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
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$99.00 per year
only $8.25 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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).
Siegel, R. L., Giaquinto, A. N. & Jemal, A. Cancer Statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J. Clin. 74, 12–49 (2024).
Hanahan, D. & Robert, A. Weinberg, the hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57–70 (2000).
Hanahan, D. & Robert, A. Weinberg, hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646–674 (2011).
Hanahan, D. Hallmarks of cancer: new dimensions. Cancer Discov. 12, 31–46 (2022).
Lu, P., Weaver, V. M. & Werb, Z. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression. J. Cell Biol. 196, 395–406 (2012).
Langley, R. R. & Fidler, I. J. Tumor cell–organ microenvironment interactions in the pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Endocr. Rev. 28, 297–321 (2007).
Friedl, P. & Gilmour, D. Collective cell migration in morphogenesis, regeneration and cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 445–457 (2009).
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).
Kumar, S. & Weaver, V. M. Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: the force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 28, 113–127 (2009).
Tinevez, J.-Y. et al. Role of cortical tension in bleb growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18581–18586 (2009).
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).
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).
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).
Massey, A. E. et al. Biophysical changes caused by altered MUC13 expression in pancreatic cancer cells. Micron 130, 102822 (2020).
Sun, Z., Costell, M. & Fassler, R. Integrin activation by talin, kindlin and mechanical forces. Nat. Cell Biol. 21, 25–31 (2019).
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).
Efremov, Y. M. et al. Mapping heterogeneity of cellular mechanics by multi-harmonic atomic force microscopy. Nat. Protoc. 13, 2200–2216 (2018).
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).
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).
Huang, S. & Ingber, D. E. Cell tension, matrix mechanics, and cancer development. Cancer Cell 8, 175–176 (2005).
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).
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).
Lekka, M. et al. Cancer cell detection in tissue sections using AFM. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 518, 151–156 (2012).
Chaudhuri, O. et al. Effects of extracellular matrix viscoelasticity on cellular behaviour. Nature 584, 535–546 (2020).
Dufrêne, Y. F. et al. Imaging modes of atomic force microscopy for application in molecular and cell biology. Nat. Nanotechnol. 12, 295–307 (2017).
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).
Isermann, P. & Lammerding, J. Nuclear mechanics and mechanotransduction in health and disease. Curr. Biol. 23, R1113–R1121 (2013).
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).
Lambert, A. W., Pattabiraman, D. R. & Weinberg, R. A. Emerging biological principles of metastasis. Cell 168, 670–691 (2017).
Friedl, P. & Wolf, K. Tumour-cell invasion and migration: diversity and escape mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Cancer 3, 362–374 (2003).
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).
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).
Swaminathan, V. et al. Mechanical stiffness grades metastatic potential in patient tumor cells and in cancer cell lines. Cancer Res. 71, 5075–5080 (2011).
Nguyen, A. V. et al. Stiffness of pancreatic cancer cells is associated with increased invasive potential. Integr. Biol. 8, 1232–1245 (2016).
Suresh, S. Biomechanics and biophysics of cancer cells. Acta Biomater. 3, 413–438 (2007).
Alibert, C., Goud, B. & Manneville, J. B. Are cancer cells really softer than normal cells? Biol. Cell 109, 167–189 (2017).
Mouw, J. K. et al. Tissue mechanics modulate microRNA-dependent PTEN expression to regulate malignant progression. Nat. Med. 20, 360–367 (2014).
Gkretsi, V. & Stylianopoulos, T. Cell adhesion and matrix stiffness: coordinating cancer cell invasion and metastasis. Front. Oncol. 8, 145–145 (2018).
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).
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).
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).
Jain, R. K. Antiangiogenesis strategies revisited: from starving tumors to alleviating hypoxia. Cancer Cell 26, 605–622 (2014).
Discher, D. E., Janmey, P. & Wang, Y.-L. Tissue cells feel and respond to the stiffness of their substrate. Science 310, 1139–1143 (2005).
Mammoto, T., Mammoto, A. & Ingber, D. E. Mechanobiology and developmental control. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 29, 27–61 (2013).
Keller, R. Physical biology returns to morphogenesis. Science 338, 201–203 (2012).
Heisenberg, C.-P. & Bellaïche, Y. Forces in tissue morphogenesis and patterning. Cell 153, 948–962 (2013).
Burla, F. et al. From mechanical resilience to active material properties in biopolymer networks. Nat. Rev. Phys. 1, 249–263 (2019).
Nia, H. T., Munn, L. L. & Jain, R. K. Physical traits of cancer. Science 370, eaaz0868 (2020).
Guimarães, C. F. et al. The stiffness of living tissues and its implications for tissue engineering. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 351–370 (2020).
Elosegui-Artola, A. The extracellular matrix viscoelasticity as a regulator of cell and tissue dynamics. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 72, 10–18 (2021).
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).
Ohring, M. Mechanical behavior of solids. in Engineering Materials Science Vol. 299 (ed. Ohring, M.) Ch. 7 (Academic Press, 1995).
Moeendarbary, E. & Harris, A. R. Cell mechanics: principles, practices, and prospects. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 6, 371–388 (2014).
Gavara, N. A beginner’s guide to atomic force microscopy probing for cell mechanics. Microsc. Res. Tech. 80, 75–84 (2017).
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).
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).
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).
Kubiak, A. et al. Nanomechanics in monitoring the effectiveness of drugs targeting the cancer cell cytoskeleton. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 8786 (2020).
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).
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).
Park, S. & Lee, Y. J. AFM-based dual nano-mechanical phenotypes for cancer metastasis. J. Biol. Phys. 40, 413–419 (2014).
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).
Plodinec, M. et al. The nanomechanical signature of breast cancer. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 757–765 (2012).
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).
Remmerbach, T. W. et al. Oral cancer diagnosis by mechanical phenotyping. Cancer Res. 69, 1728–1732 (2009).
Corominas-Murtra, B. & Petridou, N. I. Viscoelastic networks: forming cells and tissues. Front. Phys. 9, 666916 (2021).
Efremov, Y. M., Okajima, T. & Raman, A. Measuring viscoelasticity of soft biological samples using atomic force microscopy. Soft Matter 16, 64–81 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Garcia, P. D., Guerrero, C. R. & Garcia, R. Nanorheology of living cells measured by AFM-based force–distance curves. Nanoscale 12, 9133–9143 (2020).
Efremov, Y. M. et al. Measuring nanoscale viscoelastic parameters of cells directly from AFM force–displacement curves. Sci. Rep. 7, 1541 (2017).
Guerrero, C. R., Garcia, P. D. & Garcia, R. Subsurface imaging of cell organelles by force microscopy. ACS Nano 13, 9629–9637 (2019).
Gnanachandran, K. et al. Discriminating bladder cancer cells through rheological mechanomarkers at cell and spheroid levels. J. Biomech. 144, 111346 (2022).
Mandal, K. et al. Mapping intracellular mechanics on micropatterned substrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E7159–E7168 (2016).
Zhang, G. et al. Mechanical properties of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. World J. Gastroenterol. 8, 243–246 (2002).
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).
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).
Rubiano, A. et al. Viscoelastic properties of human pancreatic tumors and in vitro constructs to mimic mechanical properties. Acta Biomater. 67, 331–340 (2018).
Martino, F. et al. Cellular mechanotransduction: from tension to function. Front. Physiol. 9, 824 (2018).
Svitkina, T. M. Actin cell cortex: structure and molecular organization. Trends Cell Biol. 30, 556–565 (2020).
Sitarska, E. & Diz-Munoz, A. Pay attention to membrane tension: mechanobiology of the cell surface. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 66, 11–18 (2020).
Tsujita, K. et al. Homeostatic membrane tension constrains cancer cell dissemination by counteracting BAR protein assembly. Nat. Commun. 12, 5930 (2021).
Hetmanski, J. H. R. et al. Membrane tension orchestrates rear retraction in matrix-directed cell migration. Dev. Cell 51, 460–475.e10 (2019).
Paszek, M. J. et al. Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype. Cancer Cell 8, 241–254 (2005).
Janiszewska, M., Primi, M. C. & Izard, T. Cell adhesion in cancer: beyond the migration of single cells. J. Biol. Chem. 295, 2495–2505 (2020).
Cerutti, C. & Ridley, A. J. Endothelial cell–cell adhesion and signaling. Exp. Cell Res. 358, 31–38 (2017).
Honig, B. & Shapiro, L. Adhesion protein structure, molecular affinities, and principles of cell–cell recognition. Cell 181, 520–535 (2020).
Xu, G. K., Qian, J. & Hu, J. The glycocalyx promotes cooperative binding and clustering of adhesion receptors. Soft Matter 12, 4572–4583 (2016).
Läubli, H. & Borsig, L. Altered cell adhesion and glycosylation promote cancer immune suppression and metastasis. Front. Immunol. 10, 2120 (2019).
Makrilia, N. et al. Cell adhesion molecules: role and clinical significance in cancer. Cancer Invest. 27, 1023–1037 (2009).
Dumitru, A. C. et al. Label-free imaging of cholesterol assemblies reveals hidden nanomechanics of breast cancer cells. Adv. Sci. 7, 2002643 (2020).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Nishida, N. et al. Angiogenesis in cancer. Vasc. Health Risk Manag. 2, 213–219 (2006).
McDonald, D. M. & Baluk, P. Significance of blood vessel leakiness in cancer. Cancer Res. 62, 5381–5385 (2002).
Northcott, J. M. et al. Feeling stress: the mechanics of cancer progression and aggression. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 6, 17 (2018).
Tzima, E. et al. A mechanosensory complex that mediates the endothelial cell response to fluid shear stress. Nature 437, 426–431 (2005).
Janmey, P. A. et al. Viscoelastic properties of vimentin compared with other filamentous biopolymer networks. J. Cell Biol. 113, 155–160 (1991).
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).
Huang, Q. et al. Fluid shear stress and tumor metastasis. Am. J. Cancer Res. 8, 763–777 (2018).
Wu, P. H. et al. A comparison of methods to assess cell mechanical properties. Nat. Methods 15, 491–498 (2018).
Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. et al. Actomyosin cortical mechanical properties in nonadherent cells determined by atomic force microscopy. Biophys. J. 110, 2528–2539 (2016).
Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. et al. Apical surface supracellular mechanical properties in polarized epithelium using noninvasive acoustic force spectroscopy. Nat. Commun. 8, 1030 (2017).
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).
Lieber, A. D. et al. Membrane tension in rapidly moving cells is determined by cytoskeletal forces. Curr. Biol. 23, 1409–1417 (2013).
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).
Koch, T. M. et al. 3D traction forces in cancer cell invasion. PLoS ONE 7, e33476 (2012).
Miller, E. J. et al. Sub-nanometer resolution imaging with amplitude–modulation atomic force microscopy in liquid. J. Vis. Exp. 118, 54924 (2016).
Belec, L. & Joliff, Y. Mechanically affected zone in AFM force measurements — focus on actual probe tip geometry. Mater. Des. 104, 217–226 (2016).
Lal, R. & John, S. A. Biological applications of atomic force microscopy. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 266, C1–C21 (1994).
Cho, D. H., Aguayo, S. & Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. Atomic force microscopy-mediated mechanobiological profiling of complex human tissues. Biomaterials 303, 122389 (2023).
Raman, A. et al. Mapping nanomechanical properties of live cells using multi-harmonic atomic force microscopy. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 809–814 (2011).
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).
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).
Allison, D. P. et al. Atomic force microscopy of biological samples. WIREs Nanomed. Nanobiotechnol. 2, 618–634 (2010).
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).
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).
Huang, P. & Andersson, S. B. On detection and estimation in atomic force microscopy at different scan speeds*. IFAC Proc. Vol. 46, 153–159 (2013).
Hochmuth, R. M. Micropipette aspiration of living cells. J. Biomech. 33, 15–22 (2000).
Hogan, B. et al. Characterizing cell adhesion by using micropipette aspiration. Biophys. J. 109, 209–219 (2015).
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).
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).
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).
Oh, M.-J. et al. Micropipette aspiration of substrate-attached cells to estimate cell stiffness. J. Vis. Exp. 67, 3886 (2012).
Choudhary, D. et al. Bio-molecular applications of recent developments in optical tweezers. Biomolecules 9, 23 (2019).
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).
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).
Zhang, H. & Liu, K. K. Optical tweezers for single cells. J. R. Soc. Interface 5, 671–690 (2008).
Bustamante, C. J. et al. Optical tweezers in single-molecule biophysics. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 1, 25 (2021).
Mulligan, J. A. et al. Traction force microscopy for noninvasive imaging of cell forces. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1092, 319–349 (2018).
Hur, S. S. et al. Traction force microscopy for understanding cellular mechanotransduction. BMB Rep. 53, 74–81 (2020).
Plotnikov, S. V. et al. High-resolution traction force microscopy. Methods Cell Biol. 123, 367–394 (2014).
Huang, Y. et al. Traction force microscopy with optimized regularization and automated Bayesian parameter selection for comparing cells. Sci. Rep. 9, 539 (2019).
Vorselen, D. et al. Microparticle traction force microscopy reveals subcellular force exertion patterns in immune cell–target interactions. Nat. Commun. 11, 20 (2020).
Köster, S. et al. Drop-based microfluidic devices for encapsulation of single cells. Lab Chip 8, 1110–1115 (2008).
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).
Shin, Y. et al. Microfluidic assay for simultaneous culture of multiple cell types on surfaces or within hydrogels. Nat. Protoc. 7, 1247–1259 (2012).
Liu, X., Zheng, W. & Jiang, X. Cell-based assays on microfluidics for drug screening. ACS Sens. 4, 1465–1475 (2019).
Jaberi, A. et al. Microfluidic systems with embedded cell culture chambers for high-throughput biological assays. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 3, 6661–6671 (2020).
Mietke, A. et al. Extracting cell stiffness from real-time deformability cytometry: theory and experiment. Biophys. J. 109, 2023–2036 (2015).
Mokbel, M. et al. Numerical simulation of real-time deformability cytometry to extract cell mechanical properties. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 3, 2962–2973 (2017).
Fregin, B. et al. High-throughput single-cell rheology in complex samples by dynamic real-time deformability cytometry. Nat. Commun. 10, 415 (2019).
Gossett, D. R. et al. Hydrodynamic stretching of single cells for large population mechanical phenotyping. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 7630–7635 (2012).
Prevedel, R. et al. Brillouin microscopy: an emerging tool for mechanobiology. Nat. Methods 16, 969–977 (2019).
Mariappan, Y. K., Glaser, K. J. & Ehman, R. L. Magnetic resonance elastography: a review. Clin. Anat. 23, 497–511 (2010).
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).
Chighizola, M. et al. The glycocalyx affects the mechanotransductive perception of the topographical microenvironment. J. Nanobiotechnol. 20, 418 (2022).
Buffone, A. & Weaver, V. M. Don’t sugarcoat it: how glycocalyx composition influences cancer progression. J. Cell Biol. 219, e201910070 (2020).
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).
Shurer, C. R. et al. Physical principles of membrane shape regulation by the glycocalyx. Cell 177, 1757–1770.e21 (2019).
Paszek, M. J. et al. The cancer glycocalyx mechanically primes integrin-mediated growth and survival. Nature 511, 319–325 (2014).
Chugh, P. & Paluch, E. K. The actin cortex at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 131, jcs186254 (2018).
Haase, K. & Pelling, A. E. The role of the actin cortex in maintaining cell shape. Commun. Integr. Biol. 6, e26714 (2013).
Li, Q. S. et al. AFM indentation study of breast cancer cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 374, 609–613 (2008).
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).
Cross, S. E. et al. Green tea extract selectively targets nanomechanics of live metastatic cancer cells. Nanotechnology 22, 215101 (2011).
Xu, W. et al. Cell stiffness is a biomarker of the metastatic potential of ovarian cancer cells. PLoS ONE 7, e46609 (2012).
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).
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).
Fraley, S. I. et al. A distinctive role for focal adhesion proteins in three-dimensional cell motility. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 598–604 (2010).
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).
Halaoui, R. & McCaffrey, L. Rewiring cell polarity signaling in cancer. Oncogene 34, 939–950 (2015).
Brabletz, T. et al. EMT in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 18, 128–134 (2018).
Montagner, M. & Dupont, S. Mechanical forces as determinants of disseminated metastatic cell fate. Cells 9, 250 (2020).
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).
Lyshchik, A. et al. Elastic moduli of thyroid tissues under compression. Ultrason. Imaging 27, 101–110 (2005).
Frantz, C., Stewart, K. M. & Weaver, V. M. The extracellular matrix at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 123, 4195–4200 (2010).
Walker, C., Mojares, E. & Del Río Hernández, A. Role of extracellular matrix in development and cancer progression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 19, 3028 (2018).
Whatcott, C. J. et al. Desmoplasia in primary tumors and metastatic lesions of pancreatic cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 3561–3568 (2015).
Stylianou, A. et al. Pancreatic cancer presents distinct nanomechanical properties during progression. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 51, 1602–1615 (2023).
Rice, A. J. et al. Matrix stiffness induces epithelial–mesenchymal transition and promotes chemoresistance in pancreatic cancer cells. Oncogenesis 6, e352 (2017).
Cross, S. E. et al. Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2, 780–783 (2007).
Coceano, G. et al. Investigation into local cell mechanics by atomic force microscopy mapping and optical tweezer vertical indentation. Nanotechnology 27, 065102 (2016).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Nikkhah, M. et al. Evaluation of the influence of growth medium composition on cell elasticity. J. Biomech. 44, 762–766 (2011).
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).
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).
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).
Northey, J. J. et al. Stiff stroma increases breast cancer risk by inducing the oncogene ZNF217. J. Clin. Invest. 130, 5721–5737 (2020).
