The instant application contains a Sequence Listing which has been submitted electronically in ASCII format and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Said ASCII copy, created on May 30, 2014, is named 046434-0453_SL.txt and is 1,779 bytes in size.
This invention is directed to the self-assembly and directed controlled assembly of complex particle architectures. More particularly this invention is directed to methods, system and product materials employing DNA component sequences, cadherins, other adhesive proteins on cell membranes and solid nanoparticles serving as droplet linkers to construct a wide range of particle assemblages and architectures.
Self-assembly of particles is of great interest for the design of complex particulate architectures to create smart nano-materials with tunable optical, mechanical or electronic properties. Grafting linking components, onto liquid interfaces of emulsions can lead to new architectural possibilities. In one example of particle linking components, the specific and programmable interaction between complementary DNA components has been used to assemble colloidal molecules with specific symmetries imposed by the positions of the grafted DNA.
Consequently it is desirable to further expand the application of selected linking components to improve formulation of particle architectures and create new systems for various applications.
In one preferred embodiment DNA interactions have been developed to establish that the size and number of these adhesion patches (valency) can be controlled. Valence values of 2 lead to flexible polymers of emulsion droplets, while valence values above 4 lead to rigid droplet networks. In one example, a simple thermodynamic model quantitatively describes the increase in the patch size with droplet radii, DNA concentration and the stiffness of the tether to the sticky-end. The patches are formed between droplets with complementary DNA strands or alternatively with complementary colloidal nanoparticles to mediate DNA binding between droplets. This emulsion system opens the route to directed self-assembly of more complex structures through distinct DNA bonds with varying strengths and controlled valence and flexibility.
DNA strands can be grafted onto thermal oil-in-water emulsions. Mixing two emulsions with complementary DNA strands leads to their specific binding through strong yet reversible adhesion patches. Unlike solid colloidal particles, liquid droplets are able to rearrange within the packed structure once they are bound together. Moreover, the deformation of the emulsion droplets, i.e. the size of the adhesion patch, provides a direct probe of the free energy of binding. A thermodynamic model has been developed to relate the adhesion size to the binding free energy and discover that the entropy loss upon binding plays an important role. The validity of the model has been tested by varying the DNA surface density the stiffness of the tether and the droplet size. This system sheds light on the mechanisms of adhesion between contacting liquid surfaces. Emulsion self-assembly leads to segregated floppy networks, which are amorphous materials with advantageous rheological properties. In addition, it has been determined that colloidal nanoparticles can serve as mediators of the DNA interaction between droplets. Controlling their concentration determines the valence of the droplets and enables us to uniquely create linear emulsion strings or those that fold into compact clusters. Consequently, this system and method provides a highly advantageous tool for self-assembly and controlled or directed applications.
In other embodiments cadherins, other adhesive proteins on cell membranes and selected nanoparticles can also be used to establish controlled self-assembly linkages. A variety of commercial applications are possible for these embodiments, such as personal care products, skin creams, foods and feedstocks for animals.
The foregoing summary is illustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. In addition to the illustrative aspects, embodiments, and features described above, further aspects, embodiments, and features will become apparent by reference to the following drawings and the detailed description. These and other objects, advantages and features of the invention and related claims herein, together with the organization and manner of operation therefore, will become apparent from the following detailed description where taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein like elements have like numerals throughout the several drawings described below.
data are fitted by the model (dashed lines) on
This value as well as dpatch are used in the main text in
Various methods and chemical components were implemented and are described herein to illustrate details of preferred embodiments. A number of “valence” values were used to control size and architecture development for product materials. These advantageous features and attributes will be illustrated by the following description and examples.
A model emulsion system using DNA as an example linker system is shown in
The thermal reversibility of DNA interactions in these systems allows switching the adhesion between droplets on and off by cycling the temperature above and below the DNA melting temperature of Tm=50° C. At room temperature, complementary emulsions are mixed together and diffuse to form adhesive clusters (see
When complementary droplets meet, their DNA strands hybridize to form double-stranded (ds) DNA. Therefore, the presence of green and red streptavidin, associated with each DNA strand, lead to yellow adhesion patches in regions of hybridization, as shown in
Another way to increase the binding strength, as well as the number of patches per droplet, is to increase the DNA coverage on the droplets, C, as shown in the 3D perspective images in
In one preferred embodiment a model of the experimental observation is implemented by a statistical mechanic model. It is based on the assumption that binders are recruited into the contact area until the binding energy balances the energy cost upon droplet deformation and the entropy penalty due to the immobilization of the DNA tether in the patch. Consider two complementary emulsion droplets with the same radius Re and DNA surface density N0/(4Re2), where N0 is the total number of DNA on the droplet. The two droplets interact to form an adhesive patch of radius rp and deformation angle θ=rp/R, as shown in
ΔF−ΔEDNAβ−2T(Sβ+Sα)+Edeform−Funbound (1)
where Edna is the binding energy, T is the temperature, S is the entropy of binding and Edeform is the energy cost to deform the interface. Subscripts β and α indicate the binding patch region and the unbound surface, respectively. In the dilute case, Sβ=−kNβln [Cβ/C0] where Cβ=Nβ/πrp2] is the surface density of DNA in the adhesive patch and C0 is the reference concentration, which cancels out in the calculation. The binding free energy for the mobile DNA patch is estimated in mean field: ΔEDNA,β=Nβ[ΔGDNA−TΔSr−kBT ln(AwCβ)], where ΔGDNA is the free energy of hybridization of free DNA in solution, ΔSr is the entropy loss due to rotational constraints of hybridized DNA strands at low temperature, Aw the area in which two DNA strands can move relative to each other when hybridized and ln(AwCβ) is the translational entropy penalty for two DNA strands bound in the patch. The deformation energy is given by Edeform=σπRe2θ4/2, where σ is the surface tension. Since there are only two independent parameters in the problem, Cβ and rp, the global energy is minimized to obtain the profile of Cβ(Cα, Aw) and θ(Cα, Aw):
assuming that the binding free energy ΔGDNA, the surface tension σ, the streptavidin size Astrep and the temperature T are kept constant. Since the double stranded tether is much longer and can reach as far as ˜26 nm, further than that of the single stranded tether of ˜4.5 nm, the area of relative motion of bound DNA strands, Aw, is also much larger, estimated to be ˜2000 nm2 compared to only ˜60 nm2. Therefore, the dsb case loses less entropy upon binding which quantitatively explains the ˜1.6 fold larger average patch size, as shown in
The fluidity of the droplet surface enables rearrangements in bound structures and allows for the self-assembly of programmable geometries. Adhesion patches are free to diffuse despite the high binding energy of ˜20000 DNA connections in an average-sized patch with a 1.6 μm diameter.
Allowing the emulsions to cream to the surface assembles floppy networks of bound droplets that are organized by the specificity of the DNA bonds, as shown in
Alternatively, the complementary colloid-emulsion hybrid system, as shown in
Self-assembly of thermal emulsion polymer chains can be achieved with programmable droplet interactions using DNA interactions, cadherins and selected nanoparticles. Controlling the number of binders and the length of the chain one can obtain divalent, trivalent and multivalent structures. In addition, the mobility of adhesive patches within these structures allows them to evolve into geometries that are governed by the underlying free energy landscape. Furthermore, such interactions allow one to program the shape of the free energy landscape through the control of bond specificity, strength, flexibility and valency. This system promises to become a highly advantageous system and method for producing products by directed self-assembly because it has the potential of building intelligently designed materials, such as colloidal crystals or artificial self-replicating materials, with no external inputs. These materials and methods can be used for a variety of commercial applications including, without limitation, controlled formation of personal care products, food processing, skin creams, pharmaceutical products, foods and animal feedstocks.
Various embodiments are described in the general context of method steps, which may be implemented in one embodiment by a computer 100 having an embedded program in a non-transitory storage medium 200 and including computer-executable instructions, such as program code, executed by the computer 100 in networked environments or in the cloud 300. In
Software and web implementations of the present invention could be accomplished with standard programming techniques with rule based logic and other logic to accomplish the various database searching steps, correlation steps, comparison steps and decision steps. It should also be noted that the words “component” and “module,” as used herein and in the claims, are intended to encompass implementations using one or more lines of software code, and/or hardware implementations, and/or equipment for receiving manual inputs.
The following non-limiting Examples illustrate selected aspects of the invention.
Synthesis of Biomimetic Emulsion:
The protocol for the emulsion preparation is a conventional, well known methodology. The oil droplets are stabilized with egg L-α-phosphatidylcholine (EPC) lipids and the DSPE-PEG(2000) biotinylated lipids from Avanti Polar Lipids at a molar ratio of 92:8, respectively. After cooling to room temperature the lipid containing oil (10 mL) can be emulsified in two different buffers to reach different droplet sizes. Athermal droplets are obtained when emulsified in a buffer containing 5 mMSDS and wt=18% dextran and sheared at 22 rpm in the narrow gap coquette mixer. Smaller droplets sizes are obtained with a buffer containing 5 mMSDS and wt=4.5% alginate and a shearing rate of 30 rpm. The resulting emulsions are stable over several weeks at 4° C.
DNA coated emulsion preparation: The emulsion is first coated with two different fluorescent streptavidins: Alexa Fluor 488® and Alexa Fluor 633® streptavidin (Molecular Probes). 100 μL of emulsion is mixed with 10 μL of 1 mg/mL streptavidin and 300 μL of buffer containing 2 mM Tris pH=7 and 1 mM SDS. The solution is incubated 1 h at 4° C. and then washed twice with the same buffer, before a final wash in the DNA buffer (1 mM SDS, 5 mM PBS, 4 mM MgCl2). The DNA can then be added to the streptavidin coated emulsion: 10 μL of 50 μM DNA is added to the solution and incubated 1 h at room temperature. The remaining unbound DNA is finally washed three times in the DNA buffer. One type of fluorescent streptavidin is specifically associated with one DNA strand in order to distinguish them by microscopy.
DNA Constructs:
The S strand has a sequence: 5′-BiotinTEG-49bp backbone-GGATGAAGATG-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 1);
The S′ strand has a sequence: 5′-BiotinTEG-49bp backbone-CATCTTCATCC-3″ (SEQ ID NO: 2);
The CS strand complementary to the backbone: 5′-TCG TAA TGA AAG GCA GGG CTC TCT GGA TTG ACT GTG CGAAGG GTA GCG AT-3″ (SEQ ID NO: 3)
TEG: Tetra-Ethylene Glycol
Confocal microscope: The samples are imaged using a fast scanning confocal
microscope (Leica TCS SPS 11).
Light microscope with a temperature stage: A Leica DMRXA microscope with Qimaging Retiga 1300 camera is used to obtain microscopic images. A temperature stage is built on the light microscope to provide fast in-situ temperature control. Briefly, 1000Ω ITO glass is placed on a 3 mm thick copper plate, two ends of which are connected to peltiers (2.5 cm by 2.5 cm) then to a thermal sink with constant temperature. With LakeShore DRC 93C Temperature Controller and LakeShore PT-111 temperature sensor, we are able to control and detect the temperature with <0.5° C. relative error.
Consider two interacting droplets of the same radius R and coated with complementary strands of DN, when two DNA strands from opposite surfaces bind together, they gain binding energy but lose entropy due to the spatial constraint into the patch. The system also endures a deformation energy cost to allow the droplets to deform and form the adhesion patch area.
First we use the simple ‘lattice model’ (or ‘box model’) to get the entropy of molecules in a non-dilute solution. Given the total area Stotal, the molecule (streptavidin) size Astrep, the number of streptavidins N and the total number of sites available on the droplet surface N0=Stotal Astrep where (move down to be on same line)
the total number of configurations reads:
Using the Stirling's formula the entropy is approximated to:
With the binding energy for a pair of DNA sticky ends (move down on same line) ΔGDNA=ΔFDNA−TΔSDNA, the deformation energy of the droplet [2] and the entropy term derived in Equation (2), we can write down the global free energy difference between the bound state and the non-interacting droplets state as follows:
ΔF=EDNA,β−2(TSβ+TSα)+Edeformation−Funbound (5)
The subscript β refers to the adhesive patch region while α refers to the non-interacting region on the rest of the droplet surface. Since two droplets interact to form a patch, the entropy term has to be taken into account twice which justifies the prefactor.
The energy terms in Equation (3) can be written:
The entropy and the deformation energy in Equation (3) can be written:
Where rp is the radius of the enriched patch; θ is defined as the deformation angle rp/R; σ is the surface tension of the emulsion; N_+N_=N gives the total number of streptavidins, Nβ of them being in the binding patch; (try to move all these inserts to be level with line) Nαθ+Nβθ=Nθ=4πR2/Astrep gives the total number of biotin sites on a emulsion, while Nβθ=πrp2/Astrep is the number of sites available in the patch area; Cβ=Nβ/(πrp2) is the concentration of streptavidin in the patch; Aw is the area over which two bound DNA strands could move relative to each other while remaining hybridized; ΔSr and k ln(AwCβ) are the configurational entropy lost due to rotational and translational confinement of hybridized DNA sticky ends, respectively.
We now minimize this global free energy ΔF with respect to two independent parameters in the equations: Nβθ and Nβ. Note that we could conversely use the two independent parameters Cβ and rp instead, which would result in the same equations.
The first equation leads to the chemical potential equilibrium. In the strong binding case where ΔFDNA−TΔSDNA−TΔSr at least a few kT, this first equation can be simplified as follows:
The second equation reads:
The resulting Nβ and Nβθ, directly leading to values of rp and Cβ/Cα, can be solved numerically which allows the comparison with our experimental values for the patch size rp and contrast Cβ/Cα. These analytical solutions are obtained under the approximation that there is an infinite dilute reservoir with a constant supply Nα/Nαθ=Const=d. This approximation is reasonable for our experimental condition, since Nα/Nαθ<0.1 and the relative change in Cα is less than 10%, even with the most enrichment condition.
As a result, the approximate solution to Equation (8) is:
Where α=ΔGDNA−TΔSr−kT, b=kT, c=Aw/Astrep. This expression is directly linked to the measured patch intensity contrast
Since we know the relation Nβθ=πrp2/Astrep, Equation (9) directly gives us:
We can now compare our experimental values to the ones found analytically here.
For the DNA sequence used in the experiments, ΔGDNA=ΔFDNA−TΔSDNA is ≈−20 kT at room temperature, and the experimental value for TΔSr are −14.6 kT for the double-stranded backbone DNA and ˜14.8 kT for the single-stranded backbone one. We therefore use the same fitting parameters for both the ssb and dsb case. Aw/Astrep≅34 dsb while it is only Aw/Astrep≅1 for ssb DNA. This discrepancy is due to the different rigidities of the DNA strands: double stranded DNA is more rigid and rod-like and can thus reach a large number of strands on the opposite surface, whereas single stranded DNA behaves as a very exible polymer in our buffer conditions, with a persistent length of ˜2 nm leading to a smaller end-to-end distance of ≈6 nm, σ≅15 mN/m for phospholipid emulsions co-stabilized with 1 mM SDS. With a streptavidin size of Astrep=60 nm2 and the initial streptavidin surface concentration of 1400/μm2, this leads to dmin≅0.09.
Experimentally we vary the DNA surface density d=NDNA/Nmax by changing the amount of DNA introduced in the system NDNA˜1 pmol, 2 pmol, 4 pmol, 8 pmol, 20 pmol or 80 pmol. An ideal emulsion packing of 30 μL, as used in this experiment, can bind up to Nmax˜30 pmol of DNA. Nevertheless the experiments require two washing steps of the emulsions before DNA conjugation, which is suspected to significantly reduce this number.
As a result, all the data in
In the approximation of infinite reservoir, the only radius dependent term in the above set of equations are from the deformation energy. The deformation energy of the emulsions should be corrected as:
with different radius of contacting emulsions, R1 and R2, in the lowest order approximation. We define a square-averaged radius
so that
and we can use all the equations in the previous section replacing R with <R>, as plotted or used in main text
We fit dp as a function of <R> with a simple linear regression relation rather than a line dp=θR going through the origin as suggested by our model. The origin of this choice lies in geometrical arguments. Indeed the DNA constructs can be stretched, which leads to enrichment outside of the geometrically predicted adhesion patch. This additional area leads to a geometric factor
contributing to me paten size. Both double-stranded and single-stranded DNA can extend up to ΔL˜12 nm as estimated respectively from conventional teachings and a worm like chain model. This leads to an entropy loss of ˜2−3 kT which reduces DNA concentration by half
As a result the model is modified to include this additional term:
The estimate for the respective intersections for dsb and ssb DNA give the values of ΔL/θ˜80 nm and ˜160 nm, which are smaller than the experimental values of ˜150 nm (dsb) and ˜210 nm (ssb) that are certainly fixed by our experimental diffraction limit of ˜150 nm.
Nevertheless, the fitting curves with either
are similar with the data shown in
The foregoing description of illustrative embodiments has been presented for purposes of illustration and of description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or limiting with respect to the precise form disclosed, and modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teachings or may be acquired from practice of the disclosed embodiments. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the claims appended hereto and their equivalents.
This applications claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/854,769 filed May 1, 2013, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
The U.S. Government has certain rights in this invention pursuant to support under the MRSEC Program of the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DMR-0820341 and the National Science Foundation Career Grant No. 0955621.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6645528 | Straub et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
7785617 | Shakesheff et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
8315821 | Brujic | Nov 2012 | B2 |
20040258248 | Schnitta et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050174238 | Foseide | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060078624 | Zalipsky et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20080045156 | Sakhpara | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20090098272 | Banken | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090275465 | Gang | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20120214001 | Little et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120224706 | Hwang et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120250581 | Bilcu et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130236416 | Rungta et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140161270 | Peters et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20150134418 | Leow et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150245139 | Park | Aug 2015 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO-2013150349 | Oct 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Hadorn et al. PNAS | Dec. 11, 2012 | vol. 109 | No. 50, 20320. |
Pontani et al. PNAS | Jun. 19, 2012 | vol. 109 | No. 25 | 9839-9844. |
Final Office Action on U.S. Appl. No. 13/889,083 dated Apr. 4, 2016, 9 pages. |
Adams, Cynthia L., et al., “Mechanisms of Epithelial Cell-Cell Adhesion and Cell Compaction Revealed by High-resolution Tracking of E-Cadherin-Green Flourescent Protein”, The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 142, No. 4, Aug. 24, 1998, pp. 1105-1119. |
Alexander, S., “Amorphous Solids: Their Structure, Lattice Dynamics and Elasticity”, Physics Reports, (1998), pp. 65-236, vol. 296, Elsevier Science B.V. |
Angres, Brigitte, et al., “Mechanism for Transition from Initial to Stable Cell-Cell Adhesion: Kinetic Analysis of E-Cadherin-Mediated Adhesion Using a Quantitative Adhesion Assay”, The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 134, No. 2, Jul. 1996, pp. 549-557. |
Anishchik et al., “Three Dimensional Apollonian Packing as a Model for Dense Granular Systems”, Physical Review Letters, Dec. 4, 1995, pp. 4314-4317, vol. 75, No. 23, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Asakura et al., “Interaction between Particles Suspended in Solutions of Macromolecules”. Journal of Polymer Science, (1958), pp. 183-192, vol. 33. |
Aste et al., “An invariant distribution in static granular media”, EPL, Jul. 2007, pp. 24003-p1--24003-p5, vol. 79, www. epljournal.org. |
Aste et al., “Emergence of Gamma distributions in granular materials and packing models”, Physical Review E, (2008), pp. 021309-1--021309-8, vol. 77. |
Atilgan, Erdinc et al., “Nucleation and Growth of Integrin Adhesions”, Biophysical Journal, vol. 96, May 2009, pp. 3555-3572. |
Basan, Markus, et al., “Dissipative particle dynamics simulations for biological tissues: reheology and competition”, Phys. Biol. 8 (2001) pp. 1-13. |
Bell, George I., “Models for the Specific Adhesion of Cells to Cells”, Science vol. 200, May 12, 1978, pp. 618-627. |
Bibette et al., “Depletion Interactions and Fluid-Solid Equilibrium in Emulsions”, Physical Review Letters, Nov. 5, 1990, pp. 2470-2473, vol. 65, No. 19, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Bibette et al., “Emulsions: basic principles”, Rep., Prog. Phys., (1999), pp. 969-1033, vol. 62, IOP Publishing Ltd., UK. |
Bibette et al., “Kinetically Induced Ordering in Gelation of Emulsions”, Physical Review Letters, Aug. 10, 1992, pp. 981-984, vol. 69, No. 6, The American Physical Society. |
Borghi, Nicolas, et al., “Regulation of cell motile behavior by crosstalk between cadherin- and integrin-mediated adhesions”, PNAS, Jul. 27, 2010, vol. 107, No. 30, pp. 13324-13329. |
Bourouina, Nadia, et al., “Formation of Specific receptor-ligand bonds between liquid interfaces”, The Royal Society of Chemistry 2001, Soft Matter, 2011, 7, pp. 9130-9139. |
Bruinsma, Robijn et al., “Adhesive switching of membranes: Experiment and theory”, Physical Review E. vol. 61, No. 4., Apr. 2000, pp. 4253-4267. |
Brujić, J., “Experimental Study of Stress Transmission Through Particulate Matter”, A Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, Feb. 2004, 202 pages, University of Cambridge Cavendish Laboratory. |
Brujic, Jasna et al., “3D bulk measurements of the force distribution in a compressed emulsion system”, The Royal Society of Chemistry 2003, pp. 207-220. |
Brujic, Jasna, “Measuring the Coordination Number of Entropy of a 3D Jammed Emulsion Packing by Confocal Microscopy”, Physical Review Letters, Jun. 15, 2007, pp. 248001-248004. |
Chen, Chien Peter et al., “Specificity of cell-cell adhesion by classical cadherins: Critical role for low-affinity dimerization through β-strand swapping”, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/onas.0503319102, PNAS, Jun. 14, 2004, vol. 102, No. 24, pp. 8531-8536. |
Chu, Yeh-Shiu, et al., “Force Measurements in E-cadherin-mediated cell doublets reveal rapid adhesion strengthened by actin cytoskeleton remodeling through Rac and Cdc42”, The Journal of Cell Biology, Vo. 167, No. 6, Dec. 20, 2004, pp. 1183-1194. |
Clusel et al., “A ‘granocentric’ model for random packing of jammed emulsions”, Nature, Jul. 30, 2009, pp. 611-616, vol. 460, Macmillan Publishers Limited. |
Crocker et al., “Entropic Attraction and Repulsion in Binary Colloids Probed with a Line Optical Tweezer”, Physical Review Letters, May 24, 1999, pp. 4352-4355, vol. 82, No. 21, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Cuvelier, Damien et al., “Hidden Dynamics of Vesicle Adhesion Induced by Specific Stickers”, Physical Review Letters, Nov. 26, 2004, pp. 228101-1 to 228101-4. |
Danisch et al., “Model of random packings of different size balls”, Physical Review E., (2010), pp. 051303-1--051303-5, vol. 81, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Douezan, Stephane, et al., “Spreading dynamics and wetting transition of cellular aggregates”, PNAS, May 3, 2011, vol. 108, No. 18, pp. 7315-7320. |
Du Roure, O., et al., “Homophilic Interactions between Cadherin Fragments at the Single Molecule Level: An AFM Study”, Langmuir, vol. 11, No. 10, 2006, pp. 4680 to 4684. |
Fasolo et al., “Effects of colloid polydisperity on the phase behavior of colloid-polymer mixtures”, The Journal of Chemical Physics, (2005), pp. 074904-1--074904-13, vol. 122, American Institute of Physics, USA. |
Fattaccioli, Jacques et al., “Specific wetting probed with biomimetic emulsion droplets”, www.rsc.org/softmatter, Soft Matter, 2008, vol. 4., pp. 2434,2440. |
Finney, J. L., “Random packings and the structure of simple liquids I. The geometry of random close packing”, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A., Nov. 10, 1970, pp. 479-493, vol. 319, No. 1539, The Royal Society. |
Foty, Ramsey A., “Surface tensions of embryonic tissues predict their mutual development behavior”, The Company of Biologists Limited 1996, Development 122, pp. 1611-1620 (1996). |
Foty, Ramsey A., “The differential adhesion hypothesis: a direct evaluation”, Development Biology, 278 (2005), pp. 255-263. |
Guevorkian, Karien et al., “Aspiration of Biological Viscoelastic Drops”, Physical Review Letters, vol. 104, May 28, 2010, pp. 218101-1 to 218101-4. |
Helmlinger, Gabriel, “Solid stress inhibits the growth of multicellular tumor spheroids”, Nature Biotechnology, vol. 15, Aug. 1997, pp. 778-783. |
Henkes et al., “Statistical mechanics framework for static granular matter”, Physical Review E., (2009), pp. 061301-1--061301-20, vol. 79, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Jaoshvili et al., “Experiments on the Random Packing of Tetrahedral Dice”, Physical Review Letters, (2010), pp. 185501-1--185501-4, vol. 104, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Katgert et al., “Jamming and geometry of two-dimensional foams”, EPL-A Letters Journal! Exploring the Frontiers of Physics, (2010), pp. 34002-p1--34002-p8, vol. 92, www.epljournal.,org. |
Kurita et al., “Experimental study of random-close-packed colloidal particles”, Physical Review E, (2010), pp. 011403-1--011403-9, vol. 82, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Ladoux, Benoit et al., “Strength Dependence of Cadherin-Mediated Adhesions”, Biophysical Journal, vol. 98, Feb. 2010, pp. 534-542. |
Lechenault et al., “Free volume distributions and compactivity measurement in a bidimensional granular packing”, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, (2006), pp. 1-16, IOP Publishing Ltd and SISSA. |
Lee et al., “Formation and evolution of sediment layers in an aggregating colloidal suspension”, Physical Review E, (2006), pp. 031401-1--031401-11, vol. 74, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Liu, Zhijun, et al., “Mechanical tugging force regulates the size of cell-cell junctions”, PNAS, Jun. 1, 2010, vol. 107, No. 22, pp. 9944-9949. |
Lu et al., “Gelation of particles with short-range attraction”, Nature, May 22, 2008, pp. 499-504, vol. 453, Nature Publishing Group. |
Mahaffy, R.E., “Scanning Probe-Based Frequency-Dependent Microrheology of Polymer Gels and Biological Cells”, Physical Review Letters, Jul. 24, 2000, vol. 85, No. 4, pp. 880-883. |
Majmudar et al., “Jamming Transition in Granular Systems”, Physical Review Letters, (2007), pp. 58001-1--58001-4, vol. 98, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Man et al., “Experiments on Random Packings of Ellipsoids”, Physical Review Letters, (2005), pp. 198001-1--198001-4, vol. 94, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Manning, Lisa N., “Coaction of intercellular adhesion and cortical tension specifies tissue surface tension”, PNAS, Jul. 13, 2010, vol. 107, No. 28, pp. 12517-12522. |
Mason et al., “Elasticity of Compressed Emulsions”, Physical Review Letters, Sep. 4, 1995, pp. 2051-2054, vol. 75, No. 10, The American Physical Society. |
Mehta et al., “Statistical Mechanics of Powder Mixtures”, Physica A, (1989), pp. 1091-1100, vol. 157, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., (North-Holland Physics Publishing Division). |
Nowak et al., “Reversibility and irreversibility in the packing of vibrated granular material”, Powder Technology, (1997), pp. 79-83, vol. 94, Elsevier Science S.A. |
O'Hern et al., “Force Distributions near Jamming and Glass Transitions”, Physical Review Letters, Jan. 1, 2001, pp. 111-114, vol. 86, No. 1, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Panorchan, Porntula, “Single-molecule analysis of cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion”, Journal of Cell Science 119, Sep. 28, 2005, pp. 66-74. |
Papusheva, Ekaterina, et al., “Spatial Organization of adhesion: force-dependent regulation and function in tissue morphogenesis”, The EMBO Journal, vol. 29, No. 16, 2010, pp. 2753-2768. |
Pautot, Sophie et al., “Engineering Asymmetric Vesicles”, PNAS, Sep. 16, 2003, vol. 100, No. 19, pp. 10718-10721. |
Perez-Moreno, Mirna et al., “Sticky Business: Orchestrating Cellular Signals at Adherens Junctions”, Cell, vol. 112, Feb. 21, 2003, pp. 535-548. |
Pham et al., “Glasses in hard spheres with short-range attraction”, Physical Review E, (2004), pp. 011503-1--011503-13, vol. 69, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Sackmann, Erich, et al., “Cell Adhesion as Wetting Transition?”, ChemPhysChem, 2002, vol. 3, pp. 262-269. |
Scott, G. David, “Packing of Spheres”, Nature, Dec. 10, 1960, pp. 908-909, vol. 188, Nature Publishing Company. |
Song et al., “A phase diagram for jammed matter”, Nature, May 29, 2008, pp. 629-632, vol. 453, Nature Publishing Group. |
Song et al., “Experimental measurement of an effective temperature for jammed granular materials”, PNAS, Feb. 15, 2005, pp. 2299-2304, vol. 102, No. 7, www.pnas.org. |
Sperl, M., “Dynamics in colloidal liquids near a crossing of glass- and gel-transition lines”, Physical Review E., (2004), pp. 011401-1--011401-13, vol. 69, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Tambe T. Dhananjay et al., “Collective cell guidance by cooperative intercellular forces”, Nature Materials, vol. 10, Jun. 2011, pp. 469-475. |
Thiery, Jean Paul et al., “Complex networks orchestrate epithelial-mensenchymal transitions”, Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 7, Feb. 2006, pp. 131-142. |
Thiery, Jean Paul, “Cell adhesion in development: a complex signaling network”, Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 2003, vol. 13, pp. 365-371. |
Torquato et al., “Is Random Close Packing of Spheres Well Defined”, Physical Review Letters, Mar. 6, 2000, pp. 2064-2067, vol. 84, No. 10, The American Physical Society, USA. |
Vasioukhin, Valeri et al., “Directed Actin Polymerization Is the Driving Force for Epithelial Cell-Cell Adhesion”, Cell, vol. 100, Jan. 21, 2000, pp. 209-219. |
Walker, Scott A., et al., “Controlled Multi-Stage Self-Assembly of Vesicles”, Matt. Res. Soc, Symp. Proce., vol. 372, 1995, pp. 95-100. |
Yap, Alpha S., et al., “Direct cadherin-activated cell signaling: a view from the plasma membrane”, The Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 160, No. 1, Jan. 6, 2003, pp. 11-16. |
Yuan, Chunbo et al., “Energy Landscape of Streptavidin—Biotin Complexes Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy”, Biochemistry 2000, vol. 39, pp. 10219-10223. |
Zou et al., “The Packing of Granular Polymer Chains”, Science, Oct. 16, 2009, pp. 408-410, vol. 326, www. sciencemag.com. |
Breed, Dana Rachel, “Engineered Colloids: Patchy Particles with Reversible, Directional Interactions”, University of California Santa Barbara dissertation, Dec. 2007, 175 pages. |
Kraft, D., et al., “Surface roughness directed self-assembly of patchy particles into colloidal micelles”, PNAS, Jul. 3, 2012, 109(27):15 pages. |
Pine, David, “Colloidal Self Assembly II: Pacmen & Multivalent Colloids”,2012 Boulder Summer School, Jul. 25, 2012, Boulder Colorado, 46 pages. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion in PCT/US2013/067051, dated Mar. 6, 2014, 7 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/629,312, dated Apr. 7, 2016, 14 pages. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/629,312, dated Oct. 24, 2016, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/629,312, dated Jan. 19, 2017, 10 pages. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/889,083, dated Mar. 7, 2017, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140330002 A1 | Nov 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61854769 | May 2013 | US |