Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:26:19.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Ligand Density Gradient on the Adhesion Kinetics of Biological Membranes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Alireza Sarvestani  and
Esmaiel Jabbari
Alireza Sarvestani
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of South Carolina, Department of Chemical Engineering, 301 South Main St., Columbia, SC, 29208, United States, 8037777398
Esmaiel Jabbari
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of South Carolina, Department of Chemical Engineering, 301 South Main St., Columbia, SC, 29208, United States
Get access

Abstract

An analytical model is developed for the effect of surface gradient in ligand density on the adhesion kinetics of a curved elastic membrane with mobile receptors. The displacement and speed of spreading at the edge of the adhesion zone as well as the density profile of receptors along the membrane are predicted as a function of time. According to results, in the diffusion-controlled regime, the front edge displacement of adhesion zone and the rate of membrane spreading decreased with increasing ligand density in a certain direction. Furthermore, the displacement of the edge of the adhesion zone did not scale with the square root of time, as observed on substrates with uniform ligand density.

Keywords

adhesionbiologicaldiffusion
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1063: Symposium OO – Solids at the Biological Interface , 2007 , 1063-OO01-10
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

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. Boulbitch, A., Guttenberg, Z. and Sackmann, E., Biophys. J. 81, 2743 (2001).Google Scholar
2. Brochard-Wyart, F. and Gennes, P. G. de, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 7854 (2002).Google Scholar
3. Freund, L. B. and Lin, Y., J. Mech. Phys. Solids 52, 2455 (2004).Google Scholar
4. Shenoy, V. B. and Freund, L. B., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 3213 (2005).Google Scholar
5. DiMilla, P. A., Stone, J. A., Quinn, J. A., Albelda, S. M. and Lauffenburger, D. A., J. Cell Biol. 122, 729 (1993).Google Scholar
6. Huttenlocher, A., Ginsberg, M.and Horwitz., A. J. Cell Biol. 134, 1551 (1996).Google Scholar
7. Maheshwari, G., Wells, A., Griffith, L. G. and Lauffenburger, D. A, Biophys. J. 76, 2814 (1999).Google Scholar
8. Maheshwari, G., Brown, G. L., Lauffenburger, D. A., Wells, A.and Griffith, L. G., J. Cell Sci. 113, 1677 (2000).Google Scholar
9. Harris, B. P., Kutty, J. K., Fritz, E. W., Webb, C. K., Burg, K. J. L. and Metters, A. T., Langmuir 22, 4467 (2006).Google Scholar