Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Mechanical properties of human tumour tissues and their implications for cancer development

Nature Reviews Physics volume 6, pages 269–282 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The mechanical properties of cells and tissues help determine their architecture, composition and function. Alterations to these properties are associated with many diseases, including cancer. Tensional, compressive, adhesive, elastic and viscous properties of individual cells and multicellular tissues are mostly regulated by reorganization of the actomyosin and microtubule cytoskeletons and extracellular glycocalyx, which in turn drive many pathophysiological processes, including cancer progression. This Review provides an in-depth collection of quantitative data on diverse mechanical properties of living human cancer cells and tissues. Additionally, the implications of mechanical property changes for cancer development are discussed. An increased knowledge of the mechanical properties of the tumour microenvironment, as collected using biomechanical approaches capable of multi-timescale and multiparametric analyses, will provide a better understanding of the complex mechanical determinants of cancer organization and progression. This information can lead to a further understanding of resistance mechanisms to chemotherapies and immunotherapies and the metastatic cascade.

Key points

  • Changes in molecular-level, cellular-level and tissue-level mechanical properties across multiple timescales and dimensions play a critical role in driving oncogenesis, tumour organization and disease progression.

  • An array of cellular and tissue mechanical properties, including surface tension, hydrostatic pressure, elasticity, viscosity and adhesion, can provide greater insights into distinguishing unique characteristics of different cancers.

  • Comprehensive supplementary tables gathering quantitative mechanical properties values of human cancer cells and tissues provide details of cancer development from a biomechanical perspective.

  • Quantification of multiple physical parameters of cells and tissues provides a multiscale, multidimensional and multiparametric understanding of physical oncology for the development of prognostic and diagnostic tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Remodelling of the cellular cytoskeleton and extracellular matrix is a hallmark of cancer-causing alterations in cellular mechanical properties.
Fig. 2: Mechanobiological techniques used to quantify multiple mechanical properties at both the cellular and tissue levels.
Fig. 3: Diverse changes in intratumoural microenvironmental architecture and mechanical properties for different cancers.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sung, H. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–249 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel, R. L., Giaquinto, A. N. & Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 74, 12–49 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hanahan, D. & Robert, A. Weinberg, the hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57–70 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hanahan, D. & Robert, A. Weinberg, hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hanahan, D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 12, 31–46 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lu, P., Weaver, V. M. & Werb, Z. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J. Cell Biol. 196, 395–406 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Langley, R. R. & Fidler, I. J. Tumor cell–organ microenvironment interactions in the pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Endocr. Rev. 28, 297–321 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Friedl, P. & Gilmour, D. Collective cell migration in morphogenesis, regeneration and cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 445–457 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wirtz, D., Konstantopoulos, K. & Searson, P. C. The physics of cancer: the role of physical interactions and mechanical forces in metastasis. Nat. Rev. Cancer 11, 512–522 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar, S. & Weaver, V. M. Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: the force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 28, 113–127 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tinevez, J.-Y. et al. Role of cortical tension in bleb growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18581–18586 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. Logue, J. S. et al. Erk regulation of actin capping and bundling by Eps8 promotes cortex tension and leader bleb-based migration. eLife 4, e08314 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Logue, J. S., Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. & Chadwick, R. S. c-Src activity is differentially required by cancer cell motility modes. Oncogene 37, 2104–2121 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Adams, A. Jr et al. Survey of cancer cell anatomy in nonadhesive confinement reveals a role for filamin-A and fascin-1 in leader bleb-based migration. Mol. Biol. Cell 32, 1772–1791 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Massey, A. E. et al. Biophysical changes caused by altered MUC13 expression in pancreatic cancer cells. Micron 130, 102822 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sun, Z., Costell, M. & Fassler, R. Integrin activation by talin, kindlin and mechanical forces. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 25–31 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Krisenko, M. O. et al. Nanomechanical property maps of breast cancer cells as determined by multiharmonic atomic force microscopy reveal Syk-dependent changes in microtubule stability mediated by MAP1B. Biochemistry 54, 60–68 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Efremov, Y. M. et al. Mapping heterogeneity of cellular mechanics by multi-harmonic atomic force microscopy. Nat. Protoc. 13, 2200–2216 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parvini, C. H., Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. & Solares, S. D. Viscoelastic parameterization of human skin cells characterize material behavior at multiple timescales. Commun. Biol. 5, 17 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. et al. Fast, multi-frequency and quantitative nanomechanical mapping of live cells using the atomic force microscope. Sci. Rep. 5, 11692 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. Huang, S. & Ingber, D. E. Cell tension, matrix mechanics, and cancer development. Cancer Cell 8, 175–176 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Purkayastha, P., Jaiswal, M. K. & Lele, T. P. Molecular cancer cell responses to solid compressive stress and interstitial fluid pressure. Cytoskeleton 78, 312–322 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Khalili, A. A. & Ahmad, M. R. A review of cell adhesion studies for biomedical and biological applications. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 16, 18149–18184 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lekka, M. et al. Cancer cell detection in tissue sections using AFM. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 518, 151–156 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chaudhuri, O. et al. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature 584, 535–546 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dufrêne, Y. F. et al. Imaging modes of atomic force microscopy for application in molecular and cell biology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 295–307 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mulligan, J. A. et al. Emerging approaches for high-resolution imaging of tissue biomechanics with optical coherence elastography. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 22, 246–265 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  28. Isermann, P. & Lammerding, J. Nuclear mechanics and mechanotransduction in health and disease. Curr. Biol. 23, R1113–R1121 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ayad, N. M. E., Kaushik, S. & Weaver, V. M. Tissue mechanics, an important regulator of development and disease. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 374, 20180215 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lambert, A. W., Pattabiraman, D. R. & Weinberg, R. A. Emerging biological principles of metastasis. Cell 168, 670–691 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Friedl, P. & Wolf, K. Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 362–374 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhovmer, A. S. et al. Mechanical counterbalance of kinesin and dynein motors in a microtubular network regulates cell mechanics, 3D architecture, and mechanosensing. ACS Nano 15, 17528–17548 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Calzado-Martín, A. et al. Effect of actin organization on the stiffness of living breast cancer cells revealed by peak-force modulation atomic force microscopy. ACS Nano 10, 3365–3374 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Swaminathan, V. et al. Mechanical stiffness grades metastatic potential in patient tumor cells and in cancer cell lines. Cancer Res. 71, 5075–5080 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Nguyen, A. V. et al. Stiffness of pancreatic cancer cells is associated with increased invasive potential. Integr. Biol. 8, 1232–1245 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Suresh, S. Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells. Acta Biomater. 3, 413–438 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Alibert, C., Goud, B. & Manneville, J. B. Are cancer cells really softer than normal cells? Biol. Cell 109, 167–189 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mouw, J. K. et al. Tissue mechanics modulate microRNA-dependent PTEN expression to regulate malignant progression. Nat. Med. 20, 360–367 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gkretsi, V. & Stylianopoulos, T. Cell adhesion and matrix stiffness: coordinating cancer cell invasion and metastasis. Front. Oncol. 8, 145–145 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McGrail, D. J., Kieu, Q. M. & Dawson, M. R. The malignancy of metastatic ovarian cancer cells is increased on soft matrices through a mechanosensitive Rho–ROCK pathway. J. Cell Sci. 127, 2621–2626 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Acerbi, I. et al. Human breast cancer invasion and aggression correlates with ECM stiffening and immune cell infiltration. Integr. Biol. Quant. Biosci. Nano Macro 7, 1120–1134 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Przybyla, L., Muncie, J. M. & Weaver, V. M. Mechanical control of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transitions in development and cancer. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 32, 527–554 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jain, R. K. Antiangiogenesis strategies revisited: from starving tumors to alleviating hypoxia. Cancer Cell 26, 605–622 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Discher, D. E., Janmey, P. & Wang, Y.-L. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310, 1139–1143 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mammoto, T., Mammoto, A. & Ingber, D. E. Mechanobiology and developmental control. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 29, 27–61 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Keller, R. Physical biology returns to morphogenesis. Science 338, 201–203 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Heisenberg, C.-P. & Bellaïche, Y. Forces in tissue morphogenesis and patterning. Cell 153, 948–962 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Burla, F. et al. From mechanical resilience to active material properties in biopolymer networks. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 249–263 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nia, H. T., Munn, L. L. & Jain, R. K. Physical traits of cancer. Science 370, eaaz0868 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Guimarães, C. F. et al. The stiffness of living tissues and its implications for tissue engineering. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 351–370 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. Elosegui-Artola, A. The extracellular matrix viscoelasticity as a regulator of cell and tissue dynamics. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 72, 10–18 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Guz, N. et al. If cell mechanics can be described by elastic modulus: study of different models and probes used in indentation experiments. Biophys. J. 107, 564–575 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ohring, M. Mechanical behavior of solids. in Engineering Materials Science Vol. 299 (ed. Ohring, M.) Ch. 7 (Academic Press, 1995).

  54. Moeendarbary, E. & Harris, A. R. Cell mechanics: principles, practices, and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 6, 371–388 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gavara, N. A beginner’s guide to atomic force microscopy probing for cell mechanics. Microsc. Res. Tech. 80, 75–84 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Zemła, J. et al. Atomic force microscopy as a tool for assessing the cellular elasticity and adhesiveness to identify cancer cells and tissues. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 73, 115–124 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Canetta, E. et al. Discrimination of bladder cancer cells from normal urothelial cells with high specificity and sensitivity: combined application of atomic force microscopy and modulated Raman spectroscopy. Acta Biomater. 10, 2043–2055 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smolyakov, G. et al. Elasticity, adhesion, and tether extrusion on breast cancer cells provide a signature of their invasive potential. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 27426–27431 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Kubiak, A. et al. Nanomechanics in monitoring the effectiveness of drugs targeting the cancer cell cytoskeleton. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 8786 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Le Cigne, A. et al. Analysis of the effect of LRP-1 silencing on the invasive potential of cancer cells by nanomechanical probing and adhesion force measurements using atomic force microscopy. Nanoscale 8, 7144–7154 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  61. Iturri, J. et al. Resveratrol-induced temporal variation in the mechanical properties of MCF-7 breast cancer cells investigated by atomic force microscopy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 3275 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Park, S. & Lee, Y. J. AFM-based dual nano-mechanical phenotypes for cancer metastasis. J. Biol. Phys. 40, 413–419 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Weder, G. et al. Increased plasticity of the stiffness of melanoma cells correlates with their acquisition of metastatic properties. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 10, 141–148 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Plodinec, M. et al. The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 757–765 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  65. Stylianou, A., Lekka, M. & Stylianopoulos, T. AFM assessing of nanomechanical fingerprints for cancer early diagnosis and classification: from single cell to tissue level. Nanoscale 10, 20930–20945 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Remmerbach, T. W. et al. Oral cancer diagnosis by mechanical phenotyping. Cancer Res. 69, 1728–1732 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Corominas-Murtra, B. & Petridou, N. I. Viscoelastic networks: forming cells and tissues. Front. Phys. 9, 666916 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Efremov, Y. M., Okajima, T. & Raman, A. Measuring viscoelasticity of soft biological samples using atomic force microscopy. Soft Matter 16, 64–81 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  69. Amador, C. et al. Loss tangent and complex modulus estimated by acoustic radiation force creep and shear wave dispersion. Phys. Med. Biol. 57, 1263–1282 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ferguson, B. G. Calculation of the loss tangent for viscoelastic materials using the triple bar composite resonance technique. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 76, 1577–1579 (1984).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  71. Mohammadalipour, A., Burdick, M. M. & Tees, D. F. J. Viscoelasticity measurements reveal rheological differences between stem-like and non-stem-like breast cancer cells. Cell. Mol. Bioeng. 10, 235–248 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Xie, Y. et al. The viscoelastic behaviors of several kinds of cancer cells and normal cells. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 91, 54–58 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Garcia, P. D., Guerrero, C. R. & Garcia, R. Nanorheology of living cells measured by AFM-based force–distance curves. Nanoscale 12, 9133–9143 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Efremov, Y. M. et al. Measuring nanoscale viscoelastic parameters of cells directly from AFM force–displacement curves. Sci. Rep. 7, 1541 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  75. Guerrero, C. R., Garcia, P. D. & Garcia, R. Subsurface imaging of cell organelles by force microscopy. ACS Nano 13, 9629–9637 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Gnanachandran, K. et al. Discriminating bladder cancer cells through rheological mechanomarkers at cell and spheroid levels. J. Biomech. 144, 111346 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Mandal, K. et al. Mapping intracellular mechanics on micropatterned substrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E7159–E7168 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zhang, G. et al. Mechanical properties of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. World J. Gastroenterol. 8, 243–246 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Tang, X. et al. Effects of substrate stiffness on the viscoelasticity and migration of prostate cancer cells examined by atomic force microscopy. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 13, 560–569 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Rianna, C. & Radmacher, M. Comparison of viscoelastic properties of cancer and normal thyroid cells on different stiffness substrates. Eur. Biophys. J. 46, 309–324 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Rubiano, A. et al. Viscoelastic properties of human pancreatic tumors and in vitro constructs to mimic mechanical properties. Acta Biomater. 67, 331–340 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Martino, F. et al. Cellular mechanotransduction: from tension to function. Front. Physiol. 9, 824 (2018).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  83. Svitkina, T. M. Actin cell cortex: structure and molecular organization. Trends Cell Biol. 30, 556–565 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Sitarska, E. & Diz-Munoz, A. Pay attention to membrane tension: mechanobiology of the cell surface. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 66, 11–18 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Tsujita, K. et al. Homeostatic membrane tension constrains cancer cell dissemination by counteracting BAR protein assembly. Nat. Commun. 12, 5930 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  86. Hetmanski, J. H. R. et al. Membrane tension orchestrates rear retraction in matrix-directed cell migration. Dev. Cell 51, 460–475.e10 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Paszek, M. J. et al. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8, 241–254 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Janiszewska, M., Primi, M. C. & Izard, T. Cell adhesion in cancer: beyond the migration of single cells. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 2495–2505 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Cerutti, C. & Ridley, A. J. Endothelial cell–cell adhesion and signaling. Exp. Cell Res. 358, 31–38 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Honig, B. & Shapiro, L. Adhesion protein structure, molecular affinities, and principles of cell–cell recognition. Cell 181, 520–535 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Xu, G. K., Qian, J. & Hu, J. The glycocalyx promotes cooperative binding and clustering of adhesion receptors. Soft Matter 12, 4572–4583 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  92. Läubli, H. & Borsig, L. Altered cell adhesion and glycosylation promote cancer immune suppression and metastasis. Front. Immunol. 10, 2120 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Makrilia, N. et al. Cell adhesion molecules: role and clinical significance in cancer. Cancer Invest. 27, 1023–1037 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Dumitru, A. C. et al. Label-free imaging of cholesterol assemblies reveals hidden nanomechanics of breast cancer cells. Adv. Sci. 7, 2002643 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Lekka, M. et al. Characterization of N-cadherin unbinding properties in non-malignant (HCV29) and malignant (T24) bladder cells. J. Mol. Recognit. 24, 833–842 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Chugh, M., Munjal, A. & Megason, S. G. Hydrostatic pressure as a driver of cell and tissue morphogenesis. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 131, 134–145 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Provenzano, P. P. et al. Enzymatic targeting of the stroma ablates physical barriers to treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell 21, 418–429 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Stylianopoulos, T. et al. Coevolution of solid stress and interstitial fluid pressure in tumors during progression: implications for vascular collapse. Cancer Res. 73, 3833–3841 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Nishida, N. et al. Angiogenesis in cancer. Vasc. Health Risk Manag. 2, 213–219 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. McDonald, D. M. & Baluk, P. Significance of blood vessel leakiness in cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 5381–5385 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Northcott, J. M. et al. Feeling stress: the mechanics of cancer progression and aggression. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 6, 17 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Tzima, E. et al. A mechanosensory complex that mediates the endothelial cell response to fluid shear stress. Nature 437, 426–431 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  103. Janmey, P. A. et al. Viscoelastic properties of vimentin compared with other filamentous biopolymer networks. J. Cell Biol. 113, 155–160 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Chang, S. F. et al. Tumor cell cycle arrest induced by shear stress: roles of integrins and Smad. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3927–3932 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  105. Huang, Q. et al. Fluid shear stress and tumor metastasis. Am. J. Cancer Res. 8, 763–777 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Wu, P. H. et al. A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties. Nat. Methods 15, 491–498 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. et al. Actomyosin cortical mechanical properties in nonadherent cells determined by atomic force microscopy. Biophys. J. 110, 2528–2539 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  108. Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. et al. Apical surface supracellular mechanical properties in polarized epithelium using noninvasive acoustic force spectroscopy. Nat. Commun. 8, 1030 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  109. Hénon, S. et al. A new determination of the shear modulus of the human erythrocyte membrane using optical tweezers. Biophys. J. 76, 1145–1151 (1999).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  110. Lieber, A. D. et al. Membrane tension in rapidly moving cells is determined by cytoskeletal forces. Curr. Biol. 23, 1409–1417 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Lee, H. Y. et al. Noninvasive in vivo imaging reveals differences between tectorial membrane and basilar membrane traveling waves in the mouse cochlea. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 3128–3133 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  112. Koch, T. M. et al. 3D traction forces in cancer cell invasion. PLoS ONE 7, e33476 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  113. Miller, E. J. et al. Sub-nanometer resolution imaging with amplitude–modulation atomic force microscopy in liquid. J. Vis. Exp. 118, 54924 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Belec, L. & Joliff, Y. Mechanically affected zone in AFM force measurements — focus on actual probe tip geometry. Mater. Des. 104, 217–226 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Lal, R. & John, S. A. Biological applications of atomic force microscopy. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 266, C1–C21 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Cho, D. H., Aguayo, S. & Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. Atomic force microscopy-mediated mechanobiological profiling of complex human tissues. Biomaterials 303, 122389 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Raman, A. et al. Mapping nanomechanical properties of live cells using multi-harmonic atomic force microscopy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 809–814 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  118. Cartagena, A. & Raman, A. Local viscoelastic properties of live cells investigated using dynamic and quasi-static atomic force microscopy methods. Biophys. J. 106, 1033–1043 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  119. Meister, A. et al. FluidFM: combining atomic force microscopy and nanofluidics in a universal liquid delivery system for single cell applications and beyond. Nano Lett. 9, 2501–2507 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  120. Allison, D. P. et al. Atomic force microscopy of biological samples. WIREs Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2, 618–634 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Alsteens, D. et al. Force-induced formation and propagation of adhesion nanodomains in living fungal cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20744–20749 (2010).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  122. Pfreundschuh, M., Hensen, U. & Müller, D. J. Quantitative imaging of the electrostatic field and potential generated by a transmembrane protein pore at subnanometer resolution. Nano Lett. 13, 5585–5593 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  123. Huang, P. & Andersson, S. B. On detection and estimation in atomic force microscopy at different scan speeds*. IFAC Proc. Vol. 46, 153–159 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Hochmuth, R. M. Micropipette aspiration of living cells. J. Biomech. 33, 15–22 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Hogan, B. et al. Characterizing cell adhesion by using micropipette aspiration. Biophys. J. 109, 209–219 (2015).

    Article  ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  126. González-Bermúdez, B., Guinea, G. V. & Plaza, G. R. Advances in micropipette aspiration: applications in cell biomechanics, models, and extended studies. Biophys. J. 116, 587–594 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  127. Theret, D. P. et al. The application of a homogeneous half-space model in the analysis of endothelial cell micropipette measurements. J. Biomech. Eng. 110, 190–199 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Lee, L. M. & Liu, A. P. The application of micropipette aspiration in molecular mechanics of single cells. J. Nanotechnol. Eng. Med. 5, 0408011–0408016 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Oh, M.-J. et al. Micropipette aspiration of substrate-attached cells to estimate cell stiffness. J. Vis. Exp. 67, 3886 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Choudhary, D. et al. Bio-molecular applications of recent developments in optical tweezers. Biomolecules 9, 23 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Evans, E., Ritchie, K. & Merkel, R. Sensitive force technique to probe molecular adhesion and structural linkages at biological interfaces. Biophys. J. 68, 2580–2587 (1995).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  132. Heidarsson, P. O. et al. Direct single-molecule observation of calcium-dependent misfolding in human neuronal calcium sensor-1. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 13069–13074 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  133. Zhang, H. & Liu, K. K. Optical tweezers for single cells. J. R. Soc. Interface 5, 671–690 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Bustamante, C. J. et al. Optical tweezers in single-molecule biophysics. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 1, 25 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Mulligan, J. A. et al. Traction force microscopy for noninvasive imaging of cell forces. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1092, 319–349 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Hur, S. S. et al. Traction force microscopy for understanding cellular mechanotransduction. BMB Rep. 53, 74–81 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Plotnikov, S. V. et al. High-resolution traction force microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 123, 367–394 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Huang, Y. et al. Traction force microscopy with optimized regularization and automated Bayesian parameter selection for comparing cells. Sci. Rep. 9, 539 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  139. Vorselen, D. et al. Microparticle traction force microscopy reveals subcellular force exertion patterns in immune cell–target interactions. Nat. Commun. 11, 20 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  140. Köster, S. et al. Drop-based microfluidic devices for encapsulation of single cells. Lab Chip 8, 1110–1115 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Jeon, J. S. et al. Human 3D vascularized organotypic microfluidic assays to study breast cancer cell extravasation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 214–219 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  142. Shin, Y. et al. Microfluidic assay for simultaneous culture of multiple cell types on surfaces or within hydrogels. Nat. Protoc. 7, 1247–1259 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Liu, X., Zheng, W. & Jiang, X. Cell-based assays on microfluidics for drug screening. ACS Sens. 4, 1465–1475 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Jaberi, A. et al. Microfluidic systems with embedded cell culture chambers for high-throughput biological assays. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 3, 6661–6671 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Mietke, A. et al. Extracting cell stiffness from real-time deformability cytometry: theory and experiment. Biophys. J. 109, 2023–2036 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  146. Mokbel, M. et al. Numerical simulation of real-time deformability cytometry to extract cell mechanical properties. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 3, 2962–2973 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Fregin, B. et al. High-throughput single-cell rheology in complex samples by dynamic real-time deformability cytometry. Nat. Commun. 10, 415 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  148. Gossett, D. R. et al. Hydrodynamic stretching of single cells for large population mechanical phenotyping. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7630–7635 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  149. Prevedel, R. et al. Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology. Nat. Methods 16, 969–977 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Mariappan, Y. K., Glaser, K. J. & Ehman, R. L. Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin. Anat. 23, 497–511 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Youk, J. H., Gweon, H. M. & Son, E. J. Shear-wave elastography in breast ultrasonography: the state of the art. Ultrasonography 36, 300–309 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Chighizola, M. et al. The glycocalyx affects the mechanotransductive perception of the topographical microenvironment. J. Nanobiotechnol. 20, 418 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Buffone, A. & Weaver, V. M. Don’t sugarcoat it: how glycocalyx composition influences cancer progression. J. Cell Biol. 219, e201910070 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Kanyo, N. et al. Glycocalyx regulates the strength and kinetics of cancer cell adhesion revealed by biophysical models based on high resolution label-free optical data. Sci. Rep. 10, 22422 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  155. Shurer, C. R. et al. Physical principles of membrane shape regulation by the glycocalyx. Cell 177, 1757–1770.e21 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Paszek, M. J. et al. The cancer glycocalyx mechanically primes integrin-mediated growth and survival. Nature 511, 319–325 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  157. Chugh, P. & Paluch, E. K. The actin cortex at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 131, jcs186254 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Haase, K. & Pelling, A. E. The role of the actin cortex in maintaining cell shape. Commun. Integr. Biol. 6, e26714 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Li, Q. S. et al. AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 374, 609–613 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Wang, Y. et al. Quantitative analysis of the cell-surface roughness and viscoelasticity for breast cancer cells discrimination using atomic force microscopy. Scanning 38, 558–563 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Cross, S. E. et al. Green tea extract selectively targets nanomechanics of live metastatic cancer cells. Nanotechnology 22, 215101 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  162. Xu, W. et al. Cell stiffness is a biomarker of the metastatic potential of ovarian cancer cells. PLoS ONE 7, e46609 (2012).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  163. Efremov, Y. M. et al. Distinct impact of targeted actin cytoskeleton reorganization on mechanical properties of normal and malignant cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1853, 3117–3125 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Ramos, J. R. et al. The softening of human bladder cancer cells happens at an early stage of the malignancy process. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 5, 447–457 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  165. Fraley, S. I. et al. A distinctive role for focal adhesion proteins in three-dimensional cell motility. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 598–604 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Fischer, R. S. et al. Contractility, focal adhesion orientation, and stress fiber orientation drive cancer cell polarity and migration along wavy ECM substrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2021135118 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Halaoui, R. & McCaffrey, L. Rewiring cell polarity signaling in cancer. Oncogene 34, 939–950 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Brabletz, T. et al. EMT in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 18, 128–134 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Montagner, M. & Dupont, S. Mechanical forces as determinants of disseminated metastatic cell fate. Cells 9, 250 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Pepin, K. M. & McGee, K. P. Quantifying tumor stiffness with magnetic resonance elastography: the role of mechanical properties for detection, characterization, and treatment stratification in oncology. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging 27, 353–362 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Lyshchik, A. et al. Elastic moduli of thyroid tissues under compression. Ultrason. Imaging 27, 101–110 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. Frantz, C., Stewart, K. M. & Weaver, V. M. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 123, 4195–4200 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. Walker, C., Mojares, E. & Del Río Hernández, A. Role of extracellular matrix in development and cancer progression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 3028 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Whatcott, C. J. et al. Desmoplasia in primary tumors and metastatic lesions of pancreatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 3561–3568 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Stylianou, A. et al. Pancreatic cancer presents distinct nanomechanical properties during progression. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 51, 1602–1615 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Rice, A. J. et al. Matrix stiffness induces epithelial–mesenchymal transition and promotes chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer cells. Oncogenesis 6, e352 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Cross, S. E. et al. Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 780–783 (2007).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  178. Coceano, G. et al. Investigation into local cell mechanics by atomic force microscopy mapping and optical tweezer vertical indentation. Nanotechnology 27, 065102 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  179. Maja, M. et al. Surface cholesterol-enriched domains specifically promote invasion of breast cancer cell lines by controlling invadopodia and extracellular matrix degradation. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 79, 417 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Corbin, E. A. et al. Biophysical properties of human breast cancer cells measured using silicon MEMS resonators and atomic force microscopy. Lab. Chip 15, 839–847 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Nematbakhsh, Y., Pang, K. T. & Lim, C. T. Correlating the viscoelasticity of breast cancer cells with their malignancy. Converg. Sci. Phys. Oncol. 3, 034003 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  182. Fischer, T., Hayn, A. & Mierke, C. T. Effect of nuclear stiffness on cell mechanics and migration of human breast cancer cells. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 8, 393 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Nikkhah, M. et al. Evaluation of the influence of growth medium composition on cell elasticity. J. Biomech. 44, 762–766 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  184. Nikkhah, M. et al. The cytoskeletal organization of breast carcinoma and fibroblast cells inside three dimensional (3-D) isotropic silicon microstructures. Biomaterials 31, 4552–4561 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Fischer, T. et al. Matrix and cellular mechanical properties are the driving factors for facilitating human cancer cell motility into 3D engineered matrices. Converg. Sci. Phys. Oncol. 3, 044003 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  186. Lee, L. M. & Liu, A. P. A microfluidic pipette array for mechanophenotyping of cancer cells and mechanical gating of mechanosensitive channels. Lab. Chip 15, 264–273 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Northey, J. J. et al. Stiff stroma increases breast cancer risk by inducing the oncogene ZNF217. J. Clin. Invest. 130, 5721–5737 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Zhang, J. et al. Rapid biomechanical imaging at low irradiation level via dual line-scanning Brillouin microscopy. Nat. Methods 20, 677–681 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Krouskop, T. A. et al. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason. Imaging 20, 260–274 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Patel, B. K. et al. Association of breast cancer risk, density, and stiffness: global tissue stiffness on breast MR elastography (MRE). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 194, 79–89 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Lekka, M. et al. Elasticity of normal and cancerous human bladder cells studied by scanning force microscopy. Eur. Biophys. J. 28, 312–316 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  192. Martinez-Vidal, L. et al. Micro-mechanical fingerprints of the rat bladder change in actinic cystitis and tumor presence. Commun. Biol. 6, 217 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  193. Holuigue, H. et al. Force sensing on cells and tissues by atomic force microscopy. Sensors 22, 2197 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  194. Lekka, M. et al. Local elastic properties of cells studied by SFM. Appl. Surf. Sci. 141, 345–349 (1999).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  195. Lekka, M. et al. The effect of chitosan on stiffness and glycolytic activity of human bladder cells. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 1540, 127–136 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Bobrowska, J. et al. Biophysical and biochemical characteristics as complementary indicators of melanoma progression. Anal. Chem. 91, 9885–9892 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Metz, H., McElhaney, J. & Ommaya, A. K. A comparison of the elasticity of live, dead, and fixed brain tissue. J. Biomech. 3, 453–458 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Seano, G. et al. Solid stress in brain tumours causes neuronal loss and neurological dysfunction and can be reversed by lithium. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 230–245 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Miroshnikova, Y. A. et al. Tissue mechanics promote IDH1-dependent HIF1α-tenascin C feedback to regulate glioblastoma aggression. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 1336–1345 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. Prabhune, M. et al. Comparison of mechanical properties of normal and malignant thyroid cells. Micron 43, 1267–1272 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  201. Lam, A. C. et al. The influence of precompression on elasticity of thyroid nodules estimated by ultrasound shear wave elastography. Eur. Radiol. 26, 2845–2852 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Sebag, F. et al. Shear wave elastography: a new ultrasound imaging mode for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 95, 5281–5288 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Wang, S. et al. Budding epithelial morphogenesis driven by cell–matrix versus cell–cell adhesion. Cell 184, 3702–3716.e30 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Tabdanov, E. D. et al. Engineering T cells to enhance 3D migration through structurally and mechanically complex tumor microenvironments. Nat. Commun. 12, 2815 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  205. Sahai, E. et al. A framework for advancing our understanding of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat. Rev. Cancer 20, 174–186 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  206. Zhovmer, A. S. et al. Septins provide microenvironment sensing and cortical actomyosin partitioning in motile amoeboid T lymphocytes. Sci. Adv. 10, eadi1788 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  207. Zhovmer, A. S. et al. Septins enable T cell contact guidance via amoeboid–mesenchymal switch. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.09.26.559597 (2023).

