Survey outlines wide range of methodologies for examining nuclear mechanics and mechanobiology

It has long been known that the cell nucleus houses DNA, regulating cellular fate and function. More recently, it has become increasingly evident that the physical nature of the nucleus itself is an important consideration in rare and deadly diseases. A rigid material that responds dynamically to external mechanical cues, the nucleus features proteins and molecules whose defects may contribute to laminopathies and cancer metastasis.

But studying nuclear mechanics and mechanobiology is not simple. Hobson et al. present a survey of current assays employed to examine these properties – from tweezer methods, suspension methods, substrate straining and environmental modulations, to confinement-based, microscopy-based and cantilever-based methods.

“The main purpose of our paper is to provide researchers with a useful guide through these technologies, to help facilitate meaningful studies of nuclear mechanobiology,” said Hobson. “But it is important to note that no one technology is ‘best’; they each have unique benefits and limitations that warrant their use in certain situations, and careful selection of the proper tool is critical.”

After outlining the various approaches, the survey discusses three main considerations in selecting the appropriate method: throughput versus specificity; the shape and direction of the perturbation; and the importance of length and time scales.

While available assay methods will continue providing insight into nuclear mechanobiology, the authors acknowledge that further use of multiple methods, studies of local material properties and development of assays for in vivo studies will also help.

In the meantime, “we hope our survey helps advance work in nuclear mechanobiology by promoting effective and judicious usage and selection of the existing tools and methodologies,” said Hobson.

Source: “A survey of physical methods for studying nuclear mechanics and mechanobiology,” by Chad M. Hobson, Michael R. Falvo, and Richard Superfine, APL Bioengineering (2021). The article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0068126 .