Balance between cell−substrate adhesion and myosin contraction determines the frequency of motility initiation in fish keratocytes

Significance Symmetry breaking and motility initiation are required for many physiological and pathological processes, but the mechanical mechanisms that drive symmetry breaking are not well understood. Fish keratocytes break symmetry spontaneously, in the absence of external cues, with myosin-driven actin flow preceding rear retraction. Here we combine experimental manipulations and mathematical modeling to show that the critical event for symmetry breaking is a flow-dependent, nonlinear switch in adhesion strength. Moreover, our results suggest that mechanical feedback among actin network flow, myosin, and adhesion is sufficient to amplify stochastic fluctuations in actin flow and trigger symmetry breaking. Our mechanical model for symmetry breaking in the relatively simple keratocyte provides a framework for understanding motility initiation in more complex cell types. Cells are dynamic systems capable of spontaneously switching among stable states. One striking example of this is spontaneous symmetry breaking and motility initiation in fish epithelial keratocytes. Although the biochemical and mechanical mechanisms that control steady-state migration in these cells have been well characterized, the mechanisms underlying symmetry breaking are less well understood. In this work, we have combined experimental manipulations of cell−substrate adhesion strength and myosin activity, traction force measurements, and mathematical modeling to develop a comprehensive mechanical model for symmetry breaking and motility initiation in fish epithelial keratocytes. Our results suggest that stochastic fluctuations in adhesion strength and myosin localization drive actin network flow rates in the prospective cell rear above a critical threshold. Above this threshold, high actin flow rates induce a nonlinear switch in adhesion strength, locally switching adhesions from gripping to slipping and further accelerating actin flow in the prospective cell rear, resulting in rear retraction and motility initiation. We further show, both experimentally and with model simulations, that the global levels of adhesion strength and myosin activity control the stability of the stationary state: The frequency of symmetry breaking decreases with increasing adhesion strength and increases with increasing myosin contraction. Thus, the relative strengths of two opposing mechanical forces—contractility and cell−substrate adhesion—determine the likelihood of spontaneous symmetry breaking and motility initiation.

[1]  Gaudenz Danuser,et al.  Myosin II contributes to cell-scale actin network treadmilling via network disassembly , 2010, Nature.

[2]  Jean-Jacques Meister,et al.  Force transmission in migrating cells , 2010, The Journal of cell biology.

[3]  Lani Wu,et al.  Spontaneous Cell Polarization Through Actomyosin-Based Delivery of the Cdc42 GTPase , 2003, Science.

[4]  Timothy J Mitchison,et al.  Dissecting Temporal and Spatial Control of Cytokinesis with a Myosin II Inhibitor , 2003, Science.

[5]  David J Odde,et al.  Traction Dynamics of Filopodia on Compliant Substrates , 2008, Science.

[6]  S. Watabe,et al.  Calcium-independent activation of contractile apparatus in smooth muscle by calyculin-A. , 1989, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[7]  Clare M Waterman,et al.  High resolution traction force microscopy based on experimental and computational advances. , 2008, Biophysical journal.

[8]  Pablo A Iglesias,et al.  Navigating through models of chemotaxis. , 2008, Current opinion in cell biology.

[9]  Gary G. Borisy,et al.  Self-polarization and directional motility of cytoplasm , 1999, Current Biology.

[10]  Gaudenz Danuser,et al.  Traction stress in focal adhesions correlates biphasically with actin retrograde flow speed , 2008, The Journal of cell biology.

[11]  Gaudenz Danuser,et al.  Actin–myosin network reorganization breaks symmetry at the cell rear to spontaneously initiate polarized cell motility , 2007, The Journal of cell biology.

[12]  R. Mullins Cytoskeletal mechanisms for breaking cellular symmetry. , 2010, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[13]  K. Burridge,et al.  Rho protein crosstalk: another social network? , 2011, Trends in cell biology.

[14]  S. Grill,et al.  Cell polarity: mechanochemical patterning. , 2013, Trends in cell biology.

[15]  J. Priess,et al.  Cortical flows powered by asymmetrical contraction transport PAR proteins to establish and maintain anterior-posterior polarity in the early C. elegans embryo. , 2004, Developmental cell.

[16]  J. van der Gucht,et al.  Physical model of cellular symmetry breaking. , 2009, Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology.

[17]  Wendell A. Lim,et al.  Designing Synthetic Regulatory Networks Capable of Self-Organizing Cell Polarization , 2012, Cell.

[18]  Clare M Waterman,et al.  Mechanical integration of actin and adhesion dynamics in cell migration. , 2010, Annual review of cell and developmental biology.

[19]  E Ruoslahti,et al.  New perspectives in cell adhesion: RGD and integrins. , 1987, Science.

[20]  L. Cramer,et al.  Actin Depolymerization-Based Force Retracts the Cell Rear in Polarizing and Migrating Cells , 2011, Current Biology.

[21]  Ken Jacobson,et al.  Actin-myosin viscoelastic flow in the keratocyte lamellipod. , 2009, Biophysical journal.

[22]  J A Theriot,et al.  Motility of ActA protein-coated microspheres driven by actin polymerization. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  Julie A. Theriot,et al.  An Adhesion-Dependent Switch between Mechanisms That Determine Motile Cell Shape , 2011, PLoS biology.

[24]  Julie A. Theriot,et al.  Cooperative symmetry-breaking by actin polymerization in a model for cell motility , 1999, Nature Cell Biology.

[25]  P. Schwille,et al.  Spatial Regulators for Bacterial Cell Division Self-Organize into Surface Waves in Vitro , 2008, Science.

[26]  Frank Jülicher,et al.  Theory of mitotic spindle oscillations. , 2005, Physical review letters.

[27]  S. Zigmond,et al.  Cell polarity: an examination of its behavioral expression and its consequences for polymorphonuclear leukocyte chemotaxis , 1981, The Journal of cell biology.

[28]  G. I. Bell Models for the specific adhesion of cells to cells. , 1978, Science.

[29]  T. Coates,et al.  Relationship of F-actin distribution to development of polar shape in human polymorphonuclear neutrophils , 1992, The Journal of cell biology.

[30]  A. M. Turing,et al.  The chemical basis of morphogenesis , 1952, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences.

[31]  K. Jacobson,et al.  Traction forces generated by locomoting keratocytes , 1994, The Journal of cell biology.

[32]  Jonathon Howard,et al.  Mechanical signaling in networks of motor and cytoskeletal proteins. , 2009, Annual review of biophysics.

[33]  Jasper van der Gucht,et al.  Stress release drives symmetry breaking for actin-based movement , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  Louise P. Cramer,et al.  Forming the cell rear first: breaking cell symmetry to trigger directed cell migration , 2010, Nature Cell Biology.