Amato Donatelli

Background: A hallmark of glioblastoma is represented by their ability to widely disperse throughout the brain parenchyma. The importance of developing new anti-migratory targets is critical to reduce recurrence and improve therapeutic efficacy. Methods: Polydimethylsiloxane substrates, either mechanically uniform or presenting durotactic cues, were fabricated to assess GBM cell morphological and dynamical response with and without pharmacological inhibition of NNMII contractility, of its upstream regulator ROCK and actin polymerization. Results: Glioma cells mechanotactic efficiency varied depending on the rigidity compliance of substrates. Morphologically, glioma cells on highly rigid and soft bulk substrates displayed bigger and elongated aggregates whereas on durotactic substrates the same cells were homogeneously dispersed with a less elongated morphology. The durotactic cues also induced a motility change, cell phenotype dependent, and with cells being more invasive on stiffer substrates. Pharmacological inhibition of myosin or ROCK revealed a rigidity-insensitivity, unlike inhibition of microfilament contraction and polymerization of F-actin, suggesting that alternative signalling is used to respond to durotactic cues. Conclusions: The presence of a distinct mechanical cue is an important factor in cell migration. Together, our results provide support for a durotactic role of glioma cells that acts through actomyosin contractility to regulate the aggressive properties of GBM cells.

A hallmark of glioblastomas is represented by their ability to widely disperse throughout the brain parenchyma. The importance of developing new anti-migratory targets is critical to reduce recurrence and improve therapeutic efficacy. Methods: Polydimethylsiloxane substrates, either mechanically uniform or presenting durotactic cues, were fabricated to assess GBM cell morphological and dynamical response with and without pharmacological inhibition of NNMII contractility, its upstream regulator ROCK and actin polymerization. Results: Glioma cells mechanotactic efficiency varied depending on the rigidity compliance of substrates. Morphologically, glioma cells on highly rigid and soft bulk substrates displayed bigger and elongated aggregates whereas on durotactic substrates the same cells were homogeneously dispersed with less elongated morphology. The durotactic cues also induced a motility change cell phenotype depndant, and with cells being more invasive on stiffer substrates. Pharmacological inhibition of myosin or ROCK revealed a rigidity-insensitivity, unlike inhibition of microfilament contraction and polymerization of F-actin, suggesting that alternative signalling is used to respond to durotactic cues. Conclusion: The presence of a distinct mechanical cue is an important factor in cell migration. Together, our results provide support for a durotactic role of glioma cells that acts through actomyosin contractility to regulate the aggressive properties of GBM cells.