Cellular Volume and Matrix Stiffness Direct Stem Cell Behavior in a 3D Microniche
Source abstract
Abstract
The central question addressed in this study is whether cells with different sizes have different responses to matrix stiffness. We used methacrylated hyaluronic acid (MeHA) hydrogels as the matrix to prepare an in vitro 3D microniche in which the single stem cell volume and matrix stiffness can be altered independently from each other. This simple approach enabled us to decouple the effects of matrix stiffness and cell volume in 3D microenvironments. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) were cultured in individual 3D microniches with different volumes (2800, 3600, and 6000 μm3) and stiffnesses (5, 12, and 23 kPa). We demonstrated that cell volume affected the cellular response to matrix stiffness. When cells had an optimal volume, cells could form clear stress fibers and focal adhesions on soft, intermediate, or stiff matrix. In small cells, stress fiber formation and YAP/TAZ localization were not affected by stiffness. This study highlights the importance of considering cellular volume and substrate stiffness as important cues governing cell–matrix interactions.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular Mechanics and Interactions · 3D Printing in Biomedical Research · Cancer Cells and Metastasis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Institute for Molecules and Materials, Radboud University, Heyendaalseweg 135, Nijmegen 6525 AJ, The Netherlands
Funding
China Scholarship Council
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nature0495710.1038/nature04957 ↗
2. 10.1002/adma.20130176210.1002/adma.201301762 ↗
3. 10.1038/nrm362010.1038/nrm3620 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.03510.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.035 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.02110.1016/j.biomaterials.2018.04.021 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.04410.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044 ↗
7. 10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b0161910.1021/acs.nanolett.5b01619 ↗
8. 10.1021/acsami.5b0974610.1021/acsami.5b09746 ↗
9. 10.1038/nmat273210.1038/nmat2732 ↗
10. 10.1002/advs.20180044810.1002/advs.201800448 ↗
11. 10.1038/nmat358610.1038/nmat3586 ↗
12. 10.1038/nmat448910.1038/nmat4489 ↗
13. 10.1038/nature0352110.1038/nature03521 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.05310.1016/j.cell.2013.08.053 ↗
15. 10.1126/science.124507510.1126/science.1245075 ↗
16. 10.1073/pnas.170517911410.1073/pnas.1705179114 ↗
17. 10.1126/science.124314710.1126/science.1243147 ↗
18. 10.1038/ncb1001-91810.1038/ncb1001-918 ↗
19. 10.1038/nmat351710.1038/nmat3517 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.00810.1016/j.molmed.2015.05.008 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.02310.1016/j.ceb.2010.08.023 ↗
22. 10.1016/j.joca.2004.10.00710.1016/j.joca.2004.10.007 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.378510.1016/j.bpj.2017.11.3785 ↗
24. 10.1073/pnas.090146210610.1073/pnas.0901462106 ↗
25. 10.1038/s41467-017-02163-210.1038/s41467-017-02163-2 ↗
26. 10.1021/acsami.6b0175510.1021/acsami.6b01755 ↗
27. 10.1021/acsami.7b0388310.1021/acsami.7b03883 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.00810.1016/j.cell.2017.10.008 ↗
29. 10.1038/nature1013710.1038/nature10137 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.06110.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.06.061 ↗