Issue 5, 2020

Opposite responses of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells to substrate viscoelasticity

Abstract

The cellular microenvironment plays a critical role in cell differentiation, proliferation, migration, and homeostasis. Recent studies have shown the importance of substrate viscosity in determining cellular function. Here, we study the mechanoresponse of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells (HCC) to elastic and viscoelastic substrates using the Huh7 cell line derived from a human liver tumor and primary human hepatocytes (PHH). Unlike PHH and fibroblasts, which respond to viscoelastic substrates by reducing spreading area and actin bundle assembly compared to purely elastic substrates of the same stiffness, Huh7 cells spread faster on viscoelastic substrates than on purely elastic substrates. The steady state spreading areas of Huh7 cells are larger on viscoelastic substrates, whereas the opposite effect occurs with PHH cells. The viscoelasticity of the microenvironment also promotes motility and multiple long protrusions in Huh7 cells. Pharmacologic disruption of the actin assembly makes cells unable to spread on either elastic or viscoelastic substrates. In contrast, upon vimentin perturbation, cells still spread to a limited degree on elastic substrates but are unable to spread on viscoelastic substrates. The time evolution of cell traction force shows that the peak occurs at an earlier time point on viscoelastic substrates compared to elastic substrates. However, the total force generation at steady state is the same on both substrates after 4 hours. Our data suggest that stress relaxation time scales of the viscoelastic substrate regulate cell dynamics and traction force generation, indicating different binding–unbinding rates of the proteins that form cell attachment sites in HCC cells and normal hepatocytes. These results suggest that liver cancer cells may have different characteristic lifetimes of binding to the substrate in comparision to normal cells, which might cause differences in cell spreading and motility within the diseased tissue.

Graphical abstract: Opposite responses of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells to substrate viscoelasticity

Associated articles

Supplementary files

Article information

Article type
Paper
Submitted
22 Aug 2019
Accepted
12 Dec 2019
First published
16 Dec 2019

Biomater. Sci., 2020,8, 1316-1328

Author version available

Opposite responses of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells to substrate viscoelasticity

K. Mandal, Z. Gong, A. Rylander, V. B. Shenoy and P. A. Janmey, Biomater. Sci., 2020, 8, 1316 DOI: 10.1039/C9BM01339C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements