Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
CONCLUDING REMARKS
An appreciation that even non-epithelial cells can migrate as coordinated groups, though
not itself new, has nevertheless only recently attracted the attention of a large number of cell
biologists. It is important for several reasons. The first is that it changes our view of at least
some aspects of development, making some migrations, such as those of the early neural
crest, less cell-centred and more community-centred. Given the difference between bulk cells
and outside-edge cells, migration behaviour may have to be seen as emerging from the inter-
actions of two distinct cell states
d
a complication but one that may much better explain the
accuracy and robustness of path-finding. The second is that it may change the traditional
view of cancer invasion and metastasis from one in which lone renegade cells break free
from a primary tumour site to one in which different tumour cells cooperate. This is not
just a difference in explanation
d
it may also suggest new lines of medical attack by inter-
fering with the cooperation. Finally, the demonstration that goal-directed migration can be
more efficient with cooperation may provide more clues to the problem of the evolutionary
origin of multicellularity.
Reference List
1. Winklbauer R, Selchow A, Nagel M, Angres B. Cell interaction and its role in mesoderm cell migration during
Xenopus gastrulation. Dev Dyn 1992;
:290
e
302.
2. Rørth P. Collective cell migration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 2009;
195
:407
e
29.
3. Kerner BS. Experimental features of self-organization in traffic flow. Phys Rev Lett 1998;
25
:3797
e
800.
4. Abercrombie M. Contact inhibition: the phenomenon and its biological implications. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr
1967;
81
:249
e
77.
5. Erickson CA. Control of pathfinding by the avian trunk neural crest. Development 1988;
26
(Suppl):63
e
80.
6. Tambe DT, Hardin CC, Angelini TE, Rajendran K, Park CY, Serra-Picamal X, et al. Collective cell guidance by
cooperative intercellular forces. Nat Mater 2011;
103
:469
e
75.
7. Trepat X, Fredberg JJ. Plithotaxis and emergent dynamics in collective cellular migration. Trends Cell Biol
2011;
10
:638
e
46.
8. Dupin E, Creuzet S, Le Douarin NM. The contribution of the neural crest to the vertebrate body. Adv Exp Med
Biol 2006;
21
:96
e
119.
9. DeSimone DW, Davidson L, Marsden M, Alfandari D. The Xenopus embryo as a model system for studies of
cell migration. Methods Mol Biol 2005;
589
:235
e
45.
10. Theveneau E, Marchant L, Kuriyama S, Gull M, Moepps B, Parsons M, et al. Collective chemotaxis requires
contact-dependent cell polarity. Dev Cell 2010;
294
:39
e
53.
11. Carmona-Fontaine C, Theveneau E, Tzekou A, Tada M, Woods M, Page KM, et al. Complement fragment C3a
controls mutual cell attraction during collective cell migration. Dev Cell 2011;
19
:1026
e
37.
12. Trepat X, Wasserman MR, Angelini TE, Millet E, Weitz DA, Butler JP, et al. Physical forces during collective cell
migration. Nat Phys 2009;
21
:426
e
30.
13. Carmona-Fontaine C, Matthews HK, Kuriyama S, Moreno M, Dunn GA, Parsons M, et al. Contact inhibition of
locomotion in vivo controls neural crest directional migration. Nature 2008;
5
(7224):957
e
61.
14. Altman J. Autoradiographic and histological studies of postnatal neurogenesis IV. Cell proliferation and
migration in the anterior forebrain, with special reference to persisting neurogenesis in the olfactory bulb.
J Comp Neurol 1969;
456
:433
e
57.
15. Goldman SA, Luskin MB. Strategies utilized by migrating neurons of the postnatal vertebrate forebrain. Trends
Neurosci 1998;
13
:107
e
14.
16. Lois C, Garc´a-Verdugo JM, Alvarez-Buylla A. Chain migration of neuronal precursors. Science
1996;
21
:978
e
81.
271
