| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02115; and 2 University of Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Yugoslavia
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Magnetic twisting cytometry probes mechanical properties of an adherent cell by applying a torque to a magnetic bead that is tightly bound to the cell surface. Here we have used a three-dimensional finite element model of cell deformation to compute the relationships between the applied torque and resulting bead rotation and lateral bead translation. From the analysis, we computed two coefficients that allow the cell elastic modulus to be estimated from measurements of either bead rotation or lateral bead translation, respectively, if the degree of bead embedding and the cell height are known. Although computed strains in proximity of the bead can be large, the relationships between applied torque and bead rotation or translation remain virtually linear up to bead rotations of 15°, above which geometrical nonlinearities become significant. This appreciable linear range stands in contrast to the intrinsically nonlinear force-displacement relationship that is observed when cells are indented during atomic force microscopy. Finally, these computations support the idea that adhesive forces are sufficient to keep the bead firmly attached to the cell surface throughout the range of working torques.
elastic modulus; cell stiffness; bead embedding; cell height; magnetic twisting cytometry
| |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
CELL DEFORMABILITY PLAYS AN important role in a variety of cell functions, including contraction, spreading, crawling, and wound healing (4-6, 13). To measure cell deformability and its changes, our laboratory has made extensive use of magnetic twisting cytometry (5, 6, 14, 15, 20, 22, 23, 29, 35, 37-39). Magnetic twisting cytometry probes mechanical properties of an adherent cell by applying a torque to a magnetic bead that is tightly bound to the cell surface. Most studies that use this method have reported the relationship between the applied torque and resulting angular rotations. More recent studies have reported the relationship between the applied torque and resulting lateral bead displacements (10, 11). With either approach, data analysis reported thus far has emphasized relative changes in cell stiffness, or an "apparent stiffness," rather than the absolute elastic modulus.
In this report, we have used three-dimensional finite element models to compute the relationships between the applied torque and resulting cell deformation, bead rotation, and lateral bead translation. We have assessed the effects of different degrees of bead embedding and cell height within a geometrically linear range of cell deformation. From these relationships, the elastic modulus of the cell can be computed if the bead-cell geometry is known. Assuming a linear elastic material and using geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis, we also assessed the limit up to which the linear analysis can be used.
| |
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Finite Element Model, Boundary Conditions, and Model Parameters
Geometry.
The cell was modeled as a three-dimensional slab with locally constant
height and a lateral extent of 50 bead diameters (Fig. 1B). Justification for the
assumption of a locally constant cell height is addressed in the
DISCUSSION. We also considered a spherical bead embedded in
an infinite elastic space that could be compared with an exact analytic
solution (28).
|
Finite element formulation. The finite element program PAK (17, 19) was used to calculate the rotation and displacement of a rigid sphere partially or completely embedded in the deformable continuum (cell). The deformable continuum is defined as elastic solid of finite or semi-infinite thickness, with the bottom surface fixed to the rigid surface. For a torque applied along the x-axis (Fig. 1A), we calculated displacements, strains, and stresses within the material (i.e., cell) and also the bead translation and rotation. We assumed no slipping between the bead surface and the cell body at the interface.
The essence of the finite element method consists of division of a continuum into subdomains, called finite elements, in which an approximate displacement field u is defined as
|
(1) |
|
(2) |
= 0.49, a value that does not cause
pressure locking of the elements. We also performed calculations with
= 0.45 and 0.499 and found only minor changes in sphere rotation
and displacement (differences of <0.5%). The stress field corresponding to = 0.49 was altered by only a few percent in the
case when was equal to 0.45. Thus our calculations with = 0.49 are reasonably accurate.
The finite element mesh. We point out that the stress everywhere on the bead-cell interface is expected to be bounded. This result is nontrivial, biologically important, and impacts the question of what is a sufficiently fine mesh for reasonable finite element approximations. The stress is bounded, even at the extremes of the bead-cell interface, because the sphere acts on the deformable cell as a rigid body without sharp edges (24). This is in contrast to the case of a rigid punch with sharp edges, which causes infinite stresses in elastic deformable solid in the proximity of the punch edges.
In the case of a bead embedded by only 10% of its diameter, we performed calculations with two meshes, one of which had 50% more elements than the other. In regions of maximum stress, we found differences approaching ~2.5%, with much smaller discrepancies elsewhere. The corresponding differences in computed bead displacements and rotations were <0.1%. Thus the use of the finer mesh was not necessary. The dependency of the results on the mesh size in the regions of high deformations is important, however, in analysis of geometrical nonlinearities. We observed negative Jacobians (i.e., the determinant of the transformation matrix between Cartesian and isoparametric coordinates) in a few of the most distorted elements when bead rotation exceeded 15°. An extreme case, in which Jacobians are still positive but small, is shown in Fig. 1B. The contribution of these distorted elements to the overall response was negligible, however. In the linear analysis, the Jacobians remained constant and are independent of the element distortion; in that case, we limited our calculations to specific torques (Ts) that were 25% smaller than those used in the nonlinear analysis. Numerical computations for the case of a bead embedded in an infinite medium (Fig. 2A) agreed within 0.5% with the corresponding analytic solution of Phan-Thien (28).
|
Parameter values.
The diameter of the ferromagnetic bead was taken as 4.5 µm. The
elastic material parameters of the deformable continuum (i.e., the cell) were taken as shear modulus (G) = 1,000 Pa and = 0.49; the G is related to the Young's modulus (E) by the
relationship G = E/[2(1 + )]. We studied
beads embedded to a depth of 5, 10, 25, 75, and 100% of the bead
diameter, and cell heights of 1 and 5 µm and semi-infinite.
Calculation of Apparent Cell Stiffness from Measured Rotation or Lateral Translation
The magnetic twisting field (i.e., the applied magnetic moment) causes both a rotation and a lateral translation of the beads (Fig. 1). The bead rotation is
, and the normalized lateral translation is
d* = d/R [i.e., the bead lateral
translation, d, expressed as a fraction of the bead radius
(R)]. We define apparent cell stiffness as
G
= Ts/(
) obtained from the bead
rotation, or apparent cell stiffness as Gd = Ts/(d*) from the bead lateral translation.
Here is a shape factor (6 for spherical beads). We will show below
that G and Gd strongly depend on
the degree of bead internalization and to a lesser degree on the cell height.
We calculated the relationship between the cell G and the apparent
stiffnesses G and Gd from
torque-rotation and torque-displacement dependencies obtained in our
analysis. We defined coefficients 
and 
by the relationships
G = G and Gd = G and
then computed and each as a function of the depth of bead
embedding and cell height.
| |
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Deformation, Stress, and Traction
Cell deformation and the stress fields in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic torque passing through the center of the bead are shown for four representative cases (Fig. 2). In all cases, the bead is taken out of the view, but the stresses at the cell-bead interface are shown. We show the equivalent (von Mises) stress (1), which is the overall measure of maximum shear stress. The simplest case is rotation about the x-axis of a bead in an infinite medium (Fig. 2A). In this case, there is no bead translation: the strain and stress fields and the interfacial tractions are uniform along the circumference in the plane perpendicular to the Tm. Stress decays rapidly in the radial direction (i.e., ~R/r3), from the maximum value at cell-microbead interface to ~15% of that value at the radial distance of ~2 µm from the microbead surface. Stress at the bead-cell interface (shown inside the white circle in Fig. 2A) decays to zero at the central point that lies on the spherical surface and the center of the axis of rotation. The maximum value of the interfacial traction is in the plane passing through the center of the bead; for a bead twisted by a Ts of 60 Pa, the traction is equal to 30 Pa.In contrast to the case of a bead in an infinite space, for a bead 50%
embedded in a cell 5 µm in height (Fig. 2B), the stress distribution is highly nonuniform around the bead interface and is
maximal near the intersection of the bead and the free apical surface
of the cell. This stress nonuniformity is far more prominent when the
bead is only 10% embedded (Fig. 2, C and D, for
two different cell heights). For 50% embedding, the peak stress is
about two times larger than that of the bead immerged in an infinite
medium, whereas for 10% embedding, the peak stress is >25 times
larger. Moreover, reduction of cell height from 5 to 1 µm (Fig. 2,
C and D) further increases the peak stresses by
~20%. The maximum stress is at the bead surface and coincides with
maximum traction at the cell-bead interface. The maximum tractions also
increase rapidly for less embedded beads. For example, for 10%
embedding, the maximum traction is ~2.5 kPa (Fig.
3). The effect of these local peak stresses and peak tractions at the bead-cell interface is discussed below.
|
Cell Shear Modulus
Figure 4A shows the relationship between the coefficient and the degree of bead
embedding for three different cell heights. With less bead embedding,
is much smaller than 1. For example, for 10% embedding,
G is only 5% of G (Fig. 4A), but increases toward unity as bead embedding increases. A decrease of the
cell height below one-half of the microbead diameter at fixed bead embedding increases more significantly, because the smaller bead
rotation is caused by greatly reduced cell deformation in proximity of
the rigid substrate.
|
Figure 4B shows the relationship between the coefficient and the degree of bead embedding for three different cell heights. Interestingly, the values of are only slightly larger than for
the small degrees of bead embedding, but they become progressively larger than as bead embedding increases. For a large degree of
embedding (>70%), becomes much larger than 1 and unbounded for
the bead embedded in an infinite medium, whereas never exceeds 1. These differences in vs. for the same degree of microbead embedding follows from the fact that, for the completely immerged microbead, the rotation remains finite, whereas the lateral
displacement approaches zero.
The coefficients and decrease progressively when the cell
height decreases below one bead diameter but change relatively little
when the cell height is larger than one bead diameter (Fig. 4).
Nonlinearity
Partially embedded beads show stress concentrations and associated large local deformations (Fig. 2, C and D). For example, the maximum strain for 10% embedded bead may reach 30% at Ts = 60 Pa and up to 50% at Ts = 80 Pa (Fig. 5). These maximum strain values are much larger than the usual small deformation limit of 4% (1, 18). Moreover, these large deformations create geometrical nonlinearities. To our surprise, the nonlinear analysis (performed for 10% embedded bead) showed that the relationship between the Ts and the bead rotation and/or bead displacements is insensitive to these local geometrical nonlinearities and remains virtually linear up to a rotation angle = 15°. For > 15°, geometrical nonlinearities became significant.
|
| |
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
Magnetic twisting cytometry probes mechanical properties of an
adherent cell by applying a torque to a magnetic microbead that is
tightly bound to the cell surface. Here we computed coefficients and that allow the cell elastic modulus to be estimated from measurements of either bead rotation or lateral bead translation, respectively, if the applied torque, the degree of bead embedding, and
the cell height are known. In the DISCUSSION, we deal first with three important limitations of the computational model and then go
on to discuss the implication of our results.
First, this theoretical analysis of cell deformation is based on a highly simplified geometry of a spherical bead partially embedded in a homogeneous isotropic linear elastic slab whose height is locally uniform. Real cell geometry is, of course, far more complex (40), with cell height varying along and across the adherent cell. The analysis shows, however, that fields of stress and strain induced by the imposed torque decay rapidly in the radial direction, varying roughly as the inverse cube of distance from the bead; within one bead diameter, the stress and strain become quite small (Figs. 2 and 5). This highly localized response implies that geometrical details at lateral distances of more than one bead diameter would be expected to have at most only a slight influence on the computed results. Therefore, the analysis would be expected to be valid for regions in which changes of cell height are small over distances comparable to one bead diameter.
Second, to perform these calculations, we used only one value for the G, a realistic one, but the results are applicable, nonetheless, for any value of the G. In the linear case, the assumed value of the G acts merely as a simple scale factor, setting the level of the stress field relative to that of the strain field. For a fixed applied torque, the stresses and tractions depend on the particular numerical value of the modulus. Note that spatial distribution of strains depends neither on the applied torque nor on the modulus. Much the same is true in the case of induced nonlinear distortions: the angular rotations required to induce a geometric nonlinearity would be unchanged, but the level of the torque required to induce that rotation would change.
