A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure

A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure View ORCID Profile Giulia Venturini , Advik Sikligar , Giulia De Campo , David T. Eddington doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.27.656423 Giulia Venturini 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago , 835 S. Wolcott Ave., Chicago, IL, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Giulia Venturini Advik Sikligar 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago , 835 S. Wolcott Ave., Chicago, IL, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Giulia De Campo 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago , 835 S. Wolcott Ave., Chicago, IL, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site David T. Eddington 1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago , 835 S. Wolcott Ave., Chicago, IL, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site For correspondence: dte{at}uic.edu Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Preview PDF ABSTRACT Biomechanical stimuli are critical in regulating cell behavior and phenotype across various tissues and organs, particularly within the cardiovascular system. Endothelial cells, which line blood vessels, are continuously subjected to forces generated by the pulsatile nature of blood flow, including shear stress, strain, and hydrostatic pressure (HP). Among these stimuli, HP remains the least explored, primarily due to the technical challenges of incorporating it into conventional cell culture systems. However, HP significantly influences key biological processes, such as cell differentiation, migration, proliferation, and apoptosis. To facilitate the introduction of HP in vitro, we have previously developed an automated, high-throughput platform compatible with standard 96-well plates capable of delivering up to 12 independent pressure conditions. In this study, we applied this setup to investigate the effects of a wide range of static pressure conditions on the viability, morphology, and cytoskeleton adaptation of Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells (HUVECs). 1. INTRODUCTION The vascular endothelium lining the inner surface of blood vessels is constantly subjected to spatially and temporally changing biochemical and biomechanical forces. The pulsatile nature of blood flow in the elastic vasculature generates hemodynamic forces such as shear stress, hydrostatic pressure (HP), and cyclic strain, all of which influence endothelial cell (EC) behavior. Cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and atherosclerosis are associated with disturbed hemodynamic patterns and complex multi-axial changes to the microenvironmental stress field, leading to altered EC function and morphology 1 . The imbalance of endothelial-derived factors resulting from endothelial dysfunction manifests as reduced vasodilation, increased inflammation and thrombosis, impaired angiogenesis, and heightened vascular permeability 2 . These phenotypic changes are driven by alterations in endothelial gene transcription mediated by mechanical forces 3 . For instance, genes involved in vascular tone regulation (NOS3, endothelin-1, and prostacyclin), thrombosis, and inflammation (platelet-derived growth factor, VCAM-1) contain shear stress response elements (SSREs) within their promoters regulating their transcription 4 – 6 . Additionally, the spatial and temporal dynamics of shear stress can trigger coordinated up- or down-regulation of clusters of genes relevant to vascular pathology 7 . While the role of shear stress in endothelial dysfunction has been extensively studied, the impact of hydrostatic pressure (HP) on endothelial behavior remains comparatively underexplored. Previous studies suggest hydrostatic pressure is critical in vascular homeostasis and pathology 8 . Chronic exposure to HP (2.9–150 mmHg) has been shown to enhance proliferation and promote multilayering in aortic ECs 9 . When exposed to aortic pressure (50–150 mmHg), these cells exhibit three-dimensional cytoskeletal rearrangements and time-dependent morphological changes 10 , 11 . In contrast, HUVECs do not appear to undergo morphological adaptation in response to aortic HP but instead display increased contractility mediated by VE-cadherin reorganization and actin stress fiber formation 12 – 14 . Notably, research on HUVECs mostly focuses on supraphysiological pressure levels (50, 100 mmHg) while largely overlooking physiologically relevant ranges (10–30 mmHg). Few studies have examined the effects of venous pressure, reporting cell elongation under 25 mmHg 11 and increased proliferation under cyclic pressure (60/20 mmHg) 15 . Recently, capillary HP (20 mmHg), but not arterial pressure (55 mmHg), has been shown to promote sprouting angiogenesis in HUVECs via YAP (yes-associated protein I) signaling 16 , further emphasizing the need to investigate endothelial behavior under pressure conditions that better reflect in vivo physiology. The lack of research on HP-mediated mechanotransduction is primarily due to technical challenges in incorporating hydrostatic pressure in standard in vitro systems and isolating its effects from shear stress. Current approaches, such as syringe pumps 12 , 14 , 17 , media column height 16 , 18 , 19 , or gas pressurization 13 , 20 , have been used to apply HP in vitro , but they suffer from key limitations: (1) they support only one pressure condition at a time; (2) they are incompatible with high-throughput analysis tools like plate readers; and (3) when dynamic pressure waveforms are implemented, they are typically limited to simplified profiles such as sinusoidal, triangular, or square waves. To address these constraints, we have previously developed a high-throughput, automated device compatible with standard cell culture platforms, such as the 96-well plate 21 . Our system enables the application of up to 12 independent pressure waveforms with fully customizable magnitude, frequency, and duration. However, in the current study, we are limiting to static pressure magnitudes; dynamic pressure waveforms will be explored in future work. Here, we leverage the high-throughput capabilities of our platform to systematically investigate HUVECs behavior across a wide range of physiologically and pathologically relevant hydrostatic pressures (10, 20, 50, 75, 100, and 150 mmHg). We characterize pressure-dependent changes in morphology and cytoskeletal organization and examine the impact of HP on cell viability, redox activity, and monolayer integrity. 2. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND METHODS 2.1. Pressure setup construction The setup used in this study was previously described 21 . Briefly, the system can deliver up to 12 different pressure conditions to cells cultured in a 96-well plate. The pressure in each line is controlled by a proportional valve (Parker VSO LowPro) and measured by a pressure sensor (Honeywell 40PC series), both interfacing with an Arduino Nano microcontroller. The Arduino monitors the pressure in real-time and adjusts the valve aperture via Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) through a PID control loop to maintain the desired setpoint. Pressurized gas (5% CO 2 , 21% O 2 , balanced N 2 ), supplied by a gas cylinder, is distributed to the headspace of each well of a plate’s column through a millifluidic 3D-printed insert ( Fig. 1a,1b ). Tight sealing of the plate is ensured by a set of three O-rings (one Buna-N O-ring and two PFTE backup rings) mounted on each column of the device ( Fig. 1c,1d ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1: Pressure delivery system a) Schematic showing pressure control in one column of the plate and in a single well. b) Components needed for pressure control in one column of the plate. c) 3D CAD of the device inserted in the plate. d) 3D CAD of the front-view of the device showing O-rings and connectors. 2.2. Cells Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (Lonza) were grown in EBM-2 medium supplemented with EGM-2 bullet kit (Lonza) and 1% penicillin streptomycin (Gibco BRL) at 37°C and 21% O 2 and 5% CO 2 . Cells were split at 80% confluence, and passages 2-8 were used for the experiments. 2.3. Pressure treatment Before each experiment, the wells of a 96-well plate were coated with a 2% gelatin solution (Sigma Aldrich). Cells were then seeded at a density of 15,625 cells/cm 2 and allowed to grow for 24 hours. Subconfluent monolayers were exposed to various static pressure conditions (10, 20, 50, 75, 100, 150 mmHg above atmospheric pressure) for 36 hours. Control cells were grown at ambient pressure. To isolate the contribution of hydrostatic pressure from other mechanical forces in the hemodynamic milieu (shear stress and stretch), cells were cultured in no-flow conditions on a rigid substrate, and the gas phase above the supernatant was pressurized, imposing a normal force equal to the applied pressure. 2.4. Cell viability and redox assay Viability was measured using live/dead staining. Briefly, cells were stained with 1 μg/ml of propidium iodide (PI) and 5 μg/ml of Hoechst 33342. Cells were incubated in the dark for 15 minutes at room temperature and imaged to obtain the total number (Hoechst) and the number of dead cells (PI). Cell redox activity was assessed using PrestoBlue Reagent (ThermoFisher), according to manufacturer instructions. The amount of fluorescent resorufin resulting from resazurin reduction was read with a plate reader (Varioskan, Thermo Scientific) at 560/590 nm excitation/emissions (bottom read) and normalized by the total number of cells in each well. 2.5. Staining After pressure exposure, cells were fixed and stained for morphology assessment. First, cells were incubated for 10 minutes at room temperature with a 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS (phosphate-buffered saline) solution. Cells were then permeabilized with a solution of 0.1% Triton-X in PBS for 10 minutes at room temperature and incubated overnight at 4°C with CD144 (VE-cadherin) monoclonal primary antibody (Invitrogen), diluted in a ratio of 1:200 in PBS, 1% BSA and 0.1% Tween-20. Cells were incubated for one hour at room temperature with Donkey anti-mouse IgG secondary antibody AlexaFluor 488 (Invitrogen) and AlexaFluor 647 phalloidin (Invitrogen, F-actin stain) at a ratio of 1:500 and 1:100, respectively, in PBS, 1% BSA and 0.1% Tween-20. In the last 15 minutes of incubation, Hoechst 33342 was added to each well at a 5 μg/ml concentration to stain the cell nuclei. 2.6. Cell density, morphology, cytoskeleton remodeling, and cell junction analysis After each experiment, fluorescence images were acquired for each condition at arbitrary locations in four wells at 40X and 10X magnification with an Olympus IX71 microscope. The pictures were post-processed with Fiji (ImageJ), and a total of 300 cells were analyzed for each condition. Cell density in 1 mm 2 was estimated by automatically counting cell nuclei in 10X binary pictures using Fiji. Cell contours in 40X pictures were manually delineated for morphological assessment following the VE-cadherin signal. Cell area, circularity, and orientation angle were evaluated through Fiji. Cell tortuosity was instead calculated as the ratio between the cell perimeter and the perimeter of the equivalent ellipse. Nuclei area and aspect ratio were obtained through Fiji: binary images of the nuclei were generated, adjacent nuclei were separated using the “watershed” command, and morphological parameters were automatically derived. For cytoskeleton remodeling analysis, pictures were acquired at 20X magnification with a confocal microscope (Olympus FV3000). The cytoskeleton order parameter, S = , was calculated for 30 cells in each condition to determine the degree of F-actin filament alignment to the major axis of the cell. For cell junction analysis, 30 cells for each condition were analyzed in 20X fluorescent pictures using Fiji to obtain VE-cadherin thickness and intensity profiles. 2.7. Statistics and reproducibility Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 10.4.2 software. ANOVA analysis with post-hoc Tukey’s test was conducted to compare groups that were normally distributed. Unless stated elsewhere, all experiments were performed with at least three biological independent replicates. Statistical significance was set as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001****p < 0.0001. Statistical tests and relative p values are indicated in each figure legend. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Cell viability, density, and mitochondrial activity HUVECs were cultured for 36 hours under static hydrostatic pressure ranging from 10 to 150 mmHg. Cells in all conditions showed similar viability to the control ( Fig. 1a ). Cells cultured under HP displayed a lower density than the control, correlated to the magnitude of applied pressure ( Fig. 2b ). The redox assay ( Fig. 2c ) showed overall higher reducing function in cells treated under pressure. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2: Cell viability, density, and redox activity under HP a) Quantification of cell viability after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments. b) Quantification of cell metabolic function after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01. c) Quantification of cell density after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments. 3.2. Cell morphology After pressure conditioning, cells were stained and imaged for morphological assessment. Hydrostatic pressure induced significant elongation ( Fig. 3a ), with cells displaying lower circularity than those cultured at ambient pressure. The elongation was most pronounced under pressures resembling venous levels but diminished at higher magnitudes. Additionally, cell area increased with pressure ( Fig. 3b ), suggesting enhanced spreading onto the substrate. Similar trends were observed in cell nuclei, which exhibited slight increases in both area and aspect ratio, consistent with the elongation and spreading of the cells ( Fig. 4a-c ). Across all conditions, cells appeared randomly oriented ( Fig. 3c ) with comparable tortuosity ( Fig. 3d ). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3: Cell morphological adaptations to HP a) Quantification of cell circularity after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 250 cells analyzed per group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001. b) Quantification of cell area after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 250 cells analyzed per group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test. *p<0.05. c) Quantification of cell tortuosity after 36h under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 250 cells analyzed per group. d) Cell orientation angle distribution after 36h under pressure. The graph shows the median and 25th to 75th percentile; whiskers indicate min and max values. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 250 cells analyzed per group. e) Representative confocal z-projection images of HUVECs showing VE-cadherin (green), F-actin (red), and nuclei (cyan) after 36h pressure exposure. Scale bar: 50 μm. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 4: Nuclear morphological changes under HP a) Measurement of nuclei area after 36 hours of pressure treatment. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 200 cells analyzed per group. b) Quantification of nuclei aspect ratio after 36 hours under pressure. The graph shows mean + s.d. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 200 cells analyzed per group. c) Representative confocal z-projection images of nuclei after 36h pressure exposure. Scale bar: 50 μm. 3.3. F-actin and cytoskeleton remodeling F-actin staining ( Fig. 5b ) revealed marked cytoskeletal reorganization in response to hydrostatic pressure. Cells treated under venous pressure (10, 20 mmHg) displayed parallel stress fibers aligned with the major axis and distributed throughout the cytoplasm. Fiber alignment progressively decreased at increasing pressure magnitudes (50-150 mmHg). In contrast, cells cultured at ambient pressure exhibited randomly oriented F-actin fibers localized predominantly at the periphery. Quantitative analysis of F-actin alignment ( Fig. 5a-c ) confirmed these observations, with cytoskeletal parameter values ranging from 0.68 (150 mmHg) to 0.95 (20 mmHg) under pressure, indicating a higher degree of alignment, compared to 0.45 in the control condition. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 5: Cytoskeleton remodeling under HP a) Quantification of cell cytoskeleton order parameter, , after 36h under pressure. The graph shows the median and 25th to 75th percentile, whiskers indicate min and max values; N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 30 cells analyzed per group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, comparison between control and pressure conditions. *p>0.05, **p>0.01, ***p>0.001, ****p>0.0001. b) Quantification of cell cytoskeleton order parameter, , after 36h under pressure. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, comparison between 10 mmHg and the other pressure conditions. *p>0.05, **p>0.01, ***p>0.001, ****p>0.0001. c) Quantification of cell cytoskeleton order parameter, , after 36h under pressure. One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, comparison between 20 mmHg and the other pressure conditions. *p>0.05, **p>0.01, ***p>0.001, ****p>0.0001. d) Representative confocal z-projection images of F-actin fibers and nuclei in HUVECs after 36h pressure exposure. Scale bar: 30 μm. 3.4. VE-cadherin and monolayer integrity VE-cadherin staining ( Fig. 6a ) in cells cultured at ambient pressures showed continuous, mature cell-cell junctions (orange arrows) characterized by thick actin bundles parallelly aligned and not overlapping with VE-cadherin at the junction. Venous pressure conditions (10, 20 mmHg) showed thicker, continuous junctions along the cell side and VE-cadherin/actin protrusions (white arrows) at the apical and basal sides. Cells cultured at 50 and 75 mmHg pressures showed continuous, although thinner, junctions and reduced VE-cadherin/actin protrusions. At supraphysiological levels (100, 150 mmHg), junctions became more fragmented and discontinuous (blue arrows). We extracted normalized intensity profiles across cell-cell contacts to assess VE-cadherin expression and width of endothelial junctions. As shown in Fig. 6b , when exposed to venous pressure (10, 20 mmHg), cells exhibited higher fluorescent signal and wider intercellular junctions. The expression of VE-cadherin and width of cell junctions progressively decreased at higher pressure magnitudes, going below control levels at 100 and 150 mmHg. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 6: HP effect on monolayer integrity a) Representative confocal z-projection images of VE-cadherin in HUVECs after 36h pressure exposure. Scale bar: 50 μm. Orange arrows indicate continuous cell-cell junctions, white arrows point to VE-cadherin/actin protrusions, and blue arrows indicate fragmented junctions. b) Normalized mean intensity profiles of VE-cadherin junctions after 36 hours of exposure. N=3 independent experiments, n≥ 30 cells analyzed per group. 4. DISCUSSION Research on hydrostatic pressure’s effect on endothelial cell behavior is limited, yet previous studies have shown its crucial role in cell proliferation 9 , 22 , 23 , apoptosis 15 , 24 , vascular angiogenesis 16 , 25 , 26 , and monolayer integrity 19 , 27 . A major challenge in studying HP-mediated mechanotransduction is implementing hydrostatic pressure in vitro while isolating its effects from shear stress. Current methods introducing HP in cell cultures are limited to a single pressure condition at a time, significantly reducing the experimental throughput. Studies on venous endothelial cells have predominantly focused on supraphysiological pressures (>50 mmHg), with relatively few investigating physiologically relevant venous ranges. Notably, HUVECs behavior appears to be pressure-dependent, with phenotypic changes observed primarily under venous pressures 11 , 15 , 16 . However, the substantial variability in experimental setups and parameters complicates direct comparisons, with contrasting evidence on cell response based on pressure magnitude and frequency 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 . To address these discrepancies, we systematically investigated HUVECs response across various physiologically relevant pressure conditions (10, 20, 50, 75, 100, 150 mmHg). Our high-throughput system enables the simultaneous application of up to 12 independent, fully customizable pressure waveforms in standard 96-well plates, significantly reducing experimental time and facilitating downstream analyses, such as plate reader-based assays. However, in this study, we limited to six static pressure conditions. Leveraging the system’s capabilities, we examined the impact of HP on cell viability, redox activity, morphological and cytoskeletal adaptations, and junctional remodeling. Consistently with our previous findings 21 , cell viability under pressure remained comparable to atmospheric pressure conditions, even at supraphysiological levels, as shown in Fig. 2a . Although cells proliferated under pressure, the final density after 36 hours was lower at higher pressures ( Fig. 2c ). At the same time, cells under increasing pressure exhibited a larger surface area ( Fig. 3b ). This apparent decrease in density is unlikely to result from pressure-induced cell death or detachment, as neither was observed during the experiments. Instead, larger individual cell areas may reduce the available space for proliferation, leading to contact inhibition and a lower overall cell number. Cells cultured under HP showed substantial morphological changes. In agreement with previous findings 11 , we observed random cell elongation under venous pressure, which reduced at supraphysiological pressure levels, as shown in Fig. 3a . Structural changes at the cellular level were reflected in the cell nuclei, even if to a much smaller degree ( Fig. 4 ). The observed morphological adaptation results from mechanotransduction processes mediated by the actin network, enabling cells to optimize their shape and enhance structural integrity in response to mechanical stress. Indeed, a recent study showed that early cell response to pressure is primarily driven by the cytoskeleton, with mechanical loading triggering an actomyosin-mediated cell contraction already after 5 minutes of exposure 13 , 14 . Similarly to previous studies 10 , 28 , our results ( Fig. 5 ) show significant actin reorganization under pressure, particularly under venous pressure magnitudes, with parallel stress fibers evenly distributed throughout the cytoplasm and aligned along the major cell axis. Cells cultured at ambient pressure instead exhibited randomly oriented F-actin filaments localized predominantly at the periphery. Alongside cell elongation, actin cytoskeletal reorganization resulted in cells adopting larger surface areas at higher pressure magnitudes ( Fig 3b ), which has previously been shown to increase cell adhesion to the underlying substrate and provide mechanical stability 29 . Although not explored in this work, such spreading is likely driven by cell focal adhesion remodeling prompted by actomyosin cytoskeleton contraction and mediated by integrins 9 , 30 , 31 . Cells under pressure exhibited increased redox activity, as shown in Fig. 2b . The primary sources of reducing power are mitochondria and NADPH oxidases. Mitochondrial activity is closely associated with intracellular Ca 2+ levels 33 , which rapidly increase upon pressure exposure as part of the mechanotransduction process mediated by mechanosensitive cation channels 13 . This Ca 2+ influx initially triggers actomyosin contraction through myosin light chain phosphorylation 30 . While the long-term dynamics of Ca 2+ signaling under chronic pressure exposure remain unclear, mitochondria could participate in buffering intracellular Ca 2+ . HUVECs show a shear stress-induced Ca 2+ response caused by the activation of the PLC/IP 3 /IP 3 R pathway, with mitochondria exchanging Ca 2+ with the endoplasmic reticulum to coordinate intracellular Ca 2+ transients and oscillations 34 . A similar IP 3 -evoked Ca 2+ release has been observed in pressurized arteries 35 , suggesting that mitochondria could also participate in Ca 2+ signaling during HP response. Mitochondrial control of Ca 2+ signaling has been shown to be mediated by ATP production 36 and to involve the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) as a protective mechanism against Ca 2+ overload during IP 3 -mediated release 37 . This buffering mechanism could contribute to the increased redox activity observed under pressure. ROS generation under HP may also modulate cytoskeletal remodeling. For instance, hypertension is known to contribute to NADPH oxidases-mediated vascular oxidative stress and endothelial dysfunction through the activation of the ILK-1/βPIX/Rac-1 signaling pathway 38 , suggesting an interplay between integrin-linked cytoskeletal signaling and cellular redox regulation. Moderate amounts of cytosolic and mitochondrial ROS have been shown to regulate actin cytoskeleton organization during cell migration 39 , microvascular remodeling 40 , wound healing 41 , and post-hypoxic recovery 42 , and might similarly contribute to cellular adaptation under hydrostatic pressure, potentially explaining the elevated redox activity observed in our experiments. Nonetheless, further investigation is needed to fully elucidate the redox mechanisms triggered by pressure and the cross-talk between ROS and cytoskeletal dynamics. Exposure of endothelial monolayers to hydrostatic pressure caused a marked redistribution of VE-cadherin at cell-cell junctions, as shown in Fig. 6 . At venous pressure levels (10, 20 mmHg), cells displayed broader junctions and VE-cadherin/actin-rich protrusions, indicative of active cytoskeletal remodeling. Junctional strengthening under these conditions is likely supported by the formation of actin-driven membrane structures, such as junction-associated lamellipodia, which have been shown to dynamically reinforce adherens junctions by promoting cadherin clustering 43 . The observed protrusions resemble actin-related protein 2/3 complex (ARP2/3)-dependent extensions like cadherin fingers, previously described as elements orchestrating structural organization in migrating cells 44 . In our context, these structures may play a similar role by coordinating morphological adaptations between neighboring cells. As pressure increased to intermediate levels (50, 75 mmHg), VE-cadherin staining remained continuous but appeared thinner, with less actin-rich protrusions. At supraphysiological pressures (100, 150 mmHg), VE-cadherin localization became fragmented and discontinuous, indicating junction destabilization. These observations align with previous results suggesting that junctional stability depends on a three-way feedback between active force generation, cadherin bond turnover, and actin polymerization 45 . In this framework, mechanical cues such as hydrostatic pressure activate Src kinase, which initiates downstream signaling by activating Rho GTPases, specifically RhoA and Rac-1. Changes in the mechanical microenvironment can affect the interplay between these two factors, either strengthening or disrupting cell junction integrity. RhoA activation enhances actomyosin contractility, generating junctional tension that supports cadherin clustering, while Rac-1 promotes cell-cell contact through membrane protrusions by activating the WAVE complex regulator responsible for ARP2/3-mediated actin polymerization. Excessive RhoA activation can increase actomyosin tension, leading to bond disassociation, while low Rac1 activity impairs actin protrusion and intercellular gap closure, resulting in compromised monolayer integrity. Our results reflect this mechanistic balance: physiological pressure promotes adaptive remodeling and adhesion reinforcement, whereas higher pressures disrupt signaling homeostasis, driving junction disassembly. In summary, we showed that HUVECs respond to hydrostatic pressure in a magnitude-dependent manner. Specifically, physiological venous HP (10, 20 mmHg) induced marked morphological and cytoskeletal adaptations and supported monolayer integrity by strengthening cell-cell junctions. Although higher pressure values also triggered structural rearrangements, their effects were less pronounced, and chronic exposure to supraphysiological HP significantly disrupted VE-cadherin expression and junctional stability. HP significantly affected cell metabolic activity, suggesting an interplay between cytoskeletal adaptations and redox regulation. Altogether, our findings highlight the importance of introducing HP as an experimental variable to develop more physiologically relevant in vitro models of the endothelium. Future studies will combine live-cell imaging of intracellular Ca 2+ levels and quantification of ROS production to dissect the spatiotemporal interplay between Ca 2+ signaling, redox activity, and cytoskeletal remodeling under dynamic, physiologically relevant hydrostatic pressure waveforms. 5. CONCLUSION In this work, we sought to systematically investigate HUVECs behavior under a wide range of hydrostatic pressure values by leveraging the high-throughput nature of our pressure-control system. Our findings demonstrate that HUVECs undergo pressure-dependent morphological and metabolic changes, primarily linked to actin cytoskeleton remodeling. We also observed distinct changes in VE-cadherin junctions, with enhanced barrier integrity at physiological venous pressures and progressively thinner, fragmented cell-cell connections at higher pressures. Overall, our systematic approach might enable a deeper understanding of the phenotypic adaptations of HUVECs to both physiological and supraphysiological pressures, gaining valuable insights into the role played by HP in endothelial dysfunction. The high-throughput capabilities of our system and its compatibility with conventional culture platforms could pave the way to more efficient and standardized studies on endothelial behavior under pressure. 7. FUNDING STATEMENT This work was supported by the Center for Advanced Design and Manufacturing of Integrated Microfluidics (NSF I/UCRC award IIP-1841473). 9. AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION D.T.E. conceptualized the research, directed and supervised the study. G.V. designed and built the experimental setup, collected data, performed results analysis, and wrote the paper. A.S. and G.D. contributed to the development of the pressure system used in the study. 10. COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. 11. DATA AVAILABILITY The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge Dr. Salman Khetani for generously granting access to the confocal microscope in his laboratory. Funder Information Declared Center for Advanced Design and Manufacturing of Integrated Microfluidics , NSF I/UCRC award IIP-1841473 6. REFERENCES 1. ↵ Gimbrone , M. A. , Topper , J. N. , Nagel , T. , Anderson , K. R. & Garcia-Cardeña , G. Endothelial Dysfunction, Hemodynamic Forces, and Atherogenesisa . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 902 , 230 – 240 ( 2000 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 2. ↵ Endemann , D. H. & Schiffrin , E. L. Endothelial Dysfunction . Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 15 , 1983 – 1992 ( 2004 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 3. ↵ Chistiakov , D. A. , Orekhov , A. N. & Bobryshev , Y. V. Effects of shear stress on endothelial cells: go with the flow . Acta Physiologica 219 , 382 – 408 ( 2017 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 4. ↵ Resnick , N. et al. Platelet-derived growth factor B chain promoter contains a cis-acting fluid shear-stress-responsive element . Medical Sciences . 5. Davis , M. E. , Grumbach , I. M. , Fukai , T. , Cutchins , A. & Harrison , D. G. Shear Stress Regulates Endothelial Nitric-oxide Synthase Promoter Activity through Nuclear Factor κB Binding . Journal of Biological Chemistry 279 , 163 – 168 ( 2004 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 6. ↵ Korenaga , R. et al. Negative transcriptional regulation of the VCAM-1 gene by fluid shear stress in murine endothelial cells . American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 273 , C1506 – C1515 ( 1997 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 7. ↵ Topper , J. N. & Gimbrone Jr , M. A. Blood flow and vascular gene expression: fluid shear stress as a modulator of endothelial phenotype . Molecular Medicine Today 5 , 40 – 46 ( 1999 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 8. ↵ Liu , S. et al. Regulation of Cell Behavior by Hydrostatic Pressure . Applied mechanics reviews 71 4 , 0408031 – 4080313 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl 9. ↵ Schwartz , E. A. , Bizios , R. , Medow , M. S. & Gerritsen , M. E. Exposure of Human Vascular Endothelial Cells to Sustained Hydrostatic Pressure Stimulates Proliferation: Involvement of the αV Integrins . Circulation Research 84 , 315 – 322 ( 1999 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 10. ↵ Salwen , S. A. , Szarowski , D. H. , Turner , J. N. & Bizios , R. Three-dimensional changes of the cytoskeleton of vascular endothelial cells exposed to sustained hydrostatic pressure . Med. Biol. Eng. Comput . 36 , 520 – 527 ( 1998 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 11. ↵ Ohashi , T. , Sugaya , Y. , Sakamoto , N. & Sato , M. Hydrostatic pressure influences morphology and expression of VEcadherin of vascular endothelial cells . Journal of biomechanics 40 11 , 2399 – 405 ( 2007 ). OpenUrl 12. ↵ Yoshino , D. , Sato , K. & Sato , M. Endothelial Cell Response Under Hydrostatic Pressure Condition Mimicking Pressure Therapy . Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering 8 , 296 – 303 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 13. ↵ Prystopiuk , V. et al. A two-phase response of endothelial cells to hydrostatic pressure . Journal of Cell Science 131 , jcs206920 ( 2018 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 14. ↵ Yoshino , D. & Sato , M. Early-Stage Dynamics in Vascular Endothelial Cells Exposed to Hydrostatic Pressure . Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 141 , 091006 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 15. ↵ Shin , H. Y. , Gerritsen , M. E. & Bizios , R. Regulation of Endothelial Cell Proliferation and Apoptosis by Cyclic Pressure . Annals of Biomedical Engineering 30 , 297 – 304 ( 2002 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 16. ↵ Al-Nuaimi , D. A. et al. Hydrostatic pressure drives sprouting angiogenesis via adherens junction remodelling and YAP signalling . Commun Biol 7 , 940 ( 2024 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 17. ↵ Li , L. et al. A microfluidic system for the study of the response of endothelial cells under pressure . Microfluid Nanofluid 16 , 1089 – 1096 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 18. ↵ Shin , H. Y. , Underwood , R. M. & Fannon , M. W. Fluid Pressure Is a Magnitude-Dependent Modulator of Early Endothelial Tubulogenic Activity: Implications Related to a Potential Tissue-Engineering Control Parameter . Tissue Engineering Part A 18 , 2590 – 2600 ( 2012 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 19. ↵ Müller-Marschhausen , K. , Waschke , J. & Drenckhahn , D. Physiological hydrostatic pressure protects endothelial monolayer integrity . American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 294 , C324 – C332 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 20. ↵ Maul , T. M. , Hamilton , D. W. , Nieponice , A. , Soletti , L. & Vorp , D. A. A New Experimental System for the Extended Application of Cyclic Hydrostatic Pressure to Cell Culture . Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 129 , 110 – 116 ( 2007 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 21. ↵ Szmelter , A. H. , Venturini , G. , Abbed , R. J. , Acheampong , M. O. & Eddington , D. T. Emulating clinical pressure waveforms in cell culture using an Arduino-controlled millifluidic 3D-printed platform for 96-well plates . Lab Chip 23 , 793 – 802 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 22. ↵ Shin , H. Y. et al. VEGF-C mediates cyclic pressure-induced endothelial cell proliferation . Physiological Genomics 11 , 245 – 251 ( 2002 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 23. ↵ Acevedo , A. D. , Bowser , S. S. , Gerritsen , M. E. & Bizios , R. Morphological and proliferative responses of endothelial cells to hydrostatic pressure: Role of fibroblast growth factor . Journal Cellular Physiology 157 , 603 – 614 ( 1993 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 24. ↵ Hasel , C. et al. Pathologically elevated cyclic hydrostatic pressure induces CD95-mediated apoptotic cell death in vascular endothelial cells . American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 289 , C312 – C322 ( 2005 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 25. ↵ Mammoto , T. et al. Hydrostatic Pressure Controls Angiogenesis Through Endothelial YAP1 During Lung Regeneration . Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol . 10 , 823642 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 26. ↵ Yoshino , D. et al. Hydrostatic pressure promotes endothelial tube formation through aquaporin 1 and Ras-ERK signaling . Commun Biol 3 , 152 ( 2020 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 27. ↵ Ohashi , T. , Sugaya , Y. , Sakamoto , N. & Sato , M. Relative contribution of physiological hydrostatic pressure and fluid shear stress to endothelial monolayer integrity . Biomed. Eng. Lett . 6 , 31 – 38 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 28. ↵ Bancaud , A. et al. Intraluminal pressure triggers a rapid and persistent reinforcement of endothelial barriers . Lab Chip 10.1039.D5LC00104H ( 2025 ) doi: 10.1039/D5LC00104H . OpenUrl CrossRef 29. ↵ Kim , Y. J. et al. Effects of intermittent hydrostatic pressure on cell adhesive forces and other related parameters under various resting periods . J Biomed Mater Res 85B , 353 – 360 ( 2008 ). OpenUrl 30. ↵ Wolfenson , H. , Bershadsky , A. , Henis , Y. I. & Geiger , B. Actomyosin-generated tension controls the molecular kinetics of focal adhesions . Journal of Cell Science 124 , 1425 – 1432 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 31. ↵ Ingber , D. E. Cellular tensegrity: defining new rules of biological design that govern the cytoskeleton . Journal of Cell Science 104 , 613 – 627 ( 1993 ). OpenUrl FREE Full Text 32. Xu , K. et al. A facile cell culture device for studying nuclear and mitochondrial response of endothelial cells to hydrostatic pressure . Chinese Chemical Letters 34 , 107486 ( 2023 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 33. ↵ Collins , T. J. , Lipp , P. , Berridge , M. J. & Bootman , M. D. Mitochondrial Ca2+ Uptake Depends on the Spatial and Temporal Profile of Cytosolic Ca2+ Signals . Journal of Biological Chemistry 276 , 26411 – 26420 ( 2001 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 34. ↵ Scheitlin , C. G. et al. Endothelial mitochondria regulate the intracellular Ca2+ response to fluid shear stress . American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 310 , C479 – C490 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 35. ↵ Wilson , C. , Saunter , C. D. , Girkin , J. M. & McCarron , J. G. Pressure-dependent regulation of Ca2+ signalling in the vascular endothelium . The Journal of Physiology 593 , 5231 – 5253 ( 2015 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 36. ↵ Wilson , C. et al. Mitochondrial ATP production provides long-range control of endothelial inositol trisphosphate–evoked calcium signaling . Journal of Biological Chemistry 294 , 737 – 758 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 37. ↵ Zhang , X. , Lee , M. D. , Wilson , C. & McCarron , J. G. Hydrogen peroxide depolarizes mitochondria and inhibits IP3-evoked Ca2+ release in the endothelium of intact arteries . Cell Calcium 84 , 102108 ( 2019 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 38. ↵ Vecchione , C. et al. Pressure-Induced Vascular Oxidative Stress Is Mediated Through Activation of Integrin-Linked Kinase 1/βPIX/Rac-1 Pathway . Hypertension 54 , 1028 – 1034 ( 2009 ). OpenUrl CrossRef 39. ↵ Wang , Y. et al. Regulation of VEGF-induced endothelial cell migration by mitochondrial reactive oxygen species . American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 301 , C695 – C704 ( 2011 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science 40. ↵ Staiculescu , M. , Foote , C. , Meininger , G. & Martinez-Lemus , L. The Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Microvascular Remodeling . IJMS 15 , 23792 – 23835 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 41. ↵ Moldovan , L. , Moldovan , N. I. , Sohn , R. H. , Parikh , S. A. & Goldschmidt-Clermont , P. J. Redox Changes of Cultured Endothelial Cells and Actin Dynamics . Circulation Research 86 , 549 – 557 ( 2000 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 42. ↵ Crawford , L. E. et al. Superoxide-mediated Actin Response in Post-hypoxic Endothelial Cells . Journal of Biological Chemistry 271 , 26863 – 26867 ( 1996 ). OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text 43. ↵ Taha , A. A. , Taha , M. , Seebach , J. & Schnittler , H.-J. ARP2/3-mediated junction-associated lamellipodia control VEcadherin–based cell junction dynamics and maintain monolayer integrity . MBoC 25 , 245 – 256 ( 2014 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 44. ↵ Hayer , A. et al. Engulfed cadherin fingers are polarized junctional structures between collectively migrating endothelial cells . Nat Cell Biol 18 , 1311 – 1323 ( 2016 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed 45. ↵ McEvoy , E. et al. Feedback between mechanosensitive signaling and active forces governs endothelial junction integrity . Nat Commun 13 , 7089 ( 2022 ). OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted May 29, 2025. Download PDF Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure Giulia Venturini , Advik Sikligar , Giulia De Campo , David T. Eddington bioRxiv 2025.05.27.656423; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.27.656423 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools A systematic investigation of endothelial cell behavior under hydrostatic pressure Giulia Venturini , Advik Sikligar , Giulia De Campo , David T. Eddington bioRxiv 2025.05.27.656423; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.27.656423 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Cell Biology Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7629) Biochemistry (17660) Bioengineering (13881) Bioinformatics (41911) Biophysics (21436) Cancer Biology (18578) Cell Biology (25482) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13371) Ecology (19887) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24302) Genetics (15599) Genomics (22482) Immunology (17728) Microbiology (40363) Molecular Biology (17163) Neuroscience (88536) Paleontology (666) Pathology (2830) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4821) Physiology (7637) Plant Biology (15129) Scientific Communication and Education (2045) Synthetic Biology (4290) Systems Biology (9817) Zoology (2269)