Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 18;5(4):041508. doi: 10.1063/5.0068126

FIG. 2.

FIG. 2.

Considerations in specificity vs throughput. (a) Lammerding et al. used a substrate strain assay to show how A-type lamins and not B-type lamins are relevant for nuclear mechanics. The bar graph shows nuclear strain for LMNA+/+ and LMNA−/− nuclei, highlighting the role of lamin A/C in nuclear strain response. (b) Stephens et al. used dual-pipette micromanipulation to show a nonlinear nuclear force response to stretching, dictated by chromatin and lamins at short and long extensions, respectively. The plot shows nuclear force response as a function of strain, highlighting two regimes of nuclear deformation. (c) Damodaran et al. used a plate compression assay to show that global nuclear compression increases chromatin compaction and represses transcriptional activity. (d) Tajik et al. used twisting magnetic bead manipulation to show how local stretching of chromatin leads to transcriptional upregulation at the site of strain. Images from (a) are reproduced with permission from Lammerding et al., J. Biol. Chem. 281(35), 25768–25780 (2006). Copyright 2006 Authors, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Images from (b) are reproduced with permission from Stephens et al., Mol. Biol. Cell 28(14), 1984–1996 (2017). Copyright 2017 Authors, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Images from (c) are reproduced with permission from Damodaran et al., Mol. Biol. Cell 29(25), 3039–3051 (2018). Copyright 2018 Authors, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Images from (d) are reprinted with permission from Tajik et al., Nat. Mater. 15(12), 1287–1296 (2016). Copyright 2016 Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH.