Comparative study on the differential mechanical properties of human liver cancer and normal cells

Abstract Although cancerous cells and normal cells are known to have different elasticity values, there have been inconsistent reports in terms of the actual and relative values for these two cell types depending on the experimental conditions. This paper investigated the mechanical characterization of normal hepatocytes (THLE-2) and hepatocellular carcinoma cells (HepG2) using atomic force microscopy indentation experiments and the Hertz–Sneddon model, and the results were confirmed by an independent de-adhesion assay. To improve the reliability of the data, we considered the effects of tip geometry and indentation depth on the measured elasticity of the cells. This study demonstrated that THLE-2 cells had a higher elastic modulus compared with the HepG2 cells and that this difference was more significant when a conical tip was used. The inhibitor study indicated that this difference in the mechanical properties of THLE-2 and HepG2 cells was mainly attributed to differential arrangements in the cytoskeletal networks of actin filaments. An independent de-adhesion assay also confirmed that THLE-2 cells had a higher elastic modulus compared with the HepG2 cells, which resulted in a shorter time constant for cellular contractility.

[1]  J. Bishop,et al.  Visualization and quantification of breast cancer biomechanical properties with magnetic resonance elastography. , 2000, Physics in medicine and biology.

[2]  R. Lal,et al.  Dynamic micromechanical properties of cultured rat atrial myocytes measured by atomic force microscopy. , 1995, The American journal of physiology.

[3]  W. Kraus,et al.  Endothelial, cardiac muscle and skeletal muscle exhibit different viscous and elastic properties as determined by atomic force microscopy. , 2001, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  Ben Fabry,et al.  Microrheology of human lung epithelial cells measured by atomic force microscopy. , 2003, Biophysical journal.

[5]  M Radmacher,et al.  Measuring the elastic properties of biological samples with the AFM. , 1997, IEEE engineering in medicine and biology magazine : the quarterly magazine of the Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society.

[6]  T. Schlomm,et al.  Evaluation of prostate cancer detection with ultrasound real-time elastography: a comparison with step section pathological analysis after radical prostatectomy. , 2008, European urology.

[7]  Jung Kim,et al.  Characterization of cellular elastic modulus using structure based double layer model , 2011, Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing.

[8]  G. Andriole,et al.  Evaluation of Prostate Cancer , 2001 .

[9]  R. Skalak,et al.  Cytoplasmic rheology of passive neutrophils. , 1991, Biorheology.

[10]  K. Costa,et al.  Analysis of indentation: implications for measuring mechanical properties with atomic force microscopy. , 1999, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[11]  Subra Suresh,et al.  Nanomedicine: elastic clues in cancer detection. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[12]  N. Caille,et al.  Contribution of the nucleus to the mechanical properties of endothelial cells. , 2002, Journal of biomechanics.

[13]  J Bercoff,et al.  In vivo breast tumor detection using transient elastography. , 2003, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[14]  J. Shao.  Finite Element Analysis of Imposing Femtonewton Forces with Micropipette Aspiration , 2002, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  S. Svetina,et al.  Mechanical and functional aspects of membrane skeletons. , 2001, Cellular & molecular biology letters.

[16]  S. Hénon,et al.  A new determination of the shear modulus of the human erythrocyte membrane using optical tweezers. , 1999, Biophysical journal.

[17]  E. Sackmann,et al.  Measurement of local viscoelasticity and forces in living cells by magnetic tweezers. , 1999, Biophysical journal.

[18]  Jianxin Chen,et al.  Twisting integrin receptors increases endothelin-1 gene expression in endothelial cells. , 2001, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[19]  J. Reddy,et al.  Constitutive material modeling of cell: a micromechanics approach. , 2007, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[20]  A. Kamgoué,et al.  Estimation of cell Young's modulus of adherent cells probed by optical and magnetic tweezers: influence of cell thickness and bead immersion. , 2007, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[21]  W. R. Jones,et al.  Alterations in the Young's modulus and volumetric properties of chondrocytes isolated from normal and osteoarthritic human cartilage. , 1999, Journal of biomechanics.

[22]  Kevin D. Costa,et al.  Single-Cell Elastography: Probing for Disease with the Atomic Force Microscope , 2004, Disease markers.

[23]  F. MacKintosh,et al.  Scanning probe-based frequency-dependent microrheology of polymer gels and biological cells. , 2000, Physical review letters.

[24]  D. Cochlin,et al.  Elastography in the detection of prostatic cancer. , 2002, Clinical radiology.

[25]  J. Rao,et al.  Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[26]  Farshid Guilak,et al.  Alterations in the mechanical properties of the human chondrocyte pericellular matrix with osteoarthritis. , 2003, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[27]  Qiuquan Guo,et al.  Characterization of cell elasticity correlated with cell morphology by atomic force microscope. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  Devrim Pesen,et al.  Micromechanical architecture of the endothelial cell cortex. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[29]  A. Manduca,et al.  MR elastography of breast cancer: preliminary results. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[30]  P. Lehenkari,et al.  Atomic force microscopy can be used to mechanically stimulate osteoblasts and evaluate cellular strain distributions. , 2001, Ultramicroscopy.

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

[32]  Sanjay Kumar,et al.  Cell–Matrix De-Adhesion Dynamics Reflect Contractile Mechanics , 2009, Cellular and molecular bioengineering.

[33]  M. Ottensmeyer.  Minimally invasive instrument for in vivo measurement of solid organ mechanical impedance , 2001 .

[34]  D Stamenović,et al.  The role of prestress and architecture of the cytoskeleton and deformability of cytoskeletal filaments in mechanics of adherent cells: a quantitative analysis. , 1999, Journal of theoretical biology.

[35]  E. Sackmann,et al.  Local measurements of viscoelastic moduli of entangled actin networks using an oscillating magnetic bead micro-rheometer. , 1994, Biophysical journal.

[36]  Stefan Schinkinger,et al.  Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[37]  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.

[38]  Subra Suresh,et al.  Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells. , 2007, Acta biomaterialia.

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

[40]  S. Suresha,et al.  Mechanics of the human red blood cell deformed by optical tweezers , 2003 .

[41]  W. H. Goldmann,et al.  Viscoelasticity in wild-type and vinculin-deficient (5.51) mouse F9 embryonic carcinoma cells examined by atomic force microscopy and rheology. , 1996, Experimental cell research.