$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Most cell phenotypes exert traction forces on their environment. These traction forces are generated by a cell's contractile cytoskeleton, which is a network of actin and myosin, and other filamentous biopolymers and crosslinking proteins1,2,3,4. Forces generated within the cell can be transmitted to the extracellular environment or adjacent cells, primarily via transmembrane proteins such as integrins and cadherins, respectively5,6. How a cell spreads or contracts-and the magnitudes of the traction forces associated with those movements-is the result of an intimate conversation with its environment, which largely depends on the type and quantity of protein present in the extracellular matrix (ECM)7,8 and the stiffness of the ECM. Indeed, traction force microscopy has become an invaluable tool for understanding cell responsiveness to local stimuli such as substrate stiffness, imposed mechanical stresses and strains, or contact with other cells. This information is directly relevant to the understanding of diseases such as cancer and asthma9,10,11,12.
A system that can be used to measure force-induced deformation of a substrate of known material properties is required to calculate traction forces. These changes must be tracked over time, requiring both imaging and image processing techniques. One of the first methods used to determine cellular traction forces was the observation and analysis of the contraction of collagen hydrogels seeded with cells, though this method was only semiquantitative13. Another, more refined method was to measure the traction forces exerted by single cells by determining the forces resulting from the deformation of a thin sheet of silicone14. Later on, more quantitative measurement techniques were developed, and these methods also allowed for the use of soft hydrogels such as polyacrylamide (PAA)12,15,16. When using these soft materials, traction forces could be determined from the force-induced displacement of randomly displaced beads embedded in the hydrogel and the mechanical properties of the gel16,17. Another advancement came with the development of micropost arrays made of soft polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) so that their deflection could be measured and converted to force using the beam theory18.
Finally, methods for micropatterning soft hydrogels were developed as these approaches allow control of the contact areas for cell adhesion. By measuring the deformation of the micropattern within a cell's contact area, traction forces could easily be calculated because a force-free reference image is not required19. This method has been widely adopted as it allows for the indirect patterning of a regular array of micron-sized, discrete fluorescent protein adhesion points onto PAA gels for the measurement of cellular traction forces20. To calculate these forces, an image-processing algorithm, which can track the movements of each micropatterned dot without requiring user input, has been developed21.
While this method is simple for creating entire grids of dot patterns, it is more complicated when patterns of isolated patches (or islands) of dots are desired. Micropatterned islands are useful when control of shape, and to some extent of size, of clusters of cells is needed. To create these islands, the aforementioned method of microcontact printing necessitates two distinct steps: i) using one PDMS stamp to create a high-fidelity pattern of dots on a coverslip, and then ii) using a second different PDMS stamp to remove most of those dots, leaving behind isolated islands of dots21. The difficulty in creating islands with this original method is compounded by the fact that making consistent grid patterns in the first step of the process is challenging on its own. Microprinting stamps are composed of an array of circular microposts, the diameter of which corresponds to the desired dot size. These stamps are then coated with an even layer of protein and then stamped with a precise amount of pressure onto treated coverslips to create the desired pattern. On the one hand, applying too much pressure to the stamp can result in uneven protein transfer and poor pattern fidelity due to pillar buckling or sagging between pillars, leading to contact with the glass. On the other hand, applying too little pressure results in little to no protein transfer and poor pattern fidelity. For these reasons, a transfer process that can be used to consistently create high-quality micropatterns of isolated islands of dots in just one step is desired.
Herein, a method is described for the indirect micropatterning of islands of micron-sized fluorescent protein adhesion points onto a PAA gel that is more consistent and versatile than previously developed methods. Whereas older indirect micropatterning methods rely on the transfer of protein patterns from a PDMS stamp to an intermediate substrate, the method introduced here uses PDMS stamps instead as a vessel for protein removal, not addition. This is done by first fundamentally changing the structure of the PDMS stamps used. Rather than making stamps that are composed of a pattern of evenly spaced circular pillars, stamps are made up of a pattern of evenly spaced circular holes in this method.
With this new structure, the surface of these PDMS stamps can then be treated with glutaraldehyde as described previously20,29,30, making the stamp able to bond covalently with protein. When used on a glass coverslip evenly coated with fluorescent protein, these glutaraldehyde-treated PDMS stamps are used to remove most of the protein on the surface of the coverslip, leaving behind only the desired pattern of dots predetermined by the location of micron-sized holes on the stamp. This change increases the success rate for generating patterns made up of a near-continuous grid of dots and for creating isolated islands of dots through only one step.