Skip to main content
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1973 Mar 1;56(3):659–665. doi: 10.1083/jcb.56.3.659

STUDIES ON CELL ADHESION

III. Adhesion of Baby Hamster Kidney Cells

Frederick Grinnell 1, Mary Milam 1, Paul A Srere 1
PMCID: PMC2108941  PMID: 4734569

Abstract

Normal and transformed baby hamster kidney (BHK) cells attach to Falcon polystyrene with the same first order rate constant. The longer the cells are attached to the bottles, the more difficult they are to remove. Sulfhydryl (—SH) binding reagents inhibit both the attachment of BHK cells and the increase in adhesive strength of attached cells. Attached BHK cells bind fewer molecules of [1-14C]N-ethylamleimide (an —SH binding reagent) than do suspended cells. Incubation of cells with high concentrations of trypsin results in a reversible loss of cell adhesiveness. The recovery of adhesiveness of trypsin-treated cells is inhibited by cycloheximide.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (518.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. ABERCROMBIE M., AMBROSE E. J. The surface properties of cancer cells: a review. Cancer Res. 1962 Jun;22:525–548. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ballard P. L., Tomkins G. M. Glucocorticoid-induced alteration of the surface membrane of cultured hepatoma cells. J Cell Biol. 1970 Oct;47(1):222–234. doi: 10.1083/jcb.47.1.222. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gail M. H., Boone C. W. Cell-substrate adhesivity. A determinant of cell motility. Exp Cell Res. 1972 Jan;70(1):33–40. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(72)90178-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Gilula N. B., Reeves O. R., Steinbach A. Metabolic coupling, ionic coupling and cell contacts. Nature. 1972 Feb 4;235(5336):262–265. doi: 10.1038/235262a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Grinnell F., Shere P. A. Inhibition of cellular adhesiveness by sulfhydryl blocking agents. J Cell Physiol. 1971 Aug;78(1):153–158. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1040780119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Lilien J. E. Toward a molecular explanation for specific cell adhesion. Curr Top Dev Biol. 1969;4:169–195. doi: 10.1016/s0070-2153(08)60484-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Oppenheimer S. B., Humphreys T. Isolation of specific macromolecules required for adhesion of mouse tumour cells. Nature. 1971 Jul 9;232(5306):125–127. doi: 10.1038/232125a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Pessac B., Defendi V. Cell aggregation: role of acid mucopolysaccharides. Science. 1972 Feb 25;175(4024):898–900. doi: 10.1126/science.175.4024.898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. TAYLOR A. C. Attachment and spreading of cells in culture. Exp Cell Res. 1961;Suppl 8:154–173. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(61)90346-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Trinkaus J. P., Betchaku T., Krulikowski L. S. Local inhibition of ruffling during contact inhibition of cell movement. Exp Cell Res. 1971 Feb;64(2):291–300. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(71)90079-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Cell Biology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES