4.6 Review

Regulation of substrate adhesion dynamics during cell motility

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1357-2725(01)00171-6

关键词

actin cytoskeleton; microtubules; polarisation; signaling; Rho

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The movement of a metazoan cell entails the regulated creation and turnover of adhesions with the surface on which it moves. Adhesion sites form as a result of signaling between the extracellular matrix on the outside and the actin cytoskeleton on the inside, and they are associated with specific assembles of actin filaments. Two broad categories of adhesion sites can be distinguished: (1) focal complexes associated with lamellipodia and filopodia that support protrusion and traction at the cell front; and (2) focal adhesions at the termini of stress fibre bundles that serve in longer term anchorage. Focal complexes are signaled via Rac 1 or Cdc42 and can either turnover on a minute scale or differentiate, via intervention of the RhoA pathway, into longer-lived focal adhesions. All classes of adhesion sites depend on the stress in the actin cytoskeleton for their formation and maintenance. Different cell types use different adhesion strategies to move, in terms of the relative engagement of filopodia and lamellipodia in focal complex formation and protrusion and the extent of focal adhesion formation. These differences can be attributed to variations in the relative activities of Rho family members. However, the Rho GTPases alone are unable to signal asymmetry in the actin cytoskeleton, necessary for polarisation and movement. Polarisation requires the collaboration of the microtubule cytoskeleton. Changes in the polymerisation state of microtubules influences the activities of both Rac I and RhoA and microtubules interact directly with adhesion foci and promote their turnover. Possible mechanisms of cross-talk between the microtubule and actin cytoskeletons, in deterrnining polarity are discussed. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

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

4.6
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