Abstract:Cell migration involves cytoskeleton remodeling (Blanchoin et al. 2014), molecular motor activity (Vicente-Manzanares et al. 2009), membrane trafficking (Maritzen et al. 2015, Wilson et al. 2018), and displacement of the nucleus (Calero-Cuenca et al. 2018). Unless propelled by their own flagella (Leung et al. 2021), or by peristaltic swimming (Martin et al. 2020), cells must generate traction by homotypic or heterotypic binding of surface proteins to their counterparts on the surface of adjacent neighbors (Venhuizen and Zegers 2017), or extracellular matrix proteins (Pally and Naba 2024). Migration frequently occurs along chemoattractant gradients that are recognized by surface receptors (Insall 2023).Three of the reviews address recent progress in the quantification of cell migration and highlight the advantages of either limiting the cells' degree of spatial freedom versus maintaining 3D reality. Toscano and colleagues (Toscano et al. 2024) present an exhaustive analysis of the growing number of applications and plugins for the quantification of multiple cell parameters, from the morphology of single cells to collective cell movement in 2D. Table 1 is a resource of computer applications. Some applications employ interactive machine learning for object classification and 3D movement analysis (Berg et al. 2019), a likely method of choice because of its versatility and flexibility. Heyn and colleagues (Heyn et al. 2024) use a reductionist approach of limiting cell movement to a single trajectory to simplify and standardize the identification of cellular dynamics and to acquire sufficient data for testing explanatory biophysical models. This is suitable for studying adhesion-dependent migration of mesenchymal cells. Cell dynamics are modeled by a non-linear spring-like constitutive relationship between cytoplasmic contractile forces and static bonds to the extracellular matrix (ECM). The authors invoke this 'clutch mechanism' to account for a universal correlation between the cell speed and movement persistence. While the merits of 1D are compelling, it is conceivable that confinement suppresses activities that require 3D to appear. The extensive literature cited by Toscano et al. is a convenient resource on 1D cell motility.Rodríguez-Cruz and colleagues (Rodríguez-Cruz et al. 2024) studied cell migration in 3D collagen-1 gels to determine the relationship between ECM density and mammary cancer cell invasion. Within the limited 6-fold range of collagen concentrations, invasion distance decreased only at highest (6 mg/ml) concentration. Their round shape and a peripheral filamentous actin band indicate that cells encapsulated in 6 mg/ml gel transition from a mesenchymal to an amoeboid phenotype. Though no mechanism is invoked to drive the transition, the authors suggest that the ameboid phenotypes is selected in cancer, expediating tumor invasion.Though the reviews of Katsuta and colleagues (Katsuta et al. 2024) and of Estrach and colleagues (Estrach et al. 2024) focus on focal adhesions and the ECM, respectively, both address the effects of force transduction between these mechanically coupled systems. The former study attributes a central role in tensile forces sensing to focal adhesions and the stress fibers they anchor. Actin crosslinking proteins, including a-actinin, filamin, and non-muscle myosin-2, are purported to constitute the force-sensing molecular mechanism, though their mode of action is not specified. Presumably, force-generating myosin-2 has a more pronounced role than the non-catalytic crosslinkers, as suggested by a study the authors cited (Raab et al. 2012). Estrach et al. address the wider role of the ECM in maintaining the epithelial cell phenotype in the gut, lung, and skin, whereby transduction of mechanical stimuli through integrin to the actin cytoskeleton and sequential activation of Src, focal adhesion kinase (FAK) activates the transcriptional activity of YAP1/TAZ. An interesting exception to this pathway is the epigenetic modifications caused by deformation of the nuclear envelope when cells squeeze through narrow pores in dense ECM, of the type studied by Rodríguez-Cruz et al. (ibid.).The review of Buffone and colleagues (Buffone et al. 2023) and the study of Mellentine and colleagues (Mellentine et al. 2024) address directed cell migration, albeit of single ameboid cells versus collective cell migration through different mechanism. The former discusses leukocyte upstream cell motility, i.e., against the shear force exerted by blood flow. Upstream migration is thought to facilitate leukocyte movement to the origin of the chemotactic signal and/or to sites on the lumen that are amenable to transmigration through the vessel wall. It is mediated by integrin aLb2 binding to the endothelial ICAM1. ICAM1-bound integrin aLb2 transduces the signal through the Crk adaptor protein. Since Crk participates in Rac1 activation (Kiyokawa et al. -Abstract Truncated-

Retrograde fluxes of focal adhesion proteins in response to cell Retrograde fluxes of focal adhesion proteins in response to cell migration and mechanical signals migration and mechanical signals

Force Fluctuations within Focal Adhesions Mediate ECM-Rigidity Sensing to Guide Directed Cell Migration

Editorial: Editors' showcase 2023: insights in cell adhesion and migration

Mechanosensing during directed cell migration requires dynamic actin polymerization at focal adhesions

Ezrin Phosphorylation at T567 Modulates Cell Migration, Mechanical Properties, and Cytoskeletal Organization

Modeling of Mechanosensing Mechanisms Reveals Distinct Cell Migration Modes to Emerge From Combinations of Substrate Stiffness and Adhesion Receptor–Ligand Affinity

Focal adhesion-based cell migration is differentially regulated in vivo versus in vitro by Paxillin phosphorylation

Regulation of intercellular viscosity by E-cadherin-dependent phosphorylation of EGFR in collective cell migration

Intermediate filaments: Integration of cell mechanical properties during migration

A multiscale whole-cell theory for mechanosensitive migration on viscoelastic substrates

Mechanics In Mechanosensitivity Of Cell Adhesion And Its Roles In Cell Migration

Mechanotransduction of shear stress occurs through changes in VE-cadherin and PECAM-1 tension: Implications for cell migration

Substrate, focal adhesions, and actin filaments: a mechanical unit with a weak spot for mechanosensitive proteins

Microfilament-coordinated adhesion dynamics drives single cell migration and shapes whole tissues

Polymerization Force-Regulated Actin Filament-Arp2/3 Complex Interaction Dominates Self-Adaptive Cell Migrations

Feedback-Driven Mechanisms Between Phosphorylated Caveolin-1 and Contractile Actin Assemblies Instruct Persistent Cell Migration

Distinct Biophysical Mechanisms Of Focal Adhesion Kinase Mechanoactivation By Different Extracellular Matrix Proteins

Emergence of biphasic versus monotonic response of actin retrograde flow and cell traction force with varying substrate rigidity

A theoretical model for focal adhesion and cytoskeleton formation in non-motile cells

Cell–substrate mechanics guide collective cell migration through intercellular adhesion: a dynamic finite element cellular model

A multiscale whole-cell theory for mechano-sensitive migration on viscoelastic substrates