4.7 Article

PDGF controls contact inhibition of locomotion by regulating N-cadherin during neural crest migration

期刊

DEVELOPMENT
卷 144, 期 13, 页码 2456-2468

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dev.147926

关键词

PDGF; PDGFR; Neural Crest; EMT; Contact inhibition of locomotion; N-cadherin; Migration; Xenopus

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [M010465, J000655]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [M008517]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. EMBO [LTF-971]
  5. H2020 Marie SklodowskaCurie Actions [658536]
  6. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [658536] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fundamental property of neural crest (NC) migration is contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL), a process by which cells change their direction of migration upon cell contact. CIL has been proven to be essential for NC migration in amphibians and zebrafish by controlling cell polarity in a cell contact-dependent manner. Cell contact during CIL requires the participation of the cell adhesion molecule N-cadherin, which starts to be expressed by NC cells as a consequence of the switch between E- and N-cadherins during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). However, the mechanism that controls the upregulation of N-cadherin remains unknown. Here, we show that platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFR alpha) and its ligand platelet-derived growth factor A (PDGF-A) are co-expressed in migrating cranial NC. Inhibition of PDGF-A/PDGFR alpha blocks NC migration by inhibiting N-cadherin and, consequently, impairing CIL. Moreover, we identify phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT as a downstream effector of the PDGFR alpha cellular response during CIL. Our results lead us to propose PDGF-A/PDGFR alpha signalling as a tissue-autonomous regulator of CIL by controlling N-cadherin upregulation during EMT. Finally, we show that once NC cells have undergone EMT, the same PDGF-A/PDGFR alpha works as an NC chemoattractant, guiding their directional migration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据