Next Article in Journal
Retinoic Acid Promotes the In Vitro Growth, Patterning and Improves the Cellular Composition of Human Pluripotent Stem-Cell-Derived Intestinal Organoids
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Equilibrium Distribution of Ligands in Heterogeneous Media–Approaches and Pitfalls
Previous Article in Journal
Synthetic Peucedanocoumarin IV Prevents α-Synuclein Neurotoxicity in an Animal Model of Parkinson’s Disease
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Cobalt and Chromium Ions on the Chlorhexidine Digluconate as Seen by Intermolecular Diffusion
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Cell Architecture-Dependent Constraints: Critical Safeguards to Carcinogenesis

1
i3S—Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Rua Alfredo Allen, 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
2
IPATIMUP—Instituto de Patologia e Imunologia Molecular da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias s/n, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
3
Master Programme in Oncology, School of Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, University of Porto (ICBAS-UP), Rua Jorge Viterbo Ferreira 228, 4050-513 Porto, Portugal
4
Magistère Européen de Génétique, Université Paris Cité, 5 Rue Thomas Mann, 75013 Paris, France
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(15), 8622; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158622
Submission received: 6 July 2022 / Revised: 29 July 2022 / Accepted: 30 July 2022 / Published: 3 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art Macromolecules in Portugal)

Abstract

:
Animal cells display great diversity in their shape. These morphological characteristics result from crosstalk between the plasma membrane and the force-generating capacities of the cytoskeleton macromolecules. Changes in cell shape are not merely byproducts of cell fate determinants, they also actively drive cell fate decisions, including proliferation and differentiation. Global and local changes in cell shape alter the transcriptional program by a multitude of mechanisms, including the regulation of physical links between the plasma membrane and the nuclear envelope and the mechanical modulation of cation channels and signalling molecules. It is therefore not surprising that anomalies in cell shape contribute to several diseases, including cancer. In this review, we discuss the possibility that the constraints imposed by cell shape determine the behaviour of normal and pro-tumour cells by organizing the whole interconnected regulatory network. In turn, cell behaviour might stabilize cells into discrete shapes. However, to progress towards a fully transformed phenotype and to acquire plasticity properties, pro-tumour cells might need to escape these cell shape restrictions. Thus, robust controls of the cell shape machinery may represent a critical safeguard against carcinogenesis.

1. Introduction

Animal cells exhibit great diversity in their shape. Cell shape is often regulated by cell fate determinants, in order to adapt cell geometry to a particular cellular function [1,2]. However, the regulatory link between cell fate determinants and cell shape is not unidirectional. Changes in cell geometry can also affect the intrinsic signalling state of the cell, override extrinsic biochemical factors, and consequently drive cells to acquire distinct behaviours [3,4]. Cell shape is determined by the mechanical balance between intracellular and extracellular forces exerted on the cell membrane. Extrinsic forces include gravity, shear stress or tensions exerted by neighbouring cells through cadherin-mediated adherens junctions (AJs) and by the extracellular matrix (ECM), through integrin transmembrane receptors. We refer to a number of excellent reviews which highlight ground-breaking studies, providing hints into the mechanisms by which extrinsic forces affect cell shape and consequently the behaviour of normal and cancer cells [4,5,6]. In this review, we discuss the role of cell shape as a direct readout of intrinsic forces exerted by the cytoskeleton on the cell membrane in normal, pro-tumour and cancer cells. We first focus on how the organization and dynamics of the cytoskeleton macromolecules, including microfilaments (MFs), microtubules (MTs) and intermediate filaments (IFs), control cell shape by exerting forces on the plasma membrane. We then review representative examples that implicate cell shape changes in cell fate decisions and provide illustrations of how changes in cell architecture alter the transcriptional program. Finally, we discuss how cell shape could act as a critical safeguard to tumour initiation and progression and how, in turn, cancer cells could escape the restrictions imposed by cell shape to undergo malignant transformation and acquire plasticity properties.

2. Cell-Intrinsic Mechanisms of Cell Shape Control

In mammalian cells, the geometrical information of the space occupied by cells can be classified into three main types. The lymphoblast-like type defines spherical cells that can grow in suspension. In contrast, cells with fibroblast-like and epithelial-like shapes are anchored to ECM extracellular macromolecules, such as collagens and fibronectins, through integrins, which transmit signals via inside-out and outside-in signalling. While fibroblast-like cells are flat, spindle-shaped, epithelial-like ones are prism-shaped and are associated with each other through AJs. These major types can be further divided into subtypes. For instance, cells with epithelial-like shapes are subdivided based on their thickness. The squamous epithelial cell type has a flattened shape (surface area wider than their height), whereas cuboidal epithelial cells have similar height and width and columnar epithelial ones are taller than they are wide [7]. Yet, cell shape does not appear to be a continuous variable, as the range of shapes that a cell can acquire seems to be restricted. Systematic gene inhibition using RNA interference has shown that Drosophila haemocytes transit between five pre-existing shapes in a switch-like manner but never acquire stable intermediate shapes distinct from the pre-existing ones [8]. This behaviour suggests that genetic alterations attract cells into a set of defined shapes, reminiscent of the behaviour of stable attractors of signalling regulatory networks, dragged into specific phenotypes (see below basins of attraction) [9].
Cell-intrinsic forces are mostly the direct result of crosstalk between membrane-associated lipids and proteins at the plasma membrane and the force-generating capacities of the cytoskeleton [10]. The cytoskeleton is a complex intermingled meshwork of three major classes of filamentous macromolecules: MFs, MTs and IFs. These three cytoskeletal macromolecules mainly differ in their mechanical stiffness, the dynamics of their assembly, their polarity, and the type of associated molecular motors [11,12,13,14,15].
MFs are semi-flexible 7–9 nm diameter filaments composed of monomeric actin subunits arranged head to tail to give the filament a molecular polarity. Polymerization occurs predominantly by extension of the fast-growing barbed ends of the filaments, while filaments are disassembled by the loss of monomers from the slow-growing pointed ends [16]. Actin filaments generate the forces necessary to change shape through distinct mechanisms. One of those mechanisms involves the addition of actin monomers to filaments oriented towards the plasma membrane that can push the cell edge forward, such as in the lamellipodium of migrating cells. A single filament generates low forces. However, many growing filaments pushing across an entire protruding cell surface can produce forces three orders of magnitude higher than a single one. In addition, the presence of crosslinkers coupling actin filaments into highly-ordered networks can promote the assembly of stiff structures that support membrane protrusion, such as those building filopodia. Conversely, pulling forces generated by MFs are mediated via their interaction with myosin molecular motors, which slide actin filaments past one another, resulting in the contraction or extension of two bound actin filaments [17,18]. Distinct contractile actin networks assemble at distinct subcellular localizations. Among those, the actomyosin cortex lying under the plasma membrane resists external mechanical stresses, and its local activity drives diverse changes in cell shape, including mitotic cell rounding, cytokinetic furrow ingression, cell body retraction during migration, apical constriction and alterations of epithelial thickness [11,12]. Actomyosin stress fibres can be connected to integrin-mediated focal adhesions (FAs) at their ends (ventral stress fibres) and promote rear constriction during cell migration, or they can be positioned above the nucleus to regulate nuclear shape and to convey forces to it [19], while actomyosin circumferential belts underlying cadherin-mediated Ajs act as direct linkers between adjacent cells to control intercellular surface tension [20].
Although MFs have been for long considered as the predominant engine of force generation, in recent years, multiple reports have demonstrated that MTs also generate physiologically relevant forces controlling cell shape [13,14]. MTs consist of 13 protofilaments composed of αβ tubulin dimers arranged in ∼25 nm wide, polarized hollow tubes. They undergo alternative phases of rapid assembly and disassembly in a process called dynamic instability. This highly dynamic property allows cells to quickly adopt new spatial reorganization, essential to a number of cellular functions, including mitosis. MTs are the stiffest of the three main cytoskeletal polymers [21]. Similar to actin filaments, the addition of new tubulin dimers to MTs in contact with an object, such as the cell cortex, can exert a pushing force, which increases with the number of MTs and the presence of motor and non-motor crosslinkers. Conversely, depolymerization of MTs that remain connected to an object will pull on it. In addition, MT sliding by molecular motor proteins or crosslinkers lacking intrinsic motor activity generates pushing and pulling forces [13].
IFs, similar to MFs and MTs, are also major integrators of cell and tissue mechanics. As opposed to MFs and MTs, which are composed of actin and tubulin, respectively, IFs are formed by one or more members of a large family of highly insoluble proteins encoded by more than 70 genes, whose expression varies between cell types and tissues. IFs can be crosslinked to each other. However, unlike MFs and MTs, they are not polarized and cannot support the directional movement of motor proteins. Instead, it is the fundamental structure of IFs that determines their mechanical properties. Although the flexibility of IFs varies with their composition, single filaments are much more flexible than MFs and MTs. They can be stretched by up to 3 times their original length, whereas MFs and MTs tend to break before being stretched 1.5 times their resting length. Thus, although IF networks tend to be softer than MT and MF networks at low strain, they can withstand much larger deformations. IFs are therefore generally believed to provide mechanical strength and resilience to cells at large deformations [15]. In recent years, it has become clear that while all three cytoskeleton elements can generate forces on their own, they also engage in extensive crosstalk crucial for changes in cell shape [22].

