Limits...
1D is like 3D, but 2D isn't

View Article: PubMed Central

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Doyle et al. report that the movement of cells in a straight line is very similar to that in three dimensions (3D), whereas both differ markedly from 2D movement... Doyle et al.'s new fluorescence-friendly approach was to coat coverslips with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which resists protein and cell binding, and then remove regions of the PVA by laser ablation... Importantly, the cells' movement looked just like that on 3D fibrillar matrices... Cells migrating in 2D have a spreading, multi-axial morphology, but on the 1D lines, as in 3D matrices, the cells were uniaxial... Their migration was also more rapid, even at high ligand densities (on 2D surfaces high ligand density slows cells, as they have trouble detaching)... The faster speed is probably explained by the fact that less of the cell is in contact with the surface, so more of its machinery is available to drive the cell forward... Indeed this would explain why Doyle et al. found that movement in 1D and 3D was dependent on myosin II contractility... Cells on 2D surfaces, on the other hand, use most of their myosin to make surface contacts, so actually speed up if contractility is lost... So is there a future in 2D analyses?

No MeSH data available.


1D cell migration (left) resembles 3D migration on a matrix (right).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2654136&req=5

fig1: 1D cell migration (left) resembles 3D migration on a matrix (right).


1D is like 3D, but 2D isn't
1D cell migration (left) resembles 3D migration on a matrix (right).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2654136&req=5

fig1: 1D cell migration (left) resembles 3D migration on a matrix (right).

View Article: PubMed Central

AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED EXCERPT
Please rate it.

Doyle et al. report that the movement of cells in a straight line is very similar to that in three dimensions (3D), whereas both differ markedly from 2D movement... Doyle et al.'s new fluorescence-friendly approach was to coat coverslips with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which resists protein and cell binding, and then remove regions of the PVA by laser ablation... Importantly, the cells' movement looked just like that on 3D fibrillar matrices... Cells migrating in 2D have a spreading, multi-axial morphology, but on the 1D lines, as in 3D matrices, the cells were uniaxial... Their migration was also more rapid, even at high ligand densities (on 2D surfaces high ligand density slows cells, as they have trouble detaching)... The faster speed is probably explained by the fact that less of the cell is in contact with the surface, so more of its machinery is available to drive the cell forward... Indeed this would explain why Doyle et al. found that movement in 1D and 3D was dependent on myosin II contractility... Cells on 2D surfaces, on the other hand, use most of their myosin to make surface contacts, so actually speed up if contractility is lost... So is there a future in 2D analyses?

No MeSH data available.