Living systems are composed of molecules that are synthesized by cells that use energy sources within their surroundings to create fascinating materials that have mechanical properties optimized for their biological function. Their functionality is a ubiquitous aspect of our lives. We use wood to construct furniture, bacterial colonies to modify the texture of dairy products and other foods, intestines as violin strings, bladders in bagpipes, and so on. The mechanical properties of these biological materials differ from those of other simpler synthetic elastomers, glasses, and crystals. Reproducing their mechanical properties synthetically or from first principles is still often unattainable. The challenge is that biomaterials often exist far from equilibrium, either in a kinetically arrested state or in an energy consuming active state that is not yet possible to reproduce de novo. Also, the design principles that form biological materials often result in nonlinear responses of stress to strain, or force to displacement, and theoretical models to explain these nonlinear effects are in relatively early stages of development compared to the predictive models for rubberlike elastomers or metals. In this Review, we summarize some of the most common and striking mechanical features of biological materials and make comparisons among animal, plant, fungal, and bacterial systems. We also summarize some of the mechanisms by which living systems develop forces that shape biological matter and examine newly discovered mechanisms by which cells sense and respond to the forces they generate themselves, which are resisted by their environment, or that are exerted upon them by their environment. Within this framework, we discuss examples of how physical methods are being applied to cell biology and bioengineering.
- Award ID(s):
- 1929355
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10354962
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- The Plant Cell
- Volume:
- 34
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 1040-4651
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 129 to 145
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Taxonomy Potato virus X is the type‐member of the plant‐infectingPotexvirus genus in the familyAlphaflexiviridae .Physical properties Potato virus X (PVX) virions are flexuous filaments 460–480 nm in length. Virions are 13 nm in diameter and have a helical pitch of 3.4 nm. The genome is approximately 6.4 kb with a 5′ cap and 3′ poly(A) terminus. PVX contains five open reading frames, four of which are essential for cell‐to‐cell and systemic movement. One protein encodes the viral replicase. Cellular inclusions, known as X‐bodies, occur near the nucleus of virus‐infected cells.
Hosts The primary host is potato, but it infects a wide range of dicots. Diagnostic hosts include
Datura stramonium andNicotiana tabacum . PVX is transmitted in nature by mechanical contact.Useful website https://talk.ictvonline.org/ictv‐reports/ictv_online_report/positive‐sense‐rna‐viruses/w/alphaflexiviridae/1330/genus‐potexvirus -
Li, Rong (Ed.)Recent research has elucidated mechanochemical pathways of single cell polarization, but much less is known about collective motility initiation in adhesive cell groups. We used galvanotactic assays of zebrafish keratocyte cell groups, pharmacological perturbations, electric field switches, particle imaging velocimetry, and cell tracking to show that large cell groups initiate motility in minutes toward the cathode. Interestingly, while PI3K-inhibited single cells are biased toward the anode, inhibiting PI3K does not affect the cathode-directed cell group migration. We observed that control groups had the fastest cathode-migrating cell at the front, while the front cells in PI3K-inhibited groups were the slowest. Both control and PI3K-inhibited groups rapidly repolarized when the electric field direction was reversed, and the group migration continued after the electric field was switched off. Inhibiting myosin disrupted the cohesiveness of keratocyte groups and abolished the collective directionality and ability to switch direction when the electric field is reversed. Our data are consistent with a model according to which cells in the group sense the electric field individually and mechanical integration of the cells results in coherent group motility.more » « less
-
Abstract As scientists, we are at least as excited about the open questions—the things we do not know—as the discoveries. Here, we asked 15 experts to describe the most compelling open questions in plant cell biology. These are their questions: How are organelle identity, domains, and boundaries maintained under the continuous flux of vesicle trafficking and membrane remodeling? Is the plant cortical microtubule cytoskeleton a mechanosensory apparatus? How are the cellular pathways of cell wall synthesis, assembly, modification, and integrity sensing linked in plants? Why do plasmodesmata open and close? Is there retrograde signaling from vacuoles to the nucleus? How do root cells accommodate fungal endosymbionts? What is the role of cell edges in plant morphogenesis? How is the cell division site determined? What are the emergent effects of polyploidy on the biology of the cell, and how are any such “rules” conditioned by cell type? Can mechanical forces trigger new cell fates in plants? How does a single differentiated somatic cell reprogram and gain pluripotency? How does polarity develop de-novo in isolated plant cells? What is the spectrum of cellular functions for membraneless organelles and intrinsically disordered proteins? How do plants deal with internal noise? How does order emerge in cells and propagate to organs and organisms from complex dynamical processes? We hope you find the discussions of these questions thought provoking and inspiring.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Primary mechanosensory neurons play an important role in converting mechanical forces into the sense of touch. In zebrafish, Rohon‐Beard (RB) neurons serve this role at embryonic and larval stages of development. Here we examine the morphology and physiology of RBs in larval zebrafish to better understand how mechanosensory stimuli are represented along the spinal cord. We report that the morphology of RB neurons differs along the rostrocaudal body axis. Rostral RB neurons arborize in the skin near the cell body whereas caudal cells arborize at a distance posterior to their cell body. Using a novel electrophysiological approach, we also found longitudinal differences in the mechanosensitivity and physiological properties of RB neurons. Rostral RB neurons respond to mechanical stimulations close to the soma and produce up to three spikes with increasing stimulus intensity, whereas caudal cells respond at more distal locations and can produce four or more spikes when the intensity of the mechanical stimulus increases. The mechanosensory properties of RB neurons are consistent with those of rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors and can signal the onset, offset and intensity of mechanical stimulation. This is the first report of the intensity encoding properties of RB neurons, where an increase in spike number and a decrease in spike latency are observed with increasing stimulation intensity. This study reveals an unappreciated complexity of the larval zebrafish mechanosensory system and demonstrates how differences in the morphological and physiological properties of RBs related to their rostrocaudal location can influence the signals that enter the spinal cord.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1093/plcell/koab230
