Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mechanosensing and Mechanotransduction: how cells touch their world.

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Fig. 1: Cnidaria are probably one of the most ancient phyla of known Metazoa.

 

Metazoa, or multicellular organisms, are one of the amazing “novelties” in natural history. At some point, single eukaryotic cells begin to be organized in a new, incredibly complex plan: a multicellular organism.

It is well known and understood that one of the main tools to realize that innovation, that new expression of life, is cell differentiation. Cells, while sharing the same genome, become different, incredibly different one from the other. Stem cells differentiate and acquire, through amazing and still poorly understood epigenetic trajectories, completely different cellular phenotypes and functions. The miracle of transcription regulation, as we have seen in another recent OP, is at the center of multiple levels of control involved in that achievement.

But there is another important aspect in metazoa that is even less understood, and at least equally amazing. Cells do not only differentiate: they must form tissues and organs and, in the end, a whole body plan. Body plans are the distinctive feature of the highest categorization of metazoa, the phyla, those individualized general programs that, strangely, appear almost all at the same time at the famous Cambrian Explosion (or, in different and lost forms, even earlier, at the Ediacaran Explosion).

But body plans are made of individual organs, and individual organs are made of different tissues. How can cells, while differentiating and implementing their specific epigenetic programs, form tissues and organs and organisms?

First of all, we should ask: where are cells, while they do that? The subject of this OP is about that question: the relationship of individual cells with their “environment” in the organisms that is being formed and built.

Let’s clarify immediately a few points:

  1. The environment that we are considering here is not really an outer environment. IOWs, it is not the outer world, with all its contingent varieties. It is, instead, an environment that surrounds the cells and is strictly controlled and regulated. It is called the Extracellular Matrix (ECM).
  2. The ECM is created by none other than the cells themselves. They generate it, they control it, they regulate it, they remodel it in many different and complex ways. As we will see.
  3. The ECM is the environment where cells live, differentiate and move. It controls and regulates the individual cells in many ways. As we will see.
  4. The main feature that contributes to generate tissues, organs and body plans, together with cell differentiation, is cell migration. Cells have to move, to migrate according to a precise and strictly regulated plan. Without controlled migration no tissue, no organ can be formed. Cells that differentiate differently must migrate to different places in the growing organism.
  5. Cell migration is not only a pillar of organism development. It remains a basic feature of many cell systems even in “adult” life. That is specially true for important cell systems, first of all the immune system.
  6. All cell migrations happen in the ECM, and are controlled and implemented by the complex interactions between the cells and the ECM.
  7. Those interactions, surprisingly, are not only biochemical (as we usually imagine cell interactions to be), but mainly mechanical.
  8. The cell structures that mediate those interactions between the cells and their ECM are one of the most amazing examples of functional complexity in the cell. Yes, like the spliceosome, the ubiquitin system and the transcription regulation networks, that we have considered previously. As we will see

So, this is a brief summary, just to help the reader to follow the many aspects of this topic that will now be presented in greater detail.

Sounds interesting? It is.

  1. The Extracellular Matrix (ECM)

The ECM is, very simply, the 3D environment where cells exist. It is a very complex structure, and it is very different in different organisms and in different tissues. In bones, the ECM is strongly mineralized, in chartilage it is very dense but not mineralized. In other connective tissues, like reticular tissues, it can be very loose. For circulating cells in blood, plasma is the ECM. A special type of ECM is the basal membrane, which supports epitelial cells.

Here are two good reviews about ECM:

The extracellular matrix at a glance

Biology of the Extracellular Matrix: An Overview

This is how the second paper starts:

The extracellular matrix (ECM) is an intricate network composed of an array of multidomain macromolecules organized in a cell/tissue-specific manner. Components of the ECM link together to form a structurally stable composite, contributing to the mechanical properties of tissues. The ECM is also a reservoir of growth factors and bioactive molecules. It is a highly dynamic entity that is of vital importance, determining and controlling the most fundamental behaviors and characteristics of cells such as proliferation, adhesion, migration, polarity, differentiation, and apoptosis.

So, let’s understand better.

The cells that form a multicellular organism are embedded in a self-generated semi-fluid environment, the ECM. All of them.

Of course, some types of cell are also in contact with the external environment, the world. For example, epithelial cells represent the outer surface of the organism to the external world, for example the epidermis. But the basal part of the epithelial tissue is anyway firmly rooted in some form of ECM.

The ECM is, first of all, water with soluble components in it. This fluid part is called Extracellular fluid, or also Interstitial fluid. That water is our internal ocean, where the basic exhanges between cells and the rest of the organism (nutrients, oxygen, and so on) take place. While this fluid component is very important, it is not really the subject of our discussion here.

In this fluid component, however, cells secrete a lot of important insoluble big proteins and other molecules, that make the ECM what it is, in different tissues. Those substances are “immersed” in the Extracellular fluid, and determine the physical and mechanical properties of that outer environment.

Here is a good general review of those components of ECM, the so called matrisome:

Overview of the Matrisome—An Inventory of Extracellular Matrix Constituents and Functions

While there are many components of the ECM and the matrisome, they can be essentially categorized in three rather different classes of proteins:

  1. Collagens
  2. Glicoproteins
  3. Proteoglicans

About 1000 proteins seem to be implied in the composition of the ECM. However, almost 300 seem to be part of a basic core matrisome. I will refer here mainly to a recent compilation of that core matrisome (see in particular Fig. 1):

The extracellular matrix: Tools and insights for the “omics” era

Collagens

Collagens are fibrous proteins that build the basic structure of the ECM in most tissues.

I quote from the paper “Overview of the Matrisome”:

Collagens are found in all metazoa and provide structural strength to all forms of extracellular matrices, including the strong fibers of tendons, the organic matrices of bones and cartilages, the laminar sheets of basement membranes, the viscous matrix of the vitreous humor, and the interstitial ECMs of the dermis and of capsules around organs.

Fig.  2:  Vincent R. Sherman and Maria I. Lopez. Transmission electron micrograph of the collagen fibrils in rabbit skin. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

There are about 28 different collagen types, assembled from 44 different molecules, according to the core matrisome described in the second paper quoted above.

Collagens form the hard structure of the ECM. To simplify, each basic molecule of collagen (procollagen) is made of three collagen chains (for example, type 1 collagen is made of 2 alpha-1 chains and 1 alpha-2 chain), that form a right-handed triple helix. Out of the cell, those procollagen molecules are assemble into long fibrils and fibers.

One important concept is that, from the point of view os sequence, collagen is a relatively “simple” molecule, because it is formed mainly by highly repetitive short sequences of three AAs one of which is usually glycine, while proline and hydrossyproline are highly represented too. So, this is a rather “repetitive” sequence. But even so, the many modifications of the pattern generate an amazing complexity of the final result: 44 different genes and basic sequences are assembled into 28 different types of collagen triple helics, which have high specific properties and very different expression in different tissues. So, type I collagen is the most common form, present in skin, tendons, bones and many other important tissues. Type II is rather specific of chartilage. Type III makes the delicate reticular fibers so important in loose ECM. Type IV is mainly represented in the extremely important basal lamina that makes the basement membran in epithelial tissues. And so on.

Glycoproteins

These are  proteins which contain oligosaccharide chains. There are 195 of them included in the essential core matrisome mentioned above. Some of them are exremely important. In particular:

  • Elastin, which confers elasticity to tissues.
  • Laminin, which is an imprtant component of basal lamina in the basement membrane.
  • Fibronectin, about which we have to spend a few more words.

Fibronectin is a protein, or better a group of proteins, that connects to the other components of the ECM (collagens, proteoglycans) and to the cell (by the integrins, see later). Therefore, it is central in the implementation of practically all the complex functions in cell-ECM communication.

Fig. 3:  Fluorescent-labeled fibronectin on a layer of cells. It appears to be green in color. Fibronectin, a protein glue that anchors cells and hold them together often disappears when cells become cancerous. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fibronectin_(1).jpg  Source:    National Cancer Institute  Author: Linda Bartlett (Photographer) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Here is a very good review about fibronectin:

Assembly of Fibronectin Extracellular Matrix

And here are a few key points from that paper:

The extracellular matrix (ECM) has been recognized as an essential structural component in multicellular organisms for millennia (Plato trans. 1965). However, the old view of ECM as an inert scaffold is clearly incorrect. ECM is a dynamic network, a reservoir for growth factors and fluids, and an essential organizer of tissues, cellular microenvironments, and stem cell niches. It shows exquisite tissue specificity and adapts to changes in age, development, and disease. Even so, the molecular events that assemble secreted ECM proteins into complex networks are still not completely understood.

***

Fibronectin (FN) is a ubiquitous ECM glycoprotein that is assembled into a fibrillar matrix in all tissues and throughout all stages of life. Its assembly is a cell-mediated process (McDonald 1988) and is essential for life (George et al. 1993). FN fibrils form linear and branched meshworks around cells and connect neighboring cells

***

FN is a modular protein composed of types I, II, and III repeating units (Figure 1). Two intramolecular disulfide bonds form within each type I and type II module to stabilize the folded structure. Type III modules are seven-stranded β-barrel structures that lack disulfides (Leahy et al. 1996Potts & Campbell 1994). Modules are organized into binding sites for collagen/gelatin, integrins, heparin, FN, and other extracellular molecules (Figure 1).

***

FN exists in multiple isoforms generated by alternative splicing. The single FN gene transcript encodes 12 isoforms in rodents and cows and 20 isoforms in humans.

Fibronectin is a 2386 AAs long protein (in humans). As said, it is still a highly modular and partially repetitive sequence, but at a much more sophisticated level than collagen. Moreover, it definitely exhibits a huge re-engineering in vertebrates, with an information jump of 0.92 bits per aminoacid, corresponding to 2188 bits. With the necessary caution implied by the partially repetitive structure of the sequence, I would definitely say that those are huge numbers.

The “fibronectin meshwork” is therefore involved in many functions, but the one we will be focusing on here is its role, in association with integrins, in mechanosensing and cell migration.

Proteoglycans

Proteoglycans, previously known as mucopolysaccharides, are heavily glycosilated proteins, where the non protein content is represented by one or more chain of Glycosaminoglycan (GAG, a class of hetero-polysaccharides), and amounts to 50-60% of the molecule by weight (vs only 10-15% in glycoproteins).

They are important components of the ECM too.  There are 35 of them listed in the essential core matrisome quoted above.

They have been classified according to the GAG present in the molecule: Hyaluronates, Dermatan sulfates, Chondroitin sulfates, Heparan sulfates, Keratan sulfates. But the recent classifications are based on the protein component, and include: Aggrecan, Neurocan, Syndecans, Versican and many others.

They are not only found in ECM: they are important components of the cell membrane, too.

Their most evident role is mechanical: together with collagen, extracellular proteoglycans are the main determinants of the mechanical properties of ECM, like stiffness, elasticity, compressibility, and so on. But they have also a lot of biochemical functions. The topic is very complex, so for the moment we will not deal with it in detail.

  1. The cell-matrix interaction: Integrins and the Adhesome

How does the cell interact with the ECM?

There are many different ways, indeed. But we will focus here on the main and best known: the system of integrins.

Integrins are a family of transmembrane proteins that have a fundamental role in connecting cells to the ECM. They are heterodimers, and they are always made of an alpha chain + a beta chain. In mammals there are at least 18 alpha chains and at least 8 beta chains, forming at least 24 different heterodimers. Different heterodimers have different specificities and roles.

Alpha chains are about 1000 AAs long, beta chains are about 800 AAs long. While different alpha chains share moderate homology (for example, 25% identity between alpha 1 and alpha 5), and so do beta chains (for example, 46% identity between beta 1 and beta 2), alpha and beta chains share practically no homology between them.

Integrins are exquisitely metazoan proteins. A very simple repertoire is present in the simplest Metazoa, but the full repertoire that we find in mammals is detectable only in chordates, and more specifically in vertebrates. See here:

Integrins: Bidirectional Allosteric Signaling Machines

The Integrin Receptor Family: Evolution and Complexity

Integrins are restricted to the metazoa; no homologs are detected in prokaryotes, plants, or fungi (Whittaker and Hynes, 2002). The simplest metazoa, sponges and cnidaria, have integrins (Burke 1999Hughes 2001) and it is clear that primitive bilateria had at least two integrin αβ heterodimers, the descendents of which persist to this day in organisms as diverse as flies, nematodes, and vertebrates (Hynes and Zhao, 2000). Indeed, that is the entire set of integrins in Caenorhabditis elegans; one β subunit and two α subunits forming two integrins. Orthologs of these two integrins are recognized in Drosophila melanogaster and in vertebrates, although vertebrates have expanded each set (Figure 1). One set (blue in Figure 1) recognizes the tripeptide sequence, RGD, in molecules such as fibronectin and vitronectin in vertebrates and tiggrin in Drosophila, whereas the other set (purple in Figure 1) mediates adhesion to basement membrane laminins. It is plausible that evolution of integrins was necessary to allow the cell-matrix adhesion intrinsic to metazoa, and as diploblastic organisms evolved, the two cell layers may have evolved separate integrins to mediate their asymmetric interactions with the basal lamina; representatives of these two primordial integrins are detected in all higher metazoan phyla.
The same paper highlights the specificity of each integrin molecule:
Each of the 24 integrins shown in Figure 1 appears to have a specific, nonredundant function. In part, this is evident from the details of their ligand specificities (not shown in Figure 1) but is most clearly shown by the phenotypes of knockout mice (Table 1). Genes for the β subunits and all but four of the α subunits have been knocked out and each phenotype is distinct, reflecting the different roles of the various integrins. The phenotypes range from a complete block in preimplantation development (β1), through major developmental defects (α4, α5, αv, β8), to perinatal lethality (α3, α6, α8, αv, β4, β8) and defects in leukocyte function (αL, αM, αE, β2, β7), inflammation (β6), hemostasis (αIIb, β3, α2), bone remodeling (β3), and angiogenesis (α1, β3) as well as others
Indeed, integrins recognize many different ligands in different contexts. Many of them recognize the same rather simple ligand , the 3 AAs sequence Arg-Gly-Asp (RGD), but still the interaction is highly specific in different proteins. For e recent review of the specificity of integrin-ligand interaction, see here, in particular Table 1:

As transmembrane proteins, Integrins bind ECM components (ligands) with their extracellular part, and inner components of the cell, in particular actin, with their intracellular part. Both these interations are very complex. For those interested in details, I would recommend the following very good site, MBINFO, realized by the Mechanobiology Institute of the University of Singapore. I will use a few of their very clear images in the following discussion.

a) Integrin – ECM interaction.

The extracellular domain of the Integrin involves both chains, alpha and beta, and represents the bigger part of the molecule. Both chains have a transmebrane part, and a smaller intracellular tail.

The general structure is common to all integrin molecules. In a very simplified way, both the alpha and the beta chain can be described as a big extracellular “head” which rests on a very long “leg” that can bend at a “knee” region, and then goes through the membrane and ends with the intracellular tail.

 

Fig 4: A. Low-affinity integrin has an inactive, bent, conformation. B1 and B2. Inside-out integrin activation by cytoplasmic proteins or Outside-in integrin activation via ECM ligands both lead to complete extension of the extracellular domains. C. The hallmark of open, high-affinity activated integrin is separation of the cytoplasmic leg domains.  From: “How is integrin activated?”   licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Essentially, the Integrin can exist in two basic conformations:

a) The inactive conformation (A in Fig.1), in which the two chains are bent at the “knee”, and the intracellular tails are very near.

b) A fully active conformation, usually induced by interaction with inner components (B) or with extracellular ligands in the ECM (C), in which the two “legs” become fully extended, and divaricated, so that the two intracellular tails are separated (D).  The extracellular ligand interacts with the two “heads” in the open configuration.

Here is a similar, but more detailed, image of the two basic configurations:

 

Fig. 5: Inactive conformation of integrin (left) and a hypothetical model of the open, active form (right), with a fibrinogen peptide in red and a talin domain in magenta. From: PDB-101 Molecule of the month: Integrin.  Attribution: David S. Goodsell and the RCSB PDB. Licensed under a CC-BY-4.0 license

Following activation, integrins tend to migrate in the cell membrane and to form dynamic clusterings. Those clusterings of activated integrins mature into highly dynamic structures called Focal adhesions (FA).

We will see more about the complex functions of FAs later. For the moment, let’s anticipate that FAs are the key complex structure that mediates cell-ECM interactions, and that they have at least two major functions:

  1. In stationary cells, they anchor the cell to the surroundung ECM, and help to make the cell morphology stable.
  2. They are the essential structures that allow cell migration.

Fig. 6 shows a mature Focal Adhesion complex:

 

Fig 6: A mature FA contains hundreds of proteins that are grouped based on their contribution to four basic processes: receptor/matrix binding, linkage to actin cytoskeleton, intracellular signal transduction, and actin polymerization. Both actin polymerization and actomyosin contractile machinery generate forces that affect mechanosensitive proteins in the actin linking module, the receptor module (e.g. integrins), the signaling module, and the actin polymerization module. The combined activity of the mechanosensitive components form the mechanoresponsive network. The theoretical organization and protein-protein interactions as shown are based upon references.

So, to sum it up, integrins connect the cell to the ECM by:

a) Passing from the inactive conformation to the active conformation (“legs” extended, open active site between the two “heads”), in response to intracellular or extracellular signals.

b) Binding some specific ligand in some specific component of he ECM (for example, fibronectin).

c) Migrating in the cell membrane to form specific clusterings and, in the end, a very complex structure called Focal Adhesion.

A very important point is that FAs, even if very complex, are extremely dynamic: they arise as “nascent” FAs, then grow into mature FAs, and finally they are quickly disassembled.

b) Integrin – cytoskeleton interaction: the Adhesome.

The other side of the Integrin molecule, and therefore of the Focal Adhesion, is of course the link to the cell sytoskeleton, in particular to actin filaments.

Very briefly, actin is a family of globular proteins (G-actin) that polymerize in the form of micro-filaments (F-actin). Those actin filaments form a very dynamic cytoskeleton scaffold in the cell. Together with myosin, they can form contractile structures.

Now, we could think that at least the connection of the inner tails of Integrins to the actin cytoskeleton should be relatively simple. Well, that’s absolutely not the case.

Integrins do not connect directly to actin. They are connected by an extremely complex structure, that is usually called the Adhesome, or Integrin Adhesome.

The Adhesome is an amazing multiprotein structure that assemles dynamically at the intracellular side of Integrins, completing and stabilizing the Focal Adhesion.

Here is a summary table of its known components:

Fig. 7: The integrin adhesome network at a glance. From  The integrin adhesome network at a glance , licensed under CC BY 3.0

There is also a web-site completely dedicated to the Integrin Adhesome. Here it is:

The Adhesome: A Focal Adhesion Network

The site lists at present 150 “bona fide components” of the Adhesome + 82 associated components, and a total of 6,542 interactions. Not bad!

Some important points about the Adhesome:

a) Like the FA, of which it is the main component, it is extremely dynamic. The lifetime of individual proteins in the Adhesome is in the order of seconds, while the whole FA has a mean lifetime in the order of tens of minutes.

b) The proteins in the Adhesome are usually sensitive to mechanical force, and recruited by it (we will come back to that later)

c) While many of the functions and structures in the Adhesome are still poorly understood, it seems clear that it is higly organized in space, with a structure that involves three different functional layers: an Integrin Signaling Layer (nearest to the cell membrane), an intermediate Force Transduction Layer and an inner Actin Regulatory Layer, each with its specific protein compositions. See Fig. 2 here:

The “Stressful” Life of Cell Adhesion Molecules: On the Mechanosensitivity of Integrin Adhesome

Of course, we cannot detail here the 150+ proteins that assemble in the Adhesome. We will just describe in some detail the most important and best studied of them: talin.

c) Talin

Talin is a 2500+ AAs protein which implements a central and extremely complex role in Focal Adhesions. Its structure includes an N-terminal “head” (a FERM domain made of 4 subunits, F0-F3), and a “rod” made of 62 alpha helices arranged into 13 domains (R1-R13) + a homodimerization domain (DD) that corresponds to the 62th alpha helix at the C-terminal end of the molecule . Here it is:

 

Fig. 8:  Domain structure of talin. A, schematic diagram of talin showing the N-terminal FERM domain (F0, F1, F2, and F3 domains) linked via an unstructured region to the 13 amphipathic helical bundles of the talin rod, which terminates in a single helix, the dimerization domain (DD). Residue numbers for each domain (R1–R13) are shown. Helices are numbered and vinculin-binding sites are colored red. Domains corresponding to the new structures reported here are shaded. B–E, NMR structures of the talin R3, R4, R5, and R6 rod domains. Ribbon diagrams of representative low-energy structures show the overall topology of each bundle. F, model of talin showing the structures of all 18 domains. From: RIAM and Vinculin Binding to Talin Are Mutually Exclusive and Regulate Adhesion Assembly and Turnover ,  licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License

 

Essentially, talin is the main protein that connects the intracellular tail of the beta subunit of integrin to actin. To do that, it has two integrin binding sites (one in F3 and 1 in R11) and three actin binding sites (one at F2-F3, one at R4-R8 and one at R13-DD). It has also domains for vinculin, its main co-interactor, and for many other proteins that are part of the Adhesome.

The working of talin is, of course, not completely understood, but much is known. I will  try to sum up the essentials:

a) Talin has an important role in activating integrin and therefore the whole FA.  It is therefore one of the main actors in the inside-out activation signaling shown at Fig. 3.

b)  It is one of the most important protiens that can sense mechanical forces. IOWs, the application of mechanical forces can change its configuration and its biochemical affinities. In that sense, it works as a “hub” that integrates the many signals involved in the function of FAs, so much so that some have even introduced the concept of a “talin code”.

c) In the FA activation phase, talin ismore or less parallel to the cell membrane, linking up to 4 different integrin tails by its 4 integrin binding domains (in the homodimer), contributing to the clustering of integrins and to the growth of the FA.

d) In that same phase, it binds many actin molecules, that can provide a mechanical pull on the actin molecule both in a direction parallel to the call membrane and in a perpendicular direction. Those forces contribute to change talin conformation, and to its ability to recruit new proteins in the Adhesome, such as vinculin, RIAM, FAK, Paxillin and others.

e) In the mature FA, talin spans all three functional layers of the Adhesome, with its head near the cell membrane and the rod end in the actin regulatory layer.

Many of those features are described in detail in this recent paper:

Talin – the master of integrin adhesions

However, the most important point for our discussion is the second one: the ability of talin to repsond to the application of mechanical forces. We will go into greater detail about that in the section about mechanosensing.

Finally, it can be interesting to mention that talin is an extremelly conserved protein. It shows almost 1 bit per AA conservation with human sequence already in cnidaria, and just a little bit more in pre-vertebrates. As the protein is so long, that amounts to about 2500 conserved bits. In vertebrates (cartilaginous fishes) it exhibits a well defined information jump (0.54 baa, corresponding to 1376 bits). That brings the molecule to an astonishing level of homology between cartilaginous fish and humans: 1.67 baa, 4250 bits. IOWs, the human protein and the protein in callorhincus milii (the ghost shark) share 2109 AA identities (83%) after 400+ million years of evolutionary separation!

 

Fig. 9: The evolutionary history of Talin shows extreme conservation in Metazoa and a definite information jump in vertebrates.

 

  1. Mechanosensing

So, what is the purpose of all these complex structures, of all these intricate connections and potential regulations?

There are many answers to that, but the first and certainly one of the most important is: to perceive.

For the cell, its outer environment is everything: it is the reality where the destiny of each individual cell has to be implemented. But, as said, that outer environment is not a hostile and unpredictable world: it is a world made by the cells themselves, the Extracellular matrix, including of course the other cells in it.

Indeed, we have to clarify here that “the other cells” are an important part of the whole system. What we have said up to now is about the connection between each individual cell and the ECM. But there two more big and important subjects, and they are the connections, and the communications, between different cells.

Because adhesions are not realized only between a cell and the ECM. They exist between cells, too. And cell-cell adhesions are implemented by specific structures and proteins that are at least as complex as those that implement the cell-ECM adhesions. And yet very different from them.

In particular, cell-cell adhesions are not implemented by Integrins, but by completely different classes of proteins, such as the Cadherins. And of course there is a complex multi-protein structure associated to cadherins too, and it is called the Cadherin Adhesome. And there are different types of cell-cell juntions. And, as we can imagine at this point, cell-cell ahdesions do interact in many ways with the cell-ECM adhesions that we have been describing here.

However, to discuss these other aspects would certainly make this OP infinitely long, and so the discussion here will be “limited” to the cell-ECM interactions.

So, what does the cell need to know about its surrounding ECM?

It needs a lot of different things, certainly. Because, as we have seen, the ECM can be completely different in different parts of the organism. It has different biochemical composition and different physical properties. And both things are very important to the cell.

In a sense, biochemical composition is something that we can easily imagine as a target for the cell’s informational resources. We are accustomed to think that the cell works through membrane receptors, biochemical signaling pathways, and so on. And we have seen that at least part of the mechanisms we have described here are apparently “normal” biochemical affinities between a receptor and a ligand: in particual, the extracellular part of the integrin molecule certainly recognizes different ligands in the different proteins that are present in the ECM, by the active site formed by the two “heads”.

But what about mechanical information? We have seen that the binding to ligand has really the puprose to generate an adhesion to the ECM, which then matures into a very complex structure, the Focal Adhesion. It is not in itself a signal to the cell, but rather a tool to generate a signal. Because the signal that is to be generated is mechanical, not biochemical.

IOWs, the cell has to “perceive” the mechanical properties of the ECM, and also any specific mechanical forces that are applied to the ECM.

The complex mechanisms that implement that “perception” are called, globally, mechanosensing.

Now, here is where things become really complex, in the sense that we still don’t understand them. Everything about mechanosensing is, at present, poorly understood, and remains rather obscure. I will try to list just a few interesting points that are of paramount importance.

First of all, what are the physical properties of the ECM that are perceived by the cell? There are many of them, and all of them seem to be able to influence the cell and its reactions.

The best understood are:

  • Rigidity or stiffness: the extent to which ECM resists deformation in response to an applied force.
  • Elasticity: the ability of ECM to return to its original size and shape when a force is removed.
  • Viscoelasticity: the association of viscous and elastic properties (gradual return to the original size and shape in time).
  • Dimensionality: cells seem to be able to react in specific ways to 1D, 2D and 3D information.
  • Strain-stiffening: ECM seems to be able to stiffen when forces are applied, either from the cell itself or from the outer environment.
  • External forces applied to the ECM and transmitted to the cell, such as tension, compression, shear, swelling.

There seems to be a constant cross-talk between the cell and those mechanical forces: Focal Adhesions are constantly formed and dissolved in response to forces, and at the same time they transmit forces from the cell to the ECM, and the mechanical reaction of the ECM to those cell-generated forces is probably one of the main “messages” that the cell can translate into novel action.

The role of actin

Actin filaments have a very important role in all this, but again it is a role that is still poorly understood.

Actin polymerizes and forms specific structures. Of particular interest for our discussion are the “stress fibers”, long filaments of actin associated to other proteins, including myosin and alpha-actinin. Stress fibers can contract, and there are different types of them. The most relevant here are probably the ventral stress fibers, that are anchored to a Focal Adhesion at both ends.

 

Fig. 10:  Three types of actin SFs. U2OS human osteosarcoma cells were plated on 10 µg/ml fibronectin-coated coverslips and allowed to attach and spread for 4 h before fixation (Hotulainen and Lappalainen, 2006). In the immunofluorescence image, antiphosphotyrosine was used as a marker for focal adhesions (red), phalloidin was used for F-actin SFs (green), and the nucleus (blue) was detected by DAPI. This single cell exhibits the three main types of actin SFs: (transverse) arcs, dorsal SFs, and ventral SFs. (inset) Schematic drawing depicting the SF subtypes.  From: The tension mounts: Stress fibers as force-generating mechanotransducers , licensed 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/

Moreover, when the cell moves actin is constantly polymerized at the leading edge of the cell, and moves towards the cell body, to be degraded at the trailing edge. That is the cause of the so called “actin retrograde flow”, which is not in itself a contractile movement, but is involved in both the formation of FAs and the cell migration, but in a complex, not well understood and somewhat paradoxical way (the direction of the actin flow is indeed opposite to the direction of the cell movement). Here is an amazing video of the retrograde flow:

 

  1. Mechanotransduction

OK, so now we know that the cell has many complex ways to become aware of mechanical forces, generate them, perceive them, react to them.

But the problem remains: how does this mechanosensing relate to the more traditional world of cell functions, IOWs the biochemical world? How is mechanical information translated into biochemical sigmals, so that the two layers can communicate and interact?

The answer ot that is mechanotransduction: the translation of mechanical stimuli into biochemical signaling.

We have alredy seen that many proteins involved in the formation of FAs are capable of mechanosensing, first among them talin.

Let’s see more in detail one of the many ways that such mechanosensing can take place. Let’s go back to talin. The different bundles that make the rod of the  molecule have different mechanosensitivity. One of the most mechanosensitive bundles is R3. In this domain, the folding forces are weaker, and they can be antagonized by the application of a mechanical force, which acts to unfold the sequence. That’s what happens when actin binds one of the actin binding sited of talin: the force generated by that binding “stretches” the talin molecule, and the R3 domain is the first to unfold. That partial unfolding “exposes” in R3 specific vinculin binding sites, which were previously hideen in the folded state. So, vinculin binds to talin, and the whole system progresses toward the formation of the FA.

This is just an example of how mechanical forces can generate biochemical activities, when the molecule is programmed in an appropriate way. But still, we are not seeing any connection to cell signaling.

The modifications in the cell that are initiated by mechanical signals are called, as a whole, mechanoresponse. They include a lot of different events, but of course most of the response has to be mediated by the fundamental hub of cell states: transcription regulation. Therefore, mechanical stimuli and their inherent information must, in some way, reach the nucleus.

There are two different modalities for that transmission:

Biochemical signaling.

This is the slower way, but it is extremely complex and can reach practically all aspects of cell activity. Indeed, the system of Integrins and Focal Adhesions has direct effects on many cell signaling pathways.

Many of those connections are mediated by phosphorylation networks, involving for example the Src family kinases, and the specific Adhesome protein FAK (Fochal Adhesion Kinase), plus many small GTPases, including RhoA.

The main signaling pathways that are modulated by mechanical signals deriving from FAs are:

  • Hippo signaling, mainly mediated by the Yap-Taz proteins.
  • Serum response factor (SRF) pathway.
  • Wnt Receptor Signaling
  • NF-kB pathway, directly activated by FAK

All these pathways are extremely complex, and they are at the very center of most cell activities, modulating cell transcription at all levels. All of them are strictly connected to mechanosensing, in many different ways that have been studied in great detail, but that are still poorly understood.

Mechanical signaling.

But there is a quicker way that can transmit information from FAs to the nucleus: direct mechanical signaling, from the cytoskeleton to the nucleoskeleton.

To accomplish that, a specific structure acts as interface between the two skeletons. It’s called LINC (linker of the nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton) complex, and it includes the nuclear transmembrane protein emerin, the inner nuclear protein SUN and the nuclear lamina.

Again, in the nucleus, mechanical signals are translated into biochemical events, in particular deep chromatin rearrangements and epigenetic modifications, affecting all cell activities thorugh transcription regulation.

Some recent information about these complex topics can be found here:

Integrin-mediated mechanotransduction

In particular, the section: “Cellular responses in mechanotransduction”.

And a simpler summary can be found here:

Which biochemical pathways are regulated by mechanical signals?

Who makes the ECM?

And, of course, the cells themselves are the creators of the ECM. It’s the cells that synthesize the proteins, and all the components. The world where the cells reside and move is made by the cells themselves.

And, as we have seen, it is an extremely dynamic world. The structure and composition of the ECM is subject to constant changes and remodeling, and of course it’s the cells themselves that originate those changes. Different cells, in different ways. And the mechanoresponse in the cell to mechanical information from the ECM is certainly the guide to changes in ECM structure and composition that come from cell activity.

So, it’s a strict and constant crosstalk between the ECM and the cells that generate and remodel it. And hundreds of proteins, networks, components, structures, both in the cell and outside it, are involved in the process.

  1. What about the cell?

So, we know that the cell uses mechanosensing and mechanotransdution to get information about the ECM and to connect to it. And then? What are the active responses of the cell?

As we have said, changes in the secretion of proteins and other components to change the composition and structure of the ECM are certainly an important aspect. But there is more.

As already anticipated, the interaction between the cell and the ECM has two very big purposes, one in stationary cells, and the other, the most important one, in cells that have to move.

Stationary cells

All cells are anchored in different ways to the ECM. That interaction has a definite and complex effect on cell morphology, and contributes to determine cell shape. Cell shape is also connected to cell fate, to mitosis and differentiation, even to apoptosis. All these processes are strongly conditioned by the interaction with the ECM by mechanosensing and mechanotransdution.

Here is a recent paper about these issues:

Mechanochemical Signaling Directs Cell-Shape Change

Abstract

For specialized cell function, as well as active cell behaviors such as division, migration, and tissue development, cells must undergo dynamic changes in shape. To complete these processes, cells integrate chemical and mechanical signals to direct force production. This mechanochemical integration allows for the rapid production and adaptation of leading-edge machinery in migrating cells, the invasion of one cell into another during cellcell fusion, and the force-feedback loops that ensure robust cytokinesis. A quantitative understanding of cellmechanics coupled with protein dynamics has allowed us to account for furrow ingression during cytokinesis, a model cell-shape-change process. At the core of cell-shape changes is the ability of the cell‘s machinery to sense mechanical forces and tune the force-generating machinery as needed. Force-sensitive cytoskeletal proteins, including myosin II motors and actin cross-linkers such as α-actinin and filamin, accumulate in response to internally generated and externally imposed mechanical stresses, endowing the cell with the ability to discern and respond to mechanical cues. The physical theory behind how these proteins display mechanosensitive accumulation has allowed us to predict paralog-specific behaviors of different cross-linking proteins and identify a zone of optimal actin-binding affinity that allows for mechanical stress-induced protein accumulation. These molecular mechanisms coupled with the mechanical feedback systems ensure robust shape changes, but if they go awry, they are poised to promote disease states such as cancer cell metastasis and loss of tissue integrity.

Cell migration

However, the most complex procedure that is linked to the cell-ECM interaction is probably cell migration.

We all know that cells can move. Bacteria can move, single celled eukaryotes can move, and many different tools implement movement in those cells, including different kinds of flagella and amoeboid movement by pseudopodia. But cells in a multicellular organsism, as we have seen, exist and move in the ECM, and moving in the ECM is quite a specific task, very different from motion in the “exterior” world. That kind of movement is based on adhesions to the ECM, Fochal Adhesions and the role of cell cytoskeleton.

Again, we must acknowledge that movement of cells in the ECM is largely poorly understood, even with all the things we know today.

The main structure in the cell that implements movement is called lamellipodium. It is a flat, plate-like projecion at the leading edge of the cell, including an almost bidimensional actin network. Smaller spikes emerging from the cell edgle or from lamellipodia are called filopodia. Filopodia probably precede and guide the formation of lamellipodia. Focal Adhesions are usually rare or nascent at the tip of lamellipodia, while they are frequent and mature at the boundary between lamellipodium and cell body.

As said, the exact role of actin in generating the propulsion forces is not completely clear. I quote from this site:

Cell motility is driven by coordinated actin polymerization at the cell’s leading edge. However, it is still fiercely debated exactly how actin generates force to move a cell. The fine structure of filaments revealed by electron microscopy is exquisitely sensitive to the preparative methods used, and thus, various models have been proposed. Bringing together information from electron microscopy, live-cell imaging techniques, and super-resolution microscopy will be necessary to construct a definitive model.

Tha main idea is that actin generates the propulsion force in at least two different ways:

a) Contractile actin structures, like stress fibers, where actin is coupled to myosin and can therefore contract, should have a role. Different kinds of stress fibers have been implicated, but the general idea is that contraction is a component of the process.

b) The retrograde flow of actin, due to constant polymerization at the leading edge, would be one of the main sources of the forward propulsion, by some paradox effect linked to the resistance of Focal Adhesions at the rear of the lamellipodium. This is not a contractile mechanism, but it is connected to the polymerization of actin fibers at the leading edge, and its disassembling at the trailing edge. In this case, FAs would act as a “molecular clutch”, able to exist in a disengaged or engaged state, and therefore to connect the force to the propulsion in lamellipodia.

A good summary of these ideas can be found here:

How do focal adhesions act as molecular clutches in lamellipodia?

And this short video gives a good idea of the complex interactions between FA dynamics and the generation of lamellipodia for cell migration:

 

  1. So, what is the purpose of all this functional complexity?

After all these complex details, let’s try to discuss the general scenario, and to draw some conclusions.

I think that there can be no doubt in anyone’s mind about the amazing complexity of the systems that have been described here. And remember, these are only a few aspects of what is known, and what is not known is certainly much more than what is known.

So the real question is: why? What is the purpose of all that?

To answer that, we must go back to our initial introduction. The real point is: everything depends on these processes, in multicellular organisms.

We know how complex and fascinating is the issue of cell differentiation, and how the many levels of control in transcription regulation certainly hold the key to that basic mystery.

But multicellular agents are not only the sum of differentiated cells. They are made by differentiated cell that build specific microscopic and macroscopic structures, in particular tissues and organs, in the context of the general body plan of the organism.

And remember, as all differentiated cell derive from the single cell that is the zygote, it is equally true that all body structures derive from that single cell, too.

So, when the original cell divides, at a certain point it generates spacial structures. Extracellular matrix comes into the game, hosting and guiding the cells. The basic 3 germ layers are produced, and then all the complex structures in the embryo, and then in the final body.

We don’t really know how all that is implemented, but we certainly know one thing: cells have to migrate to realize the plan. And they do that by moving in the ECM.

So, we can understand how the processes that regulate cell migration become the key to understand the development of a multicellular organism. That’s no small deal.

Cell migration

Indeed, cell migration is of paramount important in two different contexts:

a) Cells which have to migrate because of their intrinsic function. A good example of that are leucocytes and fibroblasts, involved in immune response, inflammation and wound healing. These cells migrate to reach the site where they have to accomplish their tasks.

b) Cell migration during embrional and fetal development. In this case, cells migrate to reach their final site in tissues and organs.

We will focus here on the second type of migration.

Cell migration starts with recognizing a direction. The cell must understand, in the 3D world of ECM, the correct direction it has to follow.

The direction generates three different important events:

  1. The establishment of the correct polarity: the cell defines a leading edge and a trailing edge, before strating to move, and as we have seen different structures are generated at the two poles.
  2. The initiation of propulsion in the right direction
  3. The maintenance and correction of propulsion throughout the pathway

Of course, the big question is: what guides the cells to their final abode? IOWs, what we observe is guided cell migration: cells do not wander randomly, but follow specific trajectories to reach specific places, in accord with their differention and their final roles. And, in doing that, they build highly ordered structures.

The good answer to that would be, again: we don’t really know in detail. However, a few things are known.

There are at least three types of factors influencing cell migration during development:

a) Chemotaxis

b) Haptotaxis

c) Mechanical properties of tyhe ECM (Mechanotaxis)

Electric forces can also have a role, but we will not discuss that aspect here.

Chemotaxis is the simplest concept. It means that some molecule dissolved in the extracellular fluid is recognized by the cell as attracting (or repulsing), and therefore the cell moves according to the concentration gradient of that substance. The important point here is that the chemotactic substance is in soluble form, and its gradient is a concentration gradient in the extracellular fluid, which, as we have said, is the fluid part of the ECM. Chemotaxis is probably more important in type a) migration, for example in inflammation, where inflammatory molecules attract leucocytes to the site of the lesion. In this case, cells are acctracted to a site, but there is no great specificity in that process.

Here is a paper about chemotaxis in organism development:

Chemokine-guided cell migration and motility in zebrafish development

Haptotaxis works in a similar way, but here the attractive (or repulsive) substrate is not soluble: it is, instead, bound to a surface, usually some of the ECM proteins, such as fibronectin and laminin. So, the cell interacts with the ligand through the complex Adhesion system that we have been describing.

Here is a paper about hapotaxis:

Haptotaxis is cell type specific and limited by substrate adhesiveness

Finally, it is well understood that the mechanical properties of the ECM, such as stiffness and so on, have a definite role in determining the path that the cell will follow (mechanotaxis), always by the mediation of the Integrin – FA system. The term “durotaxis”, for example, is used for the effects of stiffness.

Here is a recent paper about mechanotaxis:

Tissue mechanics regulate brain development, homeostasis and disease

The cell, in some way, integrates all those signals to decide what path it is going to follow.

Who sets the signals?

Of course, the cells themselves do that. Cells produce the ligands for both chemiotaxis and haptotaxis, and as we have seen it’s cells, again, that generate and remodel the ECM and determine its mechanical properties.

But the problem is: what cells?

In the case of chemotaxis, and probably haptotaxis, the simplest scenario is that the cells at the target site produce the ligands and, in some way, create the gradients. But, as we have seen, that is probably simpler with chemotaxis, because the ligand is soluble, while in haptotaxis a significant contribution of ECM proteins is more likely. Moreover, even intermediate cells (from sites between the migrating cell and the target site) can probably contribute.

How the mechanical properties of the ECM may be regulated in the pathway to be followed is less clear. It seems reasonable that many cell types hosted by the ECM itself could contribute to that, and possibly even the migrating cell itself.

As said, we do not understand enough yet. But one thing is certain: the migrating cell in some way can receive and integrate a lot of different signals, and in some way can control the complex activity that makes the propulsion possible (lamellipodia, actin activity, FAs and so on) to efficiently implement the correct migration.

A very good model: the axonal growth cone

A model that has been studied in great detail, and which shows many important aspects of the migration process, is the growth of the axon towards its destined synapsis, through the structure known as growth cone. Here, it’s not the whole cell that migrates, but rather its main extension, the axon, which is responsible for the main neuronal connection to another neuron. It is the main costituent of nerve fibers, and it is the structure used by neurons to output their signals to other cells.

 


Fig. 11: A neuron and its axon.

 

Please, consider that axons can be very long: their length ranges, in humans, from less than 1 mm to more than 1 m. Each neuron has only one axon, that can innervate many target cells.

So, the axon grows from the neuronal body to its target synapse, and as we have said that pathway can be very long, even 1 meter. That’s a very long walk for a minuscule cell protrusion.

Moreover, axons must connect to the right synapses. Needless to say, the pattern of neuronal connections is what makes the nervous system the wonderful tool that it is, and not a random and useless mess. For example, moto neurons in the brain must connect with great precision to the corresponding second motor neurons in the spine, that connect to the appropriate muscle fibers.

So, how does the axon grow? Indeed, it is a good summary of what we have said before.

The structure that allows the growth is called growth cone. This structure was discovered by Cajal as early as 1890, and in the same year he declared that:

nerve fibers “adopt predetermined directions and establish connections with defined neural or extra neural elements… without deviations or errors, as if guided by an intelligent force”

Cajal, S. R. (1890). Notas anatómicas I. Sobre la aparición de las expansiones celulares en la médula embrionaria. Gac. Sanit. Barc. 12, 413–419.

Ah, the good old times of unbiased scientific research!  🙂

So, what is a growth cone? Let’s take a few concepts from this good internet page:

The Axonal Growth Cone

(The) growth cone (is) a specialized structure at the tip of the extending axon. Growth cones are highly motile structures that explore the extracellular environment, determine the direction of growth, and then guide the extension of the axon in that direction. The primary morphological characteristic of a growth cone is a sheetlike expansion of the growing axon at its tip called a lamellapodium. When examined in vitro, numerous fine processes called filopodia rapidly form and disappear from the terminal expansion, like fingers reaching out to touch or sense the environment (Figure 23.1). The cellular mechanisms that underlie these complex searching movements have become a focus of cell biological studies of axon growth and guidance. Such movements are thought to reflect rapid, controlled rearrangement of cytoskeletal elements—particularly molecules related to the actin cytoskeleton—which modulate the changes in growth cone shape and ultimately its course through the developing tissues.

So, it is a sheetlike structure including at least one lamellipodium and many filopodia, at the leading edge of axonal growth. Exactly as we have seen in cell migration.

While the axon cytoskeleton grows mainly by the elongation of microtubules, the growth cone is primarily an acti-myosin structure. Filopodia are continuously and dynamically generated and they test the surrounding microenvironment in search of attractive and repulsive cues. The final pathway followed by the axon is the result of the integration fo all those signals and of their many different effects on the various intracellular pathways discussed above.

All the mechanisms described in this OP can be seen at work: Focal Adhesions, retrograde actin flow, and so on.

Here is a schematic image of the growth cone from the appropriate MBINFO page:

Fig.  12;  Organization of cytoskeletal components (actin filaments and microtubules) in the growth cone.  From: What is axon guidance and the growth cone?,  licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

 

And here is a rather detailed video about the axon cone:

 

 

Of course, all that is not simple. I really have to quote the following paper, even if it is not so recent (2012), because of its title:

Functional Complexity of the Axonal Growth Cone: A Proteomic Analysis

Functional complexity? Oh, yes!

Here is the abstract:

The growth cone, the tip of the emerging neurite, plays a crucial role in establishing the wiring of the developing nervous system. We performed an extensive proteomic analysis of axonal growth cones isolated from the brains of fetal Sprague-Dawley rats. Approximately 2000 proteins were identified at ≥99% confidence level. Using informatics, including functional annotation cluster and KEGG pathway analysis, we found great diversity of proteins involved in axonal pathfinding, cytoskeletal remodeling, vesicular traffic and carbohydrate metabolism, as expected. We also found a large and complex array of proteins involved in translation, protein folding, posttranslational processing, and proteasome/ubiquitination-dependent degradation. Immunofluorescence studies performed on hippocampal neurons in culture confirmed the presence in the axonal growth cone of proteins representative of these processes. These analyses also provide evidence for rough endoplasmic reticulum and reveal a reticular structure equipped with Golgi-like functions in the axonal growth cone. Furthermore, Western blot revealed the growth cone enrichment, relative to fetal brain homogenate, of some of the proteins involved in protein synthesis, folding and catabolism. Our study provides a resource for further research and amplifies the relatively recently developed concept that the axonal growth cone is equipped with proteins capable of performing a highly diverse range of functions.

OK, now let’s go to the proteins involved in the guidance of the axonal growth cone, because something is known about them. Here is an essential list:

  1. Ephrins and ephrin receptors. These are a well studied class of membrane bound ligands and recepors that have an important role in axon guidance mediated by cell-cell interaction. See here: Ephs and ephrins
  2. Netrins: a class of secreted chemotropic proteins that act as both attractants and repellents in axonal cone guidance.
  3. Semaphorins: a set of classes of proteins, both secreted and membrane bound, that usually act as repellents for axon growth.
  4. Plexins: the main receptors for semaphorins.
  5. Slits: ECM proteins secreted by structures in the nervous system, such as the floor plate or the midline glia, which act as midline repellents, preventing the crossing of axons through the midline of the central nervous system.
  6. Robo: the main receptors for Slits.

An interesting concept is that some axons act as pioneer axons: in a sense, they find a pathway and “open” it for other axons to follow.

And here is a recent (May 2018) review of those topics:

Understanding axon guidance: are we nearly there yet?

Let me quote a few titles from the paper sections:

  • A richness of signals: redundancy of guidance information ensures correct navigation within the spinal cord
  • Crosstalk between different families of guidance cues
  • The regulation of axon guidance receptors at choice point

And finally I quote here the conclusions from the same paper (emphasis mine):

Perspectives: so, are we nearly there yet?

As I have highlighted here, our knowledge of neural circuit formation in the brain is still very much in its infancy. We can infer molecular mechanisms from what we have learned in one system to another but there is still not a single population of axons for which we have a complete understanding of the molecular mechanisms of navigation to the final target. So, we are clearly not there yet! A major challenge remains the characterization of the precise temporal regulation of guidance signals and the interactions between different signalling pathways that cooperate to guide axons to their intermediate, and ultimately final, targets. Axon guidance studies in a variety of organisms clearly indicate that the regulation of axon guidance signalling involves all possible mechanisms of regulation: transcriptional and translational control, trafficking of specific vesicles, and changes in protein-protein interactions as well as protein stability. Furthermore, the link between the interactions of guidance receptors and their ligands with the observed behaviour of growth cones is still missing. We also only have a very superficial understanding of the association between surface receptors and the regulation of cytoskeletal dynamics responsible for steering growth cones (Gomez and Letourneau, 2014). Similarly, our knowledge on specific intra-axonal trafficking of signals is poor. To make the next step in our understanding of axon guidance, it will be important to keep complexity in mind. Classical loss-of-function approaches might not reveal the complex interaction between guidance cues and their different receptors. Precise temporal control of experiments during embryonic development is difficult in mammals. Therefore, it will be important to make use of diverse animal models, each with its strengths and weaknesses. A particular challenge will be the visualization of the functional link between surface receptors and the cytoskeleton. This is becoming easier to do in vitro thanks to high-resolution imaging techniques, but in vitro experiments will not allow for the analysis of axon guidance as they will never be able to mimic the complexity of cell-cell interactions in the developing tissue. It is thus clear that understanding axon guidance remains a challenge, and that a multifaceted, multidisciplinary approach will be required to understand not only how a single axon finds its target but how billions of axons manage to do so.

Yes, billions. There are about 10^11 neurons in the human nervous system, and each of them has probably about 7000 connections.

  1. Conclusions

So, what have we learned from this long discussion?

  1. The transition to metazoa implies a whole new world of functional complexity, a specific general plan that allows the implementation of tissues, organs, body plans.
  2. Part of it is, of course, cell differentiation: each cell must be guided to its final state, its final specific phenotype, starting from one common genome/epigenome. This was the subject of my previous OP about transcription regulation.
  3. But another important part of it is cell location, in time and space. The ordered guidance of each body cell to the right place and to the right functional connections is the foundation for the implementation of the general plan, which is made of specialized tissues that make specialized organs and consistent global organisms.
  4. Cells exist in a complex 3D environment created, maintained and dynamically restructured by the cells themselves: the ECM.
  5. The interaction between cells and the ECM is essential to many cell functions, starting with cell shape, and including cell migration in development and for other functional needs.
  6. The interaction between cells and the ECM is not only chemical, but essentially mechanic.
  7. The Integrins and the Focal Adhesions are an extremely dynamic system that links the ECM to the cytoskeleton, in particular to actin.
  8. Cell migration is realized by the integration of an extremely rich network of signals, both mechanical and biochemical. Cell-cell interactions have also a leading role.
  9. How that integration is achieved by each specific cell is still not understood.
  10. Indeed, a lot of the essential aspects of all these issues are still poorly understood.
  11. The axonal growth cone is another example of “migration” of a cell structure, which involves billions of specific pathways. The whole structure of the central nervous system depends on those processes.
  12. Whatever the mechanisms that we still don’t understand, it is rather clear that coordinated cell migration and axon growth require not only the amazing structures and integration abilities in each individual cell, but also the cooperation of many different actors: the migrating cell, the ECM, guiding proteins and ligands, intermediate cells, the final target, and probably many other components.
  13. To me, this is one of the most beautiful examples of coordinated, irreducible functional complexity: an implementation of design that can only inspire deep awe and wonder.
Comments
OLV: "Is there a foreseeable end to this avalanche of discoveries in Biology?" It does not seem so.gpuccio
December 12, 2018
December
12
Dec
12
12
2018
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
ET, PavelU @319 claimed that the cited paper describes in details the functional evolution of important proteins. Are you saying that that's not the case? I don't expect it to be, but I'm not qualified to determine if that's true. gpuccio wrote that the paper has almost nothing on protein evolution. Should PavelU quote or point to the exact text that proves his case? BTW, thanks for the linked OP @331.PeterA
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
To PeterA and PavelU- please read the following: Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolutionET
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
PeterA @ 327- PavelU made a bald assertion and provided a link to a couple of papers. PavelU never made a case for his bald assertion so the Hitchens' gambit applies: "That which can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Only a fool would think they can just point and then it is up to us to figure it out. And people who just post links without making a case can be ignored. Clearly, they are not interested in a serious discussion. That said, any paper espousing gene duplication as the mechanism is not talking about Darwinian evolution.ET
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
gpuccio- My apologies. The "80mer" pertains to Szostak and Keefe's publication on the polypeptides with 80 amino acids that could bind ATP.ET
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
PeterA (327): Here's what I found so far in the paper: A feed-forward relay integrates the regulatory activities of Bicoid and Orthodenticle via sequential binding to suboptimal sites
In Drosophila melanogaster, another K50HD protein, Bicoid (Bcd), has evolved to replace Otd's ancestral function in embryo patterning.
The evolution of body plans is driven by alterations to these networks, including changes to cis-regulatory elements and neofunctionalization of transcription factors (TFs) after gene duplication (Thornton et al. 2003Carroll 2008Peter and Davidson 2011Tautz and Domazet-Loso 2011Abascal et al. 2013).
Despite its critical functions in Drosophila, Bcd is not well conserved even within insects. Rather, Bcd arose after a recent gene duplication event and rapidly evolved to play an important role in embryonic patterning (Stauber et al. 1999Casillas et al. 2006).
In Drosophilaotd has evolved to become a zygotic target gene of Bcd-dependent activation (Finkelstein and Perrimon 1990).
This suggests that an important step in Bcd's evolution was the conversion of Q50 in the ancestor to K50, which changed its DNA-binding preference and allowed it to usurp some of the anterior patterning roles played by Otd in ancestral insects.
Our results define specific roles for Bcd and Otd in embryonic patterning in Drosophila and shed light on the molecular mechanisms that alter regulatory networks during evolution.
This result is not surprising in view of the fact that the evolved Bcd- and Otd-coding regions show very little sequence conservation (38% sequence identity within their HDs) (Fig. 2A) and no detectable homology outside the HD.
In this study, we compared the in vivo functions of two K50HD proteins (Bcd and Otd) within a framework of evolution.
We showed that Otd and Bcd have evolved independent functions in vivo, and HD swaps between the two proteins indicated that the major structural differences mediating their distinct in vivo activities can be traced to their HDs.
Bcd has evolved rapidly to become a powerful morphogen in Drosophila but is not well conserved even within Diptera (Stauber et al. 1999).
In Drosophilaotd has evolved to become a zygotic target gene of Bcd (Finkelstein and Perrimon 1990).
Convergent evolution and a robust core anterior patterning network
some functional convergence of these proteins must have occurred during insect evolution.
The evolution of Bcd likely involved the retention of the maternal promoter and the acquisition of three characteristics required for anterior embryonic patterning: (1) UTR sequences that control anterior mRNA localization, (2) protein motifs that mediate translational repression, and (3) amino acid substitutions that alter its DNA-binding preferences; namely, a Q50-to-K50 mutation in its HD.
Such dramatic changes in these two genes may be attributed to reduced selective pressure on maternal genes (Barker et al. 2005Demuth and Wade 2007), which permits the exploration of the evolutionary landscape and the acquisition of new functional roles.
Perhaps this set of target genes represents an ancestral core network that is well conserved in evolution.
it is possible that the cis-regulatory motifs (and consequently the enhancers) are functionally robust in the evolution of anterior embryo patterning, while trans-acting factors can accumulate mutations.
This allows for a conserved set of targets that makes up a canalized anterior patterning network that allows the regulating TFs to evolve.
Emphasis added Let's see how those "evolution"-related terms are technically supported in details.   I don't see it, but we could investigate it carefully. Are they real or just wishful thinking? We may need gpuccio's assistance with this.OLV
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
PeterA, I opened the link PavelU provided in his comment at #319. As gpuccio indicated in #328, the paper seems interesting. I counted 18 instances of words with the root "evol" in the text of the article and 17 times in the list of referenced papers. However, that doesn't prove anything, until the claims are comprehensively and coherently explained. That would represent a breakthrough for the neo_Darwinian dogma. Is that the case in the given paper? I don't know. Would have to read it carefully and see if I understand it. I may have questions about it, though. All that said, my first impression after the first perusing of the text is that the article seems to point to functional complexity that strongly supports the ID paradigm. But it could be a biased misunderstanding on my part. :)OLV
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
PeterA: Yes. Interesting paper about possible differention of regulation, but almost nothing on protein evolution. bcd seems to be a taxonomically restricted homoebox protein. And so? The homologies described are vague and unconcluding. The only interesting aspect is that in insects some proteins are highly specific of some species, like bcd in drosophila.gpuccio
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
ET @322: "We have heard that before but we have never seen the alleged articles." Did you notice the link in PavelU's comment @319? Did you read the last paragraph in my comment @320 in response to PavelU's comment @319? I think the paper PavelU cited deserves a more careful consideration, though I'm not qualified to do it. Any discussion with ID deniers must be done seriously, at least by the ID proponents. gpuccio provides a good example to imitate. If they point to certain literature claiming that it supports their ideas, the least we can do is look at it and see what it is about.PeterA
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
gpuccio, The papers you cited in 310, 318, 321, 324 are fascinating indeed. Is there a foreseeable end to this avalanche of discoveries in Biology?OLV
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
ET: I am not sure I am following. What is this discussion about 80mers?gpuccio
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
To all: This recent paper has almost everything: Polarity Acquisition in Cortical Neurons Is Driven by Synergistic Action of Sox9-Regulated Wwp1 and Wwp2 E3 Ubiquitin Ligases and Intronic miR-140 https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(18)30896-1?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0896627318308961%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Highlights • The ubiquitin ligases Wwp1 and Wwp2 are essential for neuronal polarity acquisition • Wwp2 and Wwp2-intron-encoded miR-140 synergistically regulate neuronal development • miR-140 represses Fyn expression during neuronal development • Sox9 drives expression of Wwp1, Wwp2, and miR-140 in neurons Summary The establishment of axon-dendrite polarity is fundamental for radial migration of neurons during cortex development of mammals. We demonstrate that the E3 ubiquitin ligases WW-Containing Proteins 1 and 2 (Wwp1 and Wwp2) are indispensable for proper polarization of developing neurons. We show that knockout of Wwp1 and Wwp2 results in defects in axon-dendrite polarity in pyramidal neurons, and their aberrant laminar cortical distribution. Knockout of miR-140, encoded in Wwp2 intron, engenders phenotypic changes analogous to those upon Wwp1 and Wwp2 deletion. Intriguingly, transcription of the Wwp1 and Wwp2/miR-140 loci in neurons is induced by the transcription factor Sox9. Finally, we provide evidence that miR-140 supervises the establishment of axon-dendrite polarity through repression of Fyn kinase mRNA. Our data delineate a novel regulatory pathway that involves Sox9–[Wwp1/Wwp2/miR-140]-Fyn required for axon specification, acquisition of pyramidal morphology, and proper laminar distribution of cortical neurons.
The paper highlights an interesting relationship between establishment of polarity, migration and axon growth in cortical neurons:
Differentiating neurons undergo robust changes of their shape. Shortly after birth, multipolar (MP) neurons at the border between the SVZ and IZ alter their appearance to acquire a characteristic bipolar (BP) morphology. --- The acquisition of BP shape in migrating neurons is coupled to the emergence of neuronal polarity. The single leading process (LP) of a migrating nerve cell orients perpendicularly toward the pia, whereas the single trailing process (TP), emerging from the somatic antipode, lags behind the radially translocating neuron. Notably, pyramidal neurons derive axon-dendrite polarity from specification of the LP and the TP during migration (Barnes and Polleux, 2009). The neurite that extends in the radial direction becomes the LP, and the TP extends from the opposite pole of the nerve cell. Later in development, the LP establishes the fate of an apical endritic shaft, and the TP extends into the axon Hatanaka et al., 2012).
So, the initial polarization that allow correct migration towards the cortes also defines the emergence of tha axon at the trailing edge. Who is implied in the polarization? Our old friends ubiquitin ligases, of course :) .
In the present study, we investigate the role of a subfamily of Nedd4-type E3 ligases, WW Domain Containing E3 Ubiquitin Protein Ligases 1 and 2 (Wwp1 and Wwp2; Wwp1/2), and their functional interplay with miR-140, encoded in a Wwp2 intron. We demonstrate synergistic roles of Wwp1/2 and miR-140 in the acquisition of axon-dendrite polarity and the laminar distribution of developing pyramidal neurons. Moreover, miR-140-mediated silencing of Fyn kinase is required for the proper acquisition of a BP morphology by developing neurons. Finally, the expression of Wwp1/2 and the intronic miR-140 is under the control of the transcription factor Sex Determining Region Y-Box 9 (Sox9) in developing neurons, and Sox9 is essential for the proper laminar distribution and polarity formation of cortical nerve cells. We propose that Sox9 supervises two collateral signaling pathways that are mediated by Wwp1/2 and miR-140, respectively, regulating proper polarity formation in developing cortical neurons.
So, two E3 ubiquitin ligases have a central role in this very important process. No surprise here. But there is more: the third actor is a micro-RNA (yes, a non coding RNA) derived from an intron of the second ubiquitin ligase. And the general scenario is orchestrated by a master TF, Sox9. Interesting. We also learn that:
microRNAs (miRNAs, miRs) regulate gene expression by binding, in most cases, 30 UTRs of mRNA transcripts. There is ample evidence for a key role of miRNAs in neuronal development (De Pietri Tonelli et al., 2008). Of note, approximately half of all identified human miRNAs are encoded in introns of protein-coding genes. This type of genomic structure enables the promoter-mediated co-regulation of the intronic miRNA and the host gene. Indeed, bioinformatic predictions indicate that intronic miRNAs and the protein products of their host gene loci often co-regulate the same cellular processes (Lutter et al., 2010). However, corresponding experimental validations and functional analyses of such putative synergistic interactions between miRNA and host gene products are largely lacking.
Well, in this case the idea is well confirmed, it seems. What a beautiful coordination of coding and non coding DNA! Those junk introns seem to have some role, after all. :)
Synergistic Activities of Host Wwp2 and Intronic miR-140 in Neurons The coordinated expression of host genes and their intragenic miRNAs is a known phenomenon, and functional reciprocity between the host gene and the intragenic miRNAs have been predicted (Lutter et al., 2010). The evolutionary emergence of miRNA loci residing within protein coding genes allows for the use of preexisting gene regulatory machineries and, in parallel, 1112 Neuron 100, 1097–1115, December 5, 2018, for the exposure of miRNAs to the same cellular context and molecular networks in which the host gene and its protein product operate (Franc¸ a et al., 2016). A genomic organization, like that between Wwp2 and miR-140, indicates critical functions of the linked genes in the control of similar fundamental cellular pathways, such as axon-dendrite polarity establishment. Nested transcriptional units, such as host Wwp2 and intronic miR-140, add an additional layer of regulation to the processes that control principal aspects of neuronal development. While the functional relevance of this type of genomic organization is generally rather poorly understood, our study provides experimental evidence for synergistic activities of host Wwp2 and miR-140 in neurodevelopment, which were previously only assumed and/or modeled.
gpuccio
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT
I like this one from DNA Jock:
I noted that there are 10^93 different ways for an 80mer to bind ATP.
So there are many ways for an intelligently designed 80mer to bind ATP. How long would it take nature to produce an 80mer without the use of existing cellular systems? Could nature do that in the wild? Has anyone ever observed such a thing?ET
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
PavelU:
The scientific literature contains many articles supporting Darwinian evolution and undermining the ideas about design that you all defend so passionately here.
We have heard that before but we have never seen the alleged articles.
For example, this paper describes in details the functional evolution of important proteins.
Your equivocation is duly noted as evolution is being debated. It's the mechanisms that are being debated.ET
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT
To all: This is more about axonal transport and its regulation. Fascinating. Look at Fig. 1 for a good (and rather funny) summary. AXONAL TRANSPORT: CARGO-SPECIFIC MECHANISMS OF MOTILITY AND REGULATION https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4269290/
Abstract: Axonal transport is essential for neuronal function, and many neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases result from mutations in the axonal transport machinery. Anterograde transport supplies distal axons with newly synthesized proteins and lipids, including synaptic components required to maintain presynaptic activity. Retrograde transport is required to maintain homeostasis by removing aging proteins and organelles from the distal axon for degradation and recycling of components. Retrograde axonal transport also plays a major role in neurotrophic and injury response signaling. This review provides an overview of the axonal transport pathway and discusses its role in neuronal function.
Consider that the longest axons in humans can be 1 meter long, and even more! That's a lot of transport, for a cell. :)gpuccio
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
PavelU, I think discussions should be done in respectful terms, as gpuccio usually does here. Please, ignore any comment that may seem offensive or disrespectful. Sometimes the authors of those comments don't know how to express their ideas in better terms. Sometimes their comments reflect anger produced by unpleasant past experiences. Many times we don't know what we are doing. But we should not let anger make us treat others disrespectfully. I think I see your point about the paper you referenced in this case. However, since the paper you have cited apparently deals with "functional evolution of important proteins", then perhaps gpuccio is more qualified than most of us here to look at this for us.PeterA
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
PeterA, thank you for criticizing the offensive tone of a comment posted by jawa, who should apologize for it. The scientific literature contains many articles supporting Darwinian evolution and undermining the ideas about design that you all defend so passionately here. For example, this paper describes in details the functional evolution of important proteins. Do you have a strong argument against this paper? Can you refute it by pointing to specific errors or weaknesses in the text? Generalized comments -filled with empty promises- may be common in politics, but should not be in serious science, where every statement must be supported with specific examples.PavelU
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT
To all: An important aspect of axon growth or regeneration is transport. As axons are usually very long, transport of components (proteins, organelles) is vital for axon growth, because these resources are usually synthesized or assembled at the cell body, near the nucleus. So, they have a long way to go to reach the tip of the axon, where growth takes place. Transport from the nucleus and cell body to the tip of the axon is called anterograde, and is effectsed by kinesins. There exists also a retrograde transport, effected by dynein. And yes, kinesin and dynein are those big proteins that "walk" along microtubules, carrying heavy cargoes. Intriguingly, anterograde transport if of three different types; fast transport, slow component a, slow component b. Slow transport is characterized by frequent pauses. Here is a paper, form the already quoted special issue, about the importance of anterograde transport, especially slow component b, in axon regeneration: Neuronal Intrinsic Regenerative Capacity: The Impact of Microtubule Organization and Axonal Transport https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dneu.22602
ABSTRACT: In the adult vertebrate central nervous system, axons generally fail to regenerate. In contrast, peripheral nervous system axons are able to form a growth cone and regenerate upon lesion. Among the multiple intrinsic mechanisms leading to the formation of a new growth cone and to successful axon regrowth, cytoskeleton organization and dynamics is central. Here we discuss how multiple pathways that define the regenerative capacity converge into the regulation of the axonal microtubule cytoskeleton and transport. We further explore the use of dorsal root ganglion neurons as a model to study the neuronal regenerative ability. Finally, we address some of the unanswered questions in the field, including the mechanisms by which axonal transport might be modulated by injury, and the relationship between microtubule organization, dynamics, and axonal transport. --- THE CENTRAL ROLE OF AXONAL TRANSPORT DURING AXON REGENERATION Given the highly polarized nature of neurons, axonal transport is pivotal to support neuronal function. Kinesins drive anterograde axonal transport whereas cytoplasmic dynein is the only motor driving retrograde axonal transport. While fast axonal transport carries vesicles and membrane-bound organelles moving at 50–300 mm/day, slow axonal transport moves components at 0.2–10 mm/day. Slow axonal transport can be further categorized into slow component a (the slowest), that moves cytoskeletal proteins such as tubulin, neurofilaments and microtubuleassociated proteins, and slow component b which includes various cytosolic molecules, metabolic enzymes, actin and cytoskeleton-associated proteins (Maday et al., 2014). In the course of axon growth and regeneration, multiple structural cytoskeleton components, cytosolic proteins, vesicles, and organelles need to be anterogradely transported to the axon tip. Interestingly, the speed of axon regeneration is similar to that of the slow component b of axonal transport
And here is a paper about the strange "fast transport + pause" behaviour of slow component b: Rapid and Intermittent Cotransport of Slow Component-b Proteins http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/12/3131.long
Abstract After synthesis in neuronal perikarya, proteins destined for synapses and other distant axonal sites are transported in three major groups that differ in average velocity and protein composition: fast component (FC), slow component-a (SCa), and slow component-b (SCb). The FC transports mainly vesicular cargoes at average rates of ?200–400 mm/d. SCa transports microtubules and neurofilaments at average rates of ?0.2–1 mm/d, whereas SCb translocates ?200 diverse proteins critical for axonal growth, regeneration, and synaptic function at average rates of ?2–8 mm/d. Several neurodegenerative diseases are characterized by abnormalities in one or more SCb proteins, but little is known about mechanisms underlying SCb compared with FC and SCa. Here, we use live-cell imaging to visualize and quantify the axonal transport of three SCb proteins, ?-synuclein, synapsin-I, and glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase in cultured hippocampal neurons, and directly compare their transport to synaptophysin, a prototypical FC protein. All three SCb proteins move rapidly but infrequently with pauses during transit, unlike synaptophysin, which moves much more frequently and persistently. By simultaneously visualizing the transport of proteins at high temporal and spatial resolution, we show that the dynamics of ?-synuclein transport are distinct from those of synaptophysin but similar to other SCb proteins. Our observations of the cotransport of multiple SCb proteins in single axons suggest that they move as multiprotein complexes. These studies offer novel mechanistic insights into SCb and provide tools for further investigating its role in disease processes.
Very interesting.gpuccio
December 11, 2018
December
12
Dec
11
11
2018
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT
It's as if our opponents have never heard of nor read Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution. Either that or they ignore its implications. I was once accused of presenting Creation baloney for referencing that article. The blogger wouldn't read it because he said is was Creationists misrepresenting the probability arguments. Then he banned me before I could explain that he was so very wrong. :cool: Given the above paper the evolution of color vision is out of the reach of natural selection and drift. That required duplications of an opsin gene, which would require building a new binding site. Then it took specific mutations to change the duplicated gene so that t was tuned to a different wavelength. Not that natural selection could put together such a tunable protein in the first place.ET
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
gpuccio (310): Yes, they have a whole trove of interesting articles there. As UB said, it never stops. :)OLV
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
gpuccio @296, 306-308: Excellent explanation (as usual). Thanks.PeterA
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
jawa @312: There's no written rule in this website requiring that we respond to any comment that is addressed to us. Therefore it's not of our business to speculate why somebody doesn't respond to any given comment. We have more important issues to discuss here.PeterA
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
GP #309 Yes. And No Backdoor to the Summit of Mount Improbable either :) because constraints cut out isolated pockets in the config space. The problem remains even if you define constraints as a function of time. It needs miraculous serendipity, in which they claim they don't believe in other contexts OR, of course, conscious design.EugeneS
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
EugeneS, No, I think he ignored it intentionally, because you presented a very interesting discussion topic where perhaps he wouldn't even understand what's all about. The guy writes nonsense here and there. He seems clueless. Unless it's a robot? If that's the case, then any hopes for someday having intelligent AI are gone. Poor thing.jawa
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Jawa 288, Perhaps PavelU missed my comment.EugeneS
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
OLV at #295: Very interesting paper. And it's only the editorial of a whole special issue dedicated to axon regeneration. The interesting point is that, while CNS axons are perfectly able to grow during develoment, they apparently losa that ability after development, ar most of it. On the contrary, axons in the peripheral nervous system are capabke of very good regeneration. The topic is fascinating, and of course it has huge medical implications. Here is another paper from the special issue: The Virtuous Cycle of Axon Growth: Axonal Transport of Growth-Promoting Machinery as an Intrinsic Determinant of Axon Regeneration https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dneu.22608
ABSTRACT: Injury to the brain and spinal cord has devastating consequences because adult central nervous system (CNS) axons fail to regenerate. Injury to the peripheral nervous system (PNS) has a better prognosis, because adult PNS neurons support robust axon regeneration over long distances. CNS axons have some regenerative capacity during development, but this is lost with maturity. Two reasons for the failure of CNS regeneration are extrinsic inhibitory molecules, and a weak intrinsic capacity for growth. Extrinsic inhibitory molecules have been well characterized, but less is known about the neuron?intrinsic mechanisms which prevent axon re?growth. Key signaling pathways and genetic/epigenetic factors have been identified which can enhance regenerative capacity, but the precise cellular mechanisms mediating their actions have not been characterized. Recent studies suggest that an important prerequisite for regeneration is an efficient supply of growth?promoting machinery to the axon; however, this appears to be lacking from non?regenerative axons in the adult CNS. In the first part of this review, we summarize the evidence linking axon transport to axon regeneration. We discuss the developmental decline in axon regeneration capacity in the CNS, and comment on how this is paralleled by a similar decline in the selective axonal transport of regeneration?associated receptors such as integrins and growth factor receptors. In the second part, we discuss the mechanisms regulating selective polarized transport within neurons, how these relate to the intrinsic control of axon regeneration, and whether they can be targeted to enhance regenerative capacity.
gpuccio
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
EugeneS at #286: "This is perfectly in line with my own observations in the world of combinatorial optimization. Local search is killed by constraints because it stagnates in optima. Unless you guide it by prior experience (expert knowledge of the problem domain), nothing can be done." Absolutely true. Those smooth and long pathways to "optimization" simply don't exist. All the available evidence (and reason itself) point to that! :)gpuccio
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Mung and all: Now, let's try to model what NS can do, if and when it happens. To do that, I will make a few extreme, non realistic assumtions, for the sake of simplicity. So, let's start from out protein with 432 bits of FI (100 specific AAs) in the previous model. we know that the time for that result to appear is extremely long: about 1.87+126 years. Now, let's imagine that there exists one perfect intermediate: one protein that shares 50 specific AA positions, and has some function that makes it naturally selectable. We know that the time needed for 50 specific AAs is about 3.38+61 years, a lot of time, but much less than in the previous case. Now let's say that after that time we have our intermediate, and that by magic it undergoes perfect and instantaneous positive selection, so that it expands intsntaneously from one organism to the whole population. IOWs, it is fixed, and we are, for the moment, ignoring the probability of fixation and the time to fixation. Fixation has two important effects: 1) Now we have 1e9 organisms with the 50 right AAs, and not one. IOWs, the probabilistic resources have been multiplied by 1e9. 2) The 50 AAs that are already there will be preserved by negative NS, and will not change. Here too I am assuming a perfect effect of NS, always for the sake of simplicity. In the scenario without NS, instead, even after having found 50 correct AAs, each new mutation can equally find a new correct AAs or change one of those that have alredy been found, because there is no negative NS acting. That is a big difference. So, the situation with such a perfect selectable intermediate is not the same as the open scenario without selectable intermediates. It is certainlt more favourable to the final success. But how can we compute the probabilities in this new scenario? I believe that the new scenario (with all its unrealistic assumption,s, of course) can be modeled, again, by the binomial distribution. But this time we must not compute the number of events that is necessary to get a result with a probability of 1/20^100, but rather the number of events that is necessary to get a result with a probability of 1/10^50, twice. Why? Because, after we have the first event (the perfect intermediate), ad the magic fixation takes place, we are again in the same situation as at the beginning: a) The 50 AAs that are already there will not change any more b) We have the same probabilistic resources that we had at the beginning: 1e9 bacteria reproducing 3 times a day c) Again, we have to find 50 specific AAs. So, in the end, the same "success" has to happen twice. So, applying the binomial distribution for two successes, each of which has a probability of: 5e-09 * 8.881784e-66 = 4.440892e-74 (as in the case of one success of 50 specific AAs) the result in terms of number of events needed is: 6.8e73 and in terms of time needed: 6.8e73 / 3e9 = 2.266667e+64 days (about 6.21e+61 years) This is almost twice the time required for one single event, but a lot less than what is required to get 100 independent and specific AAs without any intermediates. So, NS is quite powerful. Of course, in reality things are different. The probability of fixation and the time to fixation will certainly make the scenario less favourable. Let's say that we have to add an intermediate time to fixation to the computation, and that we have to consider the probability that even a favourable mutation can be lost. And of course, the result is still by far empirically impossible in our universe. A lot of perfect intermediates would be necessary to bring the whole process into the range of what RV can do. But the main point, IMO, is that such intermediates, perfect or less perfect, simply do not exist. There is no magic protein that shares a relevant sequence similarity with a complex function, but has nothing to do with that function, and still is naturally selectable. If we reason in terms of indepedent functional modules that can be assembled into a meta-function, that is theorically possible, even if a lot of FI is usually necessary to assemble existing modules for a new meta-function. But in the case of a new independent and complex function, like the function of the alpha and beta chians of ATP synthase, there is absolutely no reason for the esistence of such an ad hoc intermediate, and of course no empirical evidence of it. Leats of all of many such intermediates, each of them natirally selectable. So, to sum it up: a) NS, if and when it can happen, has a relevant power, and can lower the probabilistic barriers. b) However, when the probabilistic barriers are high, a lot of perfect intermediates would be necessary to change the scenario: IOWs. complex functions should be deconstructable into many simpler steps, each of them naturally selectable. c) There is no rationale and no empirical evidence to believe that such intermediates exist: IOWs, complex functions cannot be deconstructed into many simpler, naturally selecatble steps. Of course, our kind interlocutors will say again that it is my burden to demonstrate that this is impossible. That is simply not true, as discussed, so I will simply ignore them.gpuccio
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Mung and all: Now, I will try to explain briefly why NS, if and when it happens, can significantly lower the probabilistic barriers. I want to clarify that because it is important, IMO, that NS is not an imaginary process. It is real, and it can be important. Recognizing its true nature and power is the necessary step to understand its severe limits. So, what does NS do? First of all, we must distinguish between negatife (or purifying) selection and positive selection. While both processes are based on differential reproduction (the classic survival of the fittest), they have different form. So, negative selection essentially keeps unchanged a variation that increses fitness, by eliminating possible further variations that could cancel the acquired advantage. Negative selection is a powerful force, and is always restrianing random variation to preserve acquired function. NS is the reason why highly functional proteins show high sequence conservation through long evolutionary times, andis the foundation that I use in measuring indirectly FI in proteins. Positive selection, instead, is the process that expands a newly appeared function to all the population, or to most of it. IOWs, the new functional trait appear forst in one individual and is passed to its direct descendants, but in time those descendants become the whole population, or most of it, because of their reproductive advantage. By the combined action of negative and positive selection the new trait becomes, in the ende, the dominant, or the only form of that protein (or function) in the population. That is called fixation. The process of fixation, however, depend mainly on positive selection, which expands the new trait, even if negative selection also contributes. Once the trait has been fixed, negative selection will act to preserve it in time. Now, I want to clarify that my reasonings in the precious posts deal simply with the probability of first appearance of a defined result. IOWs, the times I have computed are the times for the defined result to appear in the population. But of course the defined result must be fixed in the population to become a true new function in that organism. So, we must consider two new variables: a) The probability of fixation b) The time to fixation While those two parameters can be difficult to assess, a general rule states that: a) The probability of fixation for neutral mutations is about 1/Ne (1/2Ne for diploid populations). Ne is the effective population size, which is usually lower than the real population size. However, in the following reasonings we will assume that Ne = N, for simplicity. So, in our example, the probability of a neutral mutation to be fixed by drift should be approximately 1/1e9. Of course, if a mutation has a positive selection coefficient (IOWs, it increses fitness), its probability of fixation can be much greater, but in general it will not be 1 (IOWs, even beneficial mutations can be lost). b) The time to fixation, again for a neutral mutation, is in general stated to be, in generations, 4Ne. So, in our example, the time to fixation for a neutral mutation would be, approximately: 4*1e9 = 4e9 generations Of course, again a positive mutation can be fixed in shorter times. So, let's say that a beneficial mutation has higher probability of being fixed, and shorter time to fixation. In our example, time to fixation would be rather short. But in general, it depends on population size and reproduction rate, and in some cases it can be rather long. So, in general, let's say that time to fixation has to be added to the time of appearance, and that not all beneficial mutations will be fixed. Again, there can be errors in my reasoning, and I am open to any correction. More in next post.gpuccio
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Mung and all: So, let's give a few more numbers. Always referring to the above mentioned system: 10^9 bacteria reproducing 3 times a day. Let's see what happens for 3, 10, 50 and 100 specific mutations.
3 specific mutations (let's call this defined result event 3). Probability of the result per mutation in the interested sites: 0.000125 Probability of one mutation per generation: 3e-10 Probability of the result per generation: 3e-10 * 0.000125 = 3.75e-14 Generations needed to get 0.8 probability of the result: g3 = 4.3e13 Time to oberve the result with 0.8 probability: t3 = 4.3e13 / 3e9 = 14333 days (about 39 years)
Now, for 10 specific mutations:
10 specific mutations (event 10). Probability of the result per mutation in the interested sites: 9.765625e-14 Probability of one mutation per generation: 1e-9 Probability of the result per generation: 1e-9 * 9.765625e-14 = 9.765625e-23 Generations needed to get 0.8 probability of the result: g10 = 1.65e22 Time to oberve the result with 0.8 probability: t10 = 1.65e22 / 3e9 = 5.5e+12 days (about 15 billion years)
So, here we are at the age of our universe. Abundantly. Let's go to 50 AAs:
50 specific mutations (event 50). Probability of the result per mutation in the interested sites: 8.881784e-66 Probability of one mutation per generation: 5e-09 Probability of the result per generation: 5e-9 * 8.881784e-66 = 4.440892e-74 Generations needed to get 0.8 probability of the result: g50 = 3.7e73 Time to oberve the result with 0.8 probability: t50 = 3.7e73 / 3e9 = 1.233333e+64 days (about 3.378995e+61 years)
And finally, for 100 specific AAs. Remember, we are still below the 500 bits threshold. 100 AAs are about 432 bits).
100 specific mutations (event 100). Probability of the result per mutation in the interested sites: 7.888609e-131 Probability of one mutation per generation: 1e-08 Probability of the result per generation: 1e-8 * 7.888609e-131 = 7.888609e-139 Generations needed to get 0.8 probability of the result: g100 = 2.05e138 Time to oberve the result with 0.8 probability: t100 = 2.05e138 / 3e9 = 6.833333e+128 days (about 1.87+126 years)
OK, that's enough for the moment. I hope the numbers are right. Always happy for any correction.gpuccio
December 10, 2018
December
12
Dec
10
10
2018
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 14

Leave a Reply