172
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Plasticity of cell migration: a multiscale tuning model

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 1 ,
      The Journal of Cell Biology
      The Rockefeller University Press

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tensional homeostasis and the malignant phenotype.

          Tumors are stiffer than normal tissue, and tumors have altered integrins. Because integrins are mechanotransducers that regulate cell fate, we asked whether tissue stiffness could promote malignant behavior by modulating integrins. We found that tumors are rigid because they have a stiff stroma and elevated Rho-dependent cytoskeletal tension that drives focal adhesions, disrupts adherens junctions, perturbs tissue polarity, enhances growth, and hinders lumen formation. Matrix stiffness perturbs epithelial morphogenesis by clustering integrins to enhance ERK activation and increase ROCK-generated contractility and focal adhesions. Contractile, EGF-transformed epithelia with elevated ERK and Rho activity could be phenotypically reverted to tissues lacking focal adhesions if Rho-generated contractility or ERK activity was decreased. Thus, ERK and Rho constitute part of an integrated mechanoregulatory circuit linking matrix stiffness to cytoskeletal tension through integrins to regulate tissue phenotype.
            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
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Migration of tumor cells in 3D matrices is governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis.

              Cell migration on 2D surfaces is governed by a balance between counteracting tractile and adhesion forces. Although biochemical factors such as adhesion receptor and ligand concentration and binding, signaling through cell adhesion complexes, and cytoskeletal structure assembly/disassembly have been studied in detail in a 2D context, the critical biochemical and biophysical parameters that affect cell migration in 3D matrices have not been quantitatively investigated. We demonstrate that, in addition to adhesion and tractile forces, matrix stiffness is a key factor that influences cell movement in 3D. Cell migration assays in which Matrigel density, fibronectin concentration, and beta1 integrin binding are systematically varied show that at a specific Matrigel density the migration speed of DU-145 human prostate carcinoma cells is a balance between tractile and adhesion forces. However, when biochemical parameters such as matrix ligand and cell integrin receptor levels are held constant, maximal cell movement shifts to matrices exhibiting lesser stiffness. This behavior contradicts current 2D models but is predicted by a recent force-based computational model of cell movement in a 3D matrix. As expected, this 3D motility through an extracellular environment of pore size much smaller than cellular dimensions does depend on proteolytic activity as broad-spectrum matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) inhibitors limit the migration of DU-145 cells and also HT-1080 fibrosarcoma cells. Our experimental findings here represent, to our knowledge, discovery of a previously undescribed set of balances of cell and matrix properties that govern the ability of tumor cells to migration in 3D environments.
                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
                11 January 2010
                : 188
                : 1
                : 11-19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cell Biology, Nijmegen Centre for Molecular Life Sciences, Radboud University Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
                [2 ]Rudolf Virchow Center, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Research Center for Experimental Biomedicine and Department of Dermatology, University of Würzburg, 97980 Würzburg, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Peter Friedl: P.Friedl@ 123456ncmls.ru.nl ; or Katarina Wolf: K.Wolf@ 123456ncmls.ru.nl
                Article
                200909003
                10.1083/jcb.200909003
                2812848
                19951899
                3e23f2de-fe96-448e-b202-94a2f7d16247
                © 2009 Friedl and Wolf

                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.jcb.org/misc/terms.shtml). 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
                : 1 September 2009
                : 29 October 2009
                Categories
                Reviews
                Review

                Cell biology
                Cell biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article