2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2012.06.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revealing non-genetic adhesive variations in clonal populations by comparative single-cell force spectroscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
15
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
3
15
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, they point into evidence that HGG shows a cell-cell adhesion profile (both for detachment force and work) more uniform than that observed for the LGG. The cell adhesion variability is a feature already observed in SCFS data and it was demonstrated that this behavior does not depend on cell cycle phase, but originates predominantly from cell to cell variations [44]. However, in our measurements this variability for the LGG could be also associated with the elastic properties of Gsc.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 58%
“…Moreover, they point into evidence that HGG shows a cell-cell adhesion profile (both for detachment force and work) more uniform than that observed for the LGG. The cell adhesion variability is a feature already observed in SCFS data and it was demonstrated that this behavior does not depend on cell cycle phase, but originates predominantly from cell to cell variations [44]. However, in our measurements this variability for the LGG could be also associated with the elastic properties of Gsc.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 58%
“…The bond rupture force of CM integrins‐CN in our study (61.69 ± 5.5 pN) is slightly greater than theirs, but these results are comparable. Compared with detachment forces between CHO cells integrins‐LN quantified by Dao et al, the unbinding force of CM integrins‐LN (108.31 ± 4.2 pN, Figure 2) in our study is smaller than the one reported. The discrepancy may be due to different measuring methods (single‐cell force spectroscopy in the report vs single‐molecular force spectroscopy in the present study) and cell lines (CHO vs CM).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 93%
“…However, the deadhesion work was not significantly higher for plasma‐treated glass over steam‐treated glass, indicating subtle differences in the way the cells responded to the array of micro‐ und nanotopographic features. The single‐cell measurements also revealed a variation of force values between individual cells and between individual force measurements, which could be due to the statistical distribution of the sterilization‐induced protrusions in the glass surface and well‐established variations in adhesion within cell populations …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The single-cell measurements also revealed a variation of force values between individual cells and between individual force measurements, which could be due to the statistical distribution of the sterilization-induced protrusions in the glass surface and well-established variations in adhesion within cell populations. 22 Enhanced adhesion on plasma and gamma treated glass coincided with increased average roughness of these surfaces compared to steam treated glass. To test for a possible correlation of cell adhesion strength and surface roughness, we plotted maximal adhesion force and detachment work versus the average overall surface roughness [ Fig.…”
Section: Correlation Of Adhesion Strength and Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 90%