Premium
Keratinocyte galvanotaxis in combined DC and AC electric fields supports an electromechanical transduction sensing mechanism
Author(s) -
Hart Francis X.,
Laird Mhairi,
Riding Aimie,
Pullar Christine E.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
bioelectromagnetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.435
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1521-186X
pISSN - 0197-8462
DOI - 10.1002/bem.21748
Subject(s) - keratinocyte , endogeny , biophysics , transduction (biophysics) , bioelectromagnetics , signal transduction , microbiology and biotechnology , chemistry , physics , biology , in vitro , electromagnetic field , biochemistry , quantum mechanics
Sedentary keratinocytes at the edge of a skin wound migrate into the wound, guided by the generation of an endogenous electric field (EF) generated by the collapse of the transepithelial potential. The center of the wound quickly becomes more negative than the surrounding tissue and remains the cathode of the endogenous EF until the wound is completely re‐epithelialized. This endogenous guidance cue can be studied in vitro. When placed in a direct current (DC) EF of physiological strength, 100 V/m, keratinocytes migrate directionally toward the cathode in a process known as galvanotaxis. Although a number of membrane‐bound (e.g., epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), integrins) and cytosolic proteins (cAMP, ERK, PI3K) are known to play a role in the downstream signaling mechanisms underpinning galvanotaxis, the initial sensing mechanism for this response is not understood. To investigate the EF sensor, we studied the migration of keratinocytes in a DC EF of 100 V/m, alternating current (AC) EFs of 40 V/m at either 1.6 or 160 Hz, and combinations of DC and AC EFs. In the AC EFs alone, keratinocytes migrated randomly. The 1.6 Hz AC EF combined with the DC EF suppressed the direction of migration but had no effect on speed. In contrast, the 160 Hz AC EF combined with the DC EF did not affect the direction of migration but increased the migration speed compared to the DC EF alone. These results can be understood in terms of an electromechanical transduction model, but not an electrodiffusion/osmosis or a voltage‐gated channel model. Bioelectromagnetics 34:85–94, 2013. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.