spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online 28 October 2008
doi: 10.1242/jcs.029678

Journal of Cell Science 121, 3794-3802 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Material
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JCS
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Engler, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Discher, D. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Engler, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Discher, D. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Embryonic cardiomyocytes beat best on a matrix with heart-like elasticity: scar-like rigidity inhibits beating

Adam J. Engler1,2,*, Christine Carag-Krieger1,2, Colin P. Johnson1,2, Matthew Raab1,2, Hsin-Yao Tang3, David W. Speicher3, Joseph W. Sanger2,4, Jean M. Sanger2,4 and Dennis E. Discher1,2,3,{ddagger}

1 Molecular and Cell Biophysics Lab, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
2 Pennsylvania Muscle Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
3 The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
4 Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA


Figure 1
View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. Cell and matrix contraction. (A) Cells were imaged in brightfield mode 3-5 µm above the cell-matrix interface (i) and in fluorescence at the cell-matrix interface to observe particle motion during contraction (see inset pseudo-colored beads) to determine cellular and matrix deformations, respectively, that were then used to generate matrix (ii) and cellular (iii) principal strain maps. Note the difference in matrix strain between soft and stiff gels reflected by decreased deformation of the contracted cell. (B) The maximum cellular strain {epsilon}cell is similar to the maximum matrix strain for soft matrices {epsilon}out, resulting in small {epsilon}in values. Hard substrates only allow the cell to deform itself during contraction. The transition between these regimes occurs at E*, where internal and external strain appear equivalent. Curve fits to guide the eye are of the form y=a+bEmxn/(Em+E1/2m) with m=6 and n=0 (matrix), n=1 (cell). Error bars, ± s.d. for at least five cells in duplicate studies. Paired t-tests were used to identify significant differences between {epsilon}in of cells on softer versus stiffer gels (*P<0.05) and between cell strains on different gels. In the latter case, no two cell strains were significantly different. (C) Schematic of strained states for soft gels (E* gels) and stiff gels that respectively yield {epsilon}in<{epsilon}out, {epsilon}in={epsilon}out, and {epsilon}in>{epsilon}out. (D) The contractile `work' done by cardiomyocytes on the substrate peaks at E*.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Myocardial elasticity during embryogenesis. Histograms of elastic moduli (~150 locations per sample) determined from quail embryos show two peaks, one indicating passive elasticity of contractile myocardium (EStiff) and a softer, second peak (ESoft) which surrounds the myocardium and increases in frequency with development. Results for normal and infarcted rat myocardium are indicated for comparison (Berry et al., 2006Go).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (68K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 3. In vitro striation of cardiomyocytes. (A) Purified cardiomyocytes from 10-day-old embryonic myocardium were plated onto substrates of varying elasticity to observe striated cytoskeletal organization with skeletal {alpha}-actinin. Many cells on both soft gels and intermediate E* gels reassembled myofibrils whereas cells on hard matrices exhibited less myofibril reassembly. Inset images show magnified views of the larger images. (B) Fraction of cardiomyocytes that exhibit striation throughout the cytoplasm (± s.d. for >15 cells in triplicate studies). Organization appeared greatest on E* gels.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 4. Cardiomyocyte and fibroblast spreading. Cardiomyocytes and pericardial fibroblasts were plated from 10-day old embryonic myocardium without purification and spread areas were measured (± s.d. for >15 cells in triplicate studies) after 4 or 24 hours. Fibroblasts were detected as {alpha}-actinin-negative cells and were the larger fraction of cells, consistent with in vivo proliferation (Fig. 2B). Half maximal `set points' for projected cell area correspond closely to the peaks in passive tissue elasticity in Fig. 2B.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 5. Cardiomyocyte beating is sensitive to matrix elasticity. Purified cardiomyocytes were plated at low density on matrices of varied stiffness, and beating was observed in phase contrast. (A) Beat frequency is elasticity-dependent, with cells on hard matrices slowing their beat frequency over days. (B) The percentage of cells beating was also quantified after 4, 24 and 48 hours post isolation. Beating cells persisted only on matrices with E≤E*. Error bars are ± s.d. for >5 cells, 10 seconds each in triplicate.

 

Figure 6
View larger version (51K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 6. Protein abundance assessments in embryonic chicken cardiomyocytes grown on soft or hard matrices. (A) SDS-PAGE separation and densitometry analyses of lysates from 7-day embryonic chicken cardiomyocytes grown on 1 kPa or 34 kPa grown for 24 hours and then lysed, denatured and labeled by mBBr. (B) Mass spectrometry analyses of tryptic peptides or immunoblot results from the indicated gel bands (a-c). These bands were chosen as candidate cytoskeletal proteins using differential labeling in in-situ Cys-shotgun experiments (Table 1). The numbers of unique peptides are indicated from two different experiments. Immunoblotting for sarcomeric myosin and vimentin also indicated no significant differences in abundance.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (23K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 7. Cell-driven, matrix-coupled remodeling through a combination of forced extension, unfolding or dissociation of proteins. On hard matrices, the intracellular strains {epsilon}in exceed the extracellular strains {epsilon}out and intracellular remodeling is promoted.

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?



© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008