Skip to main content
. 2006 Nov 8;103(47):17759–17764. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606150103

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Spatial variation of the cells' mechanical properties. (a) Fluorescence microphotograph of a dye-injected Müller cell (Lucifer Yellow) in a guinea pig retinal slice preparation. ef, endfoot; ip, inner process; s, soma; op, outer process of the Müller cell. (Scale bar: 20 μm.) (b) Comparison of the stiffness of different parts of the radial glial (Müller) cells of the retina (#, P < 0.05; ##, P < 0.01 vs. processes; ∗∗, P < 0.01 vs. all other parts of Müller cells; mean ± SEM). Both cell processes were significantly softer than somata and endfeet, which might be attributed to a different distribution of cell organelles rather than of cytoskeletal elements. (c) Relative stiffness of the respective cellular areas compared with the soma of the according cell (E′cell area/E′soma) at 200 Hz (∗, P < 0.05; ∗∗, P < 0.01 vs. cell processes; mean ± SEM). Processes of Müller cells and pyramidal cells displayed a similar relative stiffness. The endfeet of Müller cells and the inner segments of photoreceptor cells were stiffer with respect to the other cellular compartments, but softer than their somata. Similar relations were observed at 30 and 100 Hz.