Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The Journal of Cell Biology logoLink to The Journal of Cell Biology
. 1994 Dec 2;127(6):2049–2060. doi: 10.1083/jcb.127.6.2049

Measurements of growth cone adhesion to culture surfaces by micromanipulation

PMCID: PMC2120280  PMID: 7806581

Abstract

Neurons were grown on plastic surfaces that were untreated, or treated with polylysine, laminin, or L1 and their growth cones were detached from their culture surface by applying known forces with calibrated glass needles. This detachment force was taken as a measure of the force of adhesion of the growth cone. We find that on all surfaces, lamellipodial growth cones require significantly greater detachment force than filopodial growth cones, but this differences is, in general, due to the greater area of lamellipodial growth cones compared to filopodial growth cones. That is, the stress (force/unit area) required for detachment was similar for growth cones of lamellipodial and filopodial morphology on all surfaces, with the exception of lamellipodial growth cones on L1-treated surfaces, which had a significantly lower stress of detachment than on other surfaces. Surprisingly, the forces required for detachment (760-3,340 mudynes) were three to 15 times greater than the typical resting axonal tension, the force exerted by advancing growth cones, or the forces of retraction previously measured by essentially the same method. Nor did we observe significant differences in detachment force among growth cones of similar morphology on different culture surfaces, with the exception of lamellipodial growth cones on L1-treated surfaces. These data argue against the differential adhesion mechanism for growth cone guidance preferences in culture. Our micromanipulations revealed that the most mechanically resistant regions of growth cone attachment were confined to quite small regions typically located at the ends of filopodia and lamellipodia. Detached growth cones remained connected to the substratum at these regions by highly elastic retraction fibers. The closeness of contact of growth cones to the substratum as revealed by interference reflection microscopy (IRM) did not correlate with our mechanical measurements of adhesion, suggesting that IRM cannot be used as a reliable estimator of growth cone adhesion.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (3.3 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Aletta J. M., Greene L. A. Growth cone configuration and advance: a time-lapse study using video-enhanced differential interference contrast microscopy. J Neurosci. 1988 Apr;8(4):1425–1435. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.08-04-01425.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Argiro V., Bunge M. B., Johnson M. I. Correlation between growth form and movement and their dependence on neuronal age. J Neurosci. 1984 Dec;4(12):3051–3062. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.04-12-03051.1984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baier H., Bonhoeffer F. Axon guidance by gradients of a target-derived component. Science. 1992 Jan 24;255(5043):472–475. doi: 10.1126/science.1734526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Balice-Gordon R. J., Lichtman J. W. In vivo observations of pre- and postsynaptic changes during the transition from multiple to single innervation at developing neuromuscular junctions. J Neurosci. 1993 Feb;13(2):834–855. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.13-02-00834.1993. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bentley D., Toroian-Raymond A. Disoriented pathfinding by pioneer neurone growth cones deprived of filopodia by cytochalasin treatment. Nature. 1986 Oct 23;323(6090):712–715. doi: 10.1038/323712a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berlot J., Goodman C. S. Guidance of peripheral pioneer neurons in the grasshopper: adhesive hierarchy of epithelial and neuronal surfaces. Science. 1984 Feb 3;223(4635):493–496. doi: 10.1126/science.223.4635.493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bovolenta P., Mason C. Growth cone morphology varies with position in the developing mouse visual pathway from retina to first targets. J Neurosci. 1987 May;7(5):1447–1460. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.07-05-01447.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buettner H. M., Pittman R. N. Quantitative effects of laminin concentration on neurite outgrowth in vitro. Dev Biol. 1991 Jun;145(2):266–276. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(91)90125-m. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burmeister D. W., Goldberg D. J. Micropruning: the mechanism of turning of Aplysia growth cones at substrate borders in vitro. J Neurosci. 1988 Sep;8(9):3151–3159. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.08-09-03151.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. CURTIS A. S. THE MECHANISM OF ADHESION OF CELLS TO GLASS. A STUDY BY INTERFERENCE REFLECTION MICROSCOPY. J Cell Biol. 1964 Feb;20:199–215. doi: 10.1083/jcb.20.2.199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Calof A. L., Lander A. D. Relationship between neuronal migration and cell-substratum adhesion: laminin and merosin promote olfactory neuronal migration but are anti-adhesive. J Cell Biol. 1991 Nov;115(3):779–794. doi: 10.1083/jcb.115.3.779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Caudy M., Bentley D. Pioneer growth cone morphologies reveal proximal increases in substrate affinity within leg segments of grasshopper embryos. J Neurosci. 1986 Feb;6(2):364–379. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.06-02-00364.1986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark P., Britland S., Connolly P. Growth cone guidance and neuron morphology on micropatterned laminin surfaces. J Cell Sci. 1993 May;105(Pt 1):203–212. doi: 10.1242/jcs.105.1.203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Davenport R. W., Dou P., Rehder V., Kater S. B. A sensory role for neuronal growth cone filopodia. Nature. 1993 Feb 25;361(6414):721–724. doi: 10.1038/361721a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Davies P. F., Robotewskyj A., Griem M. L. Endothelial cell adhesion in real time. Measurements in vitro by tandem scanning confocal image analysis. J Clin Invest. 1993 Jun;91(6):2640–2652. doi: 10.1172/JCI116503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Dennerll T. J., Joshi H. C., Steel V. L., Buxbaum R. E., Heidemann S. R. Tension and compression in the cytoskeleton of PC-12 neurites. II: Quantitative measurements. J Cell Biol. 1988 Aug;107(2):665–674. doi: 10.1083/jcb.107.2.665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dennerll T. J., Lamoureux P., Buxbaum R. E., Heidemann S. R. The cytomechanics of axonal elongation and retraction. J Cell Biol. 1989 Dec;109(6 Pt 1):3073–3083. doi: 10.1083/jcb.109.6.3073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gingell D. The interpretation of interference-reflection images of spread cells: significant contributions from thin peripheral cytoplasm. J Cell Sci. 1981 Jun;49:237–247. doi: 10.1242/jcs.49.1.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg D. J., Burmeister D. W. Stages in axon formation: observations of growth of Aplysia axons in culture using video-enhanced contrast-differential interference contrast microscopy. J Cell Biol. 1986 Nov;103(5):1921–1931. doi: 10.1083/jcb.103.5.1921. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gundersen R. W. Interference reflection microscopic study of dorsal root growth cones on different substrates: assessment of growth cone-substrate contacts. J Neurosci Res. 1988 Oct-Dec;21(2-4):298–306. doi: 10.1002/jnr.490210222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gundersen R. W. Response of sensory neurites and growth cones to patterned substrata of laminin and fibronectin in vitro. Dev Biol. 1987 Jun;121(2):423–431. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(87)90179-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hammarback J. A., Letourneau P. C. Neurite extension across regions of low cell-substratum adhesivity: implications for the guidepost hypothesis of axonal pathfinding. Dev Biol. 1986 Oct;117(2):655–662. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(86)90334-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris A. Location of cellular adhesions to solid substrata. Dev Biol. 1973 Nov;35(1):97–114. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(73)90009-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heidemann S. R., Lamoureux P., Buxbaum R. E. Growth cone behavior and production of traction force. J Cell Biol. 1990 Nov;111(5 Pt 1):1949–1957. doi: 10.1083/jcb.111.5.1949. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Heidemann S. R., Lamoureux P., Buxbaum R. E. On the cytomechanics and fluid dynamics of growth cone motility. J Cell Sci Suppl. 1991;15:35–44. doi: 10.1242/jcs.1991.supplement_15.6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hynes R. O. Integrins: versatility, modulation, and signaling in cell adhesion. Cell. 1992 Apr 3;69(1):11–25. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90115-s. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Izzard C. S., Lochner L. R. Cell-to-substrate contacts in living fibroblasts: an interference reflexion study with an evaluation of the technique. J Cell Sci. 1976 Jun;21(1):129–159. doi: 10.1242/jcs.21.1.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Juliano R. L., Haskill S. Signal transduction from the extracellular matrix. J Cell Biol. 1993 Feb;120(3):577–585. doi: 10.1083/jcb.120.3.577. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kapfhammer J. P., Raper J. A. Collapse of growth cone structure on contact with specific neurites in culture. J Neurosci. 1987 Jan;7(1):201–212. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.07-01-00201.1987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kleitman N., Johnson M. I. Rapid growth cone translocation on laminin is supported by lamellipodial not filopodial structures. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1989;13(4):288–300. doi: 10.1002/cm.970130407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kolega J., Shure M. S., Chen W. T., Young N. D. Rapid cellular translocation is related to close contacts formed between various cultured cells and their substrata. J Cell Sci. 1982 Apr;54:23–34. doi: 10.1242/jcs.54.1.23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lamoureux P., Buxbaum R. E., Heidemann S. R. Direct evidence that growth cones pull. Nature. 1989 Jul 13;340(6229):159–162. doi: 10.1038/340159a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lamoureux P., Zheng J., Buxbaum R. E., Heidemann S. R. A cytomechanical investigation of neurite growth on different culture surfaces. J Cell Biol. 1992 Aug;118(3):655–661. doi: 10.1083/jcb.118.3.655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Lemmon V., Burden S. M., Payne H. R., Elmslie G. J., Hlavin M. L. Neurite growth on different substrates: permissive versus instructive influences and the role of adhesive strength. J Neurosci. 1992 Mar;12(3):818–826. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.12-03-00818.1992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Letourneau P. C. Cell-substratum adhesion of neurite growth cones, and its role in neurite elongation. Exp Cell Res. 1979 Nov;124(1):127–138. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(79)90263-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Letourneau P. C. Possible roles for cell-to-substratum adhesion in neuronal morphogenesis. Dev Biol. 1975 May;44(1):77–91. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(75)90378-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lockerbie R. O. The neuronal growth cone: a review of its locomotory, navigational and target recognition capabilities. Neuroscience. 1987 Mar;20(3):719–729. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(87)90235-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McKenna M. P., Raper J. A. Growth cone behavior on gradients of substratum bound laminin. Dev Biol. 1988 Nov;130(1):232–236. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(88)90429-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. O'Connor T. P., Duerr J. S., Bentley D. Pioneer growth cone steering decisions mediated by single filopodial contacts in situ. J Neurosci. 1990 Dec;10(12):3935–3946. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-12-03935.1990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Payne H. R., Burden S. M., Lemmon V. Modulation of growth cone morphology by substrate-bound adhesion molecules. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1992;21(1):65–73. doi: 10.1002/cm.970210108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Sinclair G. I., Baas P. W., Heidemann S. R. Role of microtubules in the cytoplasmic compartmentation of neurons. II. Endocytosis in the growth cone and neurite shaft. Brain Res. 1988 May 31;450(1-2):60–68. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(88)91544-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Smith C. L. Cytoskeletal movements and substrate interactions during initiation of neurite outgrowth by sympathetic neurons in vitro. J Neurosci. 1994 Jan;14(1):384–398. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.14-01-00384.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Taghert P. H., Bastiani M. J., Ho R. K., Goodman C. S. Guidance of pioneer growth cones: filopodial contacts and coupling revealed with an antibody to Lucifer Yellow. Dev Biol. 1982 Dec;94(2):391–399. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(82)90356-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Thomas W. A., Schaefer A. W., Treadway R. M., Jr Galactosyl transferase-dependence of neurite outgrowth on substratum-bound laminin. Development. 1990 Dec;110(4):1101–1114. doi: 10.1242/dev.110.4.1101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Verschueren H. Interference reflection microscopy in cell biology: methodology and applications. J Cell Sci. 1985 Apr;75:279–301. doi: 10.1242/jcs.75.1.279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Whallon J. H., Preller A., Wilson J. E. Reflection confocal imaging of type I and type III isozymes of hexokinase in PC12 cells. Scanning. 1994 Mar-Apr;16(2):111–117. doi: 10.1002/sca.4950160208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zheng J., Lamoureux P., Santiago V., Dennerll T., Buxbaum R. E., Heidemann S. R. Tensile regulation of axonal elongation and initiation. J Neurosci. 1991 Apr;11(4):1117–1125. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.11-04-01117.1991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES