The potential for intercellular mechanical interaction: simulations of single chondrocyte versus anatomically based distribution.
The potential for intercellular mechanical interaction: simulations of single chondrocyte versus anatomically based distribution.
复制标题
细胞间机械相互作用的潜力：单个软骨细胞与基于解剖学的分布的模拟。
DOI：
10.1007/s10237-017-0951-1
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Erdemir,Ahmet
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halloran,JasonP;Sibole,ScottC;Erdemir,Ahmet
软骨细胞力学和一般细胞力学的计算研究通常是使用嵌入细胞外基质结构的单细胞模型进行的。当考虑较高的细胞浓度时，单细胞微观结构模型的假设可能无法捕获细胞间相互作用或准确反映软骨的宏观力学，正如许多情况下的情况一样。因此，本研究的目标是比较单细胞和十一个细胞双相有限元模型的细胞水平响应，其中后者提供了基于解剖学的细胞分布，代表软骨中部区域常用边缘立方代表体积的实际细胞数量。单细胞表示结合了一个中心单细胞模型和十一个位置校正的单细胞模型，后者描绘了细胞放置在代表性体积元素中的作用。所有模拟均采用 10% 压缩应变下的应力松弛测试。在瞬态响应期间，中心单细胞模型与 11 个细胞模型的体积平均软骨细胞力学表现出显着差异（高达 60%，通常大于 10%），但稳态负载相似。由于宏观尺度上位移和流体压力场的不均匀性，细胞位置发挥了显着作用。当针对细胞位置校正单细胞表示时，瞬态响应是一致的，而实现了 1-4% 数量级的稳态差异，这可能归因于细胞间的机械相互作用。细胞靠近的浅层和深层区域的解剖学表征可能表现出更大的细胞间相互作用，但这些仍有待探索。
Computational studies of chondrocyte mechanics, and cell mechanics in general, have typically been performed using single cell models embedded in an extracellular matrix construct. The assumption of a single cell microstructural model may not capture intercellular interactions or accurately reflect the macroscale mechanics of cartilage when higher cell concentrations are considered, as may be the case in many instances. Hence, the goal of this study was to compare cell-level response of single and eleven cell biphasic finite element models, where the latter provided an anatomically based cellular distribution representative of the actual number of cells for a commonly usededge cubic representative volume in the middle zone of cartilage. Single cell representations incorporated a centered single cell model and eleven location-corrected single cell models, the latter to delineate the role of cell placement in the representative volume element. A stress relaxation test at 10% compressive strain was adopted for all simulations. During transient response, volume- averaged chondrocyte mechanics demonstrated marked differences (up to 60% and typically greater than 10%) for the centered single versus the eleven cell models, yet steady-state loading was similar. Cell location played a marked role, due to inhomogeneity of the displacement and fluid pressure fields at the macroscopic scale. When the single cell representation was corrected for cell location, the transient response was consistent, while steady-state differences on the order of 1–4% were realized, which may be attributed to intercellular mechanical interactions. Anatomical representations of the superficial and deep zones, where cells reside in close proximity, may exhibit greater intercellular interactions, but these have yet to be explored.