117
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Nonpolarized signaling reveals two distinct modes of 3D cell migration

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The elastic behavior of the 3D extracellular matrix determines the relative polarization of intracellular signaling and whether cells migrate using lamellipodia or lobopodia.

          Abstract

          We search in this paper for context-specific modes of three-dimensional (3D) cell migration using imaging for phosphatidylinositol (3,4,5)-trisphosphate (PIP3) and active Rac1 and Cdc42 in primary fibroblasts migrating within different 3D environments. In 3D collagen, PIP3 and active Rac1 and Cdc42 were targeted to the leading edge, consistent with lamellipodia-based migration. In contrast, elongated cells migrating inside dermal explants and the cell-derived matrix (CDM) formed blunt, cylindrical protrusions, termed lobopodia, and Rac1, Cdc42, and PIP3 signaling was nonpolarized. Reducing RhoA, Rho-associated protein kinase (ROCK), or myosin II activity switched the cells to lamellipodia-based 3D migration. These modes of 3D migration were regulated by matrix physical properties. Specifically, experimentally modifying the elasticity of the CDM or collagen gels established that nonlinear elasticity supported lamellipodia-based migration, whereas linear elasticity switched cells to lobopodia-based migration. Thus, the relative polarization of intracellular signaling identifies two distinct modes of 3D cell migration governed intrinsically by RhoA, ROCK, and myosin II and extrinsically by the elastic behavior of the 3D extracellular matrix.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Plasticity of cell migration: a multiscale tuning model

          Cell migration underlies tissue formation, maintenance, and regeneration as well as pathological conditions such as cancer invasion. Structural and molecular determinants of both tissue environment and cell behavior define whether cells migrate individually (through amoeboid or mesenchymal modes) or collectively. Using a multiparameter tuning model, we describe how dimension, density, stiffness, and orientation of the extracellular matrix together with cell determinants—including cell–cell and cell–matrix adhesion, cytoskeletal polarity and stiffness, and pericellular proteolysis—interdependently control migration mode and efficiency. Motile cells integrate variable inputs to adjust interactions among themselves and with the matrix to dictate the migration mode. The tuning model provides a matrix of parameters that control cell movement as an adaptive and interconvertible process with relevance to different physiological and pathological contexts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Coordination of Rho GTPase activities during cell protrusion

            The GTPases Rac1, RhoA and Cdc42 act in concert to control cytoskeleton dynamics1-3. Recent biosensor studies have shown that all three GTPases are activated at the front of migrating cells4-7 and biochemical evidence suggests that they may regulate one another: Cdc42 can activate Rac18, and Rac1 and RhoA are mutually inhibitory9-12. However, their spatiotemporal coordination, at the seconds and single micron dimensions typical of individual protrusion events, remains unknown. Here, we examine GTPase coordination both through simultaneous visualization of two GTPase biosensors and using a “computational multiplexing” approach capable of defining the relationships between multiple protein activities visualized in separate experiments. We found that RhoA is activated at the cell edge synchronous with edge advancement, whereas Cdc42 and Rac1 are activated 2 μm behind the edge with a delay of 40 sec. This indicates that Rac1 and RhoA operate antagonistically through spatial separation and precise timing, and that RhoA plays a role in the initial events of protrusion, while Rac1 and Cdc42 activate pathways implicated in reinforcement and stabilization of newly expanded protrusions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Random versus directionally persistent cell migration.

              Directional migration is an important component of cell motility. Although the basic mechanisms of random cell movement are well characterized, no single model explains the complex regulation of directional migration. Multiple factors operate at each step of cell migration to stabilize lamellipodia and maintain directional migration. Factors such as the topography of the extracellular matrix, the cellular polarity machinery, receptor signalling, integrin trafficking, integrin co-receptors and actomyosin contraction converge on regulation of the Rho family of GTPases and the control of lamellipodial protrusions to promote directional migration.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Cell Biol
                J. Cell Biol
                jcb
                The Journal of Cell Biology
                The Rockefeller University Press
                0021-9525
                1540-8140
                30 April 2012
                : 197
                : 3
                : 439-455
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Laboratory of Cell and Developmental Biology, National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research ; and [2 ]Auditory Mechanics Section, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Ryan J. Petrie: petrier@ 123456mail.nih.gov ; or Kenneth M. Yamada: kyamada@ 123456mail.nih.gov
                Article
                201201124
                10.1083/jcb.201201124
                3341168
                22547408
                19829852-a0af-4cb3-832f-837b32e59651
                Copyright @ 2012

                This article is distributed under the terms of an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike–No Mirror Sites license for the first six months after the publication date (see http://www.rupress.org/terms). After six months it is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, as described at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).

                History
                : 23 January 2012
                : 30 March 2012
                Categories
                Research Articles
                Article

                Cell biology
                Cell biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article