1. Cell Biology
  2. Developmental Biology and Stem Cells
Download icon

Cellular aspect ratio and cell division mechanics underlie the patterning of cell progeny in diverse mammalian epithelia

  1. Kara L McKinley
  2. Nico Stuurman
  3. Loic A Royer
  4. Christoph Schartner
  5. David Castillo-Azofeifa
  6. Markus Delling
  7. Ophir D Klein  Is a corresponding author
  8. Ronald D Vale  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  2. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 0
  • Views 728
  • Annotations
Cite as: eLife 2018;7:e36739 doi: 10.7554/eLife.36739

Abstract

Cell division is essential to expand, shape, and replenish epithelia. In the adult small intestine, cells from a common progenitor intermix with other lineages, whereas cell progeny in many other epithelia form contiguous patches. The mechanisms that generate these distinct patterns of progeny are poorly understood. Using light sheet and confocal imaging of intestinal organoids, we show that lineages intersperse during cytokinesis, when elongated interphase cells insert between apically displaced daughters. Reducing the cellular aspect ratio to minimize the height difference between interphase and mitotic cells disrupts interspersion, producing contiguous patches. Cellular aspect ratio is similarly a key parameter for division-coupled interspersion in the early mouse embryo, suggesting that this physical mechanism for patterning progeny may pertain to many mammalian epithelia. Our results reveal that the process of cytokinesis in elongated mammalian epithelia allows lineages to intermix and that cellular aspect ratio is a critical modulator of the progeny pattern.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kara L McKinley

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon 0000-0001-6283-9168
  2. Nico Stuurman

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon 0000-0002-6179-8613
  3. Loic A Royer

    Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Christoph Schartner

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon 0000-0003-0599-3956
  5. David Castillo-Azofeifa

    Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Markus Delling

    Department of Physiology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ophir D Klein

    Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Ophir.Klein@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon 0000-0002-6254-7082
  8. Ronald D Vale

    Department of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    Ron.Vale@ucsf.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon 0000-0003-3460-2758

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Kara L McKinley
  • Nico Stuurman
  • Ronald D Vale

National Institutes of Health (U01DK103147)

  • Kara L McKinley
  • David Castillo-Azofeifa
  • Ophir D Klein

Chan Zuckerberg Biohub

  • Loic A Royer

Fritz Thyssen Stiftung

  • Christoph Schartner
  • Markus Delling

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All experiments involving mice were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of California, San Francisco (protocol #AN151723).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Jody Rosenblatt, Reviewing Editor, University of Utah, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: March 17, 2018
  2. Accepted: June 8, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 13, 2018 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2018, McKinley et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 728
    Page views
  • 151
    Downloads
  • 0
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Ioanna Oikonomidi et al.
    Research Article
    1. Cell Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elisabeth A Geyer et al.
    Research Article