Stochastic amplitude-modulated stretching of Rabbit flexor digitorum profundus tendons reduces stiffness compared to Cyclic Loading but does not affect Tenocyte Metabolism

Background It has been demonstrated that frequency modulation of loading influences cellular response and metabolism in 3D tissues such as cartilage, bone and intervertebral disc. However, the mechano-sensitivity of cells in linear tissues such as tendons or ligaments might be more sensitive to changes in strain amplitude than frequency. Here, we hypothesized that tenocytes in situ are mechano-responsive to random amplitude modulation of strain. Methods We compared stochastic amplitude-modulated versus sinusoidal cyclic stretching. Rabbit tendon were kept in tissue-culture medium for twelve days and were loaded for 1h/day for six of the total twelve culture days. The tendons were randomly subjected to one of three different loading regimes: i) stochastic (2 – 7% random strain amplitudes), ii) cyclic_RMS (2–4.42% strain) and iii) cyclic_high (2 - 7% strain), all at 1 Hz and for 3,600 cycles, and one unloaded control. Results At the end of the culture period, the stiffness of the “stochastic” group was significantly lower than that of the cyclic_RMS and cyclic_high groups (both, p < 0.0001). Gene expression of eleven anabolic, catabolic and inflammatory genes revealed no significant differences between the loading groups. Conclusions We conclude that, despite an equivalent metabolic response, stochastically stretched tendons suffer most likely from increased mechanical microdamage, relative to cyclically loaded ones, which is relevant for tendon regeneration therapies in clinical practice.

Time-lapse microscopy and classification of 2D human mesenchymal stem cells based on cell shape picks up myogenic from osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation

Current methods to characterize mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are limited to CD marker expression, plastic adherence and their ability to differentiate into adipogenic, osteogenic and chondrogenic precursors. It seems evident that stem cells undergoing differentiation should differ in many aspects, such as morphology and possibly also behaviour; however, such a correlation has not yet been exploited for fate prediction of MSCs. Primary human MSCs from bone marrow were expanded and pelleted to form high-density cultures and were then randomly divided into four groups to differentiate into adipogenic, osteogenic chondrogenic and myogenic progenitor cells. The cells were expanded as heterogeneous and tracked with time-lapse microscopy to record cell shape, using phase-contrast microscopy. The cells were segmented using a custom-made image-processing pipeline. Seven morphological features were extracted for each of the segmented cells. Statistical analysis was performed on the seven-dimensional feature vectors, using a tree-like classification method. Differentiation of cells was monitored with key marker genes and histology. Cells in differentiation media were expressing the key genes for each of the three pathways after 21 days, i.e. adipogenic, osteogenic and chondrogenic, which was also confirmed by histological staining. Time-lapse microscopy data were obtained and contained new evidence that two cell shape features, eccentricity and filopodia (= 'fingers') are highly informative to classify myogenic differentiation from all others. However, no robust classifiers could be identified for the other cell differentiation paths. The results suggest that non-invasive automated time-lapse microscopy could potentially be used to predict the stem cell fate of hMSCs for clinical application, based on morphology for earlier time-points. The classification is challenged by cell density, proliferation and possible unknown donor-specific factors, which affect the performance of morphology-based approaches. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.