Cell and molecular transitions during efficient dedifferentiation.

Dedifferentiation is a critical response to tissue damage, yet is not well understood, even at a basic phenomenological level. Developing Dictyostelium cells undergo highly efficient dedifferentiation, completed by most cells within 24 hr. We use this rapid response to investigate the control features of dedifferentiation, combining single cell imaging with high temporal resolution transcriptomics. Gene expression during dedifferentiation was predominantly a simple reversal of developmental changes, with expression changes not following this pattern primarily associated with ribosome biogenesis. Mutation of genes induced early in dedifferentiation did not strongly perturb the reversal of development. This apparent robustness may arise from adaptability of cells: the relative temporal ordering of cell and molecular events was not absolute, suggesting cell programmes reach the same end using different mechanisms. In addition, although cells start from different fates, they rapidly converged on a single expression trajectory. These regulatory features may contribute to dedifferentiation responses during regeneration.

A cell size threshold limits cell polarity and asymmetric division potential.

Reaction-diffusion networks underlie pattern formation in a range of biological contexts, from morphogenesis of organisms to the polarisation of individual cells. One requirement for such molecular networks is that output patterns be scaled to system size. At the same time, kinetic properties of constituent molecules constrain the ability of networks to adapt to size changes. Here we explore these constraints and the consequences thereof within the conserved PAR cell polarity network. Using the stem cell-like germ lineage of the C. elegans embryo as a model, we find that the behaviour of PAR proteins fails to scale with cell size. Theoretical analysis demonstrates that this lack of scaling results in a size threshold below which polarity is destabilized, yielding an unpolarized system. In empirically-constrained models, this threshold occurs near the size at which germ lineage cells normally switch between asymmetric and symmetric modes of division. Consistent with cell size limiting polarity and division asymmetry, genetic or physical reduction in germ lineage cell size is sufficient to trigger loss of polarity in normally polarizing cells at predicted size thresholds. Physical limits of polarity networks may be one mechanism by which cells read out geometrical features to inform cell fate decisions.

Regulated Activation of the PAR Polarity Network Ensures a Timely and Specific Response to Spatial Cues.

How do cells polarize at the correct time and in response to the correct cues? In the C. elegans zygote, the timing and geometry of polarization rely on a single dominant cue-the sperm centrosome-that matures at the end of meiosis and specifies the nascent posterior. Polarization requires that the conserved PAR proteins, which specify polarity in the zygote, be poised to respond to the centrosome. Yet, how and when PAR proteins achieve this unpolarized, but responsive, state is unknown. We show that oocyte maturation initiates a fertilization-independent PAR activation program. PAR proteins are initially not competent to polarize but gradually acquire this ability following oocyte maturation. Surprisingly, this program allows symmetry breaking even in unfertilized oocytes lacking centrosomes. Thus, if PAR proteins can respond to multiple polarizing cues, how is specificity for the centrosome achieved? Specificity is enforced by Polo-like and Aurora kinases (PLK-1 and AIR-1 in C. elegans), which impose a delay in the activation of the PAR network so that it coincides with maturation of the centrosome cue. This delay suppresses polarization by non-centrosomal cues, which can otherwise trigger premature polarization and multiple or reversed polarity domains. Taken together, these findings identify a regulatory program that enforces proper polarization by synchronizing PAR network activation with cell cycle progression, thereby ensuring that PAR proteins respond specifically to the correct cue. Temporal control of polarity network activity is likely to be a common strategy to ensure robust, dynamic, and specific polarization in response to developmentally deployed cues.

aPKC Cycles between Functionally Distinct PAR Protein Assemblies to Drive Cell Polarity.

The conserved polarity effector proteins PAR-3, PAR-6, CDC-42, and atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) form a core unit of the PAR protein network, which plays a central role in polarizing a broad range of animal cell types. To functionally polarize cells, these proteins must activate aPKC within a spatially defined membrane domain on one side of the cell in response to symmetry-breaking cues. Using the Caenorhabditis elegans zygote as a model, we find that the localization and activation of aPKC involve distinct, specialized aPKC-containing assemblies: a PAR-3-dependent assembly that responds to polarity cues and promotes efficient segregation of aPKC toward the anterior but holds aPKC in an inactive state, and a CDC-42-dependent assembly in which aPKC is active but poorly segregated. Cycling of aPKC between these distinct functional assemblies, which appears to depend on aPKC activity, effectively links cue-sensing and effector roles within the PAR network to ensure robust establishment of polarity.