A comparison of microfluidic methods for high-throughput cell deformability measurements.
Actins
/ drug effects
Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic
/ administration & dosage
Cell Shape
/ drug effects
Cell Size
/ drug effects
Cytoskeleton
/ drug effects
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Flow Cytometry
/ methods
HL-60 Cells
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
Microfluidics
/ methods
Thiazolidines
/ administration & dosage
Journal
Nature methods
ISSN: 1548-7105
Titre abrégé: Nat Methods
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101215604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
07
04
2019
accepted:
23
03
2020
pubmed:
29
4
2020
medline:
12
9
2020
entrez:
29
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The mechanical phenotype of a cell is an inherent biophysical marker of its state and function, with many applications in basic and applied biological research. Microfluidics-based methods have enabled single-cell mechanophenotyping at throughputs comparable to those of flow cytometry. Here, we present a standardized cross-laboratory study comparing three microfluidics-based approaches for measuring cell mechanical phenotype: constriction-based deformability cytometry (cDC), shear flow deformability cytometry (sDC) and extensional flow deformability cytometry (xDC). All three methods detect cell deformability changes induced by exposure to altered osmolarity. However, a dose-dependent deformability increase upon latrunculin B-induced actin disassembly was detected only with cDC and sDC, which suggests that when exposing cells to the higher strain rate imposed by xDC, cellular components other than the actin cytoskeleton dominate the response. The direct comparison presented here furthers our understanding of the applicability of the different deformability cytometry methods and provides context for the interpretation of deformability measurements performed using different platforms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32341544
doi: 10.1038/s41592-020-0818-8
pii: 10.1038/s41592-020-0818-8
pmc: PMC7275893
mid: NIHMS1579163
doi:
Substances chimiques
Actins
0
Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic
0
Thiazolidines
0
latrunculin B
LW7U308U7U
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
587-593Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U54 CA217377
Pays : United States
Références
Lab Chip. 2009 Nov 7;9(21):3038-46
pubmed: 19823716
Biophys J. 2015 May 5;108(9):2181-90
pubmed: 25954876
Biophys J. 2005 May;88(5):3689-98
pubmed: 15722433
J Lab Autom. 2012 Feb;17(1):32-42
pubmed: 22357606
Nature. 2007 Apr 26;446(7139):1066-9
pubmed: 17460669
Microsyst Nanoeng. 2017 May 08;3:17013
pubmed: 31057860
Am J Physiol. 1991 Dec;261(6 Pt 1):C1154-61
pubmed: 1767817
Nat Methods. 2015 Mar;12(3):199-202, 4 p following 202
pubmed: 25643151
Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2017 Aug;74(8):283-296
pubmed: 28445605
Physiol Rev. 2009 Jan;89(1):193-277
pubmed: 19126758
Nat Cell Biol. 2000 Jun;2(6):376-8
pubmed: 10854330
J Biochem Biophys Methods. 1999 Feb 25;39(1-2):47-62
pubmed: 10344500
Anal Chem. 2012 Aug 7;84(15):6438-43
pubmed: 22746217
Biophys J. 2002 Feb;82(2):720-7
pubmed: 11806914
J Leukoc Biol. 2019 Jun;105(6):1143-1153
pubmed: 30835869
Lab Chip. 2008 Jul;8(7):1062-70
pubmed: 18584080
J Biomech. 2000 Jan;33(1):15-22
pubmed: 10609514
Nat Mater. 2013 Mar;12(3):253-61
pubmed: 23291707
J Cell Biol. 1991 Apr;113(1):155-60
pubmed: 2007620
Curr Biol. 2017 Sep 25;27(18):R1024-R1035
pubmed: 28950087
Biophys J. 2016 Nov 1;111(9):2039-2050
pubmed: 27806284
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 May 15;109(20):7630-5
pubmed: 22547795
Nat Commun. 2019 Jan 24;10(1):415
pubmed: 30679420
Biophys J. 2015 Jul 7;109(1):26-34
pubmed: 26153699
Cancer Res. 2011 Aug 1;71(15):5075-80
pubmed: 21642375
Elife. 2018 Jan 13;7:
pubmed: 29331015
Development. 2017 Dec 1;144(23):4313-4321
pubmed: 29183942
Nat Methods. 2018 Jul;15(7):491-498
pubmed: 29915189
Biophys J. 2019 Mar 19;116(6):1127-1135
pubmed: 30799072
Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Oct;34(10):1052-1059
pubmed: 27598230
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 30;106(26):10632-7
pubmed: 19520830
Biophys J. 2001 Aug;81(2):767-84
pubmed: 11463624
Biochim Biophys Acta. 1974 Nov 5;371(1):20-9
pubmed: 4473222
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 May 7;110(19):7580-5
pubmed: 23610435
Methods Cell Biol. 2007;83:347-72
pubmed: 17613316
Nat Methods. 2018 May;15(5):355-358
pubmed: 29608556
Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1678:347-369
pubmed: 29071686
Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2015;17:35-62
pubmed: 26194428
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 10;114(41):E8618-E8627
pubmed: 28973866
Biophys J. 2017 Oct 3;113(7):1574-1584
pubmed: 28978449
Development. 2010 May;137(9):1407-20
pubmed: 20388652
Trends Cell Biol. 2012 Oct;22(10):536-45
pubmed: 22871642
ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2017 Nov 13;3(11):2962-2973
pubmed: 33418716
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 30;10(12):e0146021
pubmed: 26717316
Sci Transl Med. 2013 Nov 20;5(212):212fs41
pubmed: 24259047
Biophys Rev. 2019 Oct;11(5):667-670
pubmed: 31529360
Biophys J. 2015 Nov 17;109(10):2023-36
pubmed: 26588562
J Cell Biochem. 2010 Feb 15;109(3):460-7
pubmed: 20024954
Lab Chip. 2011 Feb 21;11(4):645-51
pubmed: 21180703
J Cell Sci. 2001 Mar;114(Pt 5):1025-36
pubmed: 11181185
Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1989;13(3):127-44
pubmed: 2776221
Sci Transl Med. 2013 Nov 20;5(212):212ra163
pubmed: 24259051
PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45237
pubmed: 23028868