Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:40:00.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Traction Stresses and Morphology of 3T3 Fibroblast Cells on Fibronectin-versus RGD- Modified Elastic Substrata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2011

Padmavathy Rajagopalan ,
William A. Marganski ,
Micah Dembo  and
Joyce Wong
Padmavathy Rajagopalan
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
William A. Marganski
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Micah Dembo
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Joyce Wong
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical EngineeringBoston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Get access

Abstract

We report a study on cellular traction forces and morphology on fibronectin (FN)- and Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD) modified substrata. We have focused on fibronectin- and RGD- modified substrata because RGD is a primary cell-binding site on fibronectin. In this study we report the traction stresses exerted by NIH (National Institutes of Health) 3T3 fibroblasts on model polyacrylamide hydrogel substrates using the elastic substrata technique. At equal values of input concentration of fibronectin and RGD we find that the values forprojected cell area are similar. However, a significant difference is observed in the traction forces exerted by fibroblasts on fibronectin- compared to RGD-modified surfaces. At equal values of input concentration, the average force exerted by NIH 3T3 fibroblasts is approximately ten fold higher on fibronectin-modified surfaces in comparison to RGD-modified surfaces.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 711: Symposia FF/GG/HH – Advanced Biomaterials--Characterization, Tissue Engineering and Complexity , 2001 , GG5.9.1
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. DiMilla, P., Stone, J.A., Quinn, J.A., Albelda, S.M., and Lauffenberger, D.A., J. Cell Biol. 122(3), 729–737 (1993).Google Scholar
2. Brandley, B.K., Shaper, J.L., and Schnaar, R.L., Dev. Bio. 140, 161–171 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Pelham, R.J., and Wang, Yu-Li, PNAS 94, 13661–13665 (1997).Google Scholar
4. Pierschbacher, M.D., and Ruoshlati, E., Nature 309, 30–33 (1984).Google Scholar
5. Obara, M., Kang, M.S., and Yamada, K., Cell 53, 649–657 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Massia, S.P., and Hubbell, J.A., J. Cell Biol. 114(5), 1089–1100 (1989).Google Scholar
7. Streeter, H.B., and Rees, D.A., J. Cell. Biol. 105, 507–515 (1987).Google Scholar
8. Oliver, T., Jacobsen, K., and Dembo, M., Methods Enzymol. 298, 497–521 (1998).Google Scholar
9. Dembo, M. and Wang, Yu-Li, Biophys. J. 76, 2307–2316 (1999).Google Scholar
10. Brandley, B.K., and Schnaar, R.L., Anal. Biochem. 172, 270–278 (1988).Google Scholar
11. Rajagopalan, P., Marganski, W.A., Dembo, M., and Wong, J.Y., unpublished results.Google Scholar
12. Aota, S., Nomizu, M., and Yamada, K.M., J. Biol. Chem. 269, 24756–24761 (1989).Google Scholar