- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Preface
- •1 Introduction, with the biological basis for cell mechanics
- •Introduction
- •The role of cell mechanics in biological function
- •Maintenance of cell shape
- •Cell migration
- •Mechanosensing
- •Stress responses and the role of mechanical forces in disease
- •Active cell contraction
- •Structural anatomy of a cell
- •The extracellular matrix and its attachment to cells
- •Transmission of force to the cytoskeleton and the role of the lipid bilayer
- •Intracellular structures
- •Overview
- •References
- •2 Experimental measurements of intracellular mechanics
- •Introduction
- •Forces to which cells are exposed in a biological context
- •Methods to measure intracellular rheology by macrorheology, diffusion, and sedimentation
- •Whole cell aggregates
- •Sedimentation of particles
- •Diffusion
- •Mechanical indentation of the cell surface
- •Glass microneedles
- •Cell poker
- •Atomic force microscopy
- •Mechanical tension applied to the cell membrane
- •Shearing and compression between microplates
- •Optical traps
- •Magnetic methods
- •Twisting of magnetized particles on the cell surface and interior
- •Passive microrheology
- •Optically detected individual probes
- •One-particle method
- •Two-particle methods
- •Dynamic light scattering and diffusing wave spectroscopy
- •Fluorescence correlation spectroscopy
- •Optical stretcher
- •Acoustic microscopy
- •Outstanding issues and future directions
- •References
- •3 The cytoskeleton as a soft glassy material
- •Introduction
- •Magnetic Twisting Cytometry (MTC)
- •Measurements of cell mechanics
- •The structural damping equation
- •Reduction of variables
- •Universality
- •Scaling the data
- •Collapse onto master curves
- •Theory of soft glassy rheology
- •What are soft glassy materials
- •Sollich’s theory of SGMs
- •Soft glassy rheology and structural damping
- •Open questions
- •Biological insights from SGR theory
- •Malleability of airway smooth muscle
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •4 Continuum elastic or viscoelastic models for the cell
- •Introduction
- •Purpose of continuum models
- •Principles of continuum models
- •Boundary conditions
- •Mechanical and material characteristics
- •Example of studied cell types
- •Blood cells: leukocytes and erythrocytes
- •Limitations of continuum model
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •5 Multiphasic models of cell mechanics
- •Introduction
- •Biphasic poroviscoelastic models of cell mechanics
- •Analysis of cell mechanical tests
- •Micropipette aspiration
- •Cells
- •Biphasic properties of the pericellular matrix
- •Indentation studies of cell multiphasic properties
- •Analysis of cell–matrix interactions using multiphasic models
- •Summary
- •References
- •6 Models of cytoskeletal mechanics based on tensegrity
- •Introduction
- •The cellular tensegrity model
- •The cellular tensegrity model
- •Do living cells behave as predicted by the tensegrity model?
- •Circumstantial evidence
- •Prestress-induced stiffening
- •Action at a distance
- •Do microtubules carry compression?
- •Summary
- •Examples of mathematical models of the cytoskeleton based on tensegrity
- •The cortical membrane model
- •Tensed cable nets
- •Cable-and-strut model
- •Summary
- •Tensegrity and cellular dynamics
- •Conclusion
- •Acknowledgement
- •References
- •7 Cells, gels, and mechanics
- •Introduction
- •Problems with the aqueous-solution-based paradigm
- •Cells as gels
- •Cell dynamics
- •Gels and motion
- •Secretion
- •Muscle contraction
- •Conclusion
- •Acknowledgement
- •References
- •8 Polymer-based models of cytoskeletal networks
- •Introduction
- •The worm-like chain model
- •Force-extension of single chains
- •Dynamics of single chains
- •Network elasticity
- •Nonlinear response
- •Discussion
- •References
- •9 Cell dynamics and the actin cytoskeleton
- •Introduction: The role of actin in the cell
- •Interaction of the cell cytoskeleton with the outside environment
- •The role of cytoskeletal structure
- •Actin mechanics
- •Actin dynamics
- •The emergence of actin dynamics
- •The intrinsic dynamics of actin
- •Regulation of dynamics by actin-binding proteins
- •Capping protein: ‘decommissioning’ the old
- •Gelsolin: rapid remodeling in one or two steps
- •β4-thymosin: accounting (sometimes) for the other half
- •Dynamic actin in crawling cells
- •Actin in the leading edge
- •Monomer recycling: the other ‘actin dynamics’
- •The biophysics of actin-based pushing
- •Conclusion
- •Acknowledgements
- •References
- •10 Active cellular protrusion: continuum theories and models
- •Cellular protrusion: the standard cartoon
- •The RIF formalism
- •Mass conservation
- •Momentum conservation
- •Boundary conditions
- •Cytoskeletal theories of cellular protrusion
- •Network–membrane interactions
- •Network dynamics near the membrane
- •Special cases of network–membrane interaction: polymerization force, brownian and motor ratchets
- •Network–network interactions
- •Network dynamics with swelling
- •Other theories of protrusion
- •Numerical implementation of the RIF formalism
- •An example of cellular protrusion
- •Protrusion driven by membrane–cytoskeleton repulsion
- •Protrusion driven by cytoskeletal swelling
- •Discussion
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •11 Summary
- •References
- •Index
30 P. Janmey and C. Schmidt
Fig. 2-8. Schematic diagram of an optical trap.
Optical traps
Optical traps (see Fig. 2-8) use a laser beam focused through a high-numerical aperture microscope objective lens to three-dimensionally trap micron-sized refractile particles, usually silica or latex beads (Ashkin, 1997; Svoboda and Block, 1994). The force acting on the bead at a certain distance from the laser focus is in general very difficult to calculate because (1) a high-NA laser focus is not well approximated by a Gaussian, and (2) a micron-sized refractive particle will substantially affect the light field. Approximations are possible for both small particles (Rayleigh limit) and large particles (ray optics limit) with respect to the laser wave length. For a small particle, the force can be subdivided into a “gradient force” pulling the particle towards the laser focus and a scattering force pushing it along the propagation direction of the laser (Ashkin, 1992). Assuming a Gaussian focus and a particle much smaller than the laser wavelength, the gradient forces in radial and axial direction are (Agayan et al., 2002):
F axial |
|
α I0z |
w04 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
2r 2 |
|
exp |
|
|
2r 2 |
|
(2.8) |
|||
− |
|
w4(z) − w6(z) |
|
||||||||||||||||
g |
|
|
z02 |
|
· |
|
|
− w2(z) |
|
||||||||||
|
F radial |
− |
α |
I0r |
w02 |
|
exp |
|
2r 2 |
|
|
|
(2.9) |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
g |
|
|
w4(z) · |
|
− w2(z) |
|
and the scattering forces:
axial |
|
w02 |
|
|
|
r 2 |
|
z2 |
|
z02 |
|
|
w02 |
|
|
2r 2 |
||||||||
Fs |
α I0 |
|
|
km |
|
1 − |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
− |
|
|
|
− |
|
|
|
· exp − |
|
|
w2(z) |
|
|
2 |
|
z |
2 |
+ z |
2 |
|
2 |
z |
w2(z) |
|
w2(z) |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
(2.10) |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
F radial |
|
α I0 |
|
w02 |
|
|
km r |
|
exp |
|
2r 2 |
|
(2.11) |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
w2(z) R (z) |
− w2(z) |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experimental measurements of intracellular mechanics |
31 |
|||
with complex polarizability α = α + i α , laser intensity I0, w0 the beam radius in the |
|
|||
focus, and w(z) = w0 |
|
1 + (z/z0) 2 |
the beam radius near the focus; z0 = π w02/λm the |
|
Rayleigh range, km = 2π/λm the wave vector, with λm the wavelength in the medium with refractive index nm . (For details and prefactors see Agayan et al., 2002).
Stable trapping will only occur if the gradient force wins over the trapping force all around the focus. Trap stability thus depends on the geometry of the applied field and on properties of the trapped particle and the surrounding medium. The forces generally depend on particle size and the relative index of refraction n = n p /nm , where n p and nm are the indices of the particle and the medium, respectively, which is hidden in the polarizability α in Eqs. 2.8–2.11. In the geometrical optics regime, maximal trap strength is particle-size-independent, but increases with n over some intermediate range until, at larger values of n, the scattering force exceeds the gradient force. The scattering force on a nonabsorbing Rayleigh particle of diameter d is proportional to its scattering cross-section, thus the scattering force scales with the square of the polarizability (volume) (Jackson, 1975), or as d6. The gradient force scales linearly with polarizability (volume), that is, it has a d3-dependence (Ashkin et al., 1986; Harada and Asakura, 1996).
A trappable bead can then be attached to the surface of a cell and can be used to deform the cell membrane locally. The method has the advantage that no mechanical access to the cells is necessary. Using beads of micron size furthermore makes it possible to choose the site to be probed on the cell with relatively high resolution. A disadvantage is that the forces that can be exerted are difficult to increase beyond about 100 pN, orders of magnitude smaller than can be achieved with micropipettes or AFM tips. At high laser powers, local heating may not be negligible (Peterman et al., 2003a). Force and displacement can be detected, however, with great accuracy, sub-nm for the displacement and sub-pN for the force, using interferometric methods (Gittes and Schmidt, 1998; Pralle et al., 1999). This makes the method well suited to study linear response parameters of cells. Interferometric detection can also be as fast as 10 µs, opening up another dimension in the study of cell viscoelasticity. Focusing on different frequency regimes should make it, for example, possible to differentiate between active, motor-driven responses and passive viscoelasticity. Such an application of optical tweezers is closely related to laser-based microrheology, which can also be applied inside the cells (see Passive Microrheology). We will here focus on experiments that have used the optical manipulation of externally attached beads.
Optical tweezers have been used by several groups to manipulate human red blood cells (see Fig. 2-9), which have no space-filling cytoskeleton but only a membraneassociated 2D protein polymer network (spectrin network). The 2D shear modulus measured for the cell membrane plus spectrin network varies between 2.5 µN/m (Henon et al., 1999; Lenormand et al., 2001) and 200 µN/m (Sleep et al., 1999), possibly due to different modeling approaches in estimating the modulus. The nonlinear part of the response of red blood cells has been explored by using large beads and high laser power achieving a force of up to 600 pN. The shear modulus of the cells levels off at intermediate forces before rising again at the highest forces, which was simulated in finite element models of the cells under tension (Dao et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2004).