Volume 19, Issue 22, Pages (December 2009)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Advertisements

Adhesion Disengagement Uncouples Intrinsic and Extrinsic Forces to Drive Cytokinesis in Epithelial Tissues  Charlène Guillot, Thomas Lecuit  Developmental.
Héctor Herranz, Ruifen Weng, Stephen M. Cohen  Current Biology 
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 24, Issue 15, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages (January 2010)
Harinath Doodhi, Eugene A. Katrukha, Lukas C. Kapitein, Anna Akhmanova 
Architecture and Connectivity Govern Actin Network Contractility
Wei-Hsiang Lin, Edo Kussell  Current Biology 
The DHHC Palmitoyltransferase Approximated Regulates Fat Signaling and Dachs Localization and Activity  Hitoshi Matakatsu, Seth S. Blair  Current Biology 
Ying Wang, Veit Riechmann  Current Biology 
Myosin II Dynamics Are Regulated by Tension in Intercalating Cells
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages (January 2015)
Volume 17, Issue 24, Pages (December 2007)
Emergence of an Apical Epithelial Cell Surface In Vivo
Transcriptional Memory in the Drosophila Embryo
Yusuke Hara, Murat Shagirov, Yusuke Toyama  Current Biology 
Mutual Repression by Bantam miRNA and Capicua Links the EGFR/MAPK and Hippo Pathways in Growth Control  Héctor Herranz, Xin Hong, Stephen M. Cohen  Current.
Volume 18, Issue 21, Pages (November 2008)
Volume 27, Issue 20, Pages e4 (October 2017)
Opposing Transcriptional Outputs of Hedgehog Signaling and Engrailed Control Compartmental Cell Sorting at the Drosophila A/P Boundary  Christian Dahmann,
Heng Lu, Adam Sokolow, Daniel P. Kiehart, Glenn S. Edwards 
Nicolas Minc, Fred Chang  Current Biology 
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages (February 2013)
A Rho GTPase Signaling Pathway Is Used Reiteratively in Epithelial Folding and Potentially Selects the Outcome of Rho Activation  Kelly K. Nikolaidou,
Integrin Signaling Regulates Spindle Orientation in Drosophila to Preserve the Follicular- Epithelium Monolayer  Ana Fernández-Miñán, María D. Martín-Bermudo,
Nicolas Catz, Peter W. Dicke, Peter Thier  Current Biology 
Organ Size Control: Lessons from Drosophila
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages (July 2011)
Dynamics of Inductive ERK Signaling in the Drosophila Embryo
Transcription in the Absence of Histone H3.2 and H3K4 Methylation
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages (December 2016)
Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages (April 2010)
Volume 24, Issue 15, Pages (August 2014)
Volume 27, Issue 9, Pages (May 2017)
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages (January 2011)
Luis Alberto Baena-López, Antonio Baonza, Antonio García-Bellido 
The Centriolar Protein Bld10/Cep135 Is Required to Establish Centrosome Asymmetry in Drosophila Neuroblasts  Priyanka Singh, Anjana Ramdas Nair, Clemens.
Volume 22, Issue 14, Pages (July 2012)
Christian Schröter, Andrew C. Oates  Current Biology 
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 25, Issue 8, Pages (April 2015)
The LRR Proteins Capricious and Tartan Mediate Cell Interactions during DV Boundary Formation in the Drosophila Wing  Marco Milán, Ulrich Weihe, Lidia.
Quantitative Imaging of Transcription in Living Drosophila Embryos Links Polymerase Activity to Patterning  Hernan G. Garcia, Mikhail Tikhonov, Albert.
Imaginal discs Current Biology
Volume 19, Issue 18, Pages (September 2009)
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages (February 2013)
Dendrites of Distinct Classes of Drosophila Sensory Neurons Show Different Capacities for Homotypic Repulsion  Wesley B. Grueber, Bing Ye, Adrian W. Moore,
Ying Wang, Veit Riechmann  Current Biology 
Propagation of Dachsous-Fat Planar Cell Polarity
Volume 8, Issue 2, Pages (February 2005)
A Role of Receptor Notch in Ligand cis-Inhibition in Drosophila
Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages (February 2010)
Yu-Chiun Wang, Zia Khan, Eric F. Wieschaus  Developmental Cell 
Amy Brittle, Chloe Thomas, David Strutt  Current Biology 
Franziska Aurich, Christian Dahmann  Cell Reports 
Sandra Claret, Matthieu Sanial, Anne Plessis  Current Biology 
Volume 112, Issue 10, Pages (May 2017)
Héctor Herranz, Ruifen Weng, Stephen M. Cohen  Current Biology 
Adam Sokolow, Yusuke Toyama, Daniel P. Kiehart, Glenn S. Edwards 
The LRR Proteins Capricious and Tartan Mediate Cell Interactions during DV Boundary Formation in the Drosophila Wing  Marco Milán, Ulrich Weihe, Lidia.
Microtubule Severing at Crossover Sites by Katanin Generates Ordered Cortical Microtubule Arrays in Arabidopsis  Quan Zhang, Erica Fishel, Tyler Bertroche,
Patterns of Stem Cell Divisions Contribute to Plant Longevity
F. Christian Bennett, Kieran F. Harvey  Current Biology 
Volume 18, Issue 20, Pages (October 2008)
Volume 20, Issue 19, Pages (October 2010)
Marie P. Suver, Akira Mamiya, Michael H. Dickinson  Current Biology 
Lineage compartments in Drosophila
Brent S. Wells, Eri Yoshida, Laura A. Johnston  Current Biology 
Novel Functions for Integrins in Epithelial Morphogenesis
Presentation transcript:

Volume 19, Issue 22, Pages 1950-1955 (December 2009) Increased Cell Bond Tension Governs Cell Sorting at the Drosophila Anteroposterior Compartment Boundary  Katharina P. Landsberg, Reza Farhadifar, Jonas Ranft, Daiki Umetsu, Thomas J. Widmann, Thomas Bittig, Amani Said, Frank Jülicher, Christian Dahmann  Current Biology  Volume 19, Issue 22, Pages 1950-1955 (December 2009) DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021 Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Morphology of Cells at the A/P Boundary (A) Top view of a control wing disc stained as indicated. The scale bar represents 5 μm. Anterior is to the left. (B) Network of cell bonds (light green lines) connected at vertices (green dots) determined by automated image analysis from the image shown in (A). Rows of A1 and P1 cells adjacent to the compartment boundary (red line) and angles ϕ ≤ 180° between neighboring cell bonds are indicated. (C) Average apical cross-section areas An¯ of n-sided cells (polygons), normalized to the average apical cross-section area A¯ of each image shown for A1 cells, P1 cells, and all anterior (A) and posterior (P) cells as a function of n. Mean and standard error of the mean (SEM) are shown (n = 10 wing discs). (D) Difference of the average angle ϕ¯AP along the A/P boundary and the average angle ϕ¯ of neighboring bonds within the tissue. Data are averaged over ten images and normalized to ϕ¯ for control (zipEbr/+) and zipEbr/zip2 mutant wing discs. Mean and SEM are shown. (Control: nAP = 228, n = 12429 from ten wing discs, ϕ¯ = 119.80 ± 0.19°, for ϕ¯AP and ϕ¯ p < 0.001; mutant: nAP = 114, n = 4552 from ten wing discs, ϕ¯ = 119.46 ± 0.40°; ∗p = 0.007.) Current Biology 2009 19, 1950-1955DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Morphology of Cells at Ectopic Borders of Hedgehog Signal Transduction or Engrailed and Invected Activity (A–C) smo1/smo3, tubα1 > hh (A and B) or enE ci94 (C) clones of cells located in the (A and C) posterior or (B) anterior compartment identified by the absence of (A and B) CD2 or (C) GFP staining (green). E-cadherin staining is shown in magenta. (D–F) Average apical cross-section areas of n-sided cells An¯, normalized to the average apical cross-section area A¯ of each image shown for clone cells C1 and wild-type cells W1, adjacent to the interface between the clone cells (C cells) and wild-type cells (W cells), and for C and W cells. Data shown in (D), (E), and (F) correspond to the experiments depicted in (A), (B), and (C), respectively. Mean and SEM are shown. (G) Difference of the average angle ϕ¯CW along the clone boundaries and the average angle in the entire image ϕ¯ normalized to ϕ¯ for the experiments shown in (A)–(C). Mean and SEM are shown (p = 0.027, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, n = 228, 240, and 332 angles at clone borders and 2960, 9979, and 7441 for angles elsewhere in the images for experiments depicted in A, B, and C, respectively). Scale bars represent 10 μm. Current Biology 2009 19, 1950-1955DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Vertex Displacements in Response to Laser Ablation of Cell Bonds (A) Images of E-Cadherin-GFP-expressing wing discs before and after single-cell bonds were ablated. Posterior cells are also labeled by GFP-gpi. (B) Change in distance d between vertices at the ends of cell bonds after ablation as a function of time. Values are normalized to the average cell bond length in the tissue ℓ¯ = 1.7 μm. The types of ablated cell bonds are indicated. A1/A2 refers to cell bonds between A1 cells and their anterior cell neighbors. Mean and SEM are shown. (C) Initial velocity v0 of vertex separation upon laser ablation shown in (B). Mean and standard error are shown. (D–F) Patterns of radial displacement Dr of all vertices located at a distance of up to two average bond lengths from the cut point (red dots) shown as a function of the angle ϑ (see inset in D). Values are normalized to the average bond length ℓ¯. A fit of the data points to a cosine function is shown (black line). Inset in (D) is a schematic representation of displacement vectors D with radial component Dr and tangential component Dϑ of vertices located at distance r from the cut point (red dot) at an angle ϑ relative to the cut bond axis (yellow line). The number of experiments was as follows: A/A, n = 20; P/P, n = 17; and A/P, n = 26. (G and H) Same as (D)–(F), except that data were obtained by simulating A/A and P/P cell bond ablations for λ = 1 (G) and A/P cell bond ablations for λ = 2.5 (H). (I) Maxima of the radial displacements Drmax determined by the fits shown in (D)–(H) normalized to the average cell bond length ℓ¯. The mean experimental values are indicated as horizontal lines (standard errors are depicted). The mean values and standard errors obtained from simulations with different λ are shown as black squares and bars. Current Biology 2009 19, 1950-1955DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Simulations of Interfaces between Two Growing Cell Populations (A and B) Final configurations of the networks of cell bonds obtained by simulating the growth of two adjacent cell populations (anterior is blue and posterior is red) for values of (A) λ = 1 and (B) λ = 2.5. (C) Roughness w of the interface between two cell populations as a function of distance L parallel to the interface normalized by the average bond length ℓ¯ for simulations with different values of λ as indicated and for the A/P boundary in control (zipEbr/+) and zip2/zipEbr mutant third-instar wing discs. Mean and SEM are shown (for control and zip2/zipEbr: p = 0.02–0.04 for different L, n = 5). (D) Model of heterotypic interactions between two gene products (yellow pentagons) at the A/P boundary (red line) guiding cell sorting and a simplified view of the Hedgehog signaling system (see legend to Figure S1). Current Biology 2009 19, 1950-1955DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions

Figure A Network of Adherens Junctions Current Biology 2009 19, 1950-1955DOI: (10.1016/j.cub.2009.10.021) Copyright © 2009 Elsevier Ltd Terms and Conditions