  208. Solares, S. D. & Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. Frequency-dependent nanomechanical profiling for medical diagnosis. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 13, 1483–1489 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  209. Mandal, K. et al. Role of a kinesin motor in cancer cell mechanics. Nano Lett. 19, 7691–7702 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  210. Rother, J., Nöding, H., Mey, I. & Janshoff, A. Atomic force microscopy-based microrheology reveals significant differences in the viscoelastic response between malign and benign cell lines. Open Biol. 4, 140046 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Hou, H. W. et al. Deformability study of breast cancer cells using microfluidics. Biomed. Microdevices 11, 557–564 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Guck, J. et al. Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. Biophys. J. 88, 3689–3698 (2005).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  213. Lin, H. H. et al. Mechanical phenotype of cancer cells: cell softening and loss of stiffness sensing. Oncotarget 6, 20946–20958 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Li, Z. et al. Cellular traction forces: a useful parameter in cancer research. Nanoscale 9, 19039–19044 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  215. Hayashi, K. & Iwata, M. Stiffness of cancer cells measured with an AFM indentation method. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 49, 105–111 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  216. Zhao, X., Zhong, Y., Ye, T., Wang, D. & Mao, B. Discrimination between cervical cancer cells and normal cervical cells based on longitudinal elasticity using atomic force microscopy. Nanoscale Res. Lett. 10, 482 (2015).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  217. Iyer, S., Woodworth, C. D., Gaikwad, R. M., Kievsky, Y. Y. & Sokolov, I. Towards nonspecific detection of malignant cervical cells with fluorescent silica beads. Small 5, 2277–2284 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  218. Iyer, S., Gaikwad, R. M., Subba-Rao, V., Woodworth, C. D. & Sokolov. I. Atomic force microscopy detects differences in the surface brush of normal and cancerous cells. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 389–393 (2009).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  219. Fuhrmann, A. et al. AFM stiffness nanotomography of normal, metaplastic and dysplastic human esophageal cells. Phys. Biol. 8, 015007 (2011).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  220. van Helvert, S. & Friedl, P. Strain stiffening of fibrillar collagen during individual and collective cell migration identified by AFM nanoindentation. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 21946–21955 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Rebelo, L. M., de Sousa, J. S., Mendes Filho, J. & Radmacher, M. Comparison of the viscoelastic properties of cells from different kidney cancer phenotypes measured with atomic force microscopy. Nanotechnology 24, 055102 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  222. Rianna, C. & Radmacher, M. Influence of microenvironment topography and stiffness on the mechanics and motility of normal and cancer renal cells. Nanoscale 9, 11222–11230 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  223. Cross, S. E. et al. AFM-based analysis of human metastatic cancer cells. Nanotechnology 19, 384003 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Faria, E. C., et al. Measurement of elastic properties of prostate cancer cells using AFM. Analyst 133, 1498–500 (2008).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  225. Erdogan, B. et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts promote directional cancer cell migration by aligning fibronectin. J. Cell Biol. 216, 3799–3816 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. Xu, H. et al. Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 36, 1813–1824 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Lopez-Crapez, E. et al. Mechanical signatures of human colon cancers. Sci. Rep. 12, 12475 (2022).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  228. Brauchle, E. et al. Biomechanical and biomolecular characterization of extracellular matrix structures in human colon carcinomas. Matrix Biol. 68–69, 180–193 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  229. Varinelli, L. et al. Decellularized extracellular matrix as scaffold for cancer organoid cultures of colorectal peritoneal metastases. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, mjac064 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  230. Ling, W. et al. Effects of vascularity and differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma on tumor and liver stiffness: in vivo and in vitro studies. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 40, 739–746 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  231. Rouvière, O. et al. Stiffness of benign and malignant prostate tissue measured by shear-wave elastography: a preliminary study. Eur. Radiol. 27, 1858–1866 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Hoyt, K. et al. Tissue elasticity properties as biomarkers for prostate cancer. Cancer Biomark. 4, 213–225 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the help of A. Hoofring (Medical Arts Design Section, NIH) with preparation of the figures. The authors thank M. Mezher and A. Bluem for critical reading and thoughtful comments. The authors sincerely apologize to the many researchers whose relevant work we were unable to cite owing to space limitations. The authors acknowledge support by the intramural funding of the Division of Intramural Research Program at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering with grant ZIA-EB000094 and the NIH central funds for the NIH Distinguished Scholars Program award.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Jamie Stewart, Chynna Smith.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section on Mechanobiology, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Andrew Massey, Jamie Stewart, Chynna Smith, Cameron Parvini, Moira McCormick, Kun Do & Alexander X. Cartagena-Rivera

Authors
  1. Andrew Massey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jamie Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chynna Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cameron Parvini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moira McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kun Do
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alexander X. Cartagena-Rivera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to all aspects of this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander X. Cartagena-Rivera.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Physics thanks Chwee Teck Lim and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Glossary

Actomyosin

Contractile filamentous actin network inside the cell that helps provide shape, motility and force generation for a cell. The actomyosin cytoskeleton consists of filamentous actin, non-muscle myosin II motor proteins and regulatory actin-binding proteins.

Adhesion force

In biological terms, adhesion occurs directly between neighbouring cells via specialized proteins on the cell surface and indirectly via the extracellular matrix, both of which allow cells to communicate with one another and respond to their environment through processes such as signal transduction. In physics terms, adhesion is a type of attractive force that occurs between different objects through mechanical forces and electrostatic interactions.

Cellular tension

The surface force needed to stretch the cell, which is dependent on its plasma membrane lipid composition, extracellular glycocalyx and the contractile forces of the intracellular actin cytoskeleton, all of which must be overcome to deform the cell.

Cytoskeletons

Complex skeletal networks of proteins that provide structure to cells and play a major role in organization, motility and mechanotransduction. Several major components of this system include actin filaments, microtubules and intermediate filaments, which may be the stiffest structures in a cell.

Glycocalyx

An extra-membranous coating rich with glycans and various transmembrane proteins, which typically act as a barrier against the environment.

Intracellular forces

The different types of physical forces that exist within cells to maintain cellular homeostasis and cell-specific normal function. The major forces acting within a cell are tensional and compressive forces acting at the surface and cytoskeleton and traction forces at focal adhesions.

Mechanosensation

The ability of a cell to sense and respond to mechanical stimuli in its microenvironment, including different types of stresses, strains and forces.

Morphogenesis

The biological process that includes the development of cells, tissues or organs into a specified shape. This process is fundamental for developmental biology and tissue growth, both regulated and unregulated. Morphogenesis is also responsible for cellular differentiation.

Tumour microenvironment

A complex, highly heterogeneous space consisting of a mixture of cancer cells, extracellular matrix, cancer-associated fibroblasts, immune cells and lymphatic vessels.

Viscoelasticity

The mechanical behaviour of most soft ‘squishy’ materials exhibits both storage of elastic energy (solid behaviour) and dissipation of mechanical energy (fluid behaviour) when undergoing deformation. Viscoelasticity is a measurable retarded tendency of a material to return to its original shape after an applied force is removed.

Viscosity

The resistance of a liquid to flow, the deformation of which is dependent on energy being dissipated or lost by its internal friction, or force per unit area and time (Pa s). More viscous liquids have a higher internal friction.

Young’s modulus

A measure of tensile elasticity that indicates how much a material can deform for an applied force. It is defined as the ratio between stress, the force per unit area, and strain, extension per unit length (dimensionless). For soft materials such as living cells and tissues, it is applicable before the elastic region limit in which linearity breaks down and plastic deformation occurs. The higher the value is for Young’s modulus, the stiffer the material.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Massey, A., Stewart, J., Smith, C. et al. Mechanical properties of human tumour tissues and their implications for cancer development. Nat Rev Phys 6, 269–282 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00707-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00707-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing