Mechanical imbalance between normal and transformed cells drives epithelial homeostasis through cell competition

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this article, Gupta and colleagues explore the parameters that could promote the elimination of active Ras cells when surrounded by WT cells. The elimination of active Ras cells by surrounding WT cells was previously described extensively and associated with a process named cell competition, a context dependant elimination of cells. Several mechanisms have been associated with competition, including more recently elimination processes based on mechanical stress. This was explored theoretically and experimentally and was either associated with differential growth and sensitivity to pressure and/or differences in homeostatic density/pressure. This was extensively validated for the case of Scribble mutant cells which are eliminated by WT MDCK cells due to their higher homeostatic density. However, there has been so far very little systematic characterisation of the mechanical parameters and properties of these different cell types and how this could contribute to mechanical competition.

Here, the authors used the context of active Ras cells in MDCK cells (with some observations in vivo in mice gut which are a bit more anecdotal) to explore the parameters causal to Ras cell elimination. Using for the first time traction force microscopy, stress microscopy combined with Bayesian inference, they first show that clusters of active Ras cells experience higher pressure compared to WT. Interestingly, this occurs in absence of differences in growth rate, and while Ras cells seems to have lower homeostatic density, in contractions with the previous models associated with mechanical cell competition. Using a self-propelled Voronoi model, they explored more systematically the conditions that will promote the compression of transformed cells, showing globally that higher Area compressibility and/or lower junctional tension are associated with higher compressibility. Using then an original and novel experimental method to measure bulk compressibility of cell populations, they confirmed that active Ras cells are globally twice more compressible than WT cells. This compressibility correlates with a disruption of adherens junctions. Accordingly, the higher pressure near transformed Ras cells can be completely rescued by increasing cell-cell adhesion through E-cad overexpression, which also reduces the compressibility of the transformed cells. Altogether, these results go along the lines of a previous theoretical work (Gradeci et al. eLife 2021) which was suggesting that reduced stiffness/higher compressibility was essential to promote loser cell elimination. Here, the authors provide for the first time a very convincing experimental measurement and validation of this prediction. Moreover, their modelling approach goes far beyond what was performed before in terms of exploration of conditions promoting compressibility, and their experimental data point at alternative mechanisms that may contribute to mechanical competition.

Strengths:

- Original methodologies to perform systematic characterisation of mechanical properties of Ras cells during cell competition, which include a novel method to measure bulk compressibility.
- A very extensive theoretical exploration of the parameters promoting cell compaction in the context of competition.

Weaknesses:

- Most of the theoretical focus is centred on the bulk compressibility, but so far does not really explain the final fate of the transformed cells. Classic cell competition scenario (including the one involving active Ras cells) lead to the elimination of one cell population either by cell extrusion/cell death or global delamination. This aspect is absolutely not explored in this article, experimentally or theoretically, and as such it is difficult to connect all the observables with the final outcome of cell competition. For instance, higher compressibility may not lead to loser status if the cells can withstand high density without extruding compared to the WT cells (and could even completely invert the final outcome of the competition). Down the line, and as suggested in most of the previous models/experiments, the relationship between pressure/density and extrusion/death will be the key factor that determine the final outcome of competition. However, there is absolutely no characterisation of cell death/cell extrusion in the article so far.

- While the compressibility measurement are very original and interesting, this bulk measurement could be explained by very different cellular processes, from modulation of cell shape, to cell extrusion and tissue multilayering (which by the way was already observed for active Ras cells, see for instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644109/). This could change a lot the interpretation of this measurement and to which extend it can explain the compression observed in mixed culture. This compressibility measurement could be much more informative if coupled with an estimation of the change of cell aspect ratio and the rough evaluation of the contribution of cell shape changes versus alternative mechanisms.

- So far, there is no clear explanation of why transformed Ras cells get more compacted in the context of mixed culture compared to pure Ras culture. Previously, the compaction of mutant Scribble cells could be explained by the higher homeostatic density of WT cells which impose their prefered higher density to Scribble mutant (see Wagstaff et al. 2016 or Gradeci et al 2021), however that is not the case of the Ras cells (which have even slightly higher density at confluency). If I understood properly, the Voronoid model assumes some directional movement of WT cell toward transformed which will actively compact the Ras cells through self-propelled forces (see supplementary methods), but this is never clearly discussed/described in the results section, while potentially being one essential ingredient for observing compaction of transformed cells. In fact, this was already described experimentally in the case of Scribble competition and associated with chemoattractant secretion from the mutant cells promoting directed migration of the WT (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33357449/). It would be essential to show what happens in absence of directional propelled movement in the model and validate experimentally whether there is indeed directional movement of the WT toward the transformed cells. Without this, the current data does not really explain the competition process.

- Some of the data lack a bit of information on statistic, especially for all the stress microscopy and traction forces where we do no really know how representative at the stress patterns (how many experiment, are they average of several movies ? integrated on which temporal window ?)

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The work by Gupta et al. addresses the role of tissue compressibility as a driver of cell competition. The authors use a planar epithelial monolayer system to study cell competition between wild type and transformed epithelial cells expressing HRasV12. They combine imaging and traction force measurements from which the authors propose that wild type cells generate compressive forces on transformed epithelial cells. The authors further present a novel setup to directly measure the compressibility of adherent epithelial tissues. These measurements suggest a higher compressibility of transformed epithelial cells, which is causally linked to a reduction in cell-cell adhesion in transformed cells. The authors support their conclusions by theoretical modelling using a self-Propelled Voronoi model that supports differences in tissue compressibility can lead to compression of the softer tissue type.

The experimental framework to measure tissue compressibility of adherent epithelial monolayers establishes a novel tool, however additional controls of this measurement appear required. Moreover, the experimental support of this study is mostly based on single representative images and would greatly benefit from additional data and their quantitative analysis to support the authors' conclusions. Specific comments are also listed in the following:

Major points:

It is not evident in Fig2A that traction forces increase along the interface between wild type and transformed populations and stresses in Fig2C also seem to be similar at the interface and surrounding cell layer. Only representative examples are provided and a quantification of sigma_m needs to be provided.

In Figure 1-3 only panel 2G and 2H provide a quantitative analysis, but it is not clear how many regions of interest and clusters of transform cells were quantified.

Several statements appear to be not sufficiently justified and supported by data.
For example the statement on pg 3. line 38 seems to lack supportive data 'This comparison revealed that the thickness of HRasV12-expressing cells was reduced by more than 1.7-fold when they were surrounded by wild type cells. These observations pointed towards a selective, competition-dependent compaction of HRasV12-expressing transformed cells but not control cells, in the intestinal villi of mice.'
Similarly, the statement about a cell area change of 2.7 fold (pg 3 line 47) lacks support by measurements.

What is the rationale for setting 𝐾p = 1 in the model assumptions if clear differences in junctional membranes of transformed versus wild type cells occur, including dynamic ruffling? This assumption does not seem to be in line with biological observations.

The novel approach to measure tissue compressibility is based on pH dependent hydrogels. As the pH responsive hydrogel pillar is placed into a culture medium with different conditions, an important control would be if the insertion of this hydrogel itself would change the pH or conditions of the culture assays and whether this alters tissue compressibility or cell adhesion. The authors could for example insert a hydrogel pillar of a smaller diameter that would not lead to compression or culture cells in a larger ring to assess the influence of the pillar itself.

The authors focus on the study of cell compaction of the transformed cells, but how does this ultimately lead to a competitive benefit of wild type cells? Is a higher rate of extrusion observed and associated with the compaction of transformed cells or is their cell death rate increased? While transformed cells seem to maintain a proliferative advantage it is not clear which consequences of tissue compression ultimately drive cell competition between wild type and transformed cells.

The argumentation that softer tissues would be more easily compressed is plausible. However, which mechanism do the authors suggest is generating the actual compressive stress to drive the compaction of transformed cells? They exclude a proliferative advantage of wild type cells, which other mechanisms will generate the compressive forces by wild type cells?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this article, Gupta and colleagues explore the parameters that could promote the elimination of active Ras cells when surrounded by WT cells. The elimination of active Ras cells by surrounding WT cells was previously described extensively and associated with a process named cell competition, a context dependant elimination of cells. Several mechanisms have been associated with competition, including more recently elimination processes based on mechanical stress. This was explored theoretically and experimentally and was either associated with differential growth and sensitivity to pressure and/or differences in homeostatic density/pressure. This was extensively validated for the case of Scribble mutant cells which are eliminated by WT MDCK cells due to their higher homeostatic density. However, there has been so far very little systematic characterisation of the mechanical parameters and properties of these different cell types and how this could contribute to mechanical competition.

Here, the authors used the context of active Ras cells in MDCK cells (with some observations in vivo in mice gut which are a bit more anecdotal) to explore the parameters causal to Ras cell elimination. Using for the first time traction force microscopy, stress microscopy combined with Bayesian inference, they first show that clusters of active Ras cells experience higher pressure compared to WT. Interestingly, this occurs in absence of differences in growth rate, and while Ras cells seems to have lower homeostatic density, in contractions with the previous models associated with mechanical cell competition. Using a self-propelled Voronoi model, they explored more systematically the conditions that will promote the compression of transformed cells, showing globally that higher Area compressibility and/or lower junctional tension are associated with higher compressibility. Using then an original and novel experimental method to measure bulk compressibility of cell populations, they confirmed that active Ras cells are globally twice more compressible than WT cells. This compressibility correlates with a disruption of adherens junctions. Accordingly, the higher pressure near transformed Ras cells can be completely rescued by increasing cell-cell adhesion through E-cad overexpression, which also reduces the compressibility of the transformed cells. Altogether, these results go along the lines of a previous theoretical work (Gradeci et al. eLife 2021) which was suggesting that reduced stiffness/higher compressibility was essential to promote loser cell elimination. Here, the authors provide for the first time a very convincing experimental measurement and validation of this prediction. Moreover, their modelling approach goes far beyond what was performed before in terms of exploration of conditions promoting compressibility, and their experimental data point at alternative mechanisms that may contribute to mechanical competition.

Strengths:

- Original methodologies to perform systematic characterisation of mechanical properties of Ras cells during cell competition, which include a novel method to measure bulk compressibility.
- A very extensive theoretical exploration of the parameters promoting cell compaction in the context of competition.

Weaknesses:

- Most of the theoretical focus is centred on the bulk compressibility, but so far does not really explain the final fate of the transformed cells. Classic cell competition scenario (including the one involving active Ras cells) lead to the elimination of one cell population either by cell extrusion/cell death or global delamination. This aspect is absolutely not explored in this article, experimentally or theoretically, and as such it is difficult to connect all the observables with the final outcome of cell competition. For instance, higher compressibility may not lead to loser status if the cells can withstand high density without extruding compared to the WT cells (and could even completely invert the final outcome of the competition). Down the line, and as suggested in most of the previous models/experiments, the relationship between pressure/density and extrusion/death will be the key factor that determine the final outcome of competition. However, there is absolutely no characterisation of cell death/cell extrusion in the article so far.

- While the compressibility measurement are very original and interesting, this bulk measurement could be explained by very different cellular processes, from modulation of cell shape, to cell extrusion and tissue multilayering (which by the way was already observed for active Ras cells, see for instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644109/). This could change a lot the interpretation of this measurement and to which extend it can explain the compression observed in mixed culture. This compressibility measurement could be much more informative if coupled with an estimation of the change of cell aspect ratio and the rough evaluation of the contribution of cell shape changes versus alternative mechanisms.

- So far, there is no clear explanation of why transformed Ras cells get more compacted in the context of mixed culture compared to pure Ras culture. Previously, the compaction of mutant Scribble cells could be explained by the higher homeostatic density of WT cells which impose their prefered higher density to Scribble mutant (see Wagstaff et al. 2016 or Gradeci et al 2021), however that is not the case of the Ras cells (which have even slightly higher density at confluency). If I understood properly, the Voronoid model assumes some directional movement of WT cell toward transformed which will actively compact the Ras cells through self-propelled forces (see supplementary methods), but this is never clearly discussed/described in the results section, while potentially being one essential ingredient for observing compaction of transformed cells. In fact, this was already described experimentally in the case of Scribble competition and associated with chemoattractant secretion from the mutant cells promoting directed migration of the WT (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33357449/). It would be essential to show what happens in absence of directional propelled movement in the model and validate experimentally whether there is indeed directional movement of the WT toward the transformed cells. Without this, the current data does not really explain the competition process.

- Some of the data lack a bit of information on statistic, especially for all the stress microscopy and traction forces where we do no really know how representative at the stress patterns (how many experiment, are they average of several movies ? integrated on which temporal window ?)

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The work by Gupta et al. addresses the role of tissue compressibility as a driver of cell competition. The authors use a planar epithelial monolayer system to study cell competition between wild type and transformed epithelial cells expressing HRasV12. They combine imaging and traction force measurements from which the authors propose that wild type cells generate compressive forces on transformed epithelial cells. The authors further present a novel setup to directly measure the compressibility of adherent epithelial tissues. These measurements suggest a higher compressibility of transformed epithelial cells, which is causally linked to a reduction in cell-cell adhesion in transformed cells. The authors support their conclusions by theoretical modelling using a self-Propelled Voronoi model that supports differences in tissue compressibility can lead to compression of the softer tissue type.

The experimental framework to measure tissue compressibility of adherent epithelial monolayers establishes a novel tool, however additional controls of this measurement appear required. Moreover, the experimental support of this study is mostly based on single representative images and would greatly benefit from additional data and their quantitative analysis to support the authors' conclusions. Specific comments are also listed in the following:

Major points:

It is not evident in Fig2A that traction forces increase along the interface between wild type and transformed populations and stresses in Fig2C also seem to be similar at the interface and surrounding cell layer. Only representative examples are provided and a quantification of sigma_m needs to be provided.

In Figure 1-3 only panel 2G and 2H provide a quantitative analysis, but it is not clear how many regions of interest and clusters of transform cells were quantified.

Several statements appear to be not sufficiently justified and supported by data.
For example the statement on pg 3. line 38 seems to lack supportive data 'This comparison revealed that the thickness of HRasV12-expressing cells was reduced by more than 1.7-fold when they were surrounded by wild type cells. These observations pointed towards a selective, competition-dependent compaction of HRasV12-expressing transformed cells but not control cells, in the intestinal villi of mice.'
Similarly, the statement about a cell area change of 2.7 fold (pg 3 line 47) lacks support by measurements.

What is the rationale for setting 𝐾p = 1 in the model assumptions if clear differences in junctional membranes of transformed versus wild type cells occur, including dynamic ruffling? This assumption does not seem to be in line with biological observations.

The novel approach to measure tissue compressibility is based on pH dependent hydrogels. As the pH responsive hydrogel pillar is placed into a culture medium with different conditions, an important control would be if the insertion of this hydrogel itself would change the pH or conditions of the culture assays and whether this alters tissue compressibility or cell adhesion. The authors could for example insert a hydrogel pillar of a smaller diameter that would not lead to compression or culture cells in a larger ring to assess the influence of the pillar itself.

The authors focus on the study of cell compaction of the transformed cells, but how does this ultimately lead to a competitive benefit of wild type cells? Is a higher rate of extrusion observed and associated with the compaction of transformed cells or is their cell death rate increased? While transformed cells seem to maintain a proliferative advantage it is not clear which consequences of tissue compression ultimately drive cell competition between wild type and transformed cells.

The argumentation that softer tissues would be more easily compressed is plausible. However, which mechanism do the authors suggest is generating the actual compressive stress to drive the compaction of transformed cells? They exclude a proliferative advantage of wild type cells, which other mechanisms will generate the compressive forces by wild type cells?

Author response:

eLife Assessment:

In this important study, the authors combine innovative experimental approaches, including direct compressibility measurements and traction force analyses, with theoretical modeling to propose that wild-type cells exert compressive forces on softer HRasV12-transformed cells, influencing competition outcomes. The data generally provide solid evidence that transformed epithelial cells exhibit higher compressibility than wild-type cells, a property linked to their compaction during mechanical cell competition. However, the study would benefit from further characterization of how compression affects the behavior of HRasV12 cells and clearer causal links between compressibility and competition outcomes.

We thank the reviewers and the editor for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our study and for appreciating the innovation in our experimental and theoretical approaches. We acknowledge the importance of further clarifying the mechanistic links between the compressibility of HRas^V12-transformed cells, their compaction, and the outcomes of mechanical cell competition. In the revised manuscript, we will include additional experiments and analyses to assess how compression influences the cellular behavior and fate of HRas^V12-transformed cells during competition. In addition, to strengthen the connection between collective compressibility and competition outcomes, we will integrate quantitative analyses of cell dynamics and additional modeling to explicitly correlate the mechanical properties with the spatial and temporal aspects of cell elimination. These additions will address the reviewer’s concerns comprehensively, further enriching the mechanistic understanding presented in the manuscript.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this article, Gupta and colleagues explore the parameters that could promote the elimination of active Ras cells when surrounded by WT cells. The elimination of active Ras cells by surrounding WT cells was previously described extensively and associated with a process named cell competition, a context dependant elimination of cells. Several mechanisms have been associated with competition, including more recently elimination processes based on mechanical stress. This was explored theoretically and experimentally and was either associated with differential growth and sensitivity to pressure and/or differences in homeostatic density/pressure. This was extensively validated for the case of Scribble mutant cells which are eliminated by WT MDCK cells due to their higher homeostatic density. However, there has been so far very little systematic characterisation of the mechanical parameters and properties of these different cell types and how this could contribute to mechanical competition.

Here, the authors used the context of active Ras cells in MDCK cells (with some observations in vivo in mice gut which are a bit more anecdotal) to explore the parameters causal to Ras cell elimination. Using for the first time traction force microscopy, stress microscopy combined with Bayesian inference, they first show that clusters of active Ras cells experience higher pressure compared to WT. Interestingly, this occurs in absence of differences in growth rate, and while Ras cells seems to have lower homeostatic density, in contractions with the previous models associated with mechanical cell competition. Using a self-propelled Voronoi model, they explored more systematically the conditions that will promote the compression of transformed cells, showing globally that higher Area compressibility and/or lower junctional tension are associated with higher compressibility. Using then an original and novel experimental method to measure bulk compressibility of cell populations, they confirmed that active Ras cells are globally twice more compressible than WT cells. This compressibility correlates with a disruption of adherens junctions. Accordingly, the higher pressure near transformed Ras cells can be completely rescued by increasing cell-cell adhesion through E-cad overexpression, which also reduces the compressibility of the transformed cells. Altogether, these results go along the lines of a previous theoretical work (Gradeci et al. eLife 2021) which was suggesting that reduced stiffness/higher compressibility was essential to promote loser cell elimination. Here, the authors provide for the first time a very convincing experimental measurement and validation of this prediction. Moreover, their modelling approach goes far beyond what was performed before in terms of exploration of conditions promoting compressibility, and their experimental data point at alternative mechanisms that may contribute to mechanical competition.

Strengths:

- Original methodologies to perform systematic characterisation of mechanical properties of Ras cells during cell competition, which include a novel method to measure bulk compressibility.
- A very extensive theoretical exploration of the parameters promoting cell compaction in the context of competition.

We thank the reviewer for their detailed and thoughtful assessment of our study and for recognizing the originality of our methodologies, including the novel bulk compressibility measurement technique and the extensive theoretical exploration of parameters influencing mechanical competition. We are pleased that the reviewer finds our experimental validation and modeling approach convincing and acknowledges the relevance of our findings in advancing the understanding of mechanical cell competition. We will carefully address all the points raised to further clarify and strengthen the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

- Most of the theoretical focus is centred on the bulk compressibility, but so far does not really explain the final fate of the transformed cells. Classic cell competition scenario (including the one involving active Ras cells) lead to the elimination of one cell population either by cell extrusion/cell death or global delamination. This aspect is absolutely not explored in this article, experimentally or theoretically, and as such it is difficult to connect all the observables with the final outcome of cell competition. For instance, higher compressibility may not lead to loser status if the cells can withstand high density without extruding compared to the WT cells (and could even completely invert the final outcome of the competition). Down the line, and as suggested in most of the previous models/experiments, the relationship between pressure/density and extrusion/death will be the key factor that determine the final outcome of competition. However, there is absolutely no characterisation of cell death/cell extrusion in the article so far.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We agree that understanding the relationship between pressure, density, and the final outcomes of cell competition, such as extrusion and cell death, is crucial to connecting the mechanical properties to competition outcomes. While extrusion and cell death have been extensively characterized in previous works (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27896-z; https://www.nature.com/articles/ncb1853), we nevertheless recognize the need to address this aspect more explicitly in our study. To this end, we have indeed performed experiments to characterize cell extrusion and cell death under varying conditions of pressure and density. We will incorporate these data into the revised manuscript. These additions will provide a more comprehensive understanding of how mechanical imbalance drives cell competition and determine the final fate of transformed cells.

- While the compressibility measurement are very original and interesting, this bulk measurement could be explained by very different cellular processes, from modulation of cell shape, to cell extrusion and tissue multilayering (which by the way was already observed for active Ras cells, see for instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34644109/). This could change a lot the interpretation of this measurement and to which extend it can explain the compression observed in mixed culture. This compressibility measurement could be much more informative if coupled with an estimation of the change of cell aspect ratio and the rough evaluation of the contribution of cell shape changes versus alternative mechanisms.

We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. In our model system and within the experimental timescale of our studies involving gel compression microscopy (GCM) experiments, we do not observe tissue multilayering and cell extrusion, as these measurements are performed on homogeneous populations (pure wild-type or pure transformed cell monolayer). However, to address the reviewer’s suggestion, we will include measurements of cell aspect ratio as well as images eliminating the possibility of multilayering/extrusion in the revised manuscript. These results will provide additional insights into the plausible contributions of cell shape changes. Furthermore, our newer results indicate that the compressibility differences arise from variations in the intracellular organization (changed in nuclear and cytoskeletal organization) between wild-type and transformed cells. While a detailed molecular characterization of these underlying mechanisms is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, we acknowledge its importance and plan to explore it in a future study. These revisions will clarify and strengthen the interpretation of our findings.

- So far, there is no clear explanation of why transformed Ras cells get more compacted in the context of mixed culture compared to pure Ras culture. Previously, the compaction of mutant Scribble cells could be explained by the higher homeostatic density of WT cells which impose their prefered higher density to Scribble mutant (see Wagstaff et al. 2016 or Gradeci et al 2021), however that is not the case of the Ras cells (which have even slightly higher density at confluency). If I understood properly, the Voronoid model assumes some directional movement of WT cell toward transformed which will actively compact the Ras cells through self-propelled forces (see supplementary methods), but this is never clearly discussed/described in the results section, while potentially being one essential ingredient for observing compaction of transformed cells. In fact, this was already described experimentally in the case of Scribble competition and associated with chemoattractant secretion from the mutant cells promoting directed migration of the WT (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33357449/). It would be essential to show what happens in absence of directional propelled movement in the model and validate experimentally whether there is indeed directional movement of the WT toward the transformed cells. Without this, the current data does not really explain the competition process.

We introduced directional movement of wild-type cells towards neighbouring transformed cells (and a form of active force to be exerted by them), motivated by the tissue compressibility measurements from the Gel Compression Microscopy experiments (Fig. 4E-L). This allowed us to devise an equivalent method of measuring the material response to isotropic compression within the SPV model framework. While the role of directional propelled movement is an area of ongoing investigation and has not been explored extensively within the current study, we emphasize that even without directional propulsion in the model, our results demonstrate compressive stress or elevated pressure, and increased compaction within the transformed population under suitable conditions reported in this work (when k<1), exhibiting a greater tissue-level compressibility in the transformed cells compared to WT cells (Figs. 4C-D), thereby laying the ground for competition. To clarify these concerns, we will provide additional results as well as detailed discussions on the effect of cell movements in compression.

- Some of the data lack a bit of information on statistic, especially for all the stress microscopy and traction forces where we do no really know how representative at the stress patterns (how many experiment, are they average of several movies ? integrated on which temporal window ?)

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for additional details regarding the statistical representation of our stress microscopy and traction force data. We will address these concerns in the revised manuscript by providing clear descriptions of the number of experiments, the averaging methodology, and the temporal windows used for analysis. Currently, Figs. 2A and 2C represent data from single time points, as the traction and stress landscapes evolve dynamically as transformed cells begin extruding (as shown in Supplementary movie 1). In contrast, Fig. 2H represents data collected from several samples across three independent experiments, all measured at the 3-hour time point following doxycycline induction. This specific time point is critical because it captures the emergence of compressive stresses before extrusion begins, simplifying the analysis and ensuring consistency. We will ensure these details are clearly articulated in the revised text and figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The work by Gupta et al. addresses the role of tissue compressibility as a driver of cell competition. The authors use a planar epithelial monolayer system to study cell competition between wild type and transformed epithelial cells expressing HRasV12. They combine imaging and traction force measurements from which the authors propose that wild type cells generate compressive forces on transformed epithelial cells. The authors further present a novel setup to directly measure the compressibility of adherent epithelial tissues. These measurements suggest a higher compressibility of transformed epithelial cells, which is causally linked to a reduction in cell-cell adhesion in transformed cells. The authors support their conclusions by theoretical modelling using a self-Propelled Voronoi model that supports differences in tissue compressibility can lead to compression of the softer tissue type.

The experimental framework to measure tissue compressibility of adherent epithelial monolayers establishes a novel tool, however additional controls of this measurement appear required. Moreover, the experimental support of this study is mostly based on single representative images and would greatly benefit from additional data and their quantitative analysis to support the authors' conclusions. Specific comments are also listed in the following:

Major points:

It is not evident in Fig2A that traction forces increase along the interface between wild type and transformed populations and stresses in Fig2C also seem to be similar at the interface and surrounding cell layer. Only representative examples are provided and a quantification of sigma_m needs to be provided.

In Figure 1-3 only panel 2G and 2H provide a quantitative analysis, but it is not clear how many regions of interest and clusters of transform cells were quantified.

We thank the reviewer for their detailed comments and for highlighting the importance of additional quantitative analyses to support our conclusions. We appreciate their recognition of our novel experimental framework to measure tissue compressibility and the overall approach of our study. Regarding Fig. 2A and Fig. 2C, we acknowledge the need for further clarity. While the traction forces and stress patterns may not appear uniformly distinct at the interface in the representative images, these differences are more evident at specific time points before extrusion begins. Please note that the traction and stress landscapes evolve dynamically as transformed cells begin extruding (as shown in Supplementary movie 1). We will include a quantification of σ_m​ and additional data from multiple experiments to substantiate the observations and address this concern in the revised manuscript. Currently, the data in Fig. 2G and Fig. 2H represent several regions of interest and transformed cell clusters collected from three independent experiments, all analyzed at the 3-hour time point after doxycycline induction. This time point was chosen because it captures the compressive stress emergence without interference from extrusion processes, simplifying the analysis. We will expand these sections with detailed descriptions of the sample sizes and statistical analyses to ensure greater transparency and reproducibility. These revisions will provide a stronger quantitative foundation for our findings and address the reviewer's concerns.

Several statements appear to be not sufficiently justified and supported by data.
For example the statement on pg 3. line 38 seems to lack supportive data 'This comparison revealed that the thickness of HRasV12-expressing cells was reduced by more than 1.7-fold when they were surrounded by wild type cells. These observations pointed towards a selective, competition-dependent compaction of HRasV12-expressing transformed cells but not control cells, in the intestinal villi of mice.' Similarly, the statement about a cell area change of 2.7 fold (pg 3 line 47) lacks support by measurements.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for more supportive data to justify several statements in the manuscript. Specifically, the observation regarding the reduction in the thickness of HRas^V12-expressing cells by more than 1.7-fold when surrounded by wild-type cells, and the statement about a 2.7-fold change in cell area, will be supported by detailed measurements. In the revised manuscript, we will include quantitative analyses with additional figures that clearly document these changes. These figures will provide representative images, statistical summaries, and detailed descriptions of the measurements to substantiate these claims. We appreciate the reviewer highlighting these areas and will ensure that all statements are robustly backed by data.

What is the rationale for setting 𝐾p = 1 in the model assumptions if clear differences in junctional membranes of transformed versus wild type cells occur, including dynamic ruffling? This assumption does not seem to be in line with biological observations.

While the specific role of K_p in the differences observed in the junctional membranes of transformed versus WT cells, including dynamical ruffling, is not directly studied in this work, our findings indicate that the lower junctional tension (weaker and less stable cellular junctions) in mutant cells is influenced primarily by competition in the dimensionless cell shape index within the model. This also suggests a larger preferred cell perimeter (P₀) for mutant cells, corresponding to their softer, unjammed state. Huang et al. (https://doi.org/10.1039/d3sm00327b) have previously argued that a high P₀ may, in some cases, result from elevated cortical tension along cell edges, or reflect weak membrane elasticity, implying a smaller K_p. While this connection could be an intriguing avenue for future exploration, we emphasize that K_p is not expected to alter any of the key findings or conclusions reported in this work. We will include any required analysis and corresponding discussions in the revised manuscript.

The novel approach to measure tissue compressibility is based on pH dependent hydrogels. As the pH responsive hydrogel pillar is placed into a culture medium with different conditions, an important control would be if the insertion of this hydrogel itself would change the pH or conditions of the culture assays and whether this alters tissue compressibility or cell adhesion. The authors could for example insert a hydrogel pillar of a smaller diameter that would not lead to compression or culture cells in a larger ring to assess the influence of the pillar itself.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the potential effects of the