1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf01316489
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Contraction of collagen gels by intestinal epithelial cells depends on microfilament function

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Function blocking of α2β1 integrin, but not α1β1 integrin, also inhibited the ability of primary cultures to shrink the collagen gel in which they were embedded, suggesting that α2β1 rather than α1β1 is the main collagen I receptor on the primary cultured cells. Collagen contraction, a property only previously reported for certain cultured intestinal epithelial cell lines , was also unaffected by inhibitors of actin, myosin II or microtubules.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…Function blocking of α2β1 integrin, but not α1β1 integrin, also inhibited the ability of primary cultures to shrink the collagen gel in which they were embedded, suggesting that α2β1 rather than α1β1 is the main collagen I receptor on the primary cultured cells. Collagen contraction, a property only previously reported for certain cultured intestinal epithelial cell lines , was also unaffected by inhibitors of actin, myosin II or microtubules.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 56%
“…29,37 However, long-term culture of cells on a soft material such as collagen (112 ± 37 Pa, n = 3) leads to collagen contraction due to mechanical forces imparted by the cells. 38 Thus, microstructures fabricated from unmodified collagen are not suitable as a cell scaffold because of collagen deformation over time. For this reason, we also cultured crypts on a stiffer collagen surface, a cross-linked collagen hydrogel (8640 ± 77 Pa, n = 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of this layer is essential, since its removal by forceps or mucolytic agents impairs restitution [12]. Another factor that appears to assist the process is the reduction of the area required for resurfacing, mediated by contraction of subepithelial myofibroblasts [13] and possibly by tractional forces generated by the epithelial cells themselves [14].…”
Section: Restitutionmentioning
confidence: 99%