep;22 9 3638 11 - 105.
Kasza K. E. CP Broedersz Koenderink. G. H. Lin Y. C. Messner W. Millman E. A. et al. Actin filament length tunes elasticity of flexibly cross-linked actin networks Biophys J2010 Aug 9;99 4 1091 1100 - 106.
Janmey PA, Weitz DA. Dealing with mechanics: mechanisms of force transduction in cells. Trends Biochem Sci2004 Jul;29 7 364 370 - 107.
Gardel M. L. Nakamura F. Hartwig J. Crocker J. C. Stossel T. P. Weitz D. A. Stress-dependent elasticity of composite actin networks as a model for cell behavior. Phys Rev Lett2006 Mar 3;96(8):088102 EOF - 108.
Tharmann R. MM Claessens Bausch. A. R. Viscoelasticity of isotropically cross-linked actin networks. Phys Rev Lett2007 Feb;98(8):088103 EOF - 109.
Stoodley P. Sauer K. Davies D. G. Costerton J. W. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. Annu Rev Microbiol2002 Jan;56 187 209 - 110.
Liu Y. Tay J. H. The essential role of hydrodynamic shear force in the formation of biofilm and granular sludge Water Res2002 Apr;36 7 1653 1665 - 111.
Simoes T. Teixeira M. C. Fernandes A. R. Sa-Correia I. Adaptation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae to the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, mediated by Msn2p- and Msn4p-regulated genes: important role of SPI1. Appl Environ Microbiol2003 Jul;69 7 4019 4028 - 112.
Stoodley P. Wilson S. Hall-Stoodley L. JD Boyle-Scott Lappin. Costerton H. M. J. W. Growth and detachment of cell clusters from mature mixed-species biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol2001 Dec;67 12 5608 5613 - 113.
Ohashi A. Harada H. Adhesion strength of biofilm developed in an attached-growth reactor Water Science and Technology1994 29 10 281 7 - 114.
Stoodley P. Lewandowski Z. JD Boyle-Scott Lappin. H. M. Structural deformation of bacterial biofilms caused by short-term fluctuations in fluid shear: an in situ investigation of biofilm rheolog y. Biotechnol Bioeng1999 Oct;65(1):83 92 - 115.
Stoodley P. Lewandowski Z. JD Boyle-Scott Lappin. H. M. Structural deformation of bacterial biofilms caused by short-term fluctuations in fluid shear: an in situ investigation of biofilm rheolog y. Biotechnol Bioeng1999 Oct;65(1):83 92 - 116.
Klapper I. Rupp C. J. Cargo R. Purvedorj B. Stoodley P. Viscoelastic fluid description of bacterial biofilm material properties Biotechnol Bioeng2002 Nov;80 3 289 - 117.
MJ Lehtola Miettinen. I. T. Hirvonen A. Vartiainen T. Martikainen P. J. Estimates of microbial quality and concentration of copper in distributed drinking water are highly dependent on sampling strateg y. Int J Hyg Environ Health2007 Dec;210 6 725 732 - 118.
Korstgens V. Flemming H. C. Wingender J. Borchard W. Uniaxial compression measurement device for investigation of the mechanical stability of biofilms. J Microbiol Methods2001 Jul;46 1 9 17 - 119.
Towler B. W. Rupp C. J. Cunningham A. B. Stoodley P. Viscoelastic properties of a mixed culture biofilm from rheometer creep analysi s.2003 Oct;19 5 279 - 120.
Lau PC, Dutcher JR, Beveridge TJ, Lam JS. Absolute quantitation of bacterial biofilm adhesion and viscoelasticity by microbead force spectroscopy Biophys J2009 Apr;96 7 2935 2948 - 121.
Lieleg O. Kayser J. Brambilla G. Cipelletti L. Bausch A. R. Slow dynamics and internal stress relaxation in bundled cytoskeletal networks Nat Mater2011 Mar;10 3 236 - 122.
Mechanical properties and failure of Streptococcus mutans biofilm studied using a microidentation device. J Microbio MethodsCanse A. W. Peters E. A. G. Gottenbose B. Baaijens E. P. T. Nuijs A. M. Van Donjen M. E. H. 2006 Jul;(67):463-8. - 123.
Phys Rev LettLau A. W. BD Hoffman Davies. A. Crocker J. C. Lubensky T. C. Microrheology stress. fluctuations active behavior. of living. cells 2003 Nov;91(19):198101. - 124.
Aravas N. Laspidou C. S. On the calculation of the elastic modulus of a biofilm streamer 2008 101 1 196 3 - 125.
Water sci technolOhashi A. Koyama T. Syutsubo K. Harada H. A. novel method. for evaluation. of biofilm. tensile strength. resisting erosion. 1999 39 7 261 7 - 126.
Advances in biofilm mechanics. In: Hans-Curt, Wingender, Jost and Szewzyk, editor. Biofilm Highlights. Heidelberg, DE,: Springer;Guélon T. JD Mathias Stoodley. P. 2011 111 138 - 127.
Rheology of Biofilms. American Society of Civil Engineers 16th Engineering Mechanics Conference,;2003 - 128.
Biofilm growth and hydraulic performance. J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng.,Picologlou B. F. Zelver N. Characklis W. G. 1980 May;106 733 12 - 129.
Microrheology of bacterial biofilms in vitro: Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. LangmuirRogers S. S. van der Walle C. Waigh T. A. 2008 Dec;24 23 13549 13555 - 130.
Aggarwal S. Poppele E. H. Hozalski R. M. Development and testing of a novel microcantilever technique for measuring the cohesive strength of intact biofilms Biotechnol Bioeng2010 Apr;105 5 924 934 - 131.
Poppele EH, Hozalski RM. Micro-cantilever method for measuring the tensile strength of biofilms and microbial flocs. J Microbiol Methods2003 Dec;55 3 607 615 - 132.
Stoodley P. Lewandowski Z. JD Boyle-Scott Lappin. H. M. Structural deformation of bacterial biofilms caused by short-term fluctuations in fluid shear: an in situ investigation of biofilm rheolog y. Biotechnol Bioeng1999 Oct;65(1):83 92 - 133.
Coufort C. Derlon N. Ochoa-Chaves J. Line A. Paul E. Cohesion and detachment in biofilm systems for different electron acceptor and donors. Water Sci Technol2007 421 EOF 8 EOF - 134.
Rochex A. Godon J. J. Bernet N. Escudie R. Role of shear stress on composition, diversity and dynamics of biofilm bacterial communities Water Res2008 Dec;42 20 4915 4922 - 135.
Schofield A. L. Rudd T. R. DS Martin Fernig. D. G. Edwards C. Real-time monitoring of the development and stability of biofilms of Streptococcus mutans using the quartz crystal microbalance with dissipation monitoring Biosens Bioelectron2007 Oct;23 3 407 413 - 136.
Thwaites JJ, Surana UC. Mechanical properties of Bacillus subtilis cell walls: effects of removing residual culture medium. J Bacteriol1991 Jan;173 1 197 203 - 137.
Cerf A. Cau J. C. Vieu C. Dague E. Nanomechanical properties of dead or alive single-patterned bacteria Langmuir2009 May;25 10 5731 5736 - 138.
Boylana RJ, Mendelson NH. Initial Characterization of a Temperature-Sensitive Rod− Mutant of Bacillus subtilis. J Bacteriol1969 Dec;100 3 1316 5 - 139.
Abu-Lail NI, Camesano TA. The effect of solvent polarity on the molecular surface properties and adhesion of Escherichia coli Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces2006 Aug;51 1 62 70 - 140.
Lim CT, Zhou EH, Quek ST. Mechanical models for living cells--a review.. J Biomech2006 Feb;39 2 195 21