The ability of cells to sense and respond to mechanical stimuli is crucial for many developmental and homeostatic processes, while mechanical dysfunction of cells has been associated with numerous pathologies including muscular dystrophies, cardiovascular defects and epithelial disorders. Yet, how cells detect and process mechanical information is still largely unclear. In this review, we outline major mechanisms underlying cellular mechanotransduction and we summarize the current understanding of how cells integrate information from distinct mechanosensitive structures to mediate complex mechanoresponses. We also discuss the concept of mechanical memory and describe how cells store information on previous mechanical events for different periods of time.
Cells are exposed to a complex mechanical environment. Endothelial cells in our blood vessel, for instance, experience shear forces of the blood flow and blood pressure. Muscle cells feel various degrees of contractile forces, chondrocytes are exposed to compressive loads, and keratinocytes have to adapt to external stimuli caused by compression, shear and strain of our skin. In addition, cells generate their own mechanical forces and pull on one another or on extracellular networks, for example during tissue formation or collective cell migration. We know that cells adapt to those kinds of mechanical stimulations and efficiently sense magnitude, direction and frequency of the applied forces (Hoffman et al., 2011). It is also clear that cells’ ability to translate mechanical stimuli into biochemical information plays an important role for numerous pathophysiological processes (Jaalouk and Lammerding, 2009), but we are just beginning to develop a molecular understanding of mechanotransduction in cells. We will therefore highlight important subcellular structures that govern the sensation and propagation of mechanical stimuli, and describe how cells integrate signals from those distinct mechanosensitive elements. We then discuss how cells store mechanical information to develop a mechanical memory.
Cells are inherently mechanosensitive objects
A prevailing misconception is that cellular mechanotransduction is orchestrated by just a few mechanosensitive proteins – often called ‘mechanosensors’ – that single-handedly mediate a distinct force response. Certainly, there are proteins that fulfill very specific biomechanical functions, but it is important to recognize that virtually the whole cell or at least many of its subcellular structures are inherently mechanosensitive (Figure 1). The plasma membrane and the underlying cortical actin network, for instance, are sensitive to mechanical stimulations at the cell surface and quickly remodel in response to changes in plasma membrane tension, shear or bending (Gauthier et al., 2012; Mueller et al., 2017). The three major cytoskeletal networks – actin filaments, intermediate filaments and microtubules – exhibit specific responses to mechanical stimuli (Gardel et al., 2008) as well as their connected cell adhesion structures such as focal adhesions (FAs), adherens junctions (AJs) and desmosomes (Geiger et al., 2009; Rubsam et al., 2017). Trafficking at the Golgi apparatus is modulated by mechanically constraining cells (Guet et al., 2014), while mitochondrial activity is boosted by the application of externally applied stretch (Bartolak-Suki et al., 2015). The composition of the nuclear membrane is sensitive to tissue stiffness (Swift et al., 2013), and kinetochores as well as their associated microtubules integrate mechanical signals at the mitotic spindle during cell division (Maresca and Salmon, 2010; Forth and Kapoor, 2017).
If cells are endowed with so many mechanosensitive entities, then complex mechanical inputs must be processed by integrating signals from not only one but many mechanosensitive structures. Yet, our current understanding of how mechanochemical signaling networks synergize in cells is still limited and it remains challenging to develop a comprehensive picture of cellular mechanotransduction. To assist this process, we will highlight central mechanosensitive structures playing a prominent role in mechanotransduction and we discuss how signals from spatially distinct elements are integrated to mediate specific mechanoresponses. Finally, we will elaborate on the concept of mechanical memory that allows cells to remember their mechanical history.
Mechanical signaling by mechanosensitive ion channels
Most if not all cell types express ion channels that can be regulated by mechanical signals (Figure 1A, Ranade et al., 2015). The first examples of such mechanosensitive (MS) ion channels are MscL and MscS, which were discovered in Escherichia coli where they control the passage of ions and water in response to changes in osmotic pressure (Martinac et al., 1990; Perozo et al., 2002). Not long after, the potassium channels TREK and TRAAK were identified as critical mechanosensors in neurons (Maingret et al., 1999a,b), and members of the DEG/ENaC class of sodium channels were found to be important for touch sensation in Caenorhabditis elegans (Goodman et al., 2002; Chalfie, 2009). A famous example of a MS ion channel in higher animals is a macromolecular complex that resides in epithelial hair cells of the inner ear and translates sound waves into electric information (Siemens et al., 2004; Kazmierczak et al., 2007). Moreover, Piezo channels have received considerable attention. They present an evolutionary conserved family of MS ion channels (Coste et al., 2010) that play a key role in many mechanobiological processes including vascular development (Ranade et al., 2014a), touch sensation, proprioception and breathing (Ranade et al., 2014b; Woo et al., 2015; Nonomura et al., 2017).
Identifying the molecular details of how MS channels are gated by mechanical signals remains a challenging task. One reason is that these large transmembrane proteins are difficult to reconstitute in vitro. In addition, many MS ion channels are not exclusively sensitive to mechanical signals but also respond to non-mechanical stimuli like changes in pH, temperature or voltage (Honore, 2007; Moroni et al., 2018). It nevertheless became obvious that certain MS ion channels sense mechanical signals in a highly specific fashion. Many of them, such as MscL, MscS, TREK and TRAAK, primarily respond to tension differentials across the lipid bilayer (Perozo et al., 2002; Honore, 2007; Martinac, 2011), which is consistent with the observation that the composition and stiffness of the lipid bilayer modulates MS ion activity (Chubinskiy-Nadezhdin et al., 2011; Qi et al., 2015). Other MS channels require the direct or indirect engagement with extracellular ligands and/or the cytoskeleton to be fully functional (Mazzochi et al., 2006; Cueva et al., 2007; Sharif-Naeini et al., 2009): the TRPP channel engages the actin crosslinker filamin A for gating (Sharif-Naeini et al., 2009), and the DEG/ENaC channel complex as well as NOMPC from the TRP family interact with microtubules (Goodman et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2015).
As diverse as the force sensing mechanisms are the induced downstream cascades translating the mechanical into a biochemical signal. These events strongly depend on the mechanical input, the cell type and the respective ion selectivity of the expressed channels. The potassium channels TREKs and TRAAK, for instance, adjust the potential for hyperpolarization in neurons and thereby counteract the activity of non-selective Piezo channels (Brohawn et al., 2014a,2014b; Brohawn, 2015). ENaC calcium channels can initiate neurotransmitter release at the synapse (Hill et al., 2017), while Piezo-mediated calcium influxes can induce very specific cell type-dependent responses, such as stimulating transglutaminase activity in myocytes to induce the constriction of small blood vessels (Retailleau et al., 2015). As acute changes in ion concentrations, especially Ca2+ levels, affect a whole range of intracellular signaling cascades, MS ion channels impact cellular behavior in the short-term (Doyle et al., 2004), but can also lead to long-lasting changes in gene transcription activities (Berridge et al., 2003). In a nutshell, MS ion channels are highly versatile force transducers at the plasma membrane that modulate cellular processes in a context- and cell-type dependent fashion.
Mechanotransduction at cell adhesion sites
Mechanical signaling through cell adhesion receptors and their associated complexes endow cells with an additional mode of force transmission at the plasma membrane. A prominent example is the sensation of extracellular cues by FAs, which mediate the connection between the extracellular matrix (ECM) and the intracellular cytoskeleton (Figure 1B, Humphrey et al., 2014; Ringer et al., 2017a). FAs provide molecular specificity to the mechanotransduction process as their core constituents, the integrin receptors, engage distinct ECM components such as collagens, laminins or fibronectin. Integrins are heterodimeric transmembrane proteins and connect, with the exception of the keratin-engaging hemidesmosomal α6β4 integrin, to the actin cytoskeleton. The integrin-actin interaction, however, is not direct but mediated by a multitude of intracellular adapter molecules that bestow the FA with mechanosensitive properties (Geiger et al., 2009; Ringer et al., 2017b). Even though many of the underlying mechanisms are still incompletely understood, it appears that those FA proteins directly exposed to mechanical forces are also involved in processing the mechanical information. The most prominent example is the ubiquitously expressed FA protein talin, which binds and thereby activates integrin receptors and at the same time engages the actin cytoskeleton (Roberts and Critchley, 2009). Talin harbors numerous binding sites for another FA protein called vinculin, but those vinculin binding sites remain cryptic until mechanical tension across the integrin-talin-actin linkage induces conformational changes that facilitate vinculin binding (del Rio et al., 2009; Austen et al., 2015; Yao et al., 2016). The vinculin binding to actin filaments is stabilized by mechanical forces in an orientation –dependent fashion (Huang et al., 2017) resulting in a force- and direction-dependent FA reinforcement, which is observed when cells are exposed to high matrix stiffness or externally applied mechanical loads (Pelham and Wang, 1997; Riveline et al., 2001; Pasapera et al., 2010).
A similar strengthening mechanism has been observed in other cell adhesion structures such as AJs, which mediate intercellular cohesion through the cadherin-catenin linkage (Figure 1C; Han and de Rooij, 2016). These complexes also connect to actin filaments and are stabilized in response to mechanical stretch (Buckley et al., 2014). As in FAs, vinculin is recruited to AJs in a force-sensitive fashion because the AJ-binding partner α-catenin harbors a cryptic vinculin binding motif that becomes accessible under force (Yonemura et al., 2010; Yao et al., 2014a). Another well-known example of mechanical allosterism in adhesion complexes is the regulation of the cytoplasmic adaptor molecule p130Cas that becomes phosphorylated by Src family kinases upon exposure to mechanical stretch (Sawada et al., 2006).
As FAs and AJs comprise many proteins, in case of FAs hundreds (Kuo et al., 2011; Schiller et al., 2011), it is plausible that additional mechanisms of force-dependent regulation of protein activity occur in these structures. How local changes in distinct adhesion proteins lead to the modulation of chemical signaling cascades or transcriptional activities remains to be elucidated. It is certainly possible that mechanical force directly modulates the enzymatic activity of central kinases as has been suggested for focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and myosin light chain kinase (Zhou et al., 2015; Baumann et al., 2017). It has also become clear that Rho-GTPases are crucial for initiating an adhesion-dependent force response (Rottner et al., 1999) and there is strong evidence that transcriptional regulators like YAP/TAZ in FAs (Oria et al., 2017) and β-catenin in AJs (Gayrard et al., 2018) play an important role in mediating mechanoresponses. Still, the current understanding of mechano-chemical coupling in cell adhesion structures is fragmentary and will remain a matter of active research in the future.
Mechanotransduction at the nucleus
A very efficient way of translating mechanical signals into changes in gene expression is the so-called nuclear mechanotransduction (Figure 1D). Here, the underlying concept is that mechanical forces essentially bypass cytoplasmic signaling cascades to directly modulate the physical organization of the nuclear membrane or even the chromatin itself thereby modulating gene expression (Kirby and Lammerding, 2018). In this mode of cellular mechanotransduction, forces are transmitted across cytoskeletal networks that physically engage with the nuclear membrane through the ‘linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton’ (LINC) complex comprising Nesprins at the outer and the Sun proteins (Sun1 and Sun2) at the inner nuclear membrane (Lombardi et al., 2011). Sun1 and Sun2 connect to the nucleoskeleton by binding lamin A/C, two intermediate filament proteins that are essential for nuclear integrity and regulated by mechanical stress (Swift et al., 2013). As mutations in the LINC complex as well as lamin A/C are associated with a wide range of pathologies including severe muscular dystrophies (Worman, 2012; Stroud et al., 2014), it is beyond question that nuclear mechanotransduction is crucial for mechanical homeostasis of cells, especially when they are exposed to significant external loads.
How the mechanical signals at the nuclear membrane are translated into a distinct response within the nucleus is still debated. Potential mechanisms include the force-dependent regulation of cryptic lamin phosphorylation sites through mechanical allosterism (Swift et al., 2013), effects on chromatin condensation (Tajik et al., 2016), changes in the architecture of Cajal bodies (Poh et al., 2012), and mechanical regulation of nuclear pore permeability (Jahed et al., 2016; Elosegui-Artola et al., 2017). Clearly, the nucleus is yet another highly mechanosensitive organelle and crucial for the mechanobiology of cells.
Mechanotransduction at the cytoskeleton
Our examples seem to indicate that the actin cytoskeleton plays an important role for cellular mechanotransduction simply by connecting mechanosensitive elements, for example, cell surface receptors with intracellular networks or the nucleus. It is important to realize, however, that actin networks actively sense mechanical signals and do so in at least two different ways (Galkin et al., 2012; Harris et al., 2018). First, mechanical forces modulate the binding affinity of actin interactors: The recruitment of the actin severing protein cofilin, for instance, is impaired when mechanical tension acts across the actin filament (Hayakawa et al., 2011), whereas binding of myosin motors to actin increases under force (Laakso et al., 2008; Uyeda et al., 2011). Second, mechanical forces affect actin polymerization kinetics, a process that appears to be highly sensitive to the presence of profilin (Courtemanche et al., 2013). Furthermore, the assembly of branched actin networks is sensitive to mechanical load resulting in the formation of stiffer and mechanically more resistant structures under force (Bieling et al., 2016).
Given this inherent mechanosensitivity of the actin cytoskeleton, it is not surprising that also microtubule networks are susceptible to mechanical signals. Cell culture studies showed that externally applied forces can modify microtubule growth direction (Brangwynne et al., 2007). In vitro studies demonstrated that the time microtubules spend in the elongation phase during polymerization is strongly decreased when the filament polymerizes against a micro-fabricated barrier (Janson et al., 2003). Together, these data indicate that cytoskeletal networks actively integrate mechanical information.
Integrating mechanical signals from distinct mechanosensitive structures
The examples above imply that distinct mechanosensitive structures respond to mechanical stimuli in a highly specific and spatiotemporally controlled fashion. However, orchestrating a mechanoresponse in cells or even whole tissues must require the coordination of these ostensibly independent signals that often occur on different time and length scales. The application of an external stimulus may lead to the activation of MS ion channels within milliseconds (Coste et al., 2010), and – at the same time – modulate the rate of protein turnover in FAs that is typically in the order of tens of seconds (Stutchbury et al., 2017). The same mechanical stimulus may induce changes in nuclear architecture leading to altered gene transcription and protein expression over the course of several hours (Le et al., 2016). How can these different mechano-responses be coordinated? The answer to this question is certainly complex and not easily captured by any single of the currently available cell mechanics models (Lange and Fabry, 2013; Ingber et al., 2014). However, some mechanisms appear to be especially prominent in a range of cell types including the physical interconnection of mechanosensitive elements, the use of common signaling or adaptor molecules, and the convergence of mechano-chemical signal transduction cascades (Figure 2).
Mechanical crosstalk through physical interconnection
An intact cytoskeleton is a prerequisite for many of the observed cellular mechanoresponses but also serves as a physical connection between locally separated mechanosensitive elements (Figure 2A, Matthews et al., 2006). For example, regulation of cell surface tension, which modulates the activity of MS ion channels, depends on the interaction with the underlying cortical actin network (Chugh et al., 2017). Similarly, application of mechanical forces on integrin receptors or actin stress fibers results in ion fluxes (Matthews et al., 2006; Hayakawa et al., 2008) suggesting a crosstalk between cell adhesion receptors and MS ion channels. Another example of mechanical crosstalk through physical interconnection is nuclear-cytoskeletal coupling that relies on LINC proteins connecting the nucleoskeleton to actin networks, microtubules and intermediate filaments. The resulting linkages allow an almost instant transduction of mechanical information from the extracellular space to the nucleus (Lombardi et al., 2011) leading to changes in gene transcription and altered protein expression levels.
The coupling of plasma membrane tension with actin dynamics has been observed in neutrophils, where a local increase in plasma membrane tension causes a long-range inhibition of actin assembly that leads to a confined leading-edge formation (Houk et al., 2012). A membrane-actin crosstalk has been also observed in keratocytes where a rapid increase in membrane tension through micropipette aspiration in trailing regions of migrating cells leads to an increase in actin density at lamellipodial regions at the opposite side of the cell (Mueller et al., 2017). Collectively, these data show that mechanical information is efficiently exchanged between spatially separated mechanosensitive structures.
Crosstalk through common adaptor proteins and mechano-chemical signaling cascades
Similar to classical growth factor receptors, many mechanosensitive entities are able to induce complex signaling cascades. The interaction through chemical signaling pathways constitutes an additional mode of mechanical crosstalk in cells. FAs and AJs, for instance, both connect to the actin cytoskeleton and recruit common molecules such as vinculin or zyxin (Figure 2B, Sperry et al., 2010; Bays et al., 2014) and, at least in endothelial cells, FAK (Chen et al., 2012). Zyxin has been also detected in the nucleus, where it acts as a transcriptional regulator (Nix and Beckerle, 1997). As a result, FAs and AJs talk to and are regulated by a common set of signaling cascades and transcriptional networks ensuring an efficient intracellular communication (Mui et al., 2016). The interconnection of AJs and the nuclear compartment through commonly shared proteins was demonstrated for β-catenin, which localizes as a transcriptional regulator to the nucleus and as an adaptor protein to AJs (Bienz, 2005; Gayrard et al., 2018). Intriguingly, β-catenin, is also recruited to the LINC complex upon application of mechanical stretch (Uzer et al., 2018).
Crosstalk through mechano-chemical signaling is evident for MS ion channels and cell adhesion complexes. Stretching epithelial cells leads to Piezo-dependent activation of the ERK signaling pathway, which is also modulated by integrin receptors albeit on longer time scales (Figure 2C, Gudipaty et al., 2017). Studies in breast cancer cells revealed MS ion channel-dependent activation of Akt signaling that leads to E-cadherin downregulation (Lee et al., 2017), and Piezo1 mediated Ca2+ influx was shown to regulate the proteolytic enzyme calpain, which plays an important role in the turnover of talin (Li et al., 2014).
An intriguing combination of crosstalk through cytoskeletal coupling and mechano-chemical signaling has been described for the YAP/TAZ cascade (Figure 2D). YAP (Yes-associated protein) and TAZ (transcriptional co-activator of PDZ-binding motif) are transcriptional regulators that shuttle between the cytoplasm and the nucleus (Halder et al., 2012). The nuclear localization and thus the strength of YAP/TAZ signaling depends on ECM rigidity and actin stress fiber formation (Dupont et al., 2011). Recent experiments revealed that the ECM stiffness-dependent regulation of YAP/TAZ localization is also sensitive to the density and spacing of integrin receptors (Oria et al., 2017), while an independent study identified a role of YAP/TAZ in regulating the stability of AJs through modulation of BMP signaling (Neto et al., 2018). It has been also speculated that nuclear entry of YAP is modulated by force-dependent regulation of nuclear pores (Elosegui-Artola et al., 2017). Thus, YAP and TAZ are versatile integrators of nuclear-cytoskeletal crosstalk and mechano-chemical signaling pathways. Together, these examples show that cells adjust their mechanoresponses through interconnecting distinct force-sensitive elements and signaling cascades.
The mechanical memory of cells
A fascinating property of our tissues is their ability to remember past mechanical environments and stimulations. This mechanical memory is obviously important for tissue homeostasis, such as muscle growth after mechanical exercise, but is also observed in individual cells. Muscle stem cells, for instance, will engraft efficiently into muscle tissue only when previously cultured on substrates matching the physiological tissue stiffness (Gilbert et al., 2010). Similarly, prolonged culture of human mesenchymal stem cells on rigid substrates leads to the expected nuclear localization of YAP, but prevents YAP re-localization into the cytosol for up to 10 days even when cells are subsequently cultured in soft environments (Yang et al., 2014). Where does this mechanical memory originate?
Mechanical short-term memory at the plasma membrane
As discussed already, MS ion channels are efficient mediators of mechanical signals at the plasma membrane. In contrast to other mechanosensitive molecules, however, force-gated ion channels become insensitive to repetitive mechanical stimulations through a process called desensitization (Honore et al., 2006). How long mechanosensitive ion channels remain in the non-conducting state depends on the respective ion channel, the mechanical stimulus, and whether desensitization occurs through adaptation or inactivation: adaptation refers to the uncoupling of the channel from the mechanical stimulus, whereas inactivation refers to the block of the permeating pore. Desensitization of the hair cell resident ion channel complex, for example, is achieved through two complementary adaptation mechanisms involving Ca2+-binding to the channel complex and uncoupling of the channel associated motor myosin-1c (Fettiplace and Ricci, 2003). The MS potassium channels TREK-1 and TRAAK desensitize through an inactive state (Honore et al., 2006), and also Piezos are inactivating channels that cannot be repeatedly stimulated by mechanical forces before returning to their initial state (Coste et al., 2010). Thus, force-gated ion channels bestow cells with a short-term memory, lasting tens to hundreds of milliseconds, which probably helps cells to distinguish differences in frequency and amplitude of a mechanical signal.
Mechanical memory through cytoskeletal reorganization and conformational change
A more enduring mechanical memory is established through the reorganization of cytoskeletal structures. On the one hand, cells exposed to external forces will stiffen their cytoskeletal networks through passive strain-stiffening (Gardel et al., 2004) and active reinforcement (Matthews et al., 2006); in the case of repeated stretching, they also reorient their actin filaments to minimize future mechanical loads (Matthews et al., 2006; Faust et al., 2011). On the other hand, cells fluidize and re-solidify in response to mechanical stretch (Trepat et al., 2007). Both types of response lead to a cytoskeletal restructuring that, depending on the cell type and stimulus, may persist for minutes to hours.
Another strengthening mechanism that involves cytoskeletal reorganization and conformational memory is observed in FAs, which typically enlarge in response to applied forces (Riveline et al., 2001). This somewhat counterintuitive behavior is partly explained by the presence of special protein-protein interactions called catch bonds, which – in contrast to slip bonds – are characterized by an increased lifetime under tension. The α5β1 integrin receptor forms such a catch bond with its extracellular ligand fibronectin upon exposure to external stress (Kong et al., 2009). Intriguingly, repeated application of mechanical forces to the α5β1-FN linkage induces the switch from a short-lived catch bond, with characteristic lifetimes in the order of 1 s, to a long-lived state with bond lifetimes of up to 100 s (Kong et al., 2013). In addition, mechanical information is stored within FA proteins that adjust their conformation in response to mechanical loads. The force-induced vinculin recruitment to talin, for instance, does not only result in the formation of force-bearing linkages to the actin network (Atherton et al., 2015; Austen et al., 2015), it also prevents talin refolding when forces decrease again (Yao et al., 2014b). As a result, FAs will respond differently to future force applications. This sort of mechanical memory through cytoskeletal reorganization and strengthening mechanisms affects cells in the order of minutes to hours.
Storing mechanical information by transcriptional regulation and chromatin remodeling
The long-term memory of cells is largely mediated by changes in gene expression through the nuclear localization of transcription factors and chromatin remodeling. The already mentioned example of persistent YAP localization in the nuclear compartment falls into this category (Yang et al., 2014). However, it remains to be investigated how retention of nuclear YAP on soft substrates is controlled. Other transcriptional regulators that alter gene expression in a force-sensitive fashion include β-catenin, which activates the transcription factor twist in epithelial cells (Farge, 2003). Serum response factor (SRF) and its co-regulator MAL govern the expression of many adhesion proteins including talin, vinculin or zyxin (Schratt et al., 2002), and NF-κB translocates to the nucleus of endothelial cells and osteoblasts in response to shear flow (Khachigian et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2003).
While the force-dependent localization of these transcriptional regulators usually leads to an increase in transcriptional activity, the opposite – transcriptional repression in response to mechanical strain – has also been described. In skin cells, application of cyclic stretch causes global chromatin rearrangements leading to histone 3 trimethylation at lysine 27 and dampened gene transcription (Le et al., 2016). Regardless of whether the transcriptional activity is enhanced or repressed, this type of regulation endows cells with a long-term mechanical memory that may persist for many hours or even days. Finally, physical cues modulate the differentiation of stem cells and thereby determine tissue function for years (Engler et al., 2006; Trappmann et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013).
Conclusions and future perspective
Our examples demonstrate that cells use complex mechanisms to sense, translate and respond to a wide range of distinct mechanical stimuli. In addition, cells seem to possess a sort of mechanical memory allowing them to adjust to future mechanical challenges. While tremendous progress in understanding cellular mechanotransduction has been made, it is also clear that many details of the underlying molecular mechanisms remain to be identified. How do the various MS ion channels affect each other when expressed in the same cell? How do other types of cell adhesion complexes such as tight junctions, desmosomes or hemidesmosomes process mechanical information, and what are relevant length and time scales that characterize the underlying molecular processes? The development of highly sensitive technologies such as single-molecule force spectroscopy (Rognoni et al., 2014; Grison et al., 2017), atomic force microscopy (Kong et al., 2009; Kong et al., 2013; Strohmeyer et al., 2017), and molecular tension sensors (Austen et al., 2015; Ringer et al., 2017a) will certainly be helpful to develop a quantitative understanding of molecular force transduction in cells. It will be crucial, however, to improve the applicability of these techniques to investigate processes of molecular force transduction in complex but physiologically more relevant settings, specifically mammalian tissues. Furthermore, recent developments in super-resolution microscopy hold the promise to study the molecular underpinnings of cellular mechanotransduction on the level of individual molecules in living cells and organisms (Balzarotti et al., 2017; Schueder et al., 2017). Understanding these mechanisms will not only shed light onto one of the most fundamental and evolutionary conserved properties of life, it should also allow generations of future scientists to develop cells and tissues with designed mechano-chemical properties.
The authors acknowledge funding by the German Research Council through the DFG-ANR program, Funder Id: 10.13039/501100001659 (GR 3399/6–1), the Collaborative Research Centre SFB863 (B9) and the Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0024).
Atherton, P., Stutchbury, B., Wang, D.Y., Jethwa, D., Tsang, R., Meiler-Rodriguez, E., Wang, P.B., Bate, N., Zent, R., Barsukov, I.L., et al. (2015). Vinculin controls talin engagement with the actomyosin machinery. Nat. Commun. 6, 10038. Search in Google Scholar
Austen, K., Ringer, P., Mehlich, A., Chrostek-Grashoff, A., Kluger, C., Klingner, C., Sabass, B., Zent, R., Rief, M., and Grashoff, C. (2015). Extracellular rigidity sensing by talin isoform-specific mechanical linkages. Nat. Cell Biol. 17, 1597–1606. Search in Google Scholar
Balzarotti, F., Eilers, Y., Gwosch, K.C., Gynna, A.H., Westphal, V., Stefani, F.D., Elf, J., and Hell, S.W. (2017). Nanometer resolution imaging and tracking of fluorescent molecules with minimal photon fluxes. Science 355, 606–612. Search in Google Scholar
Bartolak-Suki, E., Imsirovic, J., Parameswaran, H., Wellman, T.J., Martinez, N., Allen, P.G., Frey, U., and Suki, B. (2015). Fluctuation-driven mechanotransduction regulates mitochondrial-network structure and function. Nat. Mater. 14, 1049–1057. Search in Google Scholar
Baumann, F., Bauer, M.S., Rees, M., Alexandrovich, A., Gautel, M., Pippig, D.A., and Gaub, H.E. (2017). Increasing evidence of mechanical force as a functional regulator in smooth muscle myosin light chain kinase. Elife 6, pii:e26473. Search in Google Scholar
Bays, J.L., Peng, X., Tolbert, C.E., Guilluy, C., Angell, A.E., Pan, Y., Superfine, R., Burridge, K., and DeMali, K.A. (2014). Vinculin phosphorylation differentially regulates mechanotransduction at cell-cell and cell-matrix adhesions. J. Cell Biol. 205, 251–263. Search in Google Scholar
Berridge, M.J., Bootman, M.D., and Roderick, H.L. (2003). Calcium signalling: dynamics, homeostasis and remodelling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 4, 517–529. Search in Google Scholar
Bieling, P., Li, T.D., Weichsel, J., McGorty, R., Jreij, P., Huang, B., Fletcher, D.A., and Mullins, R.D. (2016). Force feedback controls motor activity and mechanical properties of self-assembling branched actin networks. Cell 164, 115–127. Search in Google Scholar
Bienz, M. (2005). beta-Catenin: a pivot between cell adhesion and Wnt signalling. Curr. Biol. 15, R64–R67. Search in Google Scholar
Brangwynne, C.P., MacKintosh, F.C., and Weitz, D.A. (2007). Force fluctuations and polymerization dynamics of intracellular microtubules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 16128–16133. Search in Google Scholar
Brohawn, S.G. (2015). How ion channels sense mechanical force: insights from mechanosensitive K2P channels TRAAK, TREK1, and TREK2. Ann. Reports 1352, 20–32. Search in Google Scholar
Brohawn, S.G., Campbell, E.B., and MacKinnon, R. (2014a). Physical mechanism for gating and mechanosensitivity of the human TRAAK K+ channel. Nature 516, 126–130. Search in Google Scholar
Brohawn, S.G., Su, Z.W., and MacKinnon, R. (2014b). Mechanosensitivity is mediated directly by the lipid membrane in TRAAK and TREK1 K+ channels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3614–3619. Search in Google Scholar
Buckley, C.D., Tan, J.Y., Anderson, K.L., Hanein, D., Volkmann, N., Weis, W.I., Nelson, W.J., and Dunn, A.R. (2014). The minimal cadherin-catenin complex binds to actin filaments under force. Science 346, 1254211. Search in Google Scholar
Chalfie, M. (2009). Neurosensory mechanotransduction. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 44–52. Search in Google Scholar
Chen, N.X., Geist, D.J., Genetos, D.C., Pavalko, F.M., and Duncan, R.L. (2003). Fluid shear-induced NF kappa B translocation in osteoblasts is mediated by intracellular calcium release. Bone 33, 399–410. Search in Google Scholar
Chen, X.L., Nam, J.O., Jean, C., Lawson, C., Walsh, C.T., Goka, E., Lim, S.T., Tomar, A., Tancioni, I., Uryu, S., et al. (2012). VEGF-induced vascular permeability is mediated by FAK. Dev. Cell. 22, 146–157. Search in Google Scholar
Chubinskiy-Nadezhdin, V.I., Negulyaev, Y.A., and Morachevskaya, E.A. (2011). Cholesterol depletion-induced inhibition of stretch-activated channels is mediated via actin rearrangement. Biochem. Bioph. Res. Co. 412, 80–85. Search in Google Scholar
Chugh, P., Clark, A.G., Smith, M.B., Cassani, D.A.D., Dierkes, K., Ragab, A., Roux, P.P., Charras, G., Salbreux, G., and Paluch, E.K. (2017). Actin cortex architecture regulates cell surface tension. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 689–697. Search in Google Scholar
Coste, B., Mathur, J., Schmidt, M., Earley, T.J., Ranade, S., Petrus, M.J., Dubin, A.E., and Patapoutian, A. (2010). Piezo1 and Piezo2 are essential components of distinct mechanically activated cation channels. Science 330, 55–60. Search in Google Scholar
Courtemanche, N., Lee, J.Y., Pollard, T.D., and Greene, E.C. (2013). Tension modulates actin filament polymerization mediated by formin and profilin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9752–9757. Search in Google Scholar
Cueva, J.G., Mulholland, A., and Goodman, M.B. (2007). Nanoscale organization of the MEC-4 DEG/ENaC sensory mechanotransduction channel in Caenorhabditis elegans touch receptor neurons. J. Neurosci. 27, 14089–14098. Search in Google Scholar
del Rio, A., Perez-Jimenez, R., Liu, R., Roca-Cusachs, P., Fernandez, J.M., and Sheetz, M.P. (2009). Stretching single talin rod molecules activates vinculin binding. Science 323, 638–641. Search in Google Scholar
Doyle, A., Marganski, W., and Lee, J. (2004). Calcium transients induce spatially coordinated increases in traction force during the movement of fish keratocytes. J. Cell Sci. 117, 2203–2214. Search in Google Scholar
Dupont, S., Morsut, L., Aragona, M., Enzo, E., Giulitti, S., Cordenonsi, M., Zanconato, F., Le Digabel, J., Forcato, M., Bicciato, S., et al. (2011). Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction. Nature 474, 179–183. Search in Google Scholar
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. (2017). Force triggers YAP nuclear entry by regulating transport across nuclear pores. Cell 171, 1397–1410. Search in Google Scholar
Engler, A.J., Sen, S., Sweeney, H.L., and Discher, D.E. (2006). Matrix elasticity directs stem cell lineage specification. Cell 126, 677–689. Search in Google Scholar
Farge, E. (2003). Mechanical induction of twist in the Drosophila foregut/stomodeal primordium. Curr. Biol. 13, 1365–1377. Search in Google Scholar
Faust, U., Hampe, N., Rubner, W., Kirchgessner, N., Safran, S., Hoffmann, B., and Merkel, R. (2011). Cyclic stress at mHz frequencies aligns fibroblasts in direction of zero strain. PLoS One 6, e28963. Search in Google Scholar
Fettiplace, R. and Ricci, A.J. (2003). Adaptation in auditory hair cells. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 13, 446–451. Search in Google Scholar
Forth, S. and Kapoor, T.M. (2017). The mechanics of microtubule networks in cell division. J. Cell Biol. 216, 1525–1531. Search in Google Scholar
Galkin, V.E., Orlova, A., and Egelman, E.H. (2012). Actin filaments as tension sensors. Curr. Biol. 22, R96–R101. Search in Google Scholar
Gardel, M.L., Shin, J.H., MacKintosh, F.C., Mahadevan, L., Matsudaira, P., and Weitz, D.A. (2004). Elastic behavior of cross-linked and bundled actin networks. Science 304, 1301–1305. Search in Google Scholar
Gardel, M.L., Kasza, K.E., Brangwynne, C.P., Liu, J.Y., and Weitz, D.A. (2008). Mechanical response of cytoskeletal networks. Method. Cell Biol. 89, 487–519. Search in Google Scholar
Gauthier, N.C., Masters, T.A., and Sheetz, M.P. (2012). Mechanical feedback between membrane tension and dynamics. Trends Cell Biol. 22, 527–535. Search in Google Scholar
Gayrard, C., Bernaudin, C., Dejardin, T., Seiler, C., and Borghi, N. (2018). Src- and confinement-dependent FAK activation causes E-cadherin relaxation and beta-catenin activity. J. Cell Biol. 217, 1063–1077. Search in Google Scholar
Geiger, B., Spatz, J.P., and Bershadsky, A.D. (2009). Environmental sensing through focal adhesions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 21–33. Search in Google Scholar
Gilbert, P.M., Havenstrite, K.L., Magnusson, K.E., Sacco, A., Leonardi, N.A., Kraft, P., Nguyen, N.K., Thrun, S., Lutolf, M.P., and Blau, H.M. (2010). Substrate elasticity regulates skeletal muscle stem cell self-renewal in culture. Science 329, 1078–1081. Search in Google Scholar
Goodman, M.B., Ernstrom, G.G., Chelur, D.S., O’Hagan, R., Yao, C.A., and Chalfie, M. (2002). MEC-2 regulates C. elegans DEG/ENaC channels needed for mechanosensation. Nature 417, 880. Search in Google Scholar
Grison, M., Merkel, U., Kostan, J., Djinovic-Carugo, K., and Rief, M. (2017). a-Actinin/titin interaction: A dynamic and mechanically stable cluster of bonds in the muscle Z-disk. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 1015–1020. Search in Google Scholar
Gudipaty, S.A., Lindblom, J., Loftus, P.D., Redd, M.J., Edes, K., Davey, C.F., Krishnegowda, V., and Rosenblatt, J. (2017). Mechanical stretch triggers rapid epithelial cell division through Piezo1. Nature 543, 118–121. Search in Google Scholar
Guet, D., Mandal, K., Pinot, M., Hoffmann, J., Abidine, Y., Sigaut, W., Bardin, S., Schauer, K., Goud, B., and Manneville, J.B. (2014). Mechanical role of actin dynamics in the rheology of the Golgi complex and in Golgi-associated trafficking events. Curr. Biol. 24, 1700–1711. Search in Google Scholar
Halder, G., Dupont, S., and Piccolo, S. (2012). Transduction of mechanical and cytoskeletal cues by YAP and TAZ. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 13, 591–600. Search in Google Scholar
Han, M.K.L. and de Rooij, J. (2016). Converging and unique mechanisms of mechanotransduction at adhesion sites. Trends Cell Biol. 26, 612–623. Search in Google Scholar
Harris, A.R., Jreij, P., and Fletcher, D.A. (2018). Mechanotransduction by the actin cytoskeleton: converting mechanical stimuli into biochemical signals. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 47, 617–631. Search in Google Scholar
Hayakawa, K., Tatsumi, H., and Sokabe, M. (2008). Actin stress fibers transmit and focus force to activate mechanosensitive channels. J. Cell Sci. 121, 496–503. Search in Google Scholar
Hayakawa, K., Tatsumi, H., and Sokabe, M. (2011). Actin filaments function as a tension sensor by tension-dependent binding of cofilin to the filament. J. Cell Biol. 195, 721–727. Search in Google Scholar
Hill, A., Zheng, X.G., Li, X.L., McKinney, R., Dickman, D., and Ben-Shahar, Y. (2017). The Drosophila postsynaptic DEG/ENaC channel ppk29 contributes to excitatory neurotransmission. J. Neurosci. 37, 3171–3180. Search in Google Scholar
Hoffman, B.D., Grashoff, C., and Schwartz, M.A. (2011). Dynamic molecular processes mediate cellular mechanotransduction. Nature 475, 316–323. Search in Google Scholar
Honore, E. (2007). The neuronal background K2P channels: focus on TREK1. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 8, 251–261. Search in Google Scholar
Honore, E., Patel, A.J., Chemin, J., Suchyna, T., and Sachs, F. (2006). Desensitization of mechano-gated K2P channels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 6859–6864. Search in Google Scholar
Houk, A.R., Jilkine, A., Mejean, C.O., Boltyanskiy, R., Dufresne, E.R., Angenent, S.B., Altschuler, S.J., Wu, L.F., and Weiner, O.D. (2012). Membrane tension maintains cell polarity by confining signals to the leading edge during neutrophil migration. Cell 148, 175–188. Search in Google Scholar
Huang, D.L., Bax, N.A., Buckley, C.D., Weis, W.I., and Dunn, A.R. (2017). Vinculin forms a directionally asymmetric catch bond with F-actin. Science 357, 703–706. Search in Google Scholar
Humphrey, J.D., Dufresne, E.R., and Schwartz, M.A. (2014). Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 802–812. Search in Google Scholar
Ingber, D.E., Wang, N., and Stamenovic, D. (2014). Tensegrity, cellular biophysics, and the mechanics of living systems. Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 046603. Search in Google Scholar
Jaalouk, D.E. and Lammerding, J. (2009). Mechanotransduction gone awry. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 10, 63–73. Search in Google Scholar
Jahed, Z., Soheilypour, M., Peyro, M., and Mofrad, M.R.K. (2016). The LINC and NPC relationship – it’s complicated! J. Cell Sci. 129, 3219–3229. Search in Google Scholar
Janson, M.E., de Dood, M.E., and Dogterom, M. (2003). Dynamic instability of microtubules is regulated by force. J. Cell Biol. 161, 1029–1034. Search in Google Scholar
Kazmierczak, P., Sakaguchi, H., Tokita, J., Wilson-Kubalek, E.M., Milligan, R.A., Muller, U., and Kachar, B. (2007). Cadherin 23 and protocadherin 15 interact to form tip-link filaments in sensory hair cells. Nature 449, 87–91. Search in Google Scholar
Khachigian, L.M., Resnick, N., Gimbrone, M.A., and Collins, T. (1995). Nuclear factor-kappa-B interacts functionally with the platelet-derived growth-factor B-chain shear-stress response element in vascular endothelial-cells exposed to fluid shear-stress. J. Clin. Invest. 96, 1169–1175. Search in Google Scholar
Kirby, T.J. and Lammerding, J. (2018). Emerging views of the nucleus as a cellular mechanosensor. Nat. Cell Biol. 20, 373–381. Search in Google Scholar
Kong, F., Garcia, A.J., Mould, A.P., Humphries, M.J., and Zhu, C. (2009). Demonstration of catch bonds between an integrin and its ligand. J. Cell Biol. 185, 1275–1284. Search in Google Scholar
Kong, F., Li, Z.H., Parks, W.M., Dumbauld, D.W., Garcia, A.J., Mould, A.P., Humphries, M.J., and Zhu, C. (2013). Cyclic mechanical reinforcement of integrin-ligand interactions. Mol. Cell 49, 1060–1068. Search in Google Scholar
Kuo, J.C., Han, X.M., Hsiao, C.T., Yates, J.R., and Waterman, C.M. (2011). Analysis of the myosin-II-responsive focal adhesion proteome reveals a role for beta-Pix in negative regulation of focal adhesion maturation. Nat. Cell Biol. 13, 383–93. Search in Google Scholar
Laakso, J.M., Lewis, J.H., Shuman, H., and Ostap, E.M. (2008). Myosin I can act as a molecular force sensor. Science 321, 133–136. Search in Google Scholar
Lange, J.R. and Fabry, B. (2013). Cell and tissue mechanics in cell migration. Exp. Cell Res. 319, 2418–2423. Search in Google Scholar
Le, H.Q., Ghatak, S., Yeung, C.Y., Tellkamp, F., Gunschmann, C., Dieterich, C., Yeroslaviz, A., Habermann, B., Pombo, A., Niessen, C.M., and Wickstrom, S.A. (2016). Mechanical regulation of transcription controls polycomb-mediated gene silencing during lineage commitment. Nat. Cell Biol. 18, 864–875. Search in Google Scholar
Lee, W.H., Choong, L.Y., Jin, T.H., Mon, N.N., Chong, S., Liew, C.S., Putti, T., Lu, S.Y., Harteneck, C., and Lim, Y.P. (2017). TRPV4 plays a role in breast cancer cell migration via Ca(2+)-dependent activation of AKT and downregulation of E-cadherin cell cortex protein. Oncogenesis 6, e338. Search in Google Scholar
Li, B.J., Moshfegh, C., Lin, Z., Albuschies, J., and Vogel, V. (2013). Mesenchymal stem cells exploit extracellular matrix as mechanotransducer. Sci. Rep. 3, 2425. Search in Google Scholar
Li, J., Hou, B., Tumova, S., Muraki, K., Bruns, A., Ludlow, M.J., Sedo, A., Hyman, A.J., McKeown, L., Young, R.S., et al. (2014). Piezo1 integration of vascular architecture with physiological force. Nature 515, 279–282. Search in Google Scholar
Lombardi, M.L., Jaalouk, D.E., Shanahan, C.M., Burke, B., Roux, K.J., and Lammerding, J. (2011). The interaction between nesprins and sun proteins at the nuclear envelope is critical for force transmission between the nucleus and cytoskeleton. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 26743–26753. Search in Google Scholar
Maingret, F., Fosset, M., Lesage, F., Lazdunski, M., and Honore, E. (1999a). TRAAK is a mammalian neuronal mechano-gated K+ channel. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 1381–1387. Search in Google Scholar
Maingret, F., Patel, A.J., Lesage, F., Lazdunski, M., and Honore, E. (1999b). Mechano- or acid stimulation, two interactive modes of activation of the TREK-1 potassium channel. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 26691–26696. Search in Google Scholar
Maresca, T.J. and Salmon, E.D. (2010). Welcome to a new kind of tension: translating kinetochore mechanics into a wait-anaphase signal. J. Cell Sci. 123, 825–835. Search in Google Scholar
Martinac, B. (2011). Bacterial mechanosensitive channels as a paradigm for mechanosensory transduction. Cell Physiol. Biochem. 28, 1051–1060. Search in Google Scholar
Martinac, B., Adler, J., and Kung, C. (1990). Mechanosensitive ion channels of Escherichia coli activated by amphipaths. Nature 348, 261–263. Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, B.D., Overby, D.R., Mannix, R., and Ingber, D.E. (2006). Cellular adaptation to mechanical stress: role of integrins, Rho, cytoskeletal tension and mechanosensitive ion channels. J. Cell Sci. 119, 508–518. Search in Google Scholar
Mazzochi, C., Bubien, J.K., Smith, P.R., and Benos, D.J. (2006). The carboxyl terminus of the alpha-subunit of the amiloride-sensitive epithelial sodium channel binds to F-actin. J. Biol. Chem. 281, 6528–6538. Search in Google Scholar
Moroni, M., Servin-Vences, M.R., Fleischer, R., Sanchez-Carranza, O., and Lewin, G.R. (2018). Voltage gating of mechanosensitive PIEZO channels. Nat. Commun. 9, 1096. Search in Google Scholar
Mueller, J., Szep, G., Nemethova, M., de Vries, I., Lieber, A.D., Winkler, C., Kruse, K., Small, J.V., Schmeiser, C., Keren, K., et al. (2017). Load adaptation of lamellipodial actin networks. Cell 171, 188–200. Search in Google Scholar
Mui, K.L., Chen, C.S., and Assoian, R.K. (2016). The mechanical regulation of integrin-cadherin crosstalk organizes cells, signaling and forces. J. Cell Sci. 129, 1093–1100. Search in Google Scholar
Neto, F., Klaus-Bergmann, A., Ong, Y.T., Alt, S., Vion, A.C., Szymborska, A., Carvalho, J.R., Hollfinger, I., Bartels-Klein, E., Franco, C.A., et al. (2018). YAP and TAZ regulate adherens junction dynamics and endothelial cell distribution during vascular development. Elife 7, pii: e31037. Search in Google Scholar
Nix, D.A. and Beckerle, M.C. (1997). Nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling of the focal contact protein, zyxin: A potential mechanism for communication between sites of cell adhesion and the nucleus. J. Cell Biol. 138, 1139–1147. Search in Google Scholar
Nonomura, K., Woo, S.H., Chang, R.B., Gillich, A., Qiu, Z., Francisco, A.G., Ranade, S.S., Liberles, S.D., and Patapoutian, A. (2017). Piezo2 senses airway stretch and mediates lung inflation-induced apnoea. Nature 541, 176–181. Search in Google Scholar
Oria, R., Wiegand, T., Escribano, J., Elosegui-Artola, A., Uriarte, J.J., Moreno-Pulido, C., Platzman, I., Delcanale, P., Albertazzi, L., Navajas, D., et al. (2017). Force loading explains spatial sensing of ligands by cells. Nature 552, 219–224. Search in Google Scholar
Pasapera, A.M., Schneider, I.C., Rericha, E., Schlaepfer, D.D., and Waterman, C.M. (2010). Myosin II activity regulates vinculin recruitment to focal adhesions through FAK-mediated paxillin phosphorylation. J. Cell Biol. 188, 877–890. Search in Google Scholar
Pelham, R.J., Jr. and Wang, Y. (1997). Cell locomotion and focal adhesions are regulated by substrate flexibility. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 13661–13665. Search in Google Scholar
Perozo, E., Cortes, D.M., Sompornpisut, P., Kloda, A., and Martinac, B. (2002). Open channel structure of MscL and the gating mechanism of mechanosensitive channels. Nature 418, 942–948. Search in Google Scholar
Poh, Y.C., Shevtsov, S.P., Chowdhury, F., Wu, D.C., Na, S., Dundr, M., and Wang, N. (2012). Dynamic force-induced direct dissociation of protein complexes in a nuclear body in living cells. Nat. Commun. 3, 866. Search in Google Scholar
Qi, Y.M., Andolfi, L., Frattini, F., Mayer, F., Lazzarino, M., and Hu, J. (2015). Membrane stiffening by STOML3 facilitates mechanosensation in sensory neurons. Nat. Commun. 6, 8512. Search in Google Scholar
Ranade, S.S., Syeda, R., and Patapoutian, A. (2015). Mechanically activated ion channels. Neuron 87, 1162–1179. Search in Google Scholar
Ranade, S.S., Qiu, Z.Z., Woo, S.H., Hur, S.S., Murthy, S.E., Cahalan, S.M., Xu, J., Mathur, J., Bandell, M., Coste, B., et al. (2014a). Piezo1, a mechanically activated ion channel, is required for vascular development in mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10347–10352. Search in Google Scholar
Ranade, S.S., Woo, S.H., Dubin, A.E., Moshourab, R.A., Wetzel, C., Petrus, M., Mathur, J., Begay, V., Coste, B., Mainquist, J., et al. (2014b). Piezo2 is the major transducer of mechanical forces for touch sensation in mice. Nature 516, 121–5. Search in Google Scholar
Retailleau, K., Duprat, F., Arhatte, M., Ranade, S.S., Peyronnet, R., Martins, J.R., Jodar, M., Moro, C., Offermanns, S., Feng, Y.Y., et al. (2015). Piezo1 in smooth muscle cells is involved in hypertension-dependent arterial remodeling. Cell Rep. 13, 1161–1171. Search in Google Scholar
Ringer, P., Colo, G., Fassler, R., and Grashoff, C. (2017a). Sensing the mechano-chemical properties of the extracellular matrix. Matrix Biol. 64, 6–16. Search in Google Scholar
Ringer, P., Weissl, A., Cost, A.L., Freikamp, A., Sabass, B., Mehlich, A., Tramier, M., Rief, M., and Grashoff, C. (2017b). Multiplexing molecular tension sensors reveals piconewton force gradient across talin-1. Nat. Methods 14, 1090–1096. Search in Google Scholar
Riveline, D., Zamir, E., Balaban, N.Q., Schwarz, U.S., Ishizaki, T., Narumiya, S., Kam, Z., Geiger, B., and Bershadsky, A.D. (2001). Focal contacts as mechanosensors: Externally applied local mechanical force induces growth of focal contacts by an mDia1-dependent and ROCK-independent mechanism. J. Cell Biol. 153, 1175–1185. Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, G.C.K. and Critchley, D.R. (2009). Structural and biophysical properties of the integrin-associated cytoskeletal protein talin. Biophys. Rev. 1, 61–69. Search in Google Scholar
Rognoni, L., Most, T., Zoldak, G., and Rief, M. (2014). Force-dependent isomerization kinetics of a highly conserved proline switch modulates the mechanosensing region of filamin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5568–5573. Search in Google Scholar
Rottner, K., Hall, A., and Small, J.V. (1999). Interplay between Rac and Rho in the control of substrate contact dynamics. Curr. Biol. 9, 640–648. Search in Google Scholar
Rubsam, M., Broussard, J.A., Wickstrom, S.A., Nekrasova, O., Green, K.J., and Niessen, C.M. (2017). Adherens junctions and desmosomes coordinate mechanics and signaling to orchestrate tissue morphogenesis and function: an evolutionary perspective. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 10, pii: a029207. Search in Google Scholar
Sawada, Y., Tamada, M., Dubin-Thaler, B.J., Cherniavskaya, O., Sakai, R., Tanaka, S., and Sheetz, M.P. (2006). Force sensing by mechanical extension of the Src family kinase substrate p130Cas. Cell 127, 1015–1026. Search in Google Scholar
Schiller, H.B., Friedel, C.C., Boulegue, C., and Fassler, R. (2011). Quantitative proteomics of the integrin adhesome show a myosin II-dependent recruitment of LIM domain proteins. Embo. Rep. 12, 259–266. Search in Google Scholar
Schratt, G., Philippar, U., Berger, J., Schwarz, H., Heidenreich, O., and Nordheim, A. (2002). Serum response factor is crucial for actin cytoskeletal organization and focal adhesion assembly in embryonic stem cells. J. Cell Biol. 156, 737–750. Search in Google Scholar
Schueder, F., Lara-Gutierrez, J., Beliveau, B.J., Saka, S.K., Sasaki, H.M., Woehrstein, J.B., Strauss, M.T., Grabmayr, H., Yin, P., and Jungmann, R. (2017). Multiplexed 3D super-resolution imaging of whole cells using spinning disk confocal microscopy and DNA-PAINT. Nat. Commun. 8, 2090. Search in Google Scholar
Sharif-Naeini, R., Folgering, J.H., Bichet, D., Duprat, F., Lauritzen, I., Arhatte, M., Jodar, M., Dedman, A., Chatelain, F.C., Schulte, U., et al. (2009). Polycystin-1 and -2 dosage regulates pressure sensing. Cell 139, 587–596. Search in Google Scholar
Siemens, J., Lillo, C., Dumont, R.A., Reynolds, A., Williams, D.S., Gillespie, P.G., and Muller, U. (2004). Cadherin 23 is a component of the tip link in hair-cell stereocilia. Nature 428, 950–955. Search in Google Scholar
Sperry, R.B., Bishop, N.H., Bramwell, J.J., Brodeur, M.N., Carter, M.J., Fowler, B.T., Lewis, Z.B., Maxfield, S.D., Staley, D.M., Vellinga, R.M. et al. (2010). Zyxin controls migration in epithelial-mesenchymal transition by mediating actin-membrane linkages at cell-cell junctions. J. Cell Physiol. 222, 612–624. Search in Google Scholar
Strohmeyer, N., Bharadwaj, M., Costell, M., Fassler, R., and Muller, D.J. (2017). Fibronectin-bound alpha alpha 5 beta 1 integrins sense load and signal to reinforce adhesion in less than a second. Nat. Mater. 16, 1262–1270. Search in Google Scholar
Stroud, M.J., Banerjee, I., Veevers, J., and Chen, J. (2014). Linker of nucleoskeleton and cytoskeleton complex proteins in cardiac structure, function, and disease. Circ. Res. 114, 538–548. Search in Google Scholar
Stutchbury, B., Atherton, P., Tsang, R., Wang, D.Y., and Ballestrem, C. (2017). Distinct focal adhesion protein modules control different aspects of mechanotransduction. J. Cell Sci. 130, 1612–1624. Search in Google Scholar
Swift, J., Ivanovska, I.L., Buxboim, A., Harada, T., Dingal, P.C., Pinter, J., Pajerowski, J.D., Spinler, K.R., Shin, J.W., Tewari, M., et al. (2013). Nuclear lamin-A scales with tissue stiffness and enhances matrix-directed differentiation. Science 341, 1240104. Search in Google Scholar
Tajik, A., Zhang, Y.J., Wei, F.X., Sun, J., Jia, Q., Zhou, W.W., Singh, R., Khanna, N., Belmont, A.S., and Wang, N. (2016). Transcription upregulation via force-induced direct stretching of chromatin. Nat. Mater. 15, 1287–1296. Search in Google Scholar
Trappmann, B., Gautrot, J.E., Connelly, J.T., Strange, D.G., Li, Y., Oyen, M.L., Cohen Stuart, M.A., Boehm, H., Li, B., Vogel, V., et al. (2012). Extracellular-matrix tethering regulates stem-cell fate. Nat. Mater. 11, 642–649. Search in Google Scholar
Trepat, X., Deng, L.H., An, S.S., Navajas, D., Tschumperlin, D.J., Gerthoffer, W.T., Butler, J.P., and Fredberg, J.J. (2007). Universal physical responses to stretch in the living cell. Nature 447, 592–595. Search in Google Scholar
Uyeda, T.Q.P., Iwadate, Y., Umeki, N., Nagasaki, A., and Yumura, S. (2011). Stretching actin filaments within cells enhances their affinity for the myosin ii motor domain. PLoS One 6, e26200. Search in Google Scholar
Uzer, G., Bas, G., Sen, B., Xie, Z.H., Birks, S., Olcum, M., McGrath, C., Styner, M., and Rubin, J. (2018). Sun-mediated mechanical LINC between nucleus and cytoskeleton regulates beta catenin nuclear access. J. Biomech. 74, 32–40. Search in Google Scholar
Woo, S.H., Lukacs, V., de Nooij, J.C., Zaytseva, D., Criddle, C.R., Francisco, A., Jessell, T.M., Wilkinson, K.A., and Patapoutian, A. (2015). Piezo2 is the principal mechanotransduction channel for proprioception. Nat. Neurosci. 18, 1756–1762. Search in Google Scholar
Worman, H.J. (2012). Nuclear lamins and laminopathies. J. Pathol. 226, 316–325. Search in Google Scholar
Yang, C., Tibbitt, M.W., Basta, L., and Anseth, K.S. (2014). Mechanical memory and dosing influence stem cell fate. Nat. Mater. 13, 645–652. Search in Google Scholar
Yao, M., Goult, B.T., Klapholz, B., Hu, X., Toseland, C.P., Guo, Y., Cong, P., Sheetz, M.P., and Yan, J. (2016). The mechanical response of talin. Nat. Commun. 7, 11966. Search in Google Scholar
Yao, M., Goult, B.T., Chen, H., Cong, P., Sheetz, M.P., and Yan, J. (2014a). Mechanical activation of vinculin binding to talin locks talin in an unfolded conformation. Sci. Rep. 4, 4610. Search in Google Scholar
Yao, M., Qiu, W., Liu, R., Efremov, A.K., Cong, P., Seddiki, R., Payre, M., Lim, C.T., Ladoux, B., Mege, R.M., et al. (2014b). Force-dependent conformational switch of alpha-catenin controls vinculin binding. Nat. Commun. 5, 4525. Search in Google Scholar
Yonemura, S., Wada, Y., Watanabe, T., Nagafuchi, A., and Shibata, M. (2010). alpha-Catenin as a tension transducer that induces adherens junction development. Nat. Cell Biol. 12, 533–542. Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Cheng, L.E., Kittelmann, M., Li, J.F., Petkovic, M., Cheng, T., Jin, P., Guo, Z.H., Gopfert, M.C., Jan, L.Y., et al. (2015). Ankyrin repeats convey force to gate the NOMPC mechanotransduction channel. Cell 162, 1391–1403. Search in Google Scholar
Zhou, J., Aponte-Santamaria, C., Sturm, S., Bullerjahn, J.T., Bronowska, A., and Grater, F. (2015). Mechanism of focal adhesion kinase mechanosensing. PLoS Comput. Biol. 11, e1004593. Search in Google Scholar
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston