Specific prostaglandins are produced in the migratory cells and the surrounding substrate to promote Drosophila border cell migration.

A key regulator of collective cell migration is prostaglandin (PG) signaling. However, it remains largely unclear whether PGs act within the migratory cells or their microenvironment to promote migration. Here we use Drosophila border cell migration as a model to uncover the cell-specific roles of two PGs in collective migration. Prior work shows PG signaling is required for on-time migration and cluster cohesion. We find that the PGE2 synthase cPGES is required in the substrate, while the PGF2α synthase Akr1B is required in the border cells for on-time migration. Akr1B acts in both the border cells and their substrate to regulate cluster cohesion. One means by which Akr1B regulates border cell migration is by promoting integrin-based adhesions. Additionally, Akr1B limits myosin activity, and thereby cellular stiffness, in the border cells, whereas cPGES limits myosin activity in both the border cells and their substrate. Together these data reveal that two PGs, PGE2 and PGF2α, produced in different locations, play key roles in promoting border cell migration. These PGs likely have similar migratory versus microenvironment roles in other collective cell migrations.

Specific prostaglandins are produced in the migratory cells and the surrounding substrate to promote Drosophila border cell migration.

Introduction: A key regulator of collective cell migration is prostaglandin (PG) signaling. However, it remains largely unclear whether PGs act within the migratory cells or their microenvironment to promote migration. Here we use Drosophila border cell migration as a model to uncover the cell-specific roles of two PGs in collective migration. The border cells undergo a collective and invasive migration between the nurse cells; thus, the nurse cells are the substrate and microenvironment for the border cells. Prior work found PG signaling is required for on-time border cell migration and cluster cohesion. Methods: Confocal microscopy and quantitative image analyses of available mutant alleles and RNAi lines were used to define the roles of the PGE2 and PGF2α synthases in border cell migration. Results: We find that the PGE2 synthase cPGES is required in the substrate, while the PGF2α synthase Akr1B is required in the border cells for on-time migration. Akr1B acts in both the border cells and their substrate to regulate cluster cohesion. One means by which Akr1B may regulate border cell migration and/or cluster cohesion is by promoting integrin-based adhesions. Additionally, Akr1B limits myosin activity, and thereby cellular stiffness, in the border cells, whereas cPGES limits myosin activity in both the border cells and their substrate. Decreasing myosin activity overcomes the migration delays in both akr1B and cPGES mutants, indicating the changes in cellular stiffness contribute to the migration defects. Discussion: Together these data reveal that two PGs, PGE2 and PGF2α, produced in different locations, play key roles in promoting border cell migration. These PGs likely have similar migratory versus microenvironment roles in other collective cell migrations.

Fascin limits Myosin activity within Drosophila border cells to control substrate stiffness and promote migration.

A key regulator of collective cell migrations, which drive development and cancer metastasis, is substrate stiffness. Increased substrate stiffness promotes migration and is controlled by Myosin. Using Drosophila border cell migration as a model of collective cell migration, we identify, for the first time, that the actin bundling protein Fascin limits Myosin activity in vivo. Loss of Fascin results in: increased activated Myosin on the border cells and their substrate, the nurse cells; decreased border cell Myosin dynamics; and increased nurse cell stiffness as measured by atomic force microscopy. Reducing Myosin restores on-time border cell migration in fascin mutant follicles. Further, Fascin's actin bundling activity is required to limit Myosin activation. Surprisingly, we find that Fascin regulates Myosin activity in the border cells to control nurse cell stiffness to promote migration. Thus, these data shift the paradigm from a substrate stiffness-centric model of regulating migration, to uncover that collectively migrating cells play a critical role in controlling the mechanical properties of their substrate in order to promote their own migration. This understudied means of mechanical regulation of migration is likely conserved across contexts and organisms, as Fascin and Myosin are common regulators of cell migration.

Prostaglandins regulate invasive, collective border cell migration.

While prostaglandins (PGs), short-range lipid signals, regulate single cell migration, their roles in collective migration remain unclear. To address this, we use Drosophila border cell migration, an invasive, collective migration that occurs during Stage 9 of oogenesis. Pxt is the Drosophila cyclooxygenase-like enzyme responsible for PG synthesis. Loss of Pxt results in both delayed border cell migration and elongated clusters, whereas somatic Pxt knockdown causes delayed migration and compacted clusters. These findings suggest PGs act in both the border cells and nurse cells, the substrate on which the border cells migrate. As PGs regulate the actin bundler Fascin, and Fascin is required for on-time migration, we assessed whether PGs regulate Fascin to promote border cell migration. Coreduction of Pxt and Fascin results in delayed migration and elongated clusters. The latter may be due to altered cell adhesion, as loss of Pxt or Fascin, or coreduction of both, decreases integrin levels on the border cell membranes. Conversely, integrin localization is unaffected by somatic knockdown of Pxt. Together these data lead to the model that PG signaling controls Fascin in the border cells to promote migration and in the nurse cells to maintain cluster cohesion.

Comparison of conventional, amplification and bio-assay detection methods for a chronic wasting disease inoculum pool.

Longitudinal studies of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in the native host have provided considerable understanding of how this prion disease continues to efficiently spread among cervid species. These studies entail great cost in animal, time and financial support. A variety of methods have emerged including transgenic mouse bioassay, western blot, enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), immunohistochemistry (IHC), serial protein misfolding cyclic amplification (sPMCA) and real time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC), that deepen our understanding of this and other protein misfolding disorders. To further characterize an inoculum source used for ongoing CWD studies and to determine how the readouts from each of these assays compare, we assayed a CWD-positive brain pool homogenate (CBP6) and a mouse dilutional bioassay of this homogenate using the above detection methods. We demonstrate that: (i) amplification assays enhanced detection of amyloid seeding activity in the CWD+ cervid brain pool to levels beyond mouse LD50, (ii) conventional detection methods (IHC and western blot) performed well in identifying the presence of PrPSc in terminal brain tissue yet lack sufficient detection sensitivity to identify all CWD-infected mice, and (iii) the incorporation of amplification assays enhanced detection of CWD-infected mice near the LD50. This cross-platform analysis provides a basis to calibrate the relative sensitivities of CWD detection assays.