4.5 Article

Probing the biomechanical contribution of the endothelium to lymphocyte migration: diapedesis by the path of least resistance

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELL SCIENCE
卷 127, 期 17, 页码 3720-3734

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jcs.148619

关键词

Actin; Barrier; Endothelium; Leukocyte; Migration; Stiffness

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [062403]
  2. Rosetrees Trust
  3. American Heart Association
  4. National Institutes of Health [HL104006]
  5. Rosetrees Trust [M122-F1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune cell trafficking requires the frequent breaching of the endothelial barrier either directly through individual cells ('transcellular' route) or through the inter-endothelial junctions ('paracellular' route). What determines the loci or route of breaching events is an open question with important implications for overall barrier regulation. We hypothesized that basic biomechanical properties of the endothelium might serve as crucial determinants of this process. By altering junctional integrity, cytoskeletal morphology and, consequently, local endothelial cell stiffness of different vascular beds, we could modify the preferred route of diapedesis. In particular, high barrier function was associated with predominantly transcellular migration, whereas negative modulation of junctional integrity resulted in a switch to paracellular diapedesis. Furthermore, we showed that lymphocytes dynamically probe the underlying endothelium by extending invadosome-like protrusions (ILPs) into its surface that deform the nuclear lamina, distort actin filaments and ultimately breach the barrier. Fluorescence imaging and pharmacologic depletion of F-actin demonstrated that lymphocyte barrier breaching efficiency was inversely correlated with local endothelial F-actin density and stiffness. Taken together, these data support the hypothesis that lymphocytes are guided by the mechanical 'path of least resistance' as they transverse the endothelium, a process we term 'tenertaxis'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据