Integrin-based adhesion compartmentalizes ALK3 of the BMPRII to control cell adhesion and migration.

The spatial organization of cell-surface receptors is fundamental for the coordination of biological responses to physical and biochemical cues of the extracellular matrix. How serine/threonine kinase receptors, ALK3-BMPRII, cooperate with integrins upon BMP2 to drive cell migration is unknown. Whether the dynamics between integrins and BMP receptors intertwine in space and time to guide adhesive processes is yet to be elucidated. We found that BMP2 stimulation controls the spatial organization of BMPRs by segregating ALK3 from BMPRII into ß3 integrin-containing focal adhesions. The selective recruitment of ALK3 to focal adhesions requires ß3 integrin engagement and ALK3 activation. BMP2 controls the partitioning of immobilized ALK3 within and outside focal adhesions according to single-protein tracking and super-resolution imaging. The spatial control of ALK3 in focal adhesions by optogenetics indicates that ALK3 acts as an adhesive receptor by eliciting cell spreading required for cell migration. ALK3 segregation from BMPRII in integrin-based adhesions is a key aspect of the spatio-temporal control of BMPR signaling.

Interplay between integrins and cadherins to control bone differentiation upon BMP-2 stimulation.

Introduction: Upon BMP-2 stimulation, the osteoblastic lineage commitment in C2C12 myoblasts is associated with a microenvironmental change that occurs over several days. How does BMP-2 operate a switch in adhesive machinery to adapt to the new microenvironment and to drive bone cell fate is not well understood. Here, we addressed this question for BMP-2 delivered either in solution or physically bound of a biomimetic film, to mimic its presentation to cells via the extracellular matrix (ECM). Methods: Biommetics films were prepared using a recently developed automated method that enable high content studies of cellular processes. Comparative gene expressions were done using RNA sequencing from the encyclopedia of the regulatory elements (ENCODE). Gene expressions of transcription factors, beta chain (1, 3, 5) integrins and cadherins (M, N, and Cad11) were studied using quantitative PCR. ECM proteins and adhesion receptor expressions were also quantified by Western blots and dot blots. Their spatial organization in and around cells was studied using immuno-stainings. The individual effect of each receptor on osteogenic transcription factors and alkaline phosphatase expression were studied using silencing RNA of each integrin and cadherin receptor. The organization of fibronectin was studied using immuno-staining and quantitative microscopic analysis. Results: Our findings highlight a switch of integrin and cadherin expression during muscle to bone transdifferentiation upon BMP-2 stimulation. This switch occurs no matter the presentation mode, for BMP-2 presented in solution or via the biomimetic film. While C2C12 muscle cells express M-cadherin and Laminin-specific integrins, the BMP-2-induced transdifferentiation into bone cells is associated with an increase in the expression of cadherin-11 and collagen-specific integrins. Biomimetic films presenting matrix-bound BMP-2 enable the revelation of specific roles of the adhesive receptors depending on the transcription factor. Discussion: While ß3 integrin and cadherin-11 work in concert to control early pSMAD1,5,9 signaling, ß1 integrin and Cadherin-11 control RunX2, ALP activity and fibronectin organization around the cells. In contrast, while ß1 integrin is also important for osterix transcriptional activity, Cadherin-11 and ß5 integrin act as negative osterix regulators. In addition, ß5 integrin negatively regulates RunX2. Our results show that biomimetic films can be used to delinate the specific events associated with BMP-2-mediated muscle to bone transdifferentiation. Our study reveals how integrins and cadherins work together, while exerting distinct functions to drive osteogenic programming. Different sets of integrins and cadherins have complementary mechanical roles during the time window of this transdifferentiation.

ICAP-1 monoubiquitylation coordinates matrix density and rigidity sensing for cell migration through ROCK2-MRCKα balance.

Cell migration is a complex process requiring density and rigidity sensing of the microenvironment to adapt cell migratory speed through focal adhesion and actin cytoskeleton regulation. ICAP-1 (also known as ITGB1BP1), a ß1 integrin partner, is essential for ensuring integrin activation cycle and focal adhesion formation. We show that ICAP-1 is monoubiquitylated by Smurf1, preventing ICAP-1 binding to ß1 integrin. The non-ubiquitylatable form of ICAP-1 modifies ß1 integrin focal adhesion organization and interferes with fibronectin density sensing. ICAP-1 is also required for adapting cell migration in response to substrate stiffness in a ß1-integrin-independent manner. ICAP-1 monoubiquitylation regulates rigidity sensing by increasing MRCKα (also known as CDC42BPA)-dependent cell contractility through myosin phosphorylation independently of substrate rigidity. We provide evidence that ICAP-1 monoubiquitylation helps in switching from ROCK2-mediated to MRCKα-mediated cell contractility. ICAP-1 monoubiquitylation serves as a molecular switch to coordinate extracellular matrix density and rigidity sensing thus acting as a crucial modulator of cell migration and mechanosensing.

αvß3 integrins negatively regulate cellular forces by phosphorylation of its distal NPXY site.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Integrins are key receptors that allow cells to sense and respond to their mechanical environment. Although they bind the same ligand, ß1 and ß3 integrins have distinct and cooperative roles in mechanotransduction. RESULTS: Using traction force microscopy on unconstrained cells, we show that deleting ß3 causes traction forces to increase, whereas the deletion of ß1 integrin results in a strong decrease of contractile forces. Consistently, loss of ß3 integrin also induces an increase in ß1 integrin activation. Using a genetic approach, we identified the phosphorylation of the distal NPXY domain as an essential process for ß3 integrin to be able to modulate traction forces. Loss of ß3 integrins also impacted cell shape and the spatial distribution of traction forces, by causing forces to be generated closer to the cell edge, and the cell shape. CONCLUSIONS: Our results emphasize the role of ß3 integrin in spatial distribution of cellular forces. We speculate that, by modulating its affinity with kindlin, ß3 integrins may be able to locate near the cell edge where it can control ß1 integrin activation and clustering. SIGNIFICANCE: Tensional homeostasis at the single cell level is performed by the ability of ß3 adhesions to negatively regulate the activation degree and spatial localization of ß1 integrins. By combining genetic approaches and new tools to analyze traction distribution and cell morphology on a population of cells we were able to identify the molecular partners involved in cellular forces regulation.

ß3 integrin-mediated spreading induced by matrix-bound BMP-2 controls Smad signaling in a stiffness-independent manner.

Understanding how cells integrate multiple signaling pathways to achieve specific cell differentiation is a challenging question in cell biology. We have explored the physiological presentation of BMP-2 by using a biomaterial that harbors tunable mechanical properties to promote localized BMP-2 signaling. We show that matrix-bound BMP-2 is sufficient to induce ß3 integrin-dependent C2C12 cell spreading by overriding the soft signal of the biomaterial and impacting actin organization and adhesion site dynamics. In turn, αvß3 integrin is required to mediate BMP-2-induced Smad signaling through a Cdc42-Src-FAK-ILK pathway. ß3 integrin regulates a multistep process to control first BMP-2 receptor activity and second the inhibitory role of GSK3 on Smad signaling. Overall, our results show that BMP receptors and ß3 integrin work together to control Smad signaling and tensional homeostasis, thereby coupling cell adhesion and fate commitment, two fundamental aspects of developmental biology and regenerative medicine.