Search

The temporal coordination of events at cellular and tissue scales is essential for the proper development of organisms, and involves cell-intrinsic processes that can be coupled by local cellular signalling and instructed by global signalling, thereby creating spatial patterns of cellular states that change over time. The timing and structure of these patterns determine how an organism develops. Traditional developmental genetic methods have revealed the complex molecular circuits regulating these processes but are limited in their ability to predict and understand the emergent spatio-temporal dynamics. Increasingly, approaches from physics are now being used to help capture the dynamics of the system by providing simplified, generic descriptions. Combined with advances in imaging and computational power, such approaches aim to provide insight into timing and patterning in developing systems., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

The opportunistic pathogen Pseudomonas aeruginosa explores surfaces using twitching motility powered by retractile extracellular filaments called type IV pili (T4P). Single cells twitch by sequential T4P extension, attachment, and retraction. How single cells coordinate T4P to efficiently navigate surfaces remains unclear. We demonstrate that P. aeruginosa actively directs twitching in the direction of mechanical input from T4P in a process called mechanotaxis. The Chp chemotaxis-like system controls the balance of forward and reverse twitching migration of single cells in response to the mechanical signal. Collisions between twitching cells stimulate reversals, but Chp mutants either always or never reverse. As a result, while wild-type cells colonize surfaces uniformly, collision-blind Chp mutants jam, demonstrating a function for mechanosensing in regulating group behavior. On surfaces, Chp senses T4P attachment at one pole, thereby sensing a spatially resolved signal. As a result, the Chp response regulators PilG and PilH control the polarization of the extension motor PilB. PilG stimulates polarization favoring forward migration, while PilH inhibits polarization, inducing reversal. Subcellular segregation of PilG and PilH efficiently orchestrates their antagonistic functions, ultimately enabling rapid reversals upon perturbations. The distinct localization of response regulators establishes a signaling landscape known as local excitation-global inhibition in higher-order organisms, identifying a conserved strategy to transduce spatially resolved signals., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.)

The rapid reorganization of the actin cytoskeleton in response to external stimuli is an essential property of many motile eukaryotic cells. Here, we report evidence that the actin machinery of chemotactic Dictyostelium cells operates close to an oscillatory instability. When averaging the actin response of many cells to a short pulse of the chemoattractant cAMP, we observed a transient accumulation of cortical actin reminiscent of a damped oscillation. At the single-cell level, however, the response dynamics ranged from short, strongly damped responses to slowly decaying, weakly damped oscillations. Furthermore, in a small subpopulation, we observed self-sustained oscillations in the cortical F-actin concentration. To substantiate that an oscillatory mechanism governs the actin dynamics in these cells, we systematically exposed a large number of cells to periodic pulse trains of different frequencies. Our results indicate a resonance peak at a stimulation period of around 20 s. We propose a delayed feedback model that explains our experimental findings based on a time-delay in the regulatory network of the actin system. To test the model, we performed stimulation experiments with cells that express GFP-tagged fusion proteins of Coronin and actin-interacting protein 1, as well as knockout mutants that lack Coronin and actin-interacting protein 1. These actin-binding proteins enhance the disassembly of actin filaments and thus allow us to estimate the delay time in the regulatory feedback loop. Based on this independent estimate, our model predicts an intrinsic period of 20 s, which agrees with the resonance observed in our periodic stimulation experiments.