2006
DOI: 10.1263/jbb.102.402
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biological responses of ligament fibroblasts and gene expression profiling on micropatterned silicone substrates subjected to mechanical stimuli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
35
1
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 54 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
35
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We examined the morphological effects of a wide range of mechanical forces within the physiological and non-physiological regimes and found mechanical force magnitude and direction to influence the actin cytoskeleton reorientation of NIH 3T3 fibroblasts and HUVECs in isolation. Although these cells are primarily contact inhibited in vivo, previous studies show both fibroblasts and endothelial cells under mechanical stimulation adopt the same orientation in isolation (Neidlinger-Wilke et al, 2002;WojciakStothard and Ridley, 2003) and in monolayers (Malek and Izumo, 1996;Park et al, 2006), which suggests our results could be true regardless of whether contact inhibition occurs or not. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare the effects of dual integrated force inputs on single cells and cellular monolayers using metrics beyond those used in those study such as cellular contractility and cell stiffness, for example.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…We examined the morphological effects of a wide range of mechanical forces within the physiological and non-physiological regimes and found mechanical force magnitude and direction to influence the actin cytoskeleton reorientation of NIH 3T3 fibroblasts and HUVECs in isolation. Although these cells are primarily contact inhibited in vivo, previous studies show both fibroblasts and endothelial cells under mechanical stimulation adopt the same orientation in isolation (Neidlinger-Wilke et al, 2002;WojciakStothard and Ridley, 2003) and in monolayers (Malek and Izumo, 1996;Park et al, 2006), which suggests our results could be true regardless of whether contact inhibition occurs or not. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to compare the effects of dual integrated force inputs on single cells and cellular monolayers using metrics beyond those used in those study such as cellular contractility and cell stiffness, for example.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 55%
“…Our approach could not only impose mechanical stretching, but also impart fluid shear stress on cells. Most studies involving mechanical forces on fibroblasts generally involve tensile forces via cyclic or static loading modes [18][19][20][33][34][35]. Recent studies, however, have also revealed the influence of shear stress on fibroblast behavior [13].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After 6 and 24 h, increased proliferation was observed following a period of 15 and 60 min of stretching. Furthermore, there have been some reports where an appropriate level of mechanical force was shown to stimulate or inhibit cell proliferation [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Kaspar et al [56] reported an increase in human osteoblastic cell proliferation and type I collagen propeptide release under mechanical strain (1,000 μ strain, 1 Hz, 30 min/day, for 2 days).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%