Microtubules may harden or soften cells, depending of the extent of cell distension.

Experimental data show that disruption of microtubules causes cells to either become stiffer or softer. Current understanding of these behaviors is based on several different mechanisms, each of which can account for only stiffening or softening. In this study we offer a model that can explain both these features. The model is based on the cellular tensegrity idea. Key premises of the model are that cell shape stability is secured through pre-existing mechanical stress (prestress) borne by the actin cytoskeletal network, and that this prestress is partly balanced by cytoskeletal microtubules and partly by the extracellular matrix. Thus, disturbance of this balance would affect cell deformability. The model predicts that disruption of microtubules causes an increase or a decrease in cell stiffness, depending on the extent to which microtubules participate in balancing the prestress which, in turn, depends on the extent of cell spreading. In highly spread cells microtubules have a minor and negative contribution to cell stiffness, whereas in less spread cells their contribution is positive and substantial. Since in their natural habitat cells seldom exhibit highly spread forms, the above results suggest that the contribution of microtubules to cell deformability cannot be overlooked.

[1]  E. Elson,et al.  Contraction due to microtubule disruption is associated with increased phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chain. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  C. S. Chen,et al.  Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure. , 1997, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  F. Guilak,et al.  The role of the cytoskeleton in the viscoelastic properties of human articular chondrocytes. , 2004, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[4]  D. Ingber,et al.  Mechanical behavior in living cells consistent with the tensegrity model , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  S. Timoshenko Theory of Elastic Stability , 1936 .

[6]  R. Buxbaum,et al.  Tension and compression in the cytoskeleton of PC 12 neurites , 1985, The Journal of cell biology.

[7]  K. Fujiwara,et al.  Isolation and contraction of the stress fiber. , 1998, Molecular biology of the cell.

[8]  Ben Fabry,et al.  Intracellular stress tomography reveals stress focusing and structural anisotropy in cytoskeleton of living cells. , 2003, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[9]  R M Nerem,et al.  Application of the micropipette technique to the measurement of cultured porcine aortic endothelial cell viscoelastic properties. , 1990, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[10]  M. F. Coughlin,et al.  A Tensegrity Structure With Buckling Compression Elements: Application to Cell Mechanics , 1997 .

[11]  D. Ingber Tensegrity I. Cell structure and hierarchical systems biology , 2003, Journal of Cell Science.

[12]  William Prager,et al.  Theory of Elastic Stability, Second Edition , 1962 .

[13]  M. Long,et al.  Comparison of the viscoelastic properties of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells under cytoskeletal perturbation. , 2000, Biorheology.

[14]  R. Connelly,et al.  Mathematics and Tensegrity , 1998, American Scientist.

[15]  Ning Wang,et al.  Effect of the cytoskeletal prestress on the mechanical impedance of cultured airway smooth muscle cells. , 2002, Journal of applied physiology.

[16]  N Wang,et al.  Mechanical interactions among cytoskeletal filaments. , 1998, Hypertension.

[17]  J. Hartwig,et al.  Mechanical Remodeling of the Endothelial Surface and Actin Cytoskeleton Induced by Fluid Flow , 1997, Microcirculation.

[18]  R. Buxbaum,et al.  Tension and compression in the cytoskeleton of PC-12 neurites. II: Quantitative measurements. , 1988, The Journal of cell biology.

[19]  R. Paul,et al.  Effects of microtubule disruption on force, velocity, stiffness and [Ca(2+)](i) in porcine coronary arteries. , 2000, American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology.

[20]  D Stamenović,et al.  Contribution of intermediate filaments to cell stiffness, stiffening, and growth. , 2000, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[21]  G W Brodland,et al.  Intermediate filaments may prevent buckling of compressively loaded microtubules. , 1990, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[22]  T A Wilson,et al.  A strain energy function for lung parenchyma. , 1985, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[23]  D. Stamenović,et al.  Cell prestress. I. Stiffness and prestress are closely associated in adherent contractile cells. , 2002, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[24]  T. Yanagida,et al.  Multiple- and single-molecule analysis of the actomyosin motor by nanometer-piconewton manipulation with a microneedle: unitary steps and forces. , 1996, Biophysical journal.

[25]  Ning Wang,et al.  Cell spreading controls balance of prestress by microtubules and extracellular matrix. , 2004, Frontiers in bioscience : a journal and virtual library.

[26]  R. Waugh,et al.  Passive mechanical behavior of human neutrophils: effects of colchicine and paclitaxel. , 1998, Biophysical journal.

[27]  Dimitrije Stamenović,et al.  Cell prestress. II. Contribution of microtubules. , 2002, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.