Zhang, J. et al. Rapid biomechanical imaging at low irradiation level via dual line-scanning Brillouin microscopy. Nat. Methods 20, 677–681 (2023).
Krouskop, T. A. et al. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason. Imaging 20, 260–274 (1998).
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).
Lekka, M. et al. Elasticity of normal and cancerous human bladder cells studied by scanning force microscopy. Eur. Biophys. J. 28, 312–316 (1999).
Martinez-Vidal, L. et al. Micro-mechanical fingerprints of the rat bladder change in actinic cystitis and tumor presence. Commun. Biol. 6, 217 (2023).
Holuigue, H. et al. Force sensing on cells and tissues by atomic force microscopy. Sensors 22, 2197 (2022).
Lekka, M. et al. Local elastic properties of cells studied by SFM. Appl. Surf. Sci. 141, 345–349 (1999).
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).
Bobrowska, J. et al. Biophysical and biochemical characteristics as complementary indicators of melanoma progression. Anal. Chem. 91, 9885–9892 (2019).
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).
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).
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).
Prabhune, M. et al. Comparison of mechanical properties of normal and malignant thyroid cells. Micron 43, 1267–1272 (2012).
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).
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).
Wang, S. et al. Budding epithelial morphogenesis driven by cell–matrix versus cell–cell adhesion. Cell 184, 3702–3716.e30 (2021).
Tabdanov, E. D. et al. Engineering T cells to enhance 3D migration through structurally and mechanically complex tumor microenvironments. Nat. Commun. 12, 2815 (2021).
Sahai, E. et al. A framework for advancing our understanding of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat. Rev. Cancer 20, 174–186 (2020).
Zhovmer, A. S. et al. Septins provide microenvironment sensing and cortical actomyosin partitioning in motile amoeboid T lymphocytes. Sci. Adv. 10, eadi1788 (2024).
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).
Solares, S. D. & Cartagena-Rivera, A. X. Frequency-dependent nanomechanical profiling for medical diagnosis. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 13, 1483–1489 (2022).
Mandal, K. et al. Role of a kinesin motor in cancer cell mechanics. Nano Lett. 19, 7691–7702 (2019).
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).
Hou, H. W. et al. Deformability study of breast cancer cells using microfluidics. Biomed. Microdevices 11, 557–564 (2009).
Guck, J. et al. Optical deformability as an inherent cell marker for testing malignant transformation and metastatic competence. Biophys. J. 88, 3689–3698 (2005).
Lin, H. H. et al. Mechanical phenotype of cancer cells: cell softening and loss of stiffness sensing. Oncotarget 6, 20946–20958 (2015).
Li, Z. et al. Cellular traction forces: a useful parameter in cancer research. Nanoscale 9, 19039–19044 (2017).
Hayashi, K. & Iwata, M. Stiffness of cancer cells measured with an AFM indentation method. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 49, 105–111 (2015).
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).
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).
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).
Fuhrmann, A. et al. AFM stiffness nanotomography of normal, metaplastic and dysplastic human esophageal cells. Phys. Biol. 8, 015007 (2011).
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).
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).
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).
Cross, S. E. et al. AFM-based analysis of human metastatic cancer cells. Nanotechnology 19, 384003 (2008).
Faria, E. C., et al. Measurement of elastic properties of prostate cancer cells using AFM. Analyst 133, 1498–500 (2008).
Erdogan, B. et al. Cancer-associated fibroblasts promote directional cancer cell migration by aligning fibronectin. J. Cell Biol. 216, 3799–3816 (2017).
Xu, H. et al. Axial-shear strain imaging for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 36, 1813–1824 (2010).
Lopez-Crapez, E. et al. Mechanical signatures of human colon cancers. Sci. Rep. 12, 12475 (2022).
Brauchle, E. et al. Biomechanical and biomolecular characterization of extracellular matrix structures in human colon carcinomas. Matrix Biol. 68–69, 180–193 (2018).
Varinelli, L. et al. Decellularized extracellular matrix as scaffold for cancer organoid cultures of colorectal peritoneal metastases. J. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, mjac064 (2023).
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).
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).
Hoyt, K. et al. Tissue elasticity properties as biomarkers for prostate cancer. Cancer Biomark. 4, 213–225 (2008).
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
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to all aspects of this work.
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-024-00707-2
This article is cited by
-
Heat shock proteins as hallmarks of cancer: insights from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic strategies
Journal of Hematology & Oncology (2024)
-
Long-term zinc treatment alters the mechanical properties and metabolism of prostate cancer cells
Cancer Cell International (2024)