AIM:To study the viscoelastic properties of humanhepatocytes and hepatocallular carcinoma(HCC)callsunder cytoskeletal perturbation,and to further to study theviscoelastic properties and the adhesive properties of mousehepatoma cells(HTC)in different call cycle.METHODS:Micropipette aspiration technique was adopted tomeasure viscoelastic coefficients and adhesion force tocollagen coated surface of the calls.Three kinds ofcyteskeleton perturbing agents,colchicines(Col),cytochalasin D(CD)and vinblastine(VBL),ware used totreat HCC calls and hepatocytes and the effects of thesetreatment on cell viscoelastic coefficients were investigated.The experimental results ware analyzed with a three-elementstandard linear solid.Further,the viscoelastic properties ofHTC calls and the adhesion force of different cycle HTC cellswere also investigated.The synchronous G,and S phasecells were achieved through thymine-2-desoryriboside andcolchicines sequential blockage method and thymine-2-desoryriboside blockage method respectively.RESULTS:The elastic coefficients,but not viscouscoefficient of HCC calls(K_1=103.6±12.6N.m~(-2),K_2=42.5±10.4N.m~(-2),μ=4.5±1.9Pa.s),ware significantly higherthan the corresponding value for hepatocytes(K_1=87.5±12.1N.m~(-2),K_2=33.3±10.3N.m~(-2),μ=5.9±3.0Pa.s,P<0.01).Upon treatment with CD,the viscoelastic coefficients ofboth hepatocytes and HCC cells decreased consistently,with magnitudes for the decrease in elastic coefficients ofHCC calls(K_1:68.7 N.m~(-2)to 81.7N.m~(-2),66.3 % to 78.9 % ;K_2:34.5N.m~(-2)to 37.1N.m~(-2),81.2% to 87.3%,P<0.001)larger then those for normal hepatocytes(K_1:42.6N.m~(-2)to49.8N.m~(-2),48.7 % to 56.9 % ;K_2:17.2N.m~(-2)to 20.4N.m~(-2),51.7 % to 61.3 %,P<0.001).There was a little decrease inthe viscous coefficient of HCC calls(2.0 to 3.4Pa.s,44.4 to75.6 %,P<0.001)then that for hepatocytes(3.0 to 3.9Pa.s,50.8 to 66.1% P<0.001).Upon treatment with Col andVBL,the elastic coefficients of hepetocytes generallyincreased or tended to increase while those of HCC callsdecreased.HTC cells with 72,1% of G_1 phase and 98.9 % ofS phase were achieved and high K_1,K_2 value and low μvalue were the general characteristics of HTC calls.G_1phase calls had higher K_1 value and lower μ value than Sphase calls had,and G,phase HTC calls had strongeradhesive forces [(275.9±232.8)×10~(10)N] than S phase cells[(161.2±120.4)×10~(-10)N,P<0.001).CONCLUSION: The difference in both the pattern and the magnitude of the effect of cytoskeletal perturbing agent on the viscoelastic properties between HCC cells and hepatocytes may reflect differences in the state of the cytoskeleton structure and function and in the sensitivity to perturbing agent treatment between these two types of cells. Change in the viscoelastic properties of cancer cells may affect significantly tumor cell invasion and metastasis as well as interactions between tumor cells and their micro-mechanical environments. AIM: To study the viscoelastic properties of human hepatocytes and hepatocallular carcinoma (HCC) callsunder cytoskeletal perturbation, and to further to study theviscoelastic properties and the adhesive properties of mousehepatoma cells (HTC) in different call cycle. METHODS: Micropipette aspiration technique was adopted to measure viscoelastic coefficients and adhesion force of tocollagen coated surfaces of the calls.Three kinds ofcyteskeleton perturbing agents, colchicines (Col), cytochalasin D (CD) and vinblastine (VBL), ware used totreat HCC calls and hepatocytes and the effects of these treatment on cell viscoelastic disorders were investigated. The experimental results ware analyzed with a three-element standard linear solid. Further, the viscoelastic properties of HTC calls and the adhesion force of different cycles HTC cells were also investigated. synchronous G, and S phase cells were achieved through thymine-2-desoryriboside and colchicines sequential blockage method and thymine-2-desoryriboside bloc Kage method respectively .RESULTS: The elastic coefficients, but not viscouscoefficient of HCC calls (K_1 = 103.6 ± 12.6Nm -2, K_2 = 42.5 ± 10.4Nm -2, μ = 4.5 ± 1.9Pa.s) , ware significantly higherthan the corresponding value for hepatocytes (K_1 = 87.5 ± 12.1Nm -2, K_2 = 33.3 ± 10.3Nm -2, μ = 5.9 ± 3.0Pa.s, P <0.01) with CD, the viscoelastic coefficients of hepatocytes and HCC cells decreased consistently, with magnitudes for the decrease in elastic coefficients ofHCC calls (K_1: 68.7 Nm -2 to 81.7 Nm -2, 66.3% to 78.9%; K_2 : 34.5 Nm -2 to 37.1 Nm -2, 81.2% to 87.3%, P <0.001) larger then those for normal hepatocytes (K 1: 42.6 Nm -2 to 49.8 N · m -1 -2), 48.7% to 56.9%; K_2: 17.2Nm -2 to 20.4Nm -2, 51.7% to 61.3%, P <0.001). Where was a little decrease in the rate of viscous coefficient of HCC calls (2.0 to 3.4 Pa.s, 44.4 to 75.6%, P <0.001) then that for hepatocytes (3.0 to 3.9 Pa.s, 50.8 to 66.1%, P <0.001) .Upon treatment with Col andVBL, the elastic coefficients of hepetocytes generallyincreased or tende d to increase while those of HCC calls decreased. HTC cells with 72, 1% of G_1 phase and 98.9% ofS phase were achieved and high K_1, K_2 value and low μvalue were the general characteristics of HTC calls. G_1phase calls had higher K_1 value and lower μ value than Sphase calls had, and G, phase HTC calls had strongeradhesive forces [(275.9 ± 232.8) × 10 ~ (10) N] than S phase cells [(161.2 ± 120.4) × 10 ~ 0.001). CONCLUSION: The difference in both the pattern and the magnitude of the effect of cytoskeletal perturbing agent on the viscoelastic properties between HCC cells and hepatocytes may reflect differences in the state of the cytoskeleton structure and function and in the sensitivity to perturbing agent treatment between these two types of cells. Change in the viscoelastic properties of cancer cells may affect significantly tumor cell invasion and metastasis as well as interactions between tumor cells and their micro-mechanical environments.