Abstract

Using an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) with a 5.3 μm diameter spherical probe, we determined mechanical properties of individual human mammary epithelial cells. The cells were derived from a pair of cell lines that mimic cell progression through four phases of neoplastic transformation: normal (non-transformed), immortal, tumorigenic, and metastatic. Measurements on cells in all four phases were taken over both the cytoplasmic and nuclear regions. Moreover, the measurements were made for cells in different microenvironments as related to cell–cell contacts: isolated cells; cells residing on the periphery of a contiguous cell monolayer; and cells on the inside of a contiguous cell monolayer. By fitting the AFM force versus indentation curves to a Hertz model, we determined the pseudo-elastic Young’s modulus, E. Combining all data for the cellular subregions (over nucleus and cytoplasm) and the different cell microenvironments, we obtained stiffness values for normal, immortal, tumorigenic, and metastatic cells of 870 Pa, 870 Pa, 490 Pa, and 580 Pa, respectively. That is, cells become softer as they advance to the tumorigenic phase and then stiffen somewhat in the final step to metastatic cells. We also found a distinct contrast in the influence of a cell’s microenvironment on cell stiffness. Normal mammary epithelial cells inside a monolayer are stiffer than peripheral cells, which are stiffer than isolated cells. However, the microenvironment had a slight, opposite effect on tumorigenic and little effect on immortal and metastatic cell stiffness. Thus, the stiffness of cancer cells is less sensitive to the microenvironment than normal cells. Our results show that the mechanical properties of a cell can depend on cancer progression and microenvironment (cell–cell interactions).

Highlights

  • Over the last few decades significant progress has been made in understanding the underlying genetic and epigenetic causes of cancer [1]

  • Our results show that the tumorigenic cells (Tum) are softer than normal cells (HMEC) in each category

  • We were not able to collect data for tumorigenic or metastatic cells growing inside a monolayer, since neither of these cell types could form a monolayer like the normal and immortal cells

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Over the last few decades significant progress has been made in understanding the underlying genetic and epigenetic causes of cancer [1]. The cells represent four different phases of cancer progression: normal—meaning non-immortal, non-tumorigenic and non-metastatic— (HMEC); immortal (Imm); tumorigenic (Tum); and metastatic (Met) We chose these cells since they are closely related to each other: they are either HMECs, or they are derived from cells that once were HMECs. We determined the elastic moduli of all cells as (i) a function of the subregion of a cell (over nucleus versus over cytoplasm), and (ii) as a function of the cell’s microenvironment (inside, on the periphery, or isolated outside of a contiguous cellular monolayer). When taking measurements over the nucleus, it is likely that the elastic properties of the cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus are determined (assuming the nucleus is stiffer than the cytoplasm), rather than the elastic properties of the nucleus This feature of cells (that the cytoplasm surrounding the nucleus is a few micrometers thick) can be beneficial if the AFM is to be used as a diagnostic tool in cell mechanics. This is critical when physical properties, such as stiffness, are considered as diagnostic markers

Materials and methods
Theoretical model
AFM and epifluorescence microscopy
12 Stiffness
Results and discussion
Stiffness versus cell type
Stiffness versus cellular subregion
Stiffness versus monolayer microenvironment
Comparison with literature
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call