Collective cell migration of smooth muscle and endothelial cells: Impact of injury versus non-injury stimuli

Kaitlyn R. Ammann, Katrina J. DeCook, Phat L. Tran, Valerie M. Merkle, Pak Kin Wong, Marvin J Slepian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Cell migration is a vital process for growth and repair. In vitro migration assays, utilized to study cell migration, often rely on physical scraping of a cell monolayer to induce cell migration. The physical act of scrape injury results in numerous factors stimulating cell migration - some injury-related, some solely due to gap creation and loss of contact inhibition. Eliminating the effects of cell injury would be useful to examine the relative contribution of injury versus other mechanisms to cell migration. Cell exclusion assays can tease out the effects of injury and have become a new avenue for migration studies. Here, we developed two simple non-injury techniques for cell exclusion: 1) a Pyrex® cylinder - for outward migration of cells and 2) a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) insert - for inward migration of cells. Utilizing these assays smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) migratory behavior was studied on both polystyrene and gelatin-coated surfaces. Results: Differences in migratory behavior could be detected for both smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) when utilizing injury versus non-injury assays. SMCs migrated faster than HUVECs when stimulated by injury in the scrape wound assay, with rates of 1.26% per hour and 1.59% per hour on polystyrene and gelatin surfaces, respectively. The fastest overall migration took place with HUVECs on a gelatin-coated surface, with the in-growth assay, at a rate of 2.05% per hour. The slowest migration occurred with the same conditions but on a polystyrene surface at a rate of 0.33% per hour. Conclusion: For SMCs, injury is a dominating factor in migration when compared to the two cell exclusion assays, regardless of the surface tested: polystyrene or gelatin. In contrast, the migrating surface, namely gelatin, was a dominating factor for HUVEC migration, providing an increase in cell migration over the polystyrene surface. Overall, the cell exclusion assays - the in-growth and out-growth assays, provide a means to determine pure migratory behavior of cells in comparison to migration confounded by cell wounding and injury.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Biological Engineering
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 15 2015

Fingerprint

Endothelial cells
Smooth Muscle Myocytes
Cell Movement
Muscle
Assays
Endothelial Cells
Polystyrenes
Wounds and Injuries
Gelatin
Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells
Cells
Growth
Contact Inhibition
Polydimethylsiloxane
Monolayers
Repair

Keywords

  • Collective cell migration
  • Endothelial cell
  • Gelatin
  • Injury
  • Polystyrene
  • Scrape wound
  • Smooth muscle cell
  • Vascular

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Environmental Engineering
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Biology

Cite this

Collective cell migration of smooth muscle and endothelial cells : Impact of injury versus non-injury stimuli. / Ammann, Kaitlyn R.; DeCook, Katrina J.; Tran, Phat L.; Merkle, Valerie M.; Wong, Pak Kin; Slepian, Marvin J.

In: Journal of Biological Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, 15.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a6c01f6e5883462bbf2087b38568fec0,
title = "Collective cell migration of smooth muscle and endothelial cells: Impact of injury versus non-injury stimuli",
abstract = "Background: Cell migration is a vital process for growth and repair. In vitro migration assays, utilized to study cell migration, often rely on physical scraping of a cell monolayer to induce cell migration. The physical act of scrape injury results in numerous factors stimulating cell migration - some injury-related, some solely due to gap creation and loss of contact inhibition. Eliminating the effects of cell injury would be useful to examine the relative contribution of injury versus other mechanisms to cell migration. Cell exclusion assays can tease out the effects of injury and have become a new avenue for migration studies. Here, we developed two simple non-injury techniques for cell exclusion: 1) a Pyrex{\circledR} cylinder - for outward migration of cells and 2) a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) insert - for inward migration of cells. Utilizing these assays smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) migratory behavior was studied on both polystyrene and gelatin-coated surfaces. Results: Differences in migratory behavior could be detected for both smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) when utilizing injury versus non-injury assays. SMCs migrated faster than HUVECs when stimulated by injury in the scrape wound assay, with rates of 1.26{\%} per hour and 1.59{\%} per hour on polystyrene and gelatin surfaces, respectively. The fastest overall migration took place with HUVECs on a gelatin-coated surface, with the in-growth assay, at a rate of 2.05{\%} per hour. The slowest migration occurred with the same conditions but on a polystyrene surface at a rate of 0.33{\%} per hour. Conclusion: For SMCs, injury is a dominating factor in migration when compared to the two cell exclusion assays, regardless of the surface tested: polystyrene or gelatin. In contrast, the migrating surface, namely gelatin, was a dominating factor for HUVEC migration, providing an increase in cell migration over the polystyrene surface. Overall, the cell exclusion assays - the in-growth and out-growth assays, provide a means to determine pure migratory behavior of cells in comparison to migration confounded by cell wounding and injury.",
keywords = "Collective cell migration, Endothelial cell, Gelatin, Injury, Polystyrene, Scrape wound, Smooth muscle cell, Vascular",
author = "Ammann, {Kaitlyn R.} and DeCook, {Katrina J.} and Tran, {Phat L.} and Merkle, {Valerie M.} and Wong, {Pak Kin} and Slepian, {Marvin J}",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1186/s13036-015-0015-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
journal = "Journal of Biological Engineering",
issn = "1754-1611",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collective cell migration of smooth muscle and endothelial cells

T2 - Impact of injury versus non-injury stimuli

AU - Ammann, Kaitlyn R.

AU - DeCook, Katrina J.

AU - Tran, Phat L.

AU - Merkle, Valerie M.

AU - Wong, Pak Kin

AU - Slepian, Marvin J

PY - 2015/10/15

Y1 - 2015/10/15

N2 - Background: Cell migration is a vital process for growth and repair. In vitro migration assays, utilized to study cell migration, often rely on physical scraping of a cell monolayer to induce cell migration. The physical act of scrape injury results in numerous factors stimulating cell migration - some injury-related, some solely due to gap creation and loss of contact inhibition. Eliminating the effects of cell injury would be useful to examine the relative contribution of injury versus other mechanisms to cell migration. Cell exclusion assays can tease out the effects of injury and have become a new avenue for migration studies. Here, we developed two simple non-injury techniques for cell exclusion: 1) a Pyrex® cylinder - for outward migration of cells and 2) a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) insert - for inward migration of cells. Utilizing these assays smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) migratory behavior was studied on both polystyrene and gelatin-coated surfaces. Results: Differences in migratory behavior could be detected for both smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) when utilizing injury versus non-injury assays. SMCs migrated faster than HUVECs when stimulated by injury in the scrape wound assay, with rates of 1.26% per hour and 1.59% per hour on polystyrene and gelatin surfaces, respectively. The fastest overall migration took place with HUVECs on a gelatin-coated surface, with the in-growth assay, at a rate of 2.05% per hour. The slowest migration occurred with the same conditions but on a polystyrene surface at a rate of 0.33% per hour. Conclusion: For SMCs, injury is a dominating factor in migration when compared to the two cell exclusion assays, regardless of the surface tested: polystyrene or gelatin. In contrast, the migrating surface, namely gelatin, was a dominating factor for HUVEC migration, providing an increase in cell migration over the polystyrene surface. Overall, the cell exclusion assays - the in-growth and out-growth assays, provide a means to determine pure migratory behavior of cells in comparison to migration confounded by cell wounding and injury.

AB - Background: Cell migration is a vital process for growth and repair. In vitro migration assays, utilized to study cell migration, often rely on physical scraping of a cell monolayer to induce cell migration. The physical act of scrape injury results in numerous factors stimulating cell migration - some injury-related, some solely due to gap creation and loss of contact inhibition. Eliminating the effects of cell injury would be useful to examine the relative contribution of injury versus other mechanisms to cell migration. Cell exclusion assays can tease out the effects of injury and have become a new avenue for migration studies. Here, we developed two simple non-injury techniques for cell exclusion: 1) a Pyrex® cylinder - for outward migration of cells and 2) a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) insert - for inward migration of cells. Utilizing these assays smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) migratory behavior was studied on both polystyrene and gelatin-coated surfaces. Results: Differences in migratory behavior could be detected for both smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and endothelial cells (ECs) when utilizing injury versus non-injury assays. SMCs migrated faster than HUVECs when stimulated by injury in the scrape wound assay, with rates of 1.26% per hour and 1.59% per hour on polystyrene and gelatin surfaces, respectively. The fastest overall migration took place with HUVECs on a gelatin-coated surface, with the in-growth assay, at a rate of 2.05% per hour. The slowest migration occurred with the same conditions but on a polystyrene surface at a rate of 0.33% per hour. Conclusion: For SMCs, injury is a dominating factor in migration when compared to the two cell exclusion assays, regardless of the surface tested: polystyrene or gelatin. In contrast, the migrating surface, namely gelatin, was a dominating factor for HUVEC migration, providing an increase in cell migration over the polystyrene surface. Overall, the cell exclusion assays - the in-growth and out-growth assays, provide a means to determine pure migratory behavior of cells in comparison to migration confounded by cell wounding and injury.

KW - Collective cell migration

KW - Endothelial cell

KW - Gelatin

KW - Injury

KW - Polystyrene

KW - Scrape wound

KW - Smooth muscle cell

KW - Vascular

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944403863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944403863&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13036-015-0015-y

DO - 10.1186/s13036-015-0015-y

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84944403863

VL - 9

JO - Journal of Biological Engineering

JF - Journal of Biological Engineering

SN - 1754-1611

IS - 1

ER -