DNA damage induced by ultraviolet (UV) radiation adversely affects genome stability and contributes to various diseases. Therefore, biochemical or biomechanical methods for protecting DNA from such damage are highly important. In this study, we investigated the effects of mechanical factors, specifically the deformation of the cell nucleus using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)-based microfabricated arrays of micropillars with circular and elliptical cross-sections, on the UV resistance of DNA in cultured mammalian vascular smooth muscle cells. The cells spread normally within the spaces between the micropillars, where their nuclei exhibited significant deformation and appeared mechanically “trapped” between the pillars. This entrapment was accompanied by a decrease in nuclear volume and enhanced Hoechst fluorescence intensity, indicating increased DNA density within the nucleus. Evaluation of UV-induced DNA damage via the fluorescent intensity of phospho-histone γ-H2AX revealed that damage was significantly inhibited in the nuclei deformed between the pillars. These inhibitory effects were particularly pronounced on substrates with circular cross-section micropillars compared to elliptical cross-sections. Our results suggest that the suppression of UV-induced DNA damage may be associated with reduced cell motility and increased intranuclear DNA density induced by mechanical confinement of the cell nucleus by the micropillars.

1. [1] M. Rózanowska et al., “Blue light-induced reactivity of retinal age pigment: In vitro generation of oxygen-reactive species,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol.270, No.32, pp. 18825-18830, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.270.32.18825
2. [2] T. G. Gorgels and D. van Norren, “Ultraviolet and green light cause different types of damage in rat retina,” Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., Vol.36, No.5, pp. 851-863, 1995.
3. [3] A. Stary, C. Robert, and A. Sarasin, “Deleterious effects of ultraviolet A radiation in human cells,” Mutat. Res. DNA Repair, Vol.383, No.1, pp. 1-8, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8777(96)00041-9
4. [4] C. Remé, J. Reinboth, M. Clausen, and F. Hafezi, “Light damage revisited: Converging evidence, diverging views?,” Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol., Vol.234, No.1, pp. 2-11, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00186512
5. [5] C. Alapetite, T. Wachter, E. Sage, and E. Moustacchi, “Use of the alkaline comet assay to detect DNA repair deficiencies in human fibroblasts exposed to UVC, UVB, UVA and gamma-rays,” Int. J. Radiat. Biol., Vol.69, No.3, pp. 359-369, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1080/095530096145922
6. [6] C. Kielbassa, L. Roza, and B. Epe, “Wavelength dependence of oxidative DNA damage induced by UV and visible light,” Carcinogenesis, Vol.18, No.4, pp. 811-816, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/18.4.811
7. [7] D. E. Ingber, “Fibronectin controls capillary endothelial cell growth by modulating cell shape,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol.87, No.9, pp. 3579-3583, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.87.9.3579
8. [8] A. J. Engler, S. Sen, H. L. Sweeney, and D. E. Discher, “Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification,” Cell, Vol.126, No.4, pp. 677-689, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.06.044
9. [9] C. S. Chen, M. Mrksich, S. Huang, G. M. Whitesides, and D. E. Ingber, “Geometric control of cell life and death,” Science, Vol.276, No.5317, pp. 1425-1428, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.276.5317.1425
10. [10] P. G. Smith, C. Roy, S. Fisher, Q.-Q. Huang, and F. Brozovich, “Selected contribution: Mechanical strain increases force production and calcium sensitivity in cultured airway smooth muscle cells,” J. Appl. Physiol., Vol.89, No.5, pp. 2092-2098, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.5.2092
11. [11] M. L. Lombardi et al., “The interaction between nesprins and sun proteins at the nuclear envelope is critical for force transmission between the nucleus and cytoskeleton,” J. Biol. Chem., Vol.286, No.30, pp. 26743-26753, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.233700
12. [12] K. N. Dahl, A. J. S. Ribeiro, and J. Lammerding, “Nuclear shape, mechanics, and mechanotransduction,” Circ. Res., Vol.102, No.11, pp. 1307-1318, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.108.173989
13. [13] P. Roca-Cusachs et al., “Micropatterning of single endothelial cell shape reveals a tight coupling between nuclear volume in G1 and proliferation,” Biophys. J., Vol.94, No.12, pp. 4984-4995, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.107.116863
14. [14] M. Versaevel, T. Grevesse, and S. Gabriele, “Spatial coordination between cell and nuclear shape within micropatterned endothelial cells,” Nat. Commun., Vol.3, Article No.671, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1668
15. [15] K. Nagayama, Y. Hamaji, Y. Sato, and T. Matsumoto, “Mechanical trapping of the nucleus on micropillared surfaces inhibits the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells but not cervical cancer HeLa cells,” J. Biomech., Vol.48, No.10, pp. 1796-1803, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.05.004
16. [16] K. Nagayama, “Mechanical stress to cell nucleus inhibits proliferation and differentiation of vascular smooth muscle cells,” J. Biosci. Med., Vol.8, No.5, pp. 132-141, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4236/jbm.2020.85013
17. [17] K. Nagayama, C. Sagawa, and A. Sato, “Deformation and trapping of cell nucleus using micropillar substrates possibly affect UV radiation resistance of DNA,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.35, No.5, pp. 1158-1164, 2023. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2023.p1158
18. [18] J. L. Tan et al., “Cells lying on a bed of microneedles: An approach to isolate mechanical force,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., Vol.100, No.4, pp. 1484-1489, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0235407100
19. [19] N. Sakamoto, Y. Yamazaki, T. Ohashi, and M. Sato, “Effect of mechanical environment of focal adhesions on remodeling of endothelial cells subjected to cyclic stretching using microsubstrates,” J. Robot. Mechatron., Vol.19, No.5, pp. 557-564, 2007. https://doi.org/10.20965/jrm.2007.p0557
20. [20] K. Nagayama and T. Matsumoto, “Dynamic change in morphology and traction forces at focal adhesions in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells during contraction,” Cell. Mol. Bioeng., Vol.4, No.3, pp. 348-357, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-011-0166-y
21. [21] W. Han et al., “The early and initiation processes of radiation-induced bystander effects involved in the induction of DNA double strand breaks in non-irradiated cultures,” Br. J. Radiol., Vol.80, Special Issue 1, pp. S7-S12, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/44550200
22. [22] R. E. Krisch, M. B. Flick, and C. N. Trumbore, “Radiation chemical mechanisms of single- and double-strand break formation in irradiated SV40 DNA,” Radiat. Res., Vol.126, No.2, pp. 251-259, 1991. https://doi.org/10.2307/3577826
23. [23] H. Takata et al., “Chromatin compaction protects genomic DNA from radiation damage,” PLOS ONE, Vol.8, No.10, Article No.e75622, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075622
24. [24] Y. Yoshikawa, T. Mori, N. Magome, K. Hibino, and K. Yoshikawa, “DNA compaction plays a key role in radioprotection against double-strand breaks as revealed by single-molecule observation,” Chem. Phys. Lett., Vol.456, Nos.1-3, pp. 80-83, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2008.03.009