Force transmission is a master regulator of mechanical cell competition
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Cell competition is a tissue surveillance mechanism for eliminating unwanted cells, being indispensable in development, infection and tumourigenesis. Although studies have established the role of biochemical mechanisms in this process, due to challenges in measuring forces in these systems, how mechanical forces determine the competition outcome remains unclear. Here we report a form of cell competition that is regulated by differences in force transmission capabilities, selecting for cell types with stronger intercellular adhesion. Direct force measurements in ex vivo tissues and different cell lines reveal that there is an increased mechanical activity at the interface between two competing cell types, which can lead to large stress fluctuations resulting in upward forces and cell elimination. We show how a winning cell type endowed with a stronger intercellular adhesion exhibits higher resistance to elimination and benefiting from efficient force transmission to the neighbouring cells. This cell elimination mechanism could have broad implications for keeping the strong force transmission ability for maintaining tissue boundaries and cell invasion pathology.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Cellular Mechanics and Interactions · Hippo pathway signaling and YAP/TAZ · Cell Image Analysis Techniques
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (68)
Show source-provided references
1. Baker, N. E. Emerging mechanisms of cell competition. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 683–697 (2020).10.1038/s41576-020-0262-8 ↗
2. van Neerven, S. M. & Vermeulen, L. Cell competition in development, homeostasis and cancer. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-022-00538-y (2022).10.1038/s41580-022-00538-y ↗
3. Parker, T. M. et al. Cell competition in intratumoral and tumor microenvironment interactions. EMBO J. 40, e107271 (2021).10.15252/embj.2020107271 ↗
4. Vishwakarma, M. & Piddini, E. Outcompeting cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 20, 187–198 (2020).10.1038/s41568-019-0231-8 ↗
5. Brás-Pereira, C. & Moreno, E. Mechanical cell competition. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 51, 15–21 (2018).10.1016/j.ceb.2017.10.003 ↗
6. Levayer, R. Solid stress, competition for space and cancer: the opposing roles of mechanical cell competition in tumour initiation and growth. Semin. Cancer Biol. 63, 69–80 (2020).10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.05.004 ↗
7. Wagstaff, L. et al. Mechanical cell competition kills cells via induction of lethal p53 levels. Nat. Commun. 7, 11373 (2016).10.1038/ncomms11373 ↗
8. Bastounis, E. E. et al. Mechanical competition triggered by innate immune signaling drives the collective extrusion of bacterially infected epithelial cells. Dev. Cell 56, 443–460.e11 (2021).10.1016/j.devcel.2021.01.012 ↗
9. Levayer, R., Dupont, C. & Moreno, E. Tissue crowding induces caspase-dependent competition for space. Curr. Biol. 26, 670–677 (2016).10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.072 ↗
10. Price, C. J. et al. Genetically variant human pluripotent stem cells selectively eliminate wild-type counterparts through YAP-mediated cell competition. Dev. Cell 56, 2455–2470.e10 (2021).10.1016/j.devcel.2021.07.019 ↗
11. Shraiman, B. I. Mechanical feedback as a possible regulator of tissue growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 3318–3323 (2005).10.1073/pnas.0404782102 ↗
12. Gradeci, D. et al. Cell-scale biophysical determinants of cell competition in epithelia. eLife 10, e61011 (2021).10.7554/eLife.61011 ↗
13. Basan, M., Risler, T., Joanny, J., Sastre‐Garau, X. & Prost, J. Homeostatic competition drives tumor growth and metastasis nucleation. HFSP J. 3, 265–272 (2009).10.2976/1.3086732 ↗
14. Pothapragada, S. P., Gupta, P., Mukherjee, S. & Das, T. Matrix mechanics regulates epithelial defence against cancer by tuning dynamic localization of filamin. Nat. Commun. 13, 218 (2022).10.1038/s41467-021-27896-z ↗
15. Aparicio-Yuste, R., Muenkel, M., Clark, A. G., Gómez-Benito, M. J. & Bastounis, E. E. A stiff extracellular matrix favors the mechanical cell competition that leads to extrusion of bacterially-infected epithelial cells. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 10, 912318 (2022).10.3389/fcell.2022.912318 ↗
16. Nishio, M. et al. Hippo pathway controls cell adhesion and context-dependent cell competition to influence skin engraftment efficiency. FASEB J. 33, 5548–5560 (2019).10.1096/fj.201802005R ↗
17. Moreno, E., Valon, L., Levillayer, F. & Levayer, R. Competition for space induces cell elimination through compaction-driven ERK downregulation. Curr. Biol. 29, 23–34.e8 (2019).10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.007 ↗
