Tensions on the actin cytoskeleton and apical cell junctions in the
C. elegans
actin
contractility
laser ablation
myosin
tension
Journal
Frontiers in cell and developmental biology
ISSN: 2296-634X
Titre abrégé: Front Cell Dev Biol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101630250
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
03
09
2024
accepted:
02
10
2024
medline:
30
10
2024
pubmed:
30
10
2024
entrez:
30
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cells generate mechanical forces mainly through myosin motor activity on the actin cytoskeleton. In In animals expressing GFP labeled actin or apical membrane complexes, we severed these structures using femtosecond laser ablation and quantified retractions. RNA interference was used to deplete key contractility regulators. We show that the basal actomyosin fibers are under tension in the occupied spermatheca. Reducing actomyosin contractility by depletion of the phospholipase C-ε/PLC-1 or non-muscle myosin II/NMY-1, leads to distended spermathecae occupied by one or more embryos, but does not alter tension on the basal actomyosin fibers. However, activating myosin through depletion of the Rho GAP SPV-1 increases tension on the actomyosin fibers, consistent with earlier studies showing Rho drives spermathecal contractility. On the inner surface of the spermathecal tube, tension on the apical junctions is decreased by depletion of PLC-1 and NMY-1. Surprisingly, when basal contractility is increased through SPV-1 depletion, the tension on apical junctions also decreases, with the most significant effect on the junctions aligned in perpendicular to the axis of the spermatheca. Our results suggest that much of the tension on the basal actin fibers in the occupied spermatheca is due to the presence of the embryo. Additionally, increased tension on the outer basal surface may compress the apical side, leading to lower tensions apically. The three dimensional shape of the spermatheca plays a role in force distribution and contractility during ovulation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39474353
doi: 10.3389/fcell.2024.1490803
pii: 1490803
pmc: PMC11518831
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1490803Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Sadeghian, Grooms, Chung and Cram.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
PLoS Genet. 2020 Aug 10;16(8):e1008644
pubmed: 32776941
Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2020 Oct;77(10):379-398
pubmed: 32969593
J Dev Biol. 2019 Mar 20;7(1):
pubmed: 30897735
J Cell Sci. 2017 Feb 15;130(4):689-696
pubmed: 28202603
PLoS Genet. 2013 May;9(5):e1003510
pubmed: 23671426
Development. 2023 Mar 15;150(6):
pubmed: 36897576
BMC Neurosci. 2006 Apr 06;7:30
pubmed: 16600041
Mol Biol Cell. 2017 Jul 7;28(14):1937-1949
pubmed: 28331075
Eur Phys J E Soft Matter. 2022 May 16;45(5):48
pubmed: 35575822
J Biol Chem. 1998 Feb 6;273(6):3778-83
pubmed: 9452511
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 23;9(4):e95695
pubmed: 24759936
Dev Biol. 2010 Nov 15;347(2):247-57
pubmed: 20707996
Nat Commun. 2023 Dec 4;14(1):8011
pubmed: 38049429
Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2020 Oct;77(10):422-441
pubmed: 33103378
Cell Tissue Res. 2013 Apr;352(1):133-47
pubmed: 22622805
Curr Biol. 2015 Jan 19;25(2):141-151
pubmed: 25532891
Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2020 Sep;77(9):342-350
pubmed: 32885903
J Biophotonics. 2022 Sep;15(9):e202200042
pubmed: 35583201
Dev Cell. 2019 Jul 22;50(2):197-211.e5
pubmed: 31204174
Mol Biol Cell. 2018 Oct 1;29(20):2433-2449
pubmed: 30091661
PLoS Genet. 2020 Jun 1;16(6):e1008717
pubmed: 32479493
Mol Biol Cell. 2019 Mar 21;30(7):907-922
pubmed: 30726159
Dev Cell. 2021 Jul 12;56(13):1833-1847
pubmed: 34107299
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Mar 7;114(10):2622-2627
pubmed: 28213499
Mol Biol Cell. 2018 Aug 8;29(16):1975-1991
pubmed: 30088798