3. Cell Shape-Dependent Effects on Cell Behaviours

Cell shape has long been recognized to profoundly impact cell behaviour [23]. One behaviour that has been extensively studied is cell proliferation. Untransformed non-lymphoblast-like cells lose their capacity to proliferate when detached from a substrate. The differential proliferative ability of attached versus detached untransformed cells is associated with a striking change in cell shape, characterized by cell rounding in suspension and flattening when anchored to a substrate [24,25]. The degree of ECM-dependent integrin occupation and clustering has been shown to play central roles in the cell response to anchorage [26]. Yet, anchorage per se might not be sufficient to explain these distinct behaviours, as fibroblasts attached to glass beads lose their flat shape and their ability to proliferate when reducing the bead diameter, although they remain anchored [27]. Moreover, stimulating integrin signalling in suspended cells does not trigger proliferation [28,29,30], suggesting that it is the change in cell geometry associated with cell spreading which induces cell division. To test this possibility, micro-patterned cell culturing with substrates containing ECM-coated adhesive islands of defined shapes, sizes and ECM molecular coating densities have been extensively used [31]. These studies demonstrated that cell proliferation in the presence of growth factors depends directly on cell shape, independently of the degree of ECM binding. For example, restricting the spreading of capillary endothelial cells grown on micro-patterned substrates of reduced size while maintaining constant the total cell-matrix contact area restricts cell division [29,32]. The same effect is observed when the actin cytoskeleton or the cytoskeletal tension are disrupted, even though cells remain anchored to the ECM [32]. Similarly, keratinocytes spread on large circular adhesive islands can proliferate. In contrast, DNA synthesis is inhibited when reducing the adhesive area until cells reach an almost spherical shape [33,34]. At the tissue level, cytoskeletal tension has been shown to be directly involved in generating the patterns of proliferation in monolayers of endothelial cells [35]. Furthermore, stretching of epithelial tissues, while preserving cell–cell junctions, leads to an immediate increase in cell area and in the fraction of cycling cells. Conversely, compression induces cell cycle arrest [36,37,38]. Accordingly, during epithelial morphogenesis, local changes in cell shape and cytoskeletal distortion often precede rather than follow changes in proliferation. These architectural changes could allow cells to respond to mitogenic cues locally, thereby further propagating tissue expansion in these regions, as proposed during budding of the lung epithelium [39]. Although these observations cannot rule out that cell proliferation is controlled by local alterations of the ECM or distortion of specific membrane-associated receptors rather than by modifications of the cytoskeleton and lipid bilayer, they suggest that the control of cell proliferation by cell shape holds true in vivo.
It has also become clear that changes in cell shape and mechanical forces instruct cell migration, division and tissue morphogenesis during development [18,40,41]. For instance, stomodeal cell compression during Drosophila embryogenesis, likely resulting from the extension of the germ-band, triggers the formation of the anterior gut [42]. Changes in cell shape also have a major impact on cell fate decisions. Thus, growing keratinocytes on smaller circular adhesive islands not only inhibits DNA synthesis but also stimulates their terminal differentiation independently of ECM composition or density [33,34]. Conversely, stretching keratinocytes inhibits their terminal differentiation program [43]. One could deduce that cell stretching, as opposed to rounding, promotes a proliferative undifferentiated state. However, elongated mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) undergo smooth muscle differentiation on large micro-surfaces, while rounded cells on smaller micro-surfaces remain undifferentiated. Moreover, spreading of mouse embryonic stem cells induces their exit from a naive pluripotent state to acquire a primed pluripotent phenotype [44,45]. Cell elongation is also required for myogenesis, as smooth muscle differentiation fails to occur when cells are prevented from elongating in the presence of factors that stimulate their differentiation [46]. Moreover, human MSCs (hMSCs) grown onto large islands of fibronectin have been shown to flatten and differentiate into bone, whereas on small islands, they acquire a round shape and differentiate into fat. These effects depend on a synergy between cell shape and RhoA activity, which both affect intracellular contractility [47]. Furthermore, restricting hMSC spreading or inhibiting cytoskeletal tension prevents their differentiation into bone cells [48]. In addition to the strength of cell spreading, the degree of anisotropy and cell curvature could determine lineage commitment. hMSCs spread on rectangular or star-shaped islands show higher intracellular contractility and preferentially differentiate to bone. In contrast, they undergo adipogenesis on square or concave edge shapes of the same area [49,50]. Taken together, these observations indicate that changes in cell shape can reprogram cell behaviour in a switch-like manner. This comportment is reminiscent of the behaviour of stable attractors of signalling regulatory networks proposed by Stuart Kauffman (see below basins of attraction) [9].

4. Cell Shape-Dependent Mechanisms Regulating Cell Behaviours

Cell shape changes and cell mechanics have major effects on the transcriptional program [51,52]. For instance, compressive forces or micro-patterned substrates that alter the cellular geometry of mouse fibroblasts induce the nuclear shuttling of histone deacetylase 3, which causes a global increase in chromatin condensation levels and cellular quiescence [53,54]. Moreover, stretching of human epidermal progenitor cells triggers H3K27me3-mediated silencing of nearly 4000 lineage-specific genes [43]. However, the exact molecular mechanisms by which cell shape change affects the transcriptional state of cells to drive distinct cell behaviours are still poorly understood.
Altering the shape of NIH3T3 fibroblasts using micro-patterned surfaces can directly alter the physical properties of the nucleus via cytoskeletal physical links (e.g., apical stress fibres/perinuclear stress fibres) transmitted from cell surface receptors to the nuclear envelope [55]. As proteins of the inner nuclear membrane and of the nucleoskeleton bind to chromatin, forces transmitted from the cell surface to the nuclear envelope can alter chromatin organization, the accessibility of transcription factors and other chromatin regulatory factors to DNA, and consequently gene expression, as reported in mouse fibroblasts [56,57] (Figure 1a). For instance, nuclear morphological alteration of circle-shaped MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts on micro-patterned islands upregulates the two major calcium cycling proteins, inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptor 1 (IP3R1) and sarco/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2 +-ATPase 2 (SERCA2), which in turn stimulate cell proliferation [58]. Nuclear flattening as a result of cell shape change can also stretch nuclear pores, reducing their mechanical resistance to the transport of molecules (Figure 1a), as shown for the transcriptional coactivator YAP (Yes-associated protein) in mouse embryonic fibroblasts [59]. Accordingly, diverse reports point to a role of cell shape and mechanical tension in regulating the activity of the two downstream effectors of the Hippo pathway, YAP and TAZ (transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif) [60]. Primary neonatal human keratinocytes that are forced to acquire a rounded shape on small micro-printed islands exclude YAP from the nucleus and undergo terminal differentiation [61]. Conversely, YAP/TAZ translocate to the nucleus in spread hMSCs or lung microvascular endothelial cells grown on large micro-patterned islands independently of the degree of ECM binding, indicating that cell shape, rather than the strength of cell-ECM interaction, controls YAP/TAZ localization [62]. In addition to promoting YAP nuclear import via alterations of the physical properties of the nucleus, changes in cell shape also regulate the activity of the upstream YAP/TAZ regulators [60]. YAP is mostly cytoplasmic in round fibroblasts grown on small micro-patterned adhesive areas. In contrast, on larger cell adhesive areas, these cells acquire a flat shape and accumulate YAP in the nucleus through a process which depends on the LATS kinase [63].
Alteration of surface tension, bending of the membrane or forces applied on F-actin beneath the plasma membrane can mechanically activate calcium channels (Figure 1b) [64,65]. One such example is the opening of the Piezo1 calcium channel following mechanical stimulations, such as stretching, in diverse mouse and human tissues and cell types [64,66,67]. In turn, calcium currents induce the phosphorylation of the calcium-activated target of MEK1/2, ERK1/2, which triggers cell division in the Madin Darby Canine Kidney (MDCK) cell line [38]. Stretches applied on the plasma membrane can also mechanically unfold or distort proteins leading to exposure or hiding of substrate sites, as demonstrated for the nonreceptor tyrosine kinase c-SRC using molecular dynamics simulations and mouse, primate and human cell lines (Figure 1c) [68,69,70]. Mathematical models and experimental validations using monkey fibroblast cells have also provided evidence that high curvature of membrane micro-domains enhances the activity of membrane-associated receptors following ligand binding [71]. Alteration of lipid raft micro-domains within the cell plasma membrane can also activate signalling pathways in a ligand-independent manner (Figure 1d), as illustrated by the recruitment and activation of Akt, which induces hMSC differentiation [72]. Alterations in cell shape also impinge on the rate of endocytosis. For instance, during the early differentiation of embryonic stem cells, cell spreading decreases tension at the plasma membrane, which stimulates the endocytosis of FGF components and subsequently ERK activation (Figure 1e) [44]. Cell shape-dependent alterations of the ratio between filamentous (F) and globular (G) actin also have major effects on the activity of signalling pathways and epigenetic factors. An increase in the F/G actin ratio in rounded keratinocytes induces the dissociation of the Myocardin-related transcription factor A (MRTF-A) from G-actin, which causes MRTF-A translocation to the nucleus, where it binds to serum response factor (SRF) and activates the expression of target genes supporting terminal differentiation [33]. Altogether, these observations highlight the key role of cell-intrinsic shape determinants in regulating gene expression and cell behaviour.
To explain cell fate switching driven by changes in cell shape, specific signalling pathways have been identified. Accordingly, protein–protein interaction maps indicate that cytoskeleton proteins are closely interconnected with signalling components [73,74]. However, to switch its fate efficiently, a cell must coordinate its response by turning off its current gene program, while turning on a distinct one. This implies that cell shape affects many signalling molecules at once within the whole interconnected signalling network, which converges towards specific cell fate or stable attractors of the network [75,76]. This concept, first introduced by Stuart Kauffman, proposes that in the presence of a stimulus, the internal state of the cell will be attracted into a “basin of attraction” due to the dynamic constraints imposed by the regulatory interaction network, similar to a ball rolling over a landscape with hills and valleys which becomes stabilized in one of the valleys, as illustrated by the epigenetic landscape described by Waddington to explain cell fate decision (Figure 2) [9,77]. Thus, in Waddington’s epigenetic landscape, each basin of attraction could be determined by the constraint imposed by cytoskeleton genes and therefore by cell shape. These shape-dependent constraints could drive the rolling down of cells in specific valleys or their climbing up on the landscape and falling down into other basins of attraction [78]. The cell’s ability to climb up hills and fall down into other valleys could depend on the depth and climbing distance of the initial basin of attraction and therefore the stability of each phenotype. As cells might only be capable of maintaining a set of discrete shapes [8], stable attractors of signalling regulatory networks must, in turn, alter the expression and/or activity of structural components that would stabilize cells into defined shapes and therefore phenotypes.

5. Implications to Cancer Initiation and Progression

Because cell shape is a key determinant of cell behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that alterations in cell architecture is also associated with carcinogenesis. Cancer cells display drastic alterations in their shape, cytoskeletal architecture, intracellular tension and force-generating capabilities [79]. Moreover, the expression profile of genes that encode for cytoskeleton regulators differs between normal and cancer cells [80,81]. In addition, image-analysis approaches combined with gene expression and protein–protein interaction data have established correlations between the shape of cancer cells and the activation of signalling pathways [82,83]. Stereotypical cell shapes can also predict cancer cell behaviours, including metastatic potential and chemoresistance, opening the possibility of using morphological parameters to diagnose tumour malignancy and aggressiveness [84,85,86,87,88].
Oncogenes and tumour suppressors are well known to affect the expression of cytoskeleton genes, cell shape and cell mechanics. For instance, expressing a mutated form of the RAS oncogene in the untransformed MCF10A cells induces a striking change in cell shape from flat to cuboidal [89]. These morphological and mechanical alterations are not only byproducts of aberrant cell signalling but actively contribute to driving cancer cell behaviours, including sustaining proliferation, rewiring metabolic pathways, promoting epithelial to mesenchymal transition and propelling metastasis [90,91,92]. Thus, a RAS-dependent increase in cell contractibility promotes tumour progression and aggressiveness [93,94]. In addition, RAS further enhances the rounding and stiffening of mitotic cells to enable cell proliferation under conditions of mechanical confinement, such as those experienced by cells in crowded tumours [95]. We have also shown that conditional activation of an oncogenic form of SRC triggers ERK-dependent proliferation and malignant transformation in MCF10A cells through a transient increase in cell stiffening [96]. In turn, increased contractility of tumour cells and their associated stromal fibroblasts induces tension-dependent ECM remodelling, which feedback on cell architecture [94,97]. Thus, tumorigenic triggers affect cell shape in order to adapt cell geometry to particular cancer cell behaviours.
In addition, the initial shape of untransformed cells might also dictate whether cells are more susceptible to initiate tumorigenesis. Not all cells within a tissue respond equally to tumorigenic triggers. In the Drosophila wing imaginal disc, the behaviour of clones of cells depleted of the neoplastic tumour suppressor gene lethal giant larvae (lgl) or scribble (scrib) depends on the location of the pro-tumour cells. Mutant cells located in the most central blade domain, formed of tall columnar cells, extrude basally and undergo apoptosis. In contrast, in the peripheral hinge region, composed of shorter epithelial cells, mutant clones delaminate apically and show dysplastic growth. These region-specific behaviours correlate with the differential accumulation of apical and basal MTs and depend on the cell-intrinsic architecture, as clones in the blade domain knocked down for lgl or scrib and p115 RhoGEF accumulate basal MTs and extrude apically, similarly to lgl or scrib-depleted clones localized in the hinge domain [98]. Likewise, in mice, the behaviour of clones expressing an oncogenic form of KRAS and mutants for the Fbw7 tumour suppressor depends on their location within pancreatic ducts. In smaller ducts composed of elongated cells, mutant clones evaginate basally away from the duct lumen and display aggressive behaviour. In contrast, in large ducts formed of cuboidal cells, pro-tumour clones invaginate apically towards the duct lumen and display less aggressive behaviour. These differential responses are not tissue specific, as they can be recapitulated in ducts of the lung. They are also independent of the oncogenic combination, as clones expressing oncogenic KRAS and deleted for the p35 tumour suppressor display identical behaviours. Computational simulations suggest that changes in apical–basal tension in transformed cells and the bending modulus that mimics small and large ducts, dictate the behaviour of mutant clones. Thus, differences in tension imbalance and whole tissue curvature appear to determine tumour morphology and aggressiveness [99]. Even though these observations do not exclude that the interaction of pro-tumour cells with their wild-type neighbours [100] or that fluctuations in the composition and/or organization of the local ECM contribute to the differential behaviour of pro-tumour cells [5], they open the possibility that depending on the cell and/or tissue initial shapes, the same oncogenic trigger can lead to distinct cell fate decisions. This could contribute to explain why tumours are frequently observed at specific locations, for instance at the border between two different types of epithelia, including between the cervix and the uterus, between the oesophagus and the stomach or between the stratified squamous epithelium of anal skin and mucosal epithelium of the large intestine [101,102].
Anomalies in cell shape, cytoskeleton structure and dynamics could also provide a favourable ground for tumour initiation. Accordingly, altering the expression of cytoskeleton genes triggers or predisposes to tumorigenesis. For instance, inactivating actin-capping proteins or overexpressing the actin nucleator diaphanous in Drosophila epithelia induces tissue overgrowth through activation of the YAP/TAZ oncogene Yorkie [103,104]. The actin, MT and IF crosslinker Dystonin also restricts YAP activity and consequently cell growth, anchorage-independent growth, self-renewal and resistance to doxorubicin in the untransformed human mammary epithelial cell line MCF10A [105]. Moreover, conditional knockout of myosin IIa (Myh9) using an epithelial-specific Keratin 14-Cre recombinase induces multiple invasive squamous cell carcinoma in TGFβ-Receptor II conditional knockout mice, suggesting that a decrease in cell mechanics enhances tumour susceptibility [106]. Change in cell shape could also be one of the biological alterations associated with ageing that could contribute to explaining the increase in cancer incidence over the years [107]. Cells display drastic alterations of their shape during ageing, as observed in the epidermis [108]. Cellular ageing is also associated with significant cytoskeleton alterations [109,110]. Actin levels per se go significantly down in old rats and Drosophila when compared with younger individuals [111,112]. Despite a reduction in actin levels, many different cell types, including skin epithelial cells, show increases in actin filament polymerization and cell stiffening with ageing, leading to reduced cell elasticity [113,114]. In Caenorhabditis elegans, actin cytoskeletal disorganization resulting from ageing can be prevented by overexpressing the heat shock factor (HSF-1). Conversely, inhibiting HSF-1 function causes the actin cytoskeleton to age prematurely [115]. Ageing is also associated with alterations of the MTs. They become disrupted and disorganized in Drosophila cells and are fewer and/or shorter in old rats [116,117]. Alterations in the expression of IFs during ageing are also associated with changes in cell elasticity during ageing, as observed in skin fibroblasts [118]. However, a causal link between change in cell shape and ageing or between age-associated change in cell shape and cancer incidence is still missing.
Thus, when considering the Waddington’s epigenetic landscape, in the presence of an oncogenic trigger, the ability of cells to climb up hills and fall into distinct basins of attraction could depend on the constraints imposed by cell shape. Depending on the stability of each attractor (depth and climbing distance of the basin), mutations in genes affecting the cytoskeleton’s structure and dynamics could also reprogram the whole signalling network, allowing cells to reach other basins of attraction (Figure 2). However, fully transformed cells display complete loss of shape-dependent growth (anchorage-independent growth) and shape-responsive metabolic control [23,119,120]. Thus, to progress towards a fully transformed phenotype, cells might need to escape the restrictions imposed by cell shape. This could allow cancer cells to move into the landscape more easily and to reach abnormal basins of attraction that are distinct from those occupied by untransformed cells (Figure 2), as conceptualized by Stuart Kauffman [121,122]. The breaking down of these shape-dependent constraints could support cancer cell plasticity, thus allowing cells to survive and adapt to hostile microenvironments.

6. Conclusions

Taken all together, these observations provide evidence that cell shape, dictated by the organization and mechanical properties of the cytoskeleton, has a central role in controlling the behaviour of normal and pro-tumour cells. To coordinate cell fate switching, global and local changes in cell shape affect many signalling molecules simultaneously within the whole interconnected signalling network. Because the cytoskeleton constitutes a coherent, unified system running all over the cytoplasm and linking a variety of cellular compartments, including AJs and FAs or the plasma membrane and the nuclear envelop, it fits into a suitable position to coordinate signalling events and therefore the cell response through changes in gene transcription. The cell shape-dependent control on signalling networks can help to explain why alterations in the expression or activity of cytoskeletal components can drive cancer-associated phenotypes or may provide a favourable ground for tumorigenesis in the presence of an oncogenic trigger, such as in elderly cells. It can also explain why tumours arise in specific locations. Thus, a robust control of the cell shape machinery may represent a critical safeguard against tumorigenesis that needs to be neutralized by cancer cells in order to survive assaults from the microenvironment. This raises the question of how pro-tumour cells could override these shape-dependent constraints. Further work is required to elucidate the rules underlying the control of regulatory networks by the cytoskeleton in normal cells and how this control is affected in cancer cells.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, K.K., A.E. and F.J.; writing—review and editing, K.K., A.E. and F.J.; supervision, F.J.; funding acquisition, F.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), grant number PTDC/BIA-BFS/0812/2021. Alice Eon was supported by the EUR G.E.N.E. (reference #ANR-17-EURE-0013) and is part of the Université Paris Cité IdEx #ANR-18-IDEX-0001 funded by the French Government through its “Investments for the Future” program.

Acknowledgments

We thank Anabela Costa for helping us to access the articles mentioned in this publication, as well as those that could not be cited. We particularly express our sincere gratitude to Raquel Seruca for her enthusiasm and constant feedback on cell mechanics and cancer and to Bernard Jacq for his encouragement and introduction to regulatory networks. We also thank all members of the Janody’s lab for helpful discussions and Claudine Chaouiya, Eurico Morais de Sá, Carla S. Lopes, Lídia Faria, Sandra Tavares, Elsa Logarinho and Carine Gonçalves for comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish this review.

References

  1. Sivakumar, A.; Kurpios, N.A. Transcriptional regulation of cell shape during organ morphogenesis. J. Cell Biol. 2018, 217, 2987–3005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Bernadskaya, Y.; Christiaen, L. Transcriptional Control of Developmental Cell Behaviors. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2016, 32, 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Prasad, A.; Alizadeh, E. Cell Form and Function: Interpreting and Controlling the Shape of Adherent Cells. Trends Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 347–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Vignes, H.; Vagena-Pantoula, C.; Vermot, J. Mechanical control of tissue shape: Cell-extrinsic and -intrinsic mechanisms join forces to regulate morphogenesis. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hayward, M.K.; Muncie, J.M.; Weaver, V.M. Tissue mechanics in stem cell fate, development, and cancer. Dev. Cell 2021, 56, 1833–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Luciano, M.; Versaevel, M.; Vercruysse, E.; Procès, A.; Kalukula, Y.; Remson, A.; Deridoux, A.; Gabriele, S. Appreciating the role of cell shape changes in the mechanobiology of epithelial tissues. Biophys. Rev. 2022, 3, 011305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gibson, W.T.; Gibson, M.C. Chapter 4 Cell Topology, Geometry, and Morphogenesis in Proliferating Epithelia. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2009, 89, 87–114. [Google Scholar]
  8. Yin, Z.; Sadok, A.; Sailem, H.; McCarthy, A.; Xia, X.; Li, F.; Garcia, M.A.; Evans, L.; Barr, A.R.; Perrimon, N.; et al. A screen for morphological complexity identifies regulators of switch-like transitions between discrete cell shapes. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15, 860–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution-Stuart A. Kauffman, Member of the Santa Fe Institute and Professor of Biochemistry Stuart A Kauffman-Google Livros. Available online: https://books.google.pt/books?hl=pt-PT&lr=&id=lZcSpRJz0dgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&ots=9FLiWbOTq&sig=ptqGIONtifduWk10YVvrS3Pl6So&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed on 27 May 2022).
  10. Kwon, S.; Kim, K.S. Qualitative analysis of contribution of intracellular skeletal changes to cellular elasticity. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2020, 77, 1345–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chugh, P.; Paluch, E.K. The actin cortex at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 2018, 131, jcs186254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mao, Y.; Baum, B. Tug of war-The influence of opposing physical forces on epithelial cell morphology. Dev. Biol. 2015, 401, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Matis, M. The Mechanical Role of Microtubules in Tissue Remodeling. BioEssays 2020, 42, 1900244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Röper, K. Microtubules enter centre stage for morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20190557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. van Bodegraven, E.J.; Etienne-Manneville, S. Intermediate filaments from tissue integrity to single molecule mechanics. Cells 2021, 10, 1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Pollard, T.D.; Borisy, G.G. Cellular motility driven by assembly and disassembly of actin filaments. Cell 2003, 112, 453–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Murrell, M.; Oakes, P.W.; Lenz, M.; Gardel, M.L. Forcing cells into shape: The mechanics of actomyosin contractility. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2015, 16, 486–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Clarke, D.N.; Martin, A.C. Actin-based force generation and cell adhesion in tissue morphogenesis. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, R667–R680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tojkander, S.; Gateva, G.; Lappalainen, P. Actin stress fibers-Assembly, dynamics and biological roles. J. Cell Sci. 2012, 125, 1855–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Cronin, N.M.; DeMali, K.A. Dynamics of the Actin Cytoskeleton at Adhesion Complexes. Biology 2021, 11, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goodson, H.V.; Jonasson, E.M. Microtubules and microtubule-associated proteins. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2018, 10, a022608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huber, F.; Boire, A.; López, M.P.; Koenderink, G.H. Cytoskeletal crosstalk: When three different personalities team up. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2015, 32, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Folkman, J.; Greenspan, H.P. Influence of geometry on control of cell growth. BBA-Rev. Cancer 1975, 417, 211–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Macpherson, I.; Montagnier, L. Agar suspension culture for the selective assay of cells transformed by polyoma virus. Virology 1964, 23, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Stoker, M.; O’Neill, C.; Berryman, S.; Waxman, V. Anchorage and growth regulation in normal and virus-transformed cells. Int. J. Cancer 1968, 3, 683–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Karamanos, N.K.; Theocharis, A.D.; Piperigkou, Z.; Manou, D.; Passi, A.; Skandalis, S.S.; Vynios, D.H.; Orian-Rousseau, V.; Ricard-Blum, S.; Schmelzer, C.E.H.; et al. A guide to the composition and functions of the extracellular matrix. FEBS J. 2021, 288, 6850–6912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Maroudas, N.G. Anchorage dependence: Correlation between amount of growth and diameter of bead, for single cells grown on individual glass beads. Exp. Cell Res. 1972, 74, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schwartz, M.A.; Lechene, C.; Ingber, D.E. Insoluble fibronectin activates the Na/H antiporter by clustering and immobilizing integrin α5β1, independent of cell shape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88, 7849–7853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Chen, C.S.; Mrksich, M.; Huang, S.; Whitesides, G.M.; Ingber, D.E. Geometric control of cell life and death. Science 1997, 276, 1425–1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Ingber, D.E. Fibronectin controls capillary endothelial cell growth by modulating cell shape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1990, 87, 3579–3583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Blin, G. Quantitative developmental biology in vitro using micropatterning. Development 2021, 148, dev186387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Huang, S.; Chen, C.S.; Ingber, D.E. Control of cyclin D1, p27(Kip1), and cell cycle progression in human capillary endothelial cells by cell shape and cytoskeletal tension. Mol. Biol. Cell 1998, 9, 3179–3193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Connelly, J.T.; Gautrot, J.E.; Trappmann, B.; Tan, D.W.M.; Donati, G.; Huck, W.T.S.; Watt, F.M. Actin and serum response factor transduce physical cues from the microenvironment to regulate epidermal stem cell fate decisions. Nat. Cell Biol. 2010, 12, 711–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Watt, F.M.; Jordan, P.W.; O’Neill, C.H. Cell shape controls terminal differentiation of human epidermal keratinocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1988, 85, 5576–5580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Nelson, C.M.; Jean, R.P.; Tan, J.L.; Liu, W.F.; Sniadecki, N.J.; Spector, A.A.; Chen, C.S. Emergent patterns of growth controlled by multicellular form and mechanics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 11594–11599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Streichan, S.J.; Hoerner, C.R.; Schneidt, T.; Holzer, D.; Hufnagel, L. Spatial constraints control cell proliferation in tissues. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 5586–5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Benham-Pyle, B.W.; Pruitt, B.L.; Nelson, W.J. Mechanical strain induces E-cadherin-dependent Yap1 and β-catenin activation to drive cell cycle entry. Science 2015, 348, 1024–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Gudipaty, S.A.; Lindblom, J.; Loftus, P.D.; Redd, M.J.; Edes, K.; Davey, C.F.; Krishnegowda, V.; Rosenblatt, J. Mechanical stretch triggers rapid epithelial cell division through Piezo1. Nature 2017, 543, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Nogawa, H.; Morita, K.; Cardoso, W.V. Bud formation precedes the appearance of differential cell proliferation during branching morphogenesis of mouse lung epithelium in vitro. Dev. Dyn. 1998, 213, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Perez-Vale, K.Z.; Peifer, M. Orchestrating morphogenesis: Building the body plan by cell shape changes and movements. Development 2020, 147, dev191049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Godard, B.G.; Heisenberg, C.P. Cell division and tissue mechanics. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2019, 60, 114–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Farge, E. Mechanical induction of Twist in the Drosophila foregut/stomodeal primordium. Curr. Biol. 2003, 13, 1365–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Le, H.Q.; Ghatak, S.; Yeung, C.Y.C.; Tellkamp, F.; Günschmann, C.; Dieterich, C.; Yeroslaviz, A.; Habermann, B.; Pombo, A.; Niessen, C.M.; et al. Mechanical regulation of transcription controls Polycomb-mediated gene silencing during lineage commitment. Nat. Cell Biol. 2016, 18, 864–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. De Belly, H.; Stubb, A.; Yanagida, A.; Labouesse, C.; Jones, P.H.; Paluch, E.K.; Chalut, K.J. Membrane Tension Gates ERK-Mediated Regulation of Pluripotent Cell Fate. Cell Stem Cell 2021, 28, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bergert, M.; Lembo, S.; Sharma, S.; Russo, L.; Milovanović, D.; Gretarsson, K.H.; Börmel, M.; Neveu, P.A.; Hackett, J.A.; Petsalaki, E.; et al. Cell Surface Mechanics Gate Embryonic Stem Cell Differentiation. Cell Stem Cell 2021, 28, 209–216.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yang, Y.; Relan, N.K.; Przywara, D.A.; Schuger, L. Embryonic mesenchymal cells share the potential for smooth muscle differentiation: Myogenesis is controlled by the cell’s shape. Development 1999, 126, 3027–3033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. McBeath, R.; Pirone, D.M.; Nelson, C.M.; Bhadriraju, K.; Chen, C.S. Cell shape, cytoskeletal tension, and RhoA regulate stem cell lineage commitment. Dev. Cell 2004, 6, 483–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Wang, Y.K.; Yu, X.; Cohen, D.M.; Wozniak, M.A.; Yang, M.T.; Gao, L.; Eyckmans, J.; Chen, C.S. Bone morphogenetic protein-2-induced signaling and osteogenesis is regulated by cell shape, RhoA/ROCK, and cytoskeletal tension. Stem Cells Dev. 2012, 21, 1176–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kilian, K.A.; Bugarija, B.; Lahn, B.T.; Mrksich, M. Geometric cues for directing the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 4872–4877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Peng, R.; Yao, X.; Ding, J. Effect of cell anisotropy on differentiation of stem cells on micropatterned surfaces through the controlled single cell adhesion. Biomaterials 2011, 32, 8048–8057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Haftbaradaran Esfahani, P.; Knöll, R. Cell shape: Effects on gene expression and signaling. Biophys. Rev. 2020, 12, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wagh, K.; Ishikawa, M.; Garcia, D.A.; Stavreva, D.A.; Upadhyaya, A.; Hager, G.L. Mechanical Regulation of Transcription: Recent Advances. Trends Cell Biol. 2021, 31, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jain, N.; Iyer, K.V.; Kumar, A.; Shivashankar, G.V. Cell geometric constraints induce modular gene-expression patterns via redistribution of HDAC3 regulated by actomyosin contractility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 11349–11354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Damodaran, K.; Venkatachalapathy, S.; Alisafaei, F.; Radhakrishnan, A.V.; Jokhun, D.S.; Shenoy, V.B.; Shivashankar, G.V. Compressive force induces reversible chromatin condensation and cell geometry–dependent transcriptional response. Mol. Biol. Cell 2018, 29, 3039–3051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, Q.; Kumar, A.; Makhija, E.; Shivashankar, G.V. The regulation of dynamic mechanical coupling between actin cytoskeleton and nucleus by matrix geometry. Biomaterials 2014, 35, 961–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. de Nader, G.P.F.; Williart, A.; Piel, M. Nuclear deformations, from signaling to perturbation and damage. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2021, 72, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Makhija, E.; Jokhun, D.S.; Shivashankar, G.V. Nuclear deformability and telomere dynamics are regulated by cell geometric constraints. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, E32–E40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Tong, J.; Qi, Y.; Wang, X.; Yu, L.; Su, C.; Xie, W.; Zhang, J. Cell micropatterning reveals the modulatory effect of cell shape on proliferation through intracellular calcium transients. Biochim. Biophys. Acta-Mol. Cell Res. 2017, 1864, 2389–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Elosegui-Artola, A.; Andreu, I.; Beedle, A.E.M.; Lezamiz, A.; Uroz, M.; Kosmalska, A.J.; Oria, R.; Kechagia, J.Z.; Rico-Lastres, P.; Le Roux, A.L.; et al. Force Triggers YAP Nuclear Entry by Regulating Transport across Nuclear Pores. Cell 2017, 171, 1397–1410.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seo, J.; Kim, J. Regulation of Hippo signaling by actin remodeling. BMB Rep. 2018, 51, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Totaro, A.; Castellan, M.; Battilana, G.; Zanconato, F.; Azzolin, L.; Giulitti, S.; Cordenonsi, M.; Piccolo, S. YAP/TAZ link cell mechanics to Notch signalling to control epidermal stem cell fate. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dupont, S.; Morsut, L.; Aragona, M.; Enzo, E.; Giulitti, S.; Cordenonsi, M.; Zanconato, F.; Le Digabel, J.; Forcato, M.; Bicciato, S.; et al. Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature 2011, 474, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wada, K.I.; Itoga, K.; Okano, T.; Yonemura, S.; Sasaki, H. Hippo pathway regulation by cell morphology and stress fibers. Development 2011, 138, 3907–3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Coste, B.; Mathur, J.; Schmidt, M.; Earley, T.J.; Ranade, S.; Petrus, M.J.; Dubin, A.E.; Patapoutian, A. Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science 2010, 330, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Coste, B.; Xiao, B.; Santos, J.S.; Syeda, R.; Grandl, J.; Spencer, K.S.; Kim, S.E.; Schmidt, M.; Mathur, J.; Dubin, A.E.; et al. Piezo proteins are pore-forming subunits of mechanically activated channels. Nature 2012, 483, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Servin-Vences, M.R.; Moroni, M.; Lewin, G.R.; Poole, K. Direct measurement of TRPV4 and PIEZO1 activity reveals multiple mechanotransduction pathways in chondrocytes. eLife 2017, 6, e21074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lewis, A.H.; Grandl, J. Mechanical sensitivity of Piezo1 ion channels can be tuned by cellular membrane tension. eLife 2015, 4, e12088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Daday, C.; de Buhr, S.; Mercadante, D.; Gräter, F. Mechanical force can enhance c-Src kinase activity by impairing autoinhibition. Biophys. J. 2022, 121, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Han, B.; Bai, X.H.; Lodyga, M.; Xu, J.; Yang, B.B.; Keshavjee, S.; Post, M.; Liu, M. Conversion of mechanical force into biochemical signaling. J. Biol. Chem. 2004, 279, 54793–54801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Hu, X.; Margadant, F.M.; Yao, M.; Sheetz, M.P. Molecular stretching modulates mechanosensing pathways. Protein Sci. 2017, 26, 1337–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Rangamani, P.; Lipshtat, A.; Azeloglu, E.U.; Calizo, R.C.; Hu, M.; Ghassemi, S.; Hone, J.; Scarlata, S.; Neves, S.R.; Iyengar, R. XDecoding Information in Cell Shape. Cell 2013, 154, 1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Von Erlach, T.C.; Bertazzo, S.; Wozniak, M.A.; Horejs, C.M.; Maynard, S.A.; Attwood, S.; Robinson, B.K.; Autefage, H.; Kallepitis, C.; Del Río Hernández, A.; et al. Cell-geometry-dependent changes in plasma membrane order direct stem cell signalling and fate. Nat. Mater. 2018, 17, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Moujaber, O.; Stochaj, U. The Cytoskeleton as Regulator of Cell Signaling Pathways. Trends Biochem. Sci. 2020, 45, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Forgacs, G.; Yook, S.H.; Janmey, P.A.; Jeong, H.; Burd, C.G. Role of the cytoskeleton in signaling networks. J. Cell Sci. 2004, 117, 2769–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Ingber, D.E. Mechanical control of tissue morphogenesis during embryological development. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2006, 50, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Davila-Velderrain, J.; Martinez-Garcia, J.C.; Alvarez-Buylla, E.R. Modeling the epigenetic attractors landscape: Toward a post-genomic mechanistic understanding of development. Front. Genet. 2015, 6, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Rudnick, D. Principles of Embryology C.H. Waddington. Macmillan, New York, 1956. 510 pp. Illus. $7.50. Science 1956, 124, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Huang, S.; Ingber, D.E. Shape-dependent control of cell growth, differentiation, and apoptosis: Switching between attractors in cell regulatory networks. Exp. Cell Res. 2000, 261, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Tafazzoli-Shadpour, M.; Mohammadi, E.; Torkashvand, E. Mechanics of actin filaments in cancer onset and progress. In International Review of Cell and Molecular Biology; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 355, pp. 205–243. ISBN 9780128212813. [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang, Y.G.; Niu, J.T.; Wu, H.W.; Si, X.L.; Zhang, S.J.; Li, D.H.; Bian, T.T.; Li, Y.F.; Yan, X.K. Actin-Binding Proteins as Potential Biomarkers for Chronic Inflammation-Induced Cancer Diagnosis and Therapy. Anal. Cell. Pathol. 2021, 2021, 6692811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kumar, S.; Weaver, V.M. Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: The force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2009, 28, 113–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Sero, J.E.; Sailem, H.Z.; Ardy, R.C.; Almuttaqi, H.; Zhang, T.; Bakal, C. Cell shape and the microenvironment regulate nuclear translocation of NF-κB in breast epithelial and tumor cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2015, 11, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Sailem, H.Z.; Bakal, C. Identification of clinically predictive metagenes that encode components of a network coupling cell shape to transcription by image-omics. Genome Res. 2017, 27, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Alizadeh, E.; Lyons, S.M.; Castle, J.M.; Prasad, A. Measuring systematic changes in invasive cancer cell shape using Zernike moments. Integr. Biol. 2016, 8, 1183–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lyons, S.M.; Alizadeh, E.; Mannheimer, J.; Schuamberg, K.; Castle, J.; Schroder, B.; Turk, P.; Thammand, D.; Prasad, A. Changes in cell shape are correlated with metastatic potential in murine and human osteosarcomas. Biol. Open 2016, 5, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Pasqualato, A.; Lei, V.; Cucina, A.; Dinicola, S.; D’Anselmi, F.; Proietti, S.; Masiello, M.G.; Palombo, A.; Bizzarri, M. Shape in migration: Quantitative image analysis of migrating chemoresistant HCT-8 colon cancer cells. Cell Adhes. Migr. 2013, 7, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pasqualato, A.; Palombo, A.; Cucina, A.; Mariggiò, M.A.; Galli, L.; Passaro, D.; Dinicola, S.; Proietti, S.; D’Anselmi, F.; Coluccia, P.; et al. Quantitative shape analysis of chemoresistant colon cancer cells: Correlation between morphotype and phenotype. Exp. Cell Res. 2012, 318, 835–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Alizadeh, E.; Castle, J.; Quirk, A.; Taylor, C.D.L.; Xu, W.; Prasad, A. Cellular morphological features are predictive markers of cancer cell state. Comput. Biol. Med. 2020, 126, 104044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Russo, J.; Tait, L.; Russo, I.H. Morphological expression of cell transformation induced by c-Ha-ras oncogene in human breast epithelial cells. J. Cell Sci. 1991, 99, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Evers, T.M.J.; Holt, L.J.; Alberti, S.; Mashaghi, A. Reciprocal regulation of cellular mechanics and metabolism. Nat. Metab. 2021, 3, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Izdebska, M.; Zielińska, W.; Hałas-Wiśniewska, M.; Grzanka, A. Involvement of Actin and Actin-Binding Proteins in Carcinogenesis. Cells 2020, 9, 2245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. D’Anselmi, F.; Valerio, M.; Cucina, A.; Galli, L.; Proietti, S.; Dinicola, S.; Pasqualato, A.; Manetti, C.; Ricci, G.; Giuliani, A.; et al. Metabolism and cell shape in cancer: A fractal analysis. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2011, 43, 1052–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Samuel, M.S.; Lopez, J.I.; McGhee, E.J.; Croft, D.R.; Strachan, D.; Timpson, P.; Munro, J.; Schröder, E.; Zhou, J.; Brunton, V.G.; et al. Actomyosin-mediated cellular tension drives increased tissue stiffness and β-catenin activation to induce epidermal hyperplasia and tumor growth. Cancer Cell 2011, 19, 776–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Laklai, H.; Miroshnikova, Y.A.; Pickup, M.W.; Collisson, E.A.; Kim, G.E.; Barrett, A.S.; Hill, R.C.; Lakins, J.N.; Schlaepfer, D.D.; Mouw, J.K.; et al. Genotype tunes pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma tissue tension to induce matricellular fibrosis and tumor progression. Nat. Med. 2016, 22, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Matthews, H.K.; Ganguli, S.; Plak, K.; Taubenberger, A.V.; Win, Z.; Williamson, M.; Piel, M.; Guck, J.; Baum, B. Oncogenic Signaling Alters Cell Shape and Mechanics to Facilitate Cell Division under Confinement. Dev. Cell 2020, 52, 563–573.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Tavares, S.; Vieira, A.F.; Taubenberger, A.V.; Araújo, M.; Martins, N.P.; Brás-Pereira, C.; Polónia, A.; Herbig, M.; Barreto, C.; Otto, O.; et al. Actin stress fiber organization promotes cell stiffening and proliferation of pre-invasive breast cancer cells. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Calvo, F.; Ege, N.; Grande-Garcia, A.; Hooper, S.; Jenkins, R.P.; Chaudhry, S.I.; Harrington, K.; Williamson, P.; Moeendarbary, E.; Charras, G.; et al. Mechanotransduction and YAP-dependent matrix remodelling is required for the generation and maintenance of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Tamori, Y.; Suzuki, E.; Deng, W.M. Epithelial Tumors Originate in Tumor Hotspots, a Tissue-Intrinsic Microenvironment. PLoS Biol. 2016, 14, e1002537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Messal, H.A.; Alt, S.; Ferreira, R.M.M.; Gribben, C.; Wang, V.M.Y.; Cotoi, C.G.; Salbreux, G.; Behrens, A. Tissue curvature and apicobasal mechanical tension imbalance instruct cancer morphogenesis. Nature 2019, 566, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tanimura, N.; Fujita, Y. Epithelial defense against cancer (EDAC). Semin. Cancer Biol. 2020, 63, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mcnairn, A.J.; Guasch, G. Epithelial transition zones: Merging microenvironments, niches, and cellular transformation. Eur. J. Dermatol. 2011, 21 (Suppl. S2), 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Guasch, G.; Schober, M.; Pasolli, H.A.; Conn, E.B.; Polak, L.; Fuchs, E. Loss of TGFβ Signaling Destabilizes Homeostasis and Promotes Squamous Cell Carcinomas in Stratified Epithelia. Cancer Cell 2007, 12, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Sansores-Garcia, L.; Bossuyt, W.; Wada, K.-I.; Yonemura, S.; Tao, C.; Sasaki, H.; Halder, G. Modulating F-actin organization induces organ growth by affecting the Hippo pathway. EMBO J. 2011, 30, 2325–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  104. Fernandez, B.G.; Gaspar, P.; Bras-Pereira, C.; Jezowska, B.; Rebelo, S.R.; Janody, F. Actin-Capping Protein and the Hippo pathway regulate F-actin and tissue growth in Drosophila. Development 2011, 138, 2337–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Jain, P.B.; Guerreiro, P.S.; Canato, S.; Janody, F. The spectraplakin Dystonin antagonizes YAP activity and suppresses tumourigenesis. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 19843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Schramek, D.; Sendoel, A.; Segal, J.P.; Beronja, S.; Heller, E.; Oristian, D.; Reva, B.; Fuchs, E. Direct in vivo RNAi screen unveils myosin IIa as a tumor suppressor of squamous cell carcinomas. Science 2014, 343, 309–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Berben, L.; Floris, G.; Wildiers, H.; Hatse, S. Cancer and aging: Two tightly interconnected biological processes. Cancers 2021, 13, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Persa, O.D.; Koester, J.; Niessen, C.M. Regulation of Cell Polarity and Tissue Architecture in Epidermal Aging and Cancer. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2021, 141, 1017–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Lai, W.F.; Wong, W.T. Roles of the actin cytoskeleton in aging and age-associated diseases. Ageing Res. Rev. 2020, 58, 101021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bajpai, A.; Li, R.; Chen, W. The cellular mechanobiology of aging: From biology to mechanics. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2021, 1491, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Labuhn, M.; Brack, C. Age-Related Changes in the mRNA Expression of Actin Isoforms in Drosophila melanogaster. Gerontology 1997, 43, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Moshier, J.A.; Cornell, T.; Majumdar, A.P.N. Expression of protease genes in the gastric mucosa during aging. Exp. Gerontol. 1993, 28, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Berdyyeva, T.K.; Woodworth, C.D.; Sokolov, I. Human epithelial cells increase their rigidity with ageing in vitro: Direct measurements. Phys. Med. Biol. 2005, 50, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Sokolov, I.; Iyer, S.; Woodworth, C.D. Recovery of elasticity of aged human epithelial cells in vitro. Nanomed. Nanotechnol. Biol. Med. 2006, 2, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Higuchi-Sanabria, R.; Paul, J.W.; Durieux, J.; Benitez, C.; Frankino, P.A.; Tronnes, S.U.; Garcia, G.; Daniele, J.R.; Monshietehadi, S.; Dillin, A. Spatial regulation of the actin cytoskeleton by HSF-1 during aging. Mol. Biol. Cell 2018, 29, 2522–2527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Schatten, H.; Hedrick, J.; Chakrabarti, A. The cytoskeleton of Drosophila-derived Schneider line-1 and Kc23 cells undergoes significant changes during long-term culture. Cell Tissue Res. 1998, 294, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Taylor, L.; Jones, A.L.; Schmucker, D.L. Does Aging Affect Liver Microtubules? Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 1992, 199, 441–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Sliogeryte; Gavara Vimentin Plays a Crucial Role in Fibroblast Ageing by Regulating Biophysical Properties and Cell Migration. Cells 2019, 8, 1164. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  119. Wittelsberger, S.C.; Kleene, K.; Penman, S. Progressive loss of shape-responsive metabolic controls in cells with increasingly transformed phenotype. Cell 1981, 24, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Farrell, R.E.; Greene, J.J. Regulation of c-myc and c-Ha-ras oncogene expression by cell shape. J. Cell. Physiol. 1992, 153, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Huang, S.; Ernberg, I.; Kauffman, S. Cancer attractors: A systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2009, 20, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Huang, S.; Kauffman, S. How to escape the cancer attractor: Rationale and limitations of multi-target drugs. Semin Cancer Biol. 2013, 23, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Examples of mechanisms by which cell shape regulates gene transcription. (a) Forces transmitted from the cell surface to the nuclear envelope through MFs, MTs or IFs can alter chromatin organization, the accessibility of transcription and other chromatin regulatory factors, as well as stretch nuclear pores to facilitate the transport of molecules. (b) Alteration of surface tension, bending of the membrane or forces applied on F-actin beneath the plasma membrane can mechanically activate calcium channels. (c) Stretching of the membrane can also induce tension on actomyosin, which can unfold proteins, exposing their substrate sites and induce signalling to the nucleus. (d) Cell shape-dependent alterations of the membrane and of the actin cytoskeleton can alter lipid raft micro-domains within the plasma membrane and activate signalling pathways. (e) Shape-dependent alteration of cell surface tension can activate signalling pathways by stimulating the rate of endocytosis.
Figure 1. Examples of mechanisms by which cell shape regulates gene transcription. (a) Forces transmitted from the cell surface to the nuclear envelope through MFs, MTs or IFs can alter chromatin organization, the accessibility of transcription and other chromatin regulatory factors, as well as stretch nuclear pores to facilitate the transport of molecules. (b) Alteration of surface tension, bending of the membrane or forces applied on F-actin beneath the plasma membrane can mechanically activate calcium channels. (c) Stretching of the membrane can also induce tension on actomyosin, which can unfold proteins, exposing their substrate sites and induce signalling to the nucleus. (d) Cell shape-dependent alterations of the membrane and of the actin cytoskeleton can alter lipid raft micro-domains within the plasma membrane and activate signalling pathways. (e) Shape-dependent alteration of cell surface tension can activate signalling pathways by stimulating the rate of endocytosis.
Ijms 23 08622 g001
Figure 2. Schematic inspired by Waddington’s epigenetic landscape depicting how cell shape could act as an attractor to control the fate of normal and cancer cells. (Middle landscape) Each ball moving into the valleys represents a cell defined by its specific shape and network state represented in the boxes on the left and right of the landscape. The blue balls on the left are normal cells. The pink balls on the right are cancer cells. (Left) The shape of normal cells determines which valley will be taken by the cell (black arrows) to reach specific basins of attraction. Cell shape 1 and 2 control specific regulatory interaction networks, which trigger phenotype 1 and 2, respectively. Each regulatory network also stabilizes cell shapes 1 and 2, respectively (pink arrows). Changes in cell shape could trigger cell reprogramming by which a cell climbs up on the landscape and falls down into another basin of attraction (plain blue arrows). These cell shape-dependent phenotypic reversions could rely on the climbing distance and depth of the initial basin of attraction. If it is modest, reversion will be easily attainable (plain blue arrows). However, if it is important, reversion would be less likely (dashed blue arrows). (Right) Cells suffering anomalies in their shape (cell shape 3 and 4) and/or acquiring mutations in oncogenic signalling components (pink spots) could climb up the hill and fall down into other basins of attraction (plain green arrow), for example by reacquiring proliferative abilities. To attain basins of attraction that require higher distances to climb up, cells may need to acquire additional cellular alterations (dashed green arrows). During cancer progression, alterations of the regulatory network could inhibit the cell shape-dependent control (pink inhibitions in the upper right box). By escaping the restrictions imposed by cell shape, cells could reach new attractors not attained by normal cells (pink arrows).
Figure 2. Schematic inspired by Waddington’s epigenetic landscape depicting how cell shape could act as an attractor to control the fate of normal and cancer cells. (Middle landscape) Each ball moving into the valleys represents a cell defined by its specific shape and network state represented in the boxes on the left and right of the landscape. The blue balls on the left are normal cells. The pink balls on the right are cancer cells. (Left) The shape of normal cells determines which valley will be taken by the cell (black arrows) to reach specific basins of attraction. Cell shape 1 and 2 control specific regulatory interaction networks, which trigger phenotype 1 and 2, respectively. Each regulatory network also stabilizes cell shapes 1 and 2, respectively (pink arrows). Changes in cell shape could trigger cell reprogramming by which a cell climbs up on the landscape and falls down into another basin of attraction (plain blue arrows). These cell shape-dependent phenotypic reversions could rely on the climbing distance and depth of the initial basin of attraction. If it is modest, reversion will be easily attainable (plain blue arrows). However, if it is important, reversion would be less likely (dashed blue arrows). (Right) Cells suffering anomalies in their shape (cell shape 3 and 4) and/or acquiring mutations in oncogenic signalling components (pink spots) could climb up the hill and fall down into other basins of attraction (plain green arrow), for example by reacquiring proliferative abilities. To attain basins of attraction that require higher distances to climb up, cells may need to acquire additional cellular alterations (dashed green arrows). During cancer progression, alterations of the regulatory network could inhibit the cell shape-dependent control (pink inhibitions in the upper right box). By escaping the restrictions imposed by cell shape, cells could reach new attractors not attained by normal cells (pink arrows).
Ijms 23 08622 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khalil, K.; Eon, A.; Janody, F. Cell Architecture-Dependent Constraints: Critical Safeguards to Carcinogenesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158622

AMA Style

Khalil K, Eon A, Janody F. Cell Architecture-Dependent Constraints: Critical Safeguards to Carcinogenesis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(15):8622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158622

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khalil, Komal, Alice Eon, and Florence Janody. 2022. "Cell Architecture-Dependent Constraints: Critical Safeguards to Carcinogenesis" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 15: 8622. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23158622

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop