Reinforcement versus Fluidization in Cytoskeletal Mechanoresponsiveness

dc.contributor.authorKrishnan, Ramaswamy
dc.contributor.authorPark, Chan Young
dc.contributor.authorLin, Yu-Chun
dc.contributor.authorMead, Jere
dc.contributor.authorJaspers, Richard T.
dc.contributor.authorTrepat Guixer, Xavier
dc.contributor.authorLenormand, Guillaume
dc.contributor.authorTambe, Dhananjay
dc.contributor.authorSmolensky, Alexander V.
dc.contributor.authorKnoll, Andrew H.
dc.contributor.authorButler, James P.
dc.contributor.authorFredberg, Jeffrey J.
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-06T16:00:32Z
dc.date.available2013-06-06T16:00:32Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.date.updated2013-06-06T16:00:32Z
dc.description.abstractEvery adherent eukaryotic cell exerts appreciable traction forces upon its substrate. Moreover, every resident cell within the heart, great vessels, bladder, gut or lung routinely experiences large periodic stretches. As an acute response to such stretches the cytoskeleton can stiffen, increase traction forces and reinforce, as reported by some, or can soften and fluidize, as reported more recently by our laboratory, but in any given circumstance it remains unknown which response might prevail or why. Using a novel nanotechnology, we show here that in loading conditions expected in most physiological circumstances the localized reinforcement response fails to scale up to the level of homogeneous cell stretch; fluidization trumps reinforcement. Whereas the reinforcement response is known to be mediated by upstream mechanosensing and downstream signaling, results presented here show the fluidization response to be altogether novel: it is a direct physical effect of mechanical force acting upon a structural lattice that is soft and fragile. Cytoskeletal softness and fragility, we argue, is consistent with early evolutionary adaptations of the eukaryotic cell to material properties of a soft inert microenvironment.
dc.format.extent8 p.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.idgrec570932
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.pmid19424501
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2445/44093
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS)
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005486
dc.relation.ispartofPLoS One, 2009, vol. 4, num. 5, p. e5486
dc.relation.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005486
dc.rightscc-by (c) Krishnan, Ramaswamy et al., 2009
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Ciències Fisiològiques)
dc.subject.classificationCitosquelet
dc.subject.classificationProteïnes citosquelètiques
dc.subject.classificationRegulació cel·lular
dc.subject.otherCytoskeleton
dc.subject.otherCytoskeletal proteins
dc.subject.otherCellular control mechanisms
dc.titleReinforcement versus Fluidization in Cytoskeletal Mechanoresponsiveness
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Fitxers

Paquet original

Mostrant 1 - 1 de 1
Carregant...
Miniatura
Nom:
570932.pdf
Mida:
1.5 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format