Development of a Virtual Cell Model to Predict Cell Response to Substrate Topography.

Cells can sense and respond to changes in the topographical, chemical, and mechanical information in their environment. Engineered substrates are increasingly being developed that exploit these physical attributes to direct cell responses (most notably mesenchymal stem cells) and therefore control cell behavior toward desired applications. However, there are very few methods available for robust and accurate modeling that can predict cell behavior prior to experimental evaluations, and this typically means that many cell test iterations are needed to identify best material features. Here, we developed a unifying computational framework to create a multicomponent cell model, called the "virtual cell model" that has the capability to predict changes in whole cell and cell nucleus characteristics (in terms of shape, direction, and even chromatin conformation) on a range of cell substrates. Modeling data were correlated with cell culture experimental outcomes in order to confirm the applicability of the virtual cell model and demonstrating the ability to reflect the qualitative behavior of mesenchymal stem cells. This may provide a reliable, efficient, and fast high-throughput approach for the development of optimized substrates for a broad range of cellular applications including stem cell differentiation.

[1]  D. Ingber,et al.  Mechanotransduction at a distance: mechanically coupling the extracellular matrix with the nucleus , 2009, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[2]  Adam J. Engler,et al.  Myotubes differentiate optimally on substrates with tissue-like stiffness , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.

[3]  Leonid A. Mirny,et al.  Super-resolution imaging reveals distinct chromatin folding for different epigenetic states , 2015, Nature.

[4]  Julian H. George,et al.  Exploring and Engineering the Cell Surface Interface , 2005, Science.

[5]  P. Renaud,et al.  Cell-Imprinted Substrates Modulate Differentiation, Redifferentiation, and Transdifferentiation. , 2016, ACS applied materials & interfaces.

[6]  Nikolaj Gadegaard,et al.  Using nanotopography and metabolomics to identify biochemical effectors of multipotency. , 2012, ACS nano.

[7]  Kam W Leong,et al.  Nanopattern-induced changes in morphology and motility of smooth muscle cells. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[8]  Adam J. Engler,et al.  Matrix elasticity directs stem cell differentiation , 2006 .

[9]  M. Mahmoudi,et al.  Regulation of stem cell fate by nanomaterial substrates. , 2015, Nanomedicine.

[10]  Sylvain Gabriele,et al.  Spatial coordination between cell and nuclear shape within micropatterned endothelial cells , 2012, Nature Communications.

[11]  S. Sen,et al.  Matrix Elasticity Directs Stem Cell Lineage Specification , 2006, Cell.

[12]  Anne E Carpenter,et al.  An algorithm-based topographical biomaterials library to instruct cell fate , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  N. Gadegaard,et al.  Nanoscale surfaces for the long-term maintenance of mesenchymal stem cell phenotype and multipotency. , 2011, Nature materials.

[14]  R. Lipowsky,et al.  Temperature dependence of vesicle adhesion. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  N. Gadegaard,et al.  Nanotopography controls cell cycle changes involved with skeletal stem cell self-renewal and multipotency , 2017, Biomaterials.

[16]  Robert Langer,et al.  Materials for stem cell factories of the future. , 2014, Nature materials.

[17]  Nikolaj Gadegaard,et al.  Harnessing nanotopography and integrin-matrix interactions to influence stem cell fate. , 2014, Nature materials.

[18]  Ravi Iyengar,et al.  Decoding Information in Cell Shape , 2013, Cell.

[19]  E. Sackmann,et al.  Chapter 1 – Biological Membranes Architecture and Function , 1995 .

[20]  R. Metzler,et al.  Generalized viscoelastic models: their fractional equations with solutions , 1995 .

[21]  Hiroshi Noguchi,et al.  Dynamics of fluid vesicles in shear flow: effect of membrane viscosity and thermal fluctuations. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[22]  Ulrich S. Schwarz,et al.  Physics of adherent cells , 2013, 1309.2817.

[23]  Milan Mrksich,et al.  Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Ya-Pu Zhao,et al.  Kinetic behaviour of the cells touching substrate: the interfacial stiffness guides cell spreading , 2014, Scientific Reports.

[25]  Christopher S. Chen,et al.  Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. , 2004, Developmental cell.

[26]  Ulrich S. Schwarz,et al.  Dynamics of Cell Ensembles on Adhesive Micropatterns: Bridging the Gap between Single Cell Spreading and Collective Cell Migration , 2016, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[27]  F. Guilak,et al.  Control of stem cell fate by physical interactions with the extracellular matrix. , 2009, Cell stem cell.

[28]  Kristen L Billiar,et al.  The effect of substrate stiffness, thickness, and cross-linking density on osteogenic cell behavior. , 2015, Biophysical journal.

[29]  R. Lewandowski,et al.  Identification of the parameters of the Kelvin-Voigt and the Maxwell fractional models, used to modeling of viscoelastic dampers , 2010 .

[30]  M. Mahmoudi,et al.  Cell-imprinted substrates direct the fate of stem cells. , 2013, ACS nano.

[31]  R. Sutherland Cell and environment interactions in tumor microregions: the multicell spheroid model. , 1988, Science.

[32]  Kristi S. Anseth,et al.  Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate , 2014, Nature materials.

[33]  Eric Mazur,et al.  Viscoelastic retraction of single living stress fibers and its impact on cell shape, cytoskeletal organization, and extracellular matrix mechanics. , 2006, Biophysical journal.

[34]  M. Mahmoudi,et al.  Cell-imprinted substrates act as an artificial niche for skin regeneration. , 2014, ACS applied materials & interfaces.

[35]  J. Lammerding,et al.  Nuclear Shape, Mechanics, and Mechanotransduction , 2008, Circulation research.

[36]  Ning Wang,et al.  Mechanical anisotropy of adherent cells probed by a three-dimensional magnetic twisting device. , 2004, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

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

[38]  Wesley R. Legant,et al.  Degradation-mediated cellular traction directs stem cell fate in covalently crosslinked three-dimensional hydrogels , 2013, Nature materials.

[39]  Martin A. Schwartz,et al.  Cell adhesion: integrating cytoskeletal dynamics and cellular tension , 2010, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[40]  M. Lutolf,et al.  Artificial niche microarrays for probing single stem cell fate in high throughput , 2011, Nature Methods.

[41]  Christophe Geuzaine,et al.  Gmsh: A 3‐D finite element mesh generator with built‐in pre‐ and post‐processing facilities , 2009 .

[42]  Kam W Leong,et al.  Synthetic nanostructures inducing differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells into neuronal lineage. , 2007, Experimental cell research.

[43]  R Geoff Richards,et al.  The use of nanoscale topography to modulate the dynamics of adhesion formation in primary osteoblasts and ERK/MAPK signalling in STRO-1+ enriched skeletal stem cells. , 2009, Biomaterials.

[44]  D. Discher,et al.  Optimal matrix rigidity for stress fiber polarization in stem cells. , 2010, Nature physics.

[45]  I. Amit,et al.  Comprehensive mapping of long range interactions reveals folding principles of the human genome , 2011 .

[46]  C. Wilkinson,et al.  Osteoprogenitor response to defined topographies with nanoscale depths. , 2006, Biomaterials.

[47]  Ying Mei,et al.  Combinatorial Development of Biomaterials for Clonal Growth of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells , 2010, Nature materials.

[48]  C. Wilkinson,et al.  The control of human mesenchymal cell differentiation using nanoscale symmetry and disorder. , 2007, Nature materials.