Third, the computational analysis reported here was limited to static
conditions and does not explicitly take into account dynamic properties
of the cytoskeletal lattice, which could cause both frequency
dependence of the elastic modulus and an appreciable loss modulus
corresponding to internal frictional stresses
(10). Before, we defined G = G and Gd = G, and now we define the
complex moduli 
(f),
(f) = (f) and
and are independent of frequency, and they are identical to the
coefficients shown in Fig. 4. It can be shown that these coefficients equally apply to the cell constitutive law that obeys linear structural damping (8-10, 12) or linear viscoelasticity. The
analysis should not be expected to extend to the case of plastic
responses, however.
The key relationships for coefficients and are shown in Fig. 4.
These relationships are counterintuitive in an important regard that
deserves special comment. The results shown in Fig. 4 are surprisingly
insensitive to cell height. For example, the results for infinite cell
height vs. those for 5-µm cell height show only negligible
differences for a small extent of bead embedding and, at most, only
modest differences for 100% bead embedding. In the latter case (100%
embedding of a 4.5-µm bead in a 5-µm thick slab), there is a rigid
substrate with a no-slip boundary condition only 0.5 µm below the
bead. It might have been thought that such close proximity of the rigid
substrate would severely constrain bead motion and to an extent that is
far greater than the analysis actually predicts. The analysis shows,
however, that the dominant parts of the normal and tangential tractions
that balance the torque applied to the bead are generated well away from the regions that most closely approach the rigid substrate (Fig.
3), thus resolving the paradox. However, the effect of the proximity of
the rigid substrate becomes important when cell height is below
one-half of bead diameter.
The coefficients and (Fig. 4) allow calculation of the cell
elastic modulus from either torque-angle or torque-displacement measurements. The elastic modulus obtained in that way is comparable to
the modulus obtained by other techniques. For example, the apparent
cell stiffness of 60-100 Pa observed in smooth muscle cells
(20) divided by the coefficient = 0.1 (that
corresponds to average bead embedding of 20%) gives a cell G in the
range of 600-1,000 Pa, which is comparable to measurements of the
G of fibroblasts by micropipette manipulation (34) and
cell poking (27). A similar value of the G is observed in
myocytes obtained by atomic force microscopy (32).
Similarly, an apparent shear cell stiffness of endothelial cells of
~10 Pa (38) divided by the same coefficient (0.1)
becomes close to the G obtained from the micropipette aspiration
measurements of ~100 Pa (30, 31).
The analysis shows that the degree of bead embedding and the cell height profoundly influence bead rotation and translation. Therefore, observed variations of bead embedding, cell height variation with position of the bead on each cell (i.e., close to nucleus, where the smooth muscle cell height is >5 µm, and at the cell periphery where the cell height of the well-spread cell is <2 µm), may be the major factors contributing to the variability of the apparent stiffnesses calculated from the observed displacements of the individual bead displacements (10, 11). However, this variability can also be caused, at least in part, by differences in bead attachments to the cytoskeleton, by local stiffness differences within a cell, or differences between cells (different levels of activation, for example) that collectively contribute to the observed heterogeneity of apparent stiffness.
Our analysis gives a basis for an estimation of the range of linearity of the torque-rotation relationship over a wide range of bead embedding. In continuum mechanics of linear elastic solids, large deformations usually induce significant nonlinearity in the stress-strain relation for strains >4% (1, 18). Note that a strain of 4% corresponds to a bead rotation in an infinite medium of only 1.5°. Surprisingly, we found that, in the case of 10% embedding, the torque-rotation relationship remains linear up to a bead rotation of 15° or lateral translation of 20% of the bead radius, which, for a radius of 2.25 µm, yields a lateral translation of ~450 nm. This finding is consistent with experimentally observed linear rheological behavior among smooth muscle cells (10, 11). Although the maximum local strains approach 50%, which greatly exceeds the ordinary linearity limit of 4%, the region of these large strains is quite localized to the edges of the cell-bead interface (Fig. 5), and, as such, the overall system response remains virtually linear. With an increase of degree of bead embedding, these regions of large strains are less localized, and the linear torque-rotation limit must be gradually decreased (from bead rotation of 15° at 10% embedding to bead rotation of 1.5° in an infinite medium), regardless of a large decrease in the peak strains and stresses (Fig. 2). Despite this decrease of the linear limit, the maximum bead rotation of 15° is a sufficient criterion to ensure that a population of beads embedded >10% is within the linear torque-rotation range.
