Taking Cell-Matrix Adhesions to the Third Dimension

By E. Cukierman, R. Pankov, Daron R. Stevens, Kenneth M. Yamada. Science, 2001

3,099 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Biomechanical remodeling of the microenvironment by stromal Caveolin-1 favors tumor invasion and metastasis (2011, background): “The matrix adhesion marker vinculin localizes to 3D-matrix adhesions and its recruitment is force dependent (Cukierman et al., 2001), and the mobile vinculin fraction, determined by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP), is an index of adhesion-dependent force increase (Bershadsky et al.”
Deconstructing the third dimension – how 3D culture microenvironments alter cellular cues (2012, background): “Despite these challenges, 3D matrix adhesions on cell-derived matrices have been described, and it has been suggested that the type of integrin employed by the cell is differentially specified by 3D versus 2D microenvironments (Cukierman et al., 2001).”
Extracellular matrix dynamics in development and regenerative medicine (2008, background): “Many have demonstrated that the properties of cells and their ECM in a two-dimensional (2D) culture differ substantially from those of cells grown in a 3D environment (Cukierman et al., 2001; Roskelley et al., 1994; Streuli et al., 1991).”