Search for: All records

Chromatin is an essential component of nuclear mechanical response and shape that maintains nuclear compartmentalization and function. However, major genomic functions, such as transcription activity, might also impact cell nuclear shape via blebbing and rupture through their effects on chromatin structure and dynamics. To test this idea, we inhibited transcription with several RNA polymerase II inhibitors in wild type cells and perturbed cells that present increased nuclear blebbing. Transcription inhibition suppresses nuclear blebbing for several cell types, nuclear perturbations, and transcription inhibitors. Furthermore, transcription inhibition suppresses nuclear bleb formation, bleb stabilization, and bleb-based nuclear ruptures. Interestingly, transcription inhibition does not alter either H3K9 histone modification state, nuclear rigidity, or actin compression and contraction, which typically control nuclear blebbing. Polymer simulations suggest that RNA pol II motor activity within chromatin could drive chromatin motions that deform the nuclear periphery. Our data provide evidence that transcription inhibition suppresses nuclear blebbing and rupture, separate and distinct from chromatin rigidity.

 

The central hypothesis of the genotype–phenotype relationship is that the phenotype of a developing organism (i.e., its set of observable attributes) depends on its genome and the environment. However, as we learn more about the genetics and biochemistry of living systems, our understanding does not fully extend to the complex multiscale nature of how cells move, interact, and organize; this gap in understanding is referred to as the genotype-to-phenotype problem. The physics of soft matter sets the background on which living organisms evolved, and the cell environment is a strong determinant of cell phenotype. This inevitably leads to challenges as the full function of many genes, and the diversity of cellular behaviors cannot be assessed without wide screens of environmental conditions. Cellular mechanobiology is an emerging field that provides methodologies to understand how cells integrate chemical and physical environmental stress and signals, and how they are transduced to control cell function. Biofilm forming bacteria represent an attractive model because they are fast growing, genetically malleable and can display sophisticated self-organizing developmental behaviors similar to those found in higher organisms. Here, we propose mechanobiology as a new area of study in prokaryotic systems and describe its potential for unveiling new links between an organism's genome and phenome. 

A short peptide, FHHF-11, was designed to change stiffness as a function of pH due to changing degree of protonation of histidines. As pH changes in the physiologically relevant range, G′ was measured at 0 Pa (pH 6) and 50,000 Pa (pH 8). This peptide-based hydrogel is antimicrobial and cytocompatible with skin cells (fibroblasts). It was demonstrated that the incorporation of unnatural AzAla tryptophan analog residue improves the antimicrobial properties of the hydrogel. The material developed can have a practical application and be a paradigm shift in the approach to wound treatment, and it will improve healing outcomes for millions of patients each year.

 

The ability of bacteria to colonize and grow on different surfaces is an essential process for biofilm development. Here, we report the use of synthetic hydrogels with tunable stiffness and porosity to assess physical effects of the substrate on biofilm development. Using time-lapse microscopy to track the growth of expanding Serratia marcescens colonies, we find that biofilm colony growth can increase with increasing substrate stiffness, unlike what is found on traditional agar substrates. Using traction force microscopy-based techniques, we find that biofilms exert transient stresses correlated over length scales much larger than a single bacterium, and that the magnitude of these forces also increases with increasing substrate stiffness. Our results are consistent with a model of biofilm development in which the interplay between osmotic pressure arising from the biofilm and the poroelastic response of the underlying substrate controls biofilm growth and morphology.