The existence of an appreciable linear range using this method stands in contrast to the force-displacement relationship measured with atomic force microscopy, which exhibits no linear range due to intrinsic geometric distortions induced by contact of the probe tip with the cell (7).
It is important to note that the bead lateral translations
become extremely small for large-bead embedding (Fig.
6). For example, in the limit of the
resolution of optical readings of ~5 nm (10, 11), the
displacement (of 4.5-µm bead) can be accurately measured for beads
embedded <75%. Moreover, determination of dynamic moduli from
torque-displacement loops may further be limited by the optical resolution to beads embedded <50%.
|
Finally, in the literature, the interpretation of data obtained by magnetic twisting cytometry has rested on the assumption that receptor-ligand bonds have sufficient adhesion strength and numbers to keep the bead attached to the cell over the whole interface and ensure a no-slip boundary condition. Based on the tractions computed here, is that a reasonable assumption? Typical receptor-ligand bond strength is 10 pN, and a typical receptor-ligand bond density has a range from several hundred up to 10,000 bonds/µm2 (3, 16, 25, 26, 41, 42). To support induced translation due to bead twisting, the minimum receptor density for the completely embedded bead (Fig. 2A) is only 3 bonds/µm2, whereas, for a bead emerged 10%, the minimum required bond density may reach >250 bonds/µm2. Therefore, the ligand adhesion strength may be sufficient to keep the bead firmly attached to the cell and the cell to the substrate. Consequently, peeling of the bead from cell surface or the cell from substrate would not be expected to occur (10, 11, 20).
Conclusions
We have shown that the elastic modulus can be obtained from the apparent cell stiffness if the degree of bead embedding and cell height is known. The elastic modulus estimated in this way is consistent with estimates of the elastic modulus assessed by other techniques in muscle and nonmuscle cells (20, 33, 43). We have calculated the limiting maximum angle of rotation in terms of the degree of the bead embedding, for which the torque-angle of rotation and torque-displacement relationships are linear. Finally, based on estimated bond densities and maximum Ts values that are used in these techniques, we found that the adhesion strength of integrin bonds seems to be sufficient to keep the bead firmly attached to the cell.| |
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
|---|
We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Ning Wang and Dr. James Butler for helpful discussions and critical review of this article.
| |
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
This work was supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grants HL-33009 and HL-59682.
Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: S. M. Mijailovich, Physiology Program, Dept. of Environmental Health, Bldg. I, Rm. 1306B, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02115 (E-mail: smijailo{at}hsph.harvard.edu).
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
June 21, 2002;10.1152/japplphysiol.00255.2002
Received 27 March 2002; accepted in final form 17 June 2002.
| |
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
|
|---|
1.
Bathe, KJ.
Finite Element Procedures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
2.
Bathe, KJ,
and
Mijailovich SM.
Finite element analysis of frictional contact problems.
Journal de Mechanique et Applique
7, Suppl 1-7:
31-47,
1988.
3.
Bell, GI.
Models for the specific adhesion of cells to cells.
Science
200:
618-627,
1978
4.
Bereiter-Hahn, J,
Karl I,
Luers H,
and
Voth M.
Mechanical basis of cell shape: investigations with the scanning acoustic microscope.
Biochem Cell Biol
73:
337-348,
1995[ISI][Medline].
5.
Chen, CS,
Mrksich M,
Huang S,
Whitesides GM,
and
Ingber DE.
Geometric control of cell life and death.
Science
276:
1425-1428,
1997
6.
Chicurel, ME,
Singer RH,
Meyer CJ,
and
Ingber DE.
Integrin binding and mechanical tension induce movement of mRNA and ribosomes to focal adhesions.
Nature
392:
730-733,
1998[Medline].
7.
Costa, KD,
and
Yin FC.
Analysis of indentation: implications for measuring mechanical properties with atomic force microscopy.
J Biomech Eng
121:
462-471,
1999[ISI][Medline].
8.
Crandall, SH.
Dynamic response of systems with structural damping.
In: Air, Space, and Instruments. Draper Anniversary Volume, edited by Lees S.. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963, p. 183-193.
9.
Crandall, SH.
The role of damping in vibration theory.
J Sound Vib
13:
3-18,
1970.
10.
Fabry, B,
Maksym GN,
Butler JP,
Glogauer M,
Navajas D,
and
Fredberg JJ.
Scaling the microrheology of living cells.
Physiol Rev Lett
87:
148102,
2001.
11.
Fabry, B,
Maksym GN,
Shore SA,
Moore PE,
Panettieri RA, Jr,
Butler JP,
and
Fredberg JJ.
Selected contribution: time course and heterogeneity of contractile responses in cultured human airway smooth muscle cells.
J Appl Physiol
91:
986-994,
2001
12.
Fredberg, JJ,
and
Stamenovic D.
On the imperfect elasticity of lung tissue.
J Appl Physiol
67:
2408-2419,
1989
13.
Galbraith, CG,
Skalak R,
and
Chien S.
Shear stress induces spatial reorganization of the endothelial cell cytoskeleton.
Cell Motil Cytoskeleton
40:
317-330,
1998[ISI][Medline].
14.
Hubmayr, RD,
Shore SA,
Fredberg JJ,
Planus E,
Panettieri RA, Jr,
Moller W,
Heyder J,
and
Wang N.
Pharmacological activation changes stiffness of cultured human airway smooth muscle cells.
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol
271:
C1660-C1668,
1996
15.
Ingber, DE.
Tensegrity: the architectural basis of cellular mechanotransduction.
Annu Rev Physiol
59:
575-599,
1997[ISI][Medline].
16.
Irvine, DJ,
Hue KA,
Mayes AM,
and
Griffith LG.
Simulations of cell-surface integrin binding to nanoscale-clustered adhesion ligands.
Biophys J
82:
120-132,
2002
17.
Kojic, M.
The governing parameter method for implicit integration of viscoplastic constitutive relations for isotropic and orthotropic metals.
Int J Computational Mechanics
19:
49-57,
1996.
18.
Kojic M and Bathe KJ. Inelastic Analysis of Solids and
Structures. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. In
press.
19.
Kojic, M,
Grujovic N,
Slavkovic R,
and
Zivkovic M.
A general orthotropic von Mises plasticity material model with mixed hardening-model definition and implicit stress integration procedure.
Trans ASME
63:
376-382,
1996.
20.
Maksym, GN,
Fabry B,
Butler JP,
Navajas D,
Tschumperlin DJ,
Laporte JD,
and
Fredberg JJ.
Mechanical properties of cultured human airway smooth muscle cells from 0.05 to 0.4 Hz.
J Appl Physiol
89:
1619-1632,
2000
21.
Mijailovich, SM,
Stamenovic D,
and
Fredberg JJ.
Toward a kinetic theory of connective tissue micromechanics.
J Appl Physiol
74:
665-681,
1993
22.
Moore, PE,
Lahiri T,
Laporte JD,
Church T,
Panettieri RA, Jr,
and
Shore SA.
Signal Transduction in Smooth Muscle: Selected Contribution: Synergism between TNF- and IL-1 in airway smooth muscle cells: implications for -adrenergic responsiveness.
J Appl Physiol
91:
1467-1474,
2001
23.
Moore, PE,
Laporte JD,
Abraham Schwartzman IN JH,
Yandava CN,
Silverman ES,
Drazen JM,
Wand MP,
Panettieri RA, Jr,
and
Shore SA.
Polymorphism of the beta(2)-adrenergic receptor gene and desensitization in human airway smooth muscle.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med
162:
2117-2124,
2000
24.
Muskhelishvili, NI.
Some Basic Problems of the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity. Groningen, Holland: Noordhoff, 1953.
25.
Needham, D,
and
Nunn RS.
Elastic deformation and failure of lipid bilayer membranes containing cholesterol.
Biophys J
58:
997-1009,
1990
26.
Noppl-Simson, DA,
and
Needham D.
Avidin-biotin interactions at vesicle surfaces: adsorption and binding, cross-bridge formation, and lateral interactions.
Biophys J
70:
1391-1401,
1996
27.
Petersen, NO,
McConnaughey WB,
and
Elson EL.
Dependence of locally measured cellular deformability on position on the cell, temperature, and cytochalasin B.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
79:
5327-5331,
1982
28.
Phan-Thien, N.
Rigid spherical inclusion: the multiple expansion.
J Elast
32:
243-252,
1993.
29.
Potard, US,
Butler JP,
and
Wang N.
Cytoskeletal mechanics in confluent epithelial cells probed through integrins and E-cadherins.
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol
272:
C1654-C1663,
1997
30.
Sato, M,
Ohshima N,
and
Nerem RM.
Viscoelastic properties of cultured porcine aortic endothelial cells exposed to shear stress.
J Biomech
29:
461-467,
1996[ISI][Medline].
31.
Sato, M,
Theret DP,
Wheeler LT,
Ohshima N,
and
Nerem RM.
Application of the micropipette technique to the measurement of cultured porcine aortic endothelial cell viscoelastic properties.
J Biomech Eng
112:
263-268,
1990[ISI][Medline].
32.
Shroff, SG,
Saner DR,
and
Lal R.
Dynamic micromechanical properties of cultured rat atrial myocytes measured by atomic force microscopy.
Am J Physiol Cell Physiol
269:
C286-C292,
1995
33.
Stamenovic, D,
and
Coughlin MF.
The role of prestress and architecture of the cytoskeleton and deformability of cytoskeletal filaments in mechanics of adherent cells: a quantitative analysis.
J Theor Biol
201:
63-74,
1999[ISI][Medline].
34.
Thoumine, O,
and
Ott A.
Time scale dependent viscoelastic and contractile regimes in fibroblasts probed by microplate manipulation.
J Cell Sci
110:
2109-2116,
1997[Abstract].
35.
Valberg, PA.
Magnetometry of ingested particles in pulmonary macrophages.
Science
224:
513-516,
1984
36.
Valberg, PA,
and
Butler JP.
Magnetic particle motions within living cells. Physical theory and techniques.
Biophys J
52:
537-550,
1987
37.
Wang, N,
Butler JP,
and
Ingber DE.
Mechanotransduction across the cell surface and through the cytoskeleton.
Science
260:
1124-1127,
1993
38.
Wang, N,
and
Ingber DE.
Control of cytoskeletal mechanics by extracellular matrix, cell shape, and mechanical tension.
Biophys J
66:
2181-2189,
1994
39.
Wang, N,
and
Ingber DE.
Probing transmembrane mechanical coupling and cytomechanics using magnetic twisting cytometry.
Biochem Cell Biol
73:
327-335,
1995[ISI][Medline].
40.
Wang, N,
Naruse K,
Stamenovic D,
Fredberg JJ,
Mijailovich SM,
Tolic-Norrelykke IM,
Polte T,
Mannix R,
and
Ingber DE.
Mechanical behavior in living cells consistent with the tensegrity model.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
98:
7765-7770,
2001
41.
Ward, MD,
Dembo M,
and
Hammer DA.
Kinetics of cell detachment: effect of ligand density.
Ann Biomed Eng
23:
322-331,
1995[ISI][Medline].
42.
Ward, MD,
and
Hammer DA.
A theoretical analysis for the effect of focal contact formation on cell-substrate attachment strength.
Biophys J
64:
936-959,
1993
43.
Yamada, S,
Wirtz D,
and
Kuo SC.
Mechanics of living cells measured by laser tracking microrheology.
Biophys J
78:
1736-1747,
2000
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. T. Mierke, P. Kollmannsberger, D. Paranhos Zitterbart, J. Smith, B. Fabry, and W. H. Goldmann Mechano-Coupling and Regulation of Contractility by the Vinculin Tail Domain Biophys. J., January 15, 2008; 94(2): 661 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Y. Leung, D. Tian, C. P. Brangwynne, D. A. Weitz, and D. J. Tschumperlin A new microrheometric approach reveals individual and cooperative roles for TGF-{beta}1 and IL-1{beta} in fibroblast-mediated stiffening of collagen gels FASEB J, July 1, 2007; 21(9): 2064 - 2073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. D. Hoffman, G. Massiera, K. M. Van Citters, and J. C. Crocker The consensus mechanics of cultured mammalian cells PNAS, July 5, 2006; 103(27): 10259 - 10264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. F. Coughlin, M. Puig-de-Morales, P. Bursac, M. Mellema, E. Millet, and J. J. Fredberg Filamin-A and Rheological Properties of Cultured Melanoma Cells Biophys. J., March 15, 2006; 90(6): 2199 - 2205. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. E. Laudadio, E. J. Millet, B. Fabry, S. S. An, J. P. Butler, and J. J. Fredberg Rat airway smooth muscle cell during actin modulation: rheology and glassy dynamics Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, December 1, 2005; 289(6): C1388 - C1395. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Deng, N. J. Fairbank, D. J. Cole, J. J. Fredberg, and G. N. Maksym Airway smooth muscle tone modulates mechanically induced cytoskeletal stiffening and remodeling J Appl Physiol, August 1, 2005; 99(2): 634 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Trepat, M. Grabulosa, L. Buscemi, F. Rico, R. Farre, and D. Navajas Thrombin and histamine induce stiffening of alveolar epithelial cells J Appl Physiol, April 1, 2005; 98(4): 1567 - 1574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 X. Trepat, M. Grabulosa, F. Puig, G. N. Maksym, D. Navajas, and R. Farre Viscoelasticity of human alveolar epithelial cells subjected to stretch Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, November 1, 2004; 287(5): L1025 - L1034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Puig-de-Morales, E. Millet, B. Fabry, D. Navajas, N. Wang, J. P. Butler, and J. J. Fredberg Cytoskeletal mechanics in adherent human airway smooth muscle cells: probe specificity and scaling of protein-protein dynamics Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, September 1, 2004; 287(3): C643 - C654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. N. Ghadiali, J. Banks, and J. D. Swarts Finite element analysis of active Eustachian tube function J Appl Physiol, August 1, 2004; 97(2): 648 - 654. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. P. Scherer and A. W. Gummer Impedance Analysis of the Organ of Corti with Magnetically Actuated Probes Biophys. J., August 1, 2004; 87(2): 1378 - 1391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Deng, N. J. Fairbank, B. Fabry, P. G. Smith, and G. N. Maksym Localized mechanical stress induces time-dependent actin cytoskeletal remodeling and stiffening in cultured airway smooth muscle cells Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, August 1, 2004; 287(2): C440 - C448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Stamenovic, B. Suki, B. Fabry, N. Wang, J. J. Fredberg, and J. E. Buy Rheology of airway smooth muscle cells is associated with cytoskeletal contractile stress J Appl Physiol, May 1, 2004; 96(5): 1600 - 1605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Karcher, J. Lammerding, H. Huang, R. T. Lee, R. D. Kamm, and M. R. Kaazempur-Mofrad A Three-Dimensional Viscoelastic Model for Cell Deformation with Experimental Verification Biophys. J., November 1, 2003; 85(5): 3336 - 3349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hu, J. Chen, B. Fabry, Y. Numaguchi, A. Gouldstone, D. E. Ingber, J. J. Fredberg, J. P. Butler, and N. Wang Intracellular stress tomography reveals stress focusing and structural anisotropy in cytoskeleton of living cells Am J Physiol Cell Physiol, November 1, 2003; 285(5): C1082 - C1090. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Alcaraz, L. Buscemi, M. Grabulosa, X. Trepat, B. Fabry, R. Farre, and D. Navajas Microrheology of Human Lung Epithelial Cells Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy Biophys. J., March 1, 2003; 84(3): 2071 - 2079. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
ij 
ij;
i, j = 1, 2, 3 are components of stress
deviator; and 
zz (A),