18. Moitrier, S. et al. Collective stresses drive competition between monolayers of normal and Ras-transformed cells. Soft Matter 15, 537–545 (2019).10.1039/C8SM01523F ↗
19. Hogan, C. et al. Characterization of the interface between normal and transformed epithelial cells. Nat. Cell Biol. 11, 460–467 (2009).10.1038/ncb1853 ↗
20. Porazinski, S. et al. EphA2 drives the segregation of Ras-transformed epithelial cells from normal neighbors. Curr. Biol. 26, 3220–3229 (2016).10.1016/j.cub.2016.09.037 ↗
21. Klipa, O., El Gammal, M. & Hamaratoglu, F. Elimination of aberrantly specified cell clones is independent of interfacial myosin II accumulation. J. Cell Sci. 136, jcs259935 (2023).10.1242/jcs.259935 ↗
22. Bielmeier, C. et al. Interface contractility between differently fated cells drives cell elimination and cyst formation. Curr. Biol. 26, 563–574 (2016).10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.063 ↗
23. Kuromiya, K. et al. Calcium sparks enhance the tissue fluidity within epithelial layers and promote apical extrusion of transformed cells. Cell Rep. 40, 111078 (2022).10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111078 ↗
24. Ladoux, B. & Mège, R.-M. Mechanobiology of collective cell behaviours. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 18, 743–757 (2017).10.1038/nrm.2017.98 ↗
25. Kale, G. R. et al. Distinct contributions of tensile and shear stress on E-cadherin levels during morphogenesis. Nat. Commun. 9, 5021 (2018).10.1038/s41467-018-07448-8 ↗
26. Noordstra, I. et al. An E-cadherin-actin clutch translates the mechanical force of cortical flow for cell-cell contact to inhibit epithelial cell locomotion. Dev. Cell https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2023.06.011 (2023).10.1016/j.devcel.2023.06.011 ↗
27. Bazellières, E. et al. Control of cell–cell forces and collective cell dynamics by the intercellular adhesome. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 409–420 (2015).10.1038/ncb3135 ↗
28. Perez-Vale, K. Z. et al. Multivalent interactions make adherens junction–cytoskeletal linkage robust during morphogenesis. J. Cell Biol. 220, e202104087 (2021).10.1083/jcb.202104087 ↗
29. Malinverno, C. et al. Endocytic reawakening of motility in jammed epithelia. Nat. Mater. 16, 587–596 (2017).10.1038/nmat4848 ↗
30. Ollech, D. et al. An optochemical tool for light-induced dissociation of adherens junctions to control mechanical coupling between cells. Nat. Commun. 11, 472 (2020).10.1038/s41467-020-14390-1 ↗
31. Reddy, T. P. et al. A comprehensive overview of metaplastic breast cancer: clinical features and molecular aberrations. Breast Cancer Res. 22, 121 (2020).10.1186/s13058-020-01353-z ↗
32. Zhang, Y., Toy, K. A. & Kleer, C. G. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are enriched in markers of tumor-initiating cells and epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Mod. Pathol. 25, 178–184 (2012).10.1038/modpathol.2011.167 ↗
33. Balasubramaniam, L. et al. Investigating the nature of active forces in tissues reveals how contractile cells can form extensile monolayers. Nat. Mater. 20, 1156–1166 (2021).10.1038/s41563-021-00919-2 ↗
34. Steinberg, M. S. & Takeichi, M. Experimental specification of cell sorting, tissue spreading, and specific spatial patterning by quantitative differences in cadherin expression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 206–209 (1994).10.1073/pnas.91.1.206 ↗
35. Vedula, S. R. K. et al. Emerging modes of collective cell migration induced by geometrical constraints. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12974–12979 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1119313109 ↗
36. Glentis, A. et al. The emergence of spontaneous coordinated epithelial rotation on cylindrical curved surfaces. Sci. Adv. 8, eabn5406 (2022).10.1126/sciadv.abn5406 ↗
37. Adams, C. L., Chen, Y.-T., Smith, S. J. & James Nelson, W. Mechanisms of epithelial cell–cell adhesion and cell compaction revealed by high-resolution tracking of E-cadherin–green fluorescent protein. J. Cell Biol. 142, 1105–1119 (1998).10.1083/jcb.142.4.1105 ↗
38. Rhys, A. D. et al. Loss of E-cadherin provides tolerance to centrosome amplification in epithelial cancer cells. J. Cell Biol. 217, 195–209 (2017).10.1083/jcb.201704102 ↗
39. Eisenhoffer, G. T. et al. Crowding induces live cell extrusion to maintain homeostatic cell numbers in epithelia. Nature 484, 546–549 (2012).10.1038/nature10999 ↗
40. Marinari, E. et al. Live-cell delamination counterbalances epithelial growth to limit tissue overcrowding. Nature 484, 542–545 (2012).10.1038/nature10984 ↗
41. Saw, T. B. et al. Topological defects in epithelia govern cell death and extrusion. Nature 544, 212–216 (2017).10.1038/nature21718 ↗
42. Yang, Y.-A. et al. Local contractions regulate E-cadherin rigidity sensing. Sci. Adv. 8, eabk0387 (2022).10.1126/sciadv.abk0387 ↗
43. Nier, V. et al. Inference of internal stress in a cell monolayer. Biophys. J. 110, 1625–1635 (2016).10.1016/j.bpj.2016.03.002 ↗
44. Sonam, S. et al. Mechanical stress driven by rigidity sensing governs epithelial stability. Nat. Phys. 19, 132–141 (2023).10.1038/s41567-022-01826-2 ↗
45. Kong, W. et al. Experimental validation of force inference in epithelia from cell to tissue scale. Sci. Rep. 9, 14647 (2019).10.1038/s41598-019-50690-3 ↗
46. Paoli, P., Giannoni, E. & Chiarugi, P. Anoikis molecular pathways and its role in cancer progression. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 1833, 3481–3498 (2013).10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.06.026 ↗
47. Borghi, N. et al. E-cadherin is under constitutive actomyosin-generated tension that is increased at cell–cell contacts upon externally applied stretch. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12568–12573 (2012).10.1073/pnas.1204390109 ↗
48. Schwartz, M. A. & DeSimone, D. W. Cell adhesion receptors in mechanotransduction. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 20, 551–556 (2008).10.1016/j.ceb.2008.05.005 ↗
49. Liu, Z. et al. Mechanical tugging force regulates the size of cell–cell junctions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9944–9949 (2010).10.1073/pnas.0914547107 ↗
50. Monfared, S., Ravichandran, G., Andrade, J. & Doostmohammadi, A. Mechanical basis and topological routes to cell elimination. eLife 12, e82435 (2023).10.7554/eLife.82435 ↗
51. Balasubramaniam, L. et al. Dynamic forces shape the survival fate of eliminated cells. Nat. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02716-5 (2025).10.1038/s41567-024-02716-5 ↗
52. Durand, M. & Heu, J. Thermally driven order-disorder transition in two-dimensional soft cellular systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 188001 (2019).10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.188001 ↗
53. Park, J.-A. et al. Unjamming and cell shape in the asthmatic airway epithelium. Nat. Mater. 14, 1040–1048 (2015).10.1038/nmat4357 ↗
54. Cai, Y. et al. Nonmuscle myosin IIa-dependent force inhibits cell spreading and drives F-actin flow. Biophys. J. 91, 3907–3920 (2006).10.1529/biophysj.106.084806 ↗
55. Ellis, S. J. et al. Distinct modes of cell competition shape mammalian tissue morphogenesis. Nature 569, 497–502 (2019).10.1038/s41586-019-1199-y ↗
56. Onder, T. T. et al. Loss of E-cadherin promotes metastasis via multiple downstream transcriptional pathways. Cancer Res. 68, 3645–3654 (2008).10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2938 ↗
57. Ohsawa, S., Vaughen, J. & Igaki, T. Cell extrusion: a stress-responsive force for good or evil in epithelial homeostasis. Dev. Cell 44, 284–296 (2018).10.1016/j.devcel.2018.01.009 ↗
58. Xi, W. et al. Modulation of designer biomimetic matrices for optimized differentiated intestinal epithelial cultures. Biomaterials 282, 121380 (2022).10.1016/j.biomaterials.2022.121380 ↗
59. Le, A. P. et al. Adhesion-mediated heterogeneous actin organization governs apoptotic cell extrusion. Nat. Commun. 12, 397 (2021).10.1038/s41467-020-20563-9 ↗
60. Villeneuve, C. et al. aPKCi triggers basal extrusion of luminal mammary epithelial cells by tuning contractility and vinculin localization at cell junctions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 24108–24114 (2019).10.1073/pnas.1906779116 ↗
61. Coussy, F. et al. A large collection of integrated genomically characterized patient-derived xenografts highlighting the heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 145, 1902–1912 (2019).10.1002/ijc.32266 ↗
62. Schindelin, J. et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat. Methods 9, 676–682 (2012).10.1038/nmeth.2019 ↗
63. Berg, S. et al. ilastik: interactive machine learning for (bio)image analysis. Nat. Methods 16, 1226–1232 (2019).10.1038/s41592-019-0582-9 ↗
64. Weigert, M., Schmidt, U., Haase, R., Sugawara, K. & Myers. G. Star-convex polyhedra for 3D object detection and segmentation in microscopy. In 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) 3655–3662 (IEEE, 2020).10.1109/WACV45572.2020.9093435 ↗
65. Stringer, C., Wang, T., Michaelos, M. & Pachitariu, M. Cellpose: a generalist algorithm for cellular segmentation. Nat. Methods 18, 100–106 (2021).10.1038/s41592-020-01018-x ↗
66. Tinevez, J.-Y. et al. TrackMate: an open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking. Methods 115, 80–90 (2017).10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.09.016 ↗
67. Abercrombie, M. Contact inhibition and malignancy. Nature 281, 259–262 (1979).10.1038/281259a0 ↗
68. Abercrombie, M. & Heaysman, J. E. M. Observations on the social behaviour of cells in tissue culture: II. ‘Monolayering’ of fibroblasts. Exp. Cell Res.6, 293–306 (1954).10.1016/0014-4827(54)90176-7 ↗