Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T22:02:27.885Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Nuclear Mechanics and Mechanotransduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Shinji Deguchi
Affiliation:
Okayama University
Masaaki Sato
Affiliation:
Tohoku University
Mohammad R. K. Mofrad
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Roger D. Kamm
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Many studies have shown that mechanical forces inherent in the living body, such as fluid shear stress due to blood flow, play critical roles in regulating cellular physiology and pathogenesis (Davies 1995; Li et al. 2005; Haga et al. 2007). These extracellular forces are sensed at the cellular level, and inside the cells the forces are somehow transduced into changes in gene expression responsible for the cellular responses (Ingber 1997). The mechanism of this force-sensing process or mechanotransduction still remains unclear. Signaling pathways following mechanical force loadings have been identified by means of biochemistry (Li et al. 2005; Haga et al. 2007). In addition to the involvement of these signaling molecules, direct intracellular force transmission from the cell membrane or extracellular matrix to the nucleus via, probably, cytoskeletal filaments may be another possible pathway through which cells respond to extracelullar forces (Wang et al. 1993; Davies 1995; Ingber 1997; Maniotis et al. 1997; Janmey 1998): Loaded forces may cause a deformation of the nucleus that is the principal site of DNA and RNA synthesis, alter the spatial positioning or dynamics of the chromatin that is a complex of DNA and proteins (such as histone) making up chromosomes, and then affect gene expression because such changes in chromatin organization could expose new sites for transcriptional regulation (Dahl et al. 2004; Lammerding et al. 2004).

There is actually considerable evidence that the cell nucleus is deformed or remodeled in response to extracellular forces when the cell adapts to the local mechanical environment by the reorganization of cytoskeletons. Flaherty et al. (1972) demonstrated by in vivo experiments that endothelial nuclei elongate and orient in the direction of blood flow, as do the whole cells (Figure 9.1). Lee et al. (2005) found, based on in vitro observations, that movement of the nucleus in the cytoplasm is enhanced by fluid flow and regulated by mediators of cytoskeleton reorganization. Deguchi et al. (2005a) suggested that not only the endothelial cell cytoskeleton but also its nucleus remodels structure under shear stress applied to the cell. This study suggested that the shear stress applied to the cell might induce structural rearrangement in the nucleus structure, which leads to a permanent alteration in its overall shape and stiffness. Thus, the nucleus deformation and remodeling appear during the force-loading and resultant cellular responses.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cellular Mechanotransduction
Diverse Perspectives from Molecules to Tissues
, pp. 220 - 233
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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

Aebi, U, Cohn, J, Buhle, L, and Gerace, L. 1986. The nuclear lamina is a meshwork of intermediate-type filaments. Nature 323, 560–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbee, K A, Davies, P F, and Lal, R. 1994. Shear stress-induced reorganization of the surface topography of living endothelial cells imaged by atomic force microscopy. Circul Res 74, 163–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bettinger, B T, Gilbert, D M, and Amberg, D C. 2004. Actin up in the nucleus. Nature 5, 410–415.Google ScholarPubMed
Brangwynne, C P, MacKintosh, F C, Kumar, S, Geisse, N A, Talbot, J, Mahadevan, L, Parker, K K, Ingber, D E, and Weitz, D A. 2006. Microtubules can bear enhanced compressive loads in living cells because of lateral reinforcement. J Cell Biol 173, 733–741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burke, B and Stewart, C L. 2002. Life at the edge: The nuclear envelope and human disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio 3, 575–585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caille, N, Tardy, Y, and Meister, J J. 1998. Assessment of strain field in endothelial cells subjected to uniaxial deformation of their substrate. Ann Biomed Eng 26, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caille, N, Thoumine, O, Tardy, Y, and Meister, J J. 2002. Contribution of the nucleus to the mechanical properties of endothelial cells. J Biomech 35, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, K N, Kahn, S M, Wilson, K L, and Discher, D E. 2004. The nuclear envelope lamina network has elasticity and a compressibility limit suggestive of a molecular shock absorber. J Cell Sci 117, 4779–4786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, K N, Engler, A J, Pajerowski, J D, and Discher, D E. 2005. Power-law rheology of isolated nuclei with deformation mapping of nuclear substructures. Biophys J 89, 2855–2864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, K N, Scaffidi, P, Islam, M F, Yodh, A G, Wilson, K L, and Misteli, T. 2006. Distinct structural and mechanical properties of the nuclear lamina in Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 10271–10276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, P F. 1995. Flow-mediated endothelial mechanotransduction. Physiol Rev 75, 519–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deguchi, S, Maeda, K, Ohashi, T, and Sato, M. 2005a. Flow-induced hardening of endothelial nuclei as an intracellular stress-bearing organelle. J Biomech 38, 1751–1759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deguchi, S, Ohashi, T, and Sato, M. 2005b. Intracellular stress transmission through actin stress fiber network in adherent vascular cells. Mol Cell Biomech 2, 205–216.Google ScholarPubMed
Deguchi, S, Ohashi, T, and Sato, M. 2006. Tensile properties of single stress fibers isolated from cultured vascular smooth muscle cells. J Biomech 39, 2603–2610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deguchi, S, Yano, M, Hashimoto, K, Fukamachi, H, Washio, S, and Tsujioka, K. 2007. Assessment of the mechanical properties of the nucleus inside a spherical endothelial cell based on microtensile testing. J Mech Mater Struct 2, 1087–1102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desprat, N, Richert, A, Simeon, J, and Asnacios, A. 2005. Creep function of a single living cell. Biophys J 88, 2224–2233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dong, C, Skalak, R, and Sung, K L P. 1991. Cytoplasmic rheology of passive neutrophils. Biorheology 28, 557–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernandez, P, Pullarkat, P A, and Ott, A. 2006. A master relation defines the nonlinear viscoelasticity of single fibroblasts. Biophys J 90, 3796–3805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flaherty, J T, Pierce, J E, Ferrans, V J, Patel, D J, Tucker, W K, and Fry, D L. 1972. Endothelial nuclear patterns in the canine arterial tree with particular reference to hemodynamic events. Circ Res 30, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilak, F. 1995. Compression-induced changes in the shape and volume of the chondrocyte nucleus. J Biomech 28, 1529–1541.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guilak, F, Tedrow, J R, and Burgkart, R. 2000. Viscoelastic properties of the cell nucleus. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 269, 781–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haga, J H, Li, Y J, and Chien, S. 2007. Molecular basis of the effects of mechanical stretch on vascular smooth muscle cells. J Biomech 40, 947–960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haque, F, Lloyd, D J, Smallwood, D T, Dent, C L, Shanahan, C M, Fry, A M, Trembath, R C, Shackleton, S. 2006. SUN1 interacts with nuclear lamin A and cytoplasmic nesprins to provide a physical connection between the nuclear lamina and the cytoskeleton. Mol Cell Biol 26, 3738–3751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, M and De Boni, U. 1991. Chromatin motion in neuronal interphase nuclei: Changes induced by disruption of intermediate filaments. Cell Motil Cytoskel 18, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houchmandzadeh, B, Marko, J F, Chatenay, D, and Libchaber, A. 1997. Elasticity and structure of eukaryote chromosomes studied by micromanipulation and micropipette aspiration. J Cell Biol 139, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingber, D E. 1997. Tensegrity: The architectural basis of cellular mechanotransduction. Annu Rev Physiol 59, 575–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janmey, P A. 1998. The cytoskeleton and cell signaling: Component localization and mechanical coupling. Physiol Rev 78, 763–781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kan, H C, Shyy, W, Udaykumar, H S, Vigneron, P, and Tran-Son-Tay, R. 1999. Effects of nucleus on leukocyte recovery. Ann Biomed Eng 27, 648–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasza, K E, Rowat, A C, Liu, J, Angelini, T E, Brangwynne, C P, Koenderink, G H, and Weitz, D A. 2006. The cell as a material. Curr Opin Cell Biol 19, 1–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Kawakami, K, Tatsumi1, H, and Sokabe, M. 2001. Dynamics of integrin clustering at focal contacts of endothelial cells studied by multimode imaging microscopy. J Cell Sci 114, 3125–3135.Google ScholarPubMed
Knight, M M, van de Breevaart Bravenboer, J, Lee, D A, van Osch, G J V M, Weinans, H, and Bader, D L. 2002. Cell and nucleus deformation in compressed chondrocyte-alginate constructs: Temporal changes and calculation of cell modulus. BBA 1570, 1–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Lammerding, J, Schulze, P C, Takahashi, T, Kozlov, S, Sullivan, T, Kamm, R D, Stewart, C L, and Lee, R T. 2004. Lamin A/C deficiency causes defective nuclear mechanics and mechanotransduction. J Clin Invest 113, 370–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lammerding, J, Hsiao, J, Schulze, PCh., Kozlov, S, Stewart, C L, Lee, R T. 2005. Abnormal nuclear shape and impaired mechanotransduction in emerin-deficient cells. J Cell Biol, 170, 781–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, JS, Chang, M I, Tseng, Y, and Wirtz, D. 2005. Cdc42 mediates nucleus movement and MTOC polzarization in Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts uder mechanical shear stress. Mol Biol Cell 16, 871–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Y J, Haga, J H, and Chien, S. 2005. Molecular basis of the effects of shear stress on vascular endothelial cells. J Biomech 38, 1949–1971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maniotis, A J, Chen, C S, and Ingber, D E. 1997. Demonstration of mechanical connections between integrins, cytoskeletal filaments, and nucleoplasm that stabilize nuclear structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94, 849–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miyazaki, H and Hayashi, K. 1999. Atomic force microscopic measurement of the mechanical properties of intact endothelial cells in fresh arteries. Med Biol Eng Comput 37, 530–536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muramatsu, M, Smetana, K, and Busch, H. 1963. Quantitative aspects of isolation of nucleoli of the walker carcinosarcoma and liver of the rat. Cancer Res 25, 693–697.Google Scholar
Nakayasu, H and Berezney, R. 1991. Nuclear matrins: Identification of the major nuclear matrix proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88, 10312–10316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newport, J W and Forbes, D J. 1987. The nucleus: Structure, function, and dynamics. Ann Rev Biochem 56, 535–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ostlund, C and Worman, H J. 2003. Nuclear envelope proteins and neuromuscular diseases. Muscle Nerve 27, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panorchan, P, Schafer, B W, Wirtz, D, and Tseng, Y. 2004, Nuclear envelope breakdown requires overcoming the mechanical integrity of the nuclear lamina. J Biol Chem 279, 43462–43467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Replogle-Schwab, T S, Getzenberg, R H, Donat, T L, and Pienta, K J. 1996. Effect of organ site on nuclear matrix protein composition. J Cell Biochem 62, 132–141.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowat, A C, Foster, L J, Nielsen, M M, Weiss, M, and Ipsen, J H. 2005. Characterization of the elastic properties of the nuclear envelop. J Royal Soc Interface 63, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowat, A C, Lammerding, J, and Ipsen, J H. 2006. Mechanical properties of the cell nucleus and the effect of emerin deficiency. Biophys J 91, 4649–4664.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sato, M, Levesque, M J, and Nerem, R M. 1987. Micropipette aspiration of cultured bovine aortic endothelial cells exposed to shear stress. Arteriosclerosis 7, 276–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shumaker, D K, Kuczmarski, E R, and Goldman, R D. 2003. The nucleoskeleton: Lamins and actin are major players in essential nuclear functions. Curr Opin Cell Biol 16, 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, J R, Karp, S, and Ingber, D E. 1992. Altering the cellular mechanical force balance results in integrated changes in cell, cytoskeletal and nuclear shape. J Cell Sci 103, 1215–1222.Google ScholarPubMed
Tetko, I V, Haberer, G, Rudd, S, Meyers, B, Mewes, H W, and Mayer, KFX. 2006. Spatiotemporal expression control correlates with intragenic scaffold matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Comput Biol 2, 131–145.Google Scholar
Tseng, Y, Lee, J S, Kole, T P, Jiang, I, and Wirtz, D. 2004. Micro-organization and viscoelasticity of the interphase nucleus revealed by particle nanotracking. J Cell Sci 117, 2159–2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaziri, A, Lee, H, and Kaazempur-Mofrad, M R. 2006. Deformation of the cell nucleus under indentation: Mechanics and mechanisms. J Mater Res 21, 2126–2135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaziri, A and Kaazempur-Mofrad, M R. 2007. Mechanics and deformation of the nucleus in micropipette aspiration experiment. J Biomech 40, 2053–2062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaziri, A, Gopinath, A, and Deshpande, V S. 2007. Continuum-based computational models for cell and nuclear mechanics. J Mech Mater Struct 2, 1169–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, N, Butler, J P, and Ingber, D E. 1993. Mechanotransduction across the cell surface and through the cytoskeleton. Science 260, 1124–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, K. 2005. Integrity matters: Linking nuclear architecture to lifespan. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102, 18767–18768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamaguchi, T and Hanai, S. 1988. To what extent does a minimal atherosclerotic plaque alter the arterial wall shear stress distribution? – A model study by an electrochemical method. Biorheology 25, 31–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×