Skip to main content
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1982 Mar 1;92(3):747–752. doi: 10.1083/jcb.92.3.747

Lymphocyte locomotion and attachment on two-dimensional surfaces and in three-dimensional matrices

WS Haston, JM Shields, PC Wilkinson
PMCID: PMC2112024  PMID: 7085756

Abstract

The adhesion and locomotion of mouse peripheral lymph node lymphocytes on 2-D protein- coated substrata and in 3-D matrices were compared. Lymphocytes did not adhere to, or migrate on, 2-D substrata suck as serum- or fibronectin-coated glass. They did attach to and migrate in hydrated 3-D collagen lattices. When the collagen was dehydrated to form a 2-D surface, lymphocyte attachment to it was reduced. We propose that lymphocytes, which are poorly adhesive, are able to attach to and migrate in 3-D matrices by a nonadhesive mechanism such as the extension and expansion of pseudopodia through gaps in the matrix, which could provide purchase for movement in the absence of discrete intermolecular adhesions. This was supported by studies using serum-coated micropore filters, since lymphocytes attached to and migrated into filters with pore sizes large enough (3 or 8 mum) to allow pseudopod penetration but did not attach to filters made of an identical material (cellulose esters) but of narrow pore size (0.22 or 0.45 mum). Cinematographic studies of lymphocyte locomotion in collagen gels were also consistent with the above hypothesis, since lymphocytes showed a more variable morphology than is typically seen on plane surfaces, with formation of many small pseudopodia expanded to give a marked constriction between the cell and the pseudopod. These extensions often remained fixed with respect to the environment as the lymphocyte moved away from or past them. This suggests that the pseudopodia were inserted into gaps in the gel matrix and acted as anchorage points for locomotion.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (722.1 KB).

Selected References

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

  1. Abercrombie M., Dunn G. A. Adhesions of fibroblasts to substratum during contact inhibition observed by interference reflection microscopy. Exp Cell Res. 1975 Apr;92(1):57–62. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(75)90636-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander E., Henkart P. The adherence of human Fc receptor-bearing lymphocytes to antigen-antibody complexes. II. Morphologic alterations induced by the substrate. J Exp Med. 1976 Feb 1;143(2):329–347. doi: 10.1084/jem.143.2.329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong P. B., Lackie J. M. Studies of intercellular invasion in vitro using rabbit peritoneal neutrophil granulocytes (PMNS). I. Role of contact inhibition of locomotion. J Cell Biol. 1975 May;65(2):439–462. doi: 10.1083/jcb.65.2.439. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bard J. B., Hay E. D. The behavior of fibroblasts from the developing avian cornea. Morphology and movement in situ and in vitro. J Cell Biol. 1975 Nov;67(2PT1):400–418. doi: 10.1083/jcb.67.2.400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Chang T. W., Celis E., Eisen H. N., Solomon F. Crawling movements of lymphocytes on and beneath fibroblasts in culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Jun;76(6):2917–2921. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.6.2917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Davis E. M. Translocation of neural crest cells within a hydrated collagen lattice. J Embryol Exp Morphol. 1980 Feb;55:17–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dunn G. A., Ebendal T. Contact guidance on oriented collagen gels. Exp Cell Res. 1978 Feb;111(2):475–479. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(78)90196-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elsdale T., Bard J. Collagen substrata for studies on cell behavior. J Cell Biol. 1972 Sep;54(3):626–637. doi: 10.1083/jcb.54.3.626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Grinnell F., Bennett M. H. Fibroblast adhesion on collagen substrata in the presence and absence of plasma fibronectin. J Cell Sci. 1981 Apr;48:19–34. doi: 10.1242/jcs.48.1.19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. HARRIS H. The movement of lymphocytes. Br J Exp Pathol. 1953 Dec;34(6):599–602. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Haemmerli G., Ploem J. S. Adhesion patterns of cell interactions revealed by reflection contrast microscopy. Exp Cell Res. 1979 Feb;118(2):438–442. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(79)90175-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Haston W. S. A study of lymphocyte behavior in cultures of fibroblast-like lymphoreticular cells. Cell Immunol. 1979 Jun;45(1):74–84. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(79)90363-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Smith R. P., Lackie J. M., Wilkinson P. C. The effects of chemotactic factors on the adhesiveness of rabbit neutrophil granulocytes. Exp Cell Res. 1979 Aug;122(1):169–177. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(79)90571-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Trinkaus J. P. Surface activity and locomotion of Fundulus deep cells during blastula and gastrula stages. Dev Biol. 1973 Jan;30(1):69–103. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(73)90049-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Walther B. T., Ohman R., Roseman S. A quantitative assay for intercellular adhesion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1973 May;70(5):1569–1573. doi: 10.1073/pnas.70.5.1569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilkinson P. C., Allan R. B. Binding of protein chemotactic factors to the surfaces of neutrophil leukocytes and its modification with lipid-specific bacterial toxins. Mol Cell Biochem. 1978 Jun 15;20(1):25–40. doi: 10.1007/BF00229452. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Yamada K. M., Olden K. Fibronectins--adhesive glycoproteins of cell surface and blood. Nature. 1978 Sep 21;275(5677):179–184. doi: 10.1038/275179a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES