Mechanical properties of fibroblasts depend on level of cancer transformation.

Recently, it was revealed that tumor cells are significantly softer than normal cells. Although this phenomenon is well known, it is connected with many questions which are still unanswered. Among these questions are the molecular mechanisms which cause the change in stiffness and the correlation between cell mechanical properties and their metastatic potential. We studied mechanical properties of cells with different levels of cancer transformation. Transformed cells in three systems with different transformation types (monooncogenic N-RAS, viral and cells of tumor origin) were characterized according to their morphology, actin cytoskeleton and focal adhesion organization. Transformation led to reduction of cell spreading and thus decreasing the cell area, disorganization of actin cytoskeleton, lack of actin stress fibers and decline in the number and size of focal adhesions. These alterations manifested in a varying degree depending on type of transformation. Force spectroscopy by atomic force microscopy with spherical probes was carried out to measure the Young's modulus of cells. In all cases the Young's moduli were fitted well by log-normal distribution. All the transformed cell lines were found to be 40-80% softer than the corresponding normal ones. For the cell system with a low level of transformation the difference in stiffness was less pronounced than for the two other systems. This suggests that cell mechanical properties change upon transformation, and acquisition of invasive capabilities is accompanied by significant softening.

[1]  Suraiya Rasheed,et al.  Characterization of a newly derived human sarcoma cell line (HT‐1080) , 1974, Cancer.

[2]  Brenton D Hoffman,et al.  Cell mechanics: dissecting the physical responses of cells to force. , 2009, Annual review of biomedical engineering.

[3]  Giovanni Dietler,et al.  Mechanical properties of biological specimens explored by atomic force microscopy , 2013 .

[4]  I. V. Yaminskii,et al.  Atomic force microscopy of animal cells: Advances and prospects , 2011 .

[5]  Takaharu Okajima,et al.  Elasticity of Living Cells on a Microarray during the Early Stages of Adhesion Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy , 2008 .

[6]  Ueli Aebi,et al.  The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer. , 2012, Nature nanotechnology.

[7]  Tajhal Dayaram,et al.  Effect of Transforming Viruses on Molecular Mechanisms Associated With Cancer , 2008, Journal of cellular physiology.

[8]  Masoud Agah,et al.  The effects of cancer progression on the viscoelasticity of ovarian cell cytoskeleton structures. , 2012, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[9]  J. Vasiliev.  Cytoskeletal mechanisms responsible for invasive migration of neoplastic cells. , 2004, The International journal of developmental biology.

[10]  David A Weitz,et al.  The cell as a material. , 2007, Current opinion in cell biology.

[11]  Richard Superfine,et al.  Mechanical stiffness grades metastatic potential in patient tumor cells and in cancer cell lines. , 2011, Cancer research.

[12]  A. Alexandrova,et al.  Normal and transformed fibroblast spreading: Role of microfilament polymerization and actin-myosin contractility , 2010, Cell and Tissue Biology.

[13]  D E Ingber,et al.  Analysis of cell mechanics in single vinculin-deficient cells using a magnetic tweezer. , 2000, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

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

[15]  Denis Wirtz,et al.  The physics of cancer: the role of physical interactions and mechanical forces in metastasis , 2011, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[16]  J J Fredberg,et al.  Selected contribution: time course and heterogeneity of contractile responses in cultured human airway smooth muscle cells. , 2001, Journal of applied physiology.

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

[18]  Takaharu Okajima,et al.  The number distribution of complex shear modulus of single cells measured by atomic force microscopy. , 2009, Ultramicroscopy.

[19]  I. Sokolov,et al.  Atomic Force Microscopy in Cancer Cell Research , 2007 .

[20]  Brenton D. Hoffman,et al.  The consensus mechanics of cultured mammalian cells , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Steve Pawlizak,et al.  Are biomechanical changes necessary for tumor progression , 2010 .

[22]  Ferenc Horkay,et al.  Determination of elastic moduli of thin layers of soft material using the atomic force microscope. , 2002, Biophysical journal.

[23]  A. Puisieux,et al.  Metastasis: a question of life or death , 2006, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[24]  Daniel A. Fletcher,et al.  Cell mechanics and the cytoskeleton , 2010, Nature.

[25]  C. Shih,et al.  Cell motility and local viscoelasticity of fibroblasts. , 2005, Biophysical journal.

[26]  R. Holliday,et al.  Limited and unlimited growth of SV40-transformed cells from human diploid MRC-5 fibroblasts. , 1983, Journal of cell science.

[27]  Ehsan Gazi,et al.  Measurement of elastic properties of prostate cancer cells using AFM. , 2008, The Analyst.

[28]  Jochen Guck,et al.  Viscoelastic properties of individual glial cells and neurons in the CNS , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  B. Weissman,et al.  Tumorigenicity of human HT1080 fibrosarcoma X normal fibroblast hybrids: chromosome dosage dependency. , 1984, Cancer research.

[30]  Byungkyu Kim,et al.  Cell Stiffness Is a Biomarker of the Metastatic Potential of Ovarian Cancer Cells , 2012, PloS one.

[31]  Gang Zhang,et al.  Mechanical properties of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. , 2002, World journal of gastroenterology.

[32]  S. Chizhik,et al.  Atomic force microscopy probing of cell elasticity. , 2007, Micron.

[33]  Zbigniew Stachura,et al.  Cancer cell detection in tissue sections using AFM. , 2012, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[34]  Farshid Guilak,et al.  A thin-layer model for viscoelastic, stress-relaxation testing of cells using atomic force microscopy: do cell properties reflect metastatic potential? , 2007, Biophysical journal.

[35]  A. Alexandrova,et al.  Analysis of changes induced by oncogene N-RAS expression in pattern and distribution of pseudopodial activity of fibroblasts , 2009, Russian Journal of Developmental Biology.

[36]  C Rotsch,et al.  Drug-induced changes of cytoskeletal structure and mechanics in fibroblasts: an atomic force microscopy study. , 2000, Biophysical journal.

[37]  Mi-Sung Kim,et al.  H‐ras, but not N‐ras, induces an invasive phenotype in human breast epithelial cells: A role for MMP‐2 in the h‐ras‐induced invasive phenotype , 2000, International journal of cancer.

[38]  Muhammad H Zaman,et al.  How changes in cell mechanical properties induce cancerous behavior. , 2012, Physical review letters.

[39]  Sanjay Kumar,et al.  Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: The force journey of a tumor cell , 2009, Cancer and Metastasis Reviews.

[40]  S. Minina,et al.  Changes in the Cell Shape and Actin Cytoskeleton during the Ras Oncogene-Induced Transformation: A Possible Role of Rho Kinase , 2004, Doklady Biological Sciences.

[41]  Raul Martinez-Zaguilan,et al.  AFM nano-mechanics and calcium dynamics of prostate cancer cells with distinct metastatic potential. , 2012, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[42]  H. Sato,et al.  Anti-invasive activity of ursolic acid correlates with the reduced expression of matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) in HT1080 human fibrosarcoma cells. , 1996, Cancer research.

[43]  Erik Sahai,et al.  The actin cytoskeleton in cancer cell motility , 2009, Clinical & Experimental Metastasis.

[44]  Manfred Radmacher,et al.  Measuring the elastic properties of living cells by the atomic force microscope. , 2002, Methods in cell biology.

[45]  A. Levine,et al.  p53 alteration is a common event in the spontaneous immortalization of primary BALB/c murine embryo fibroblasts. , 1991, Genes & development.

[46]  A. Bershadsky,et al.  Motility of intracellular particles in rat fibroblasts is greatly enhanced by phorbol ester and by over-expression of normal p21N-ras. , 1993, Cell motility and the cytoskeleton.

[47]  C. Lim,et al.  AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. , 2008, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[48]  Milan Makale,et al.  Cellular mechanobiology and cancer metastasis. , 2007, Birth defects research. Part C, Embryo today : reviews.

[49]  K. Shaitan,et al.  The effects of confluency on cell mechanical properties. , 2013, Journal of biomechanics.

[50]  M. Lekka,et al.  Cancer cell recognition--mechanical phenotype. , 2012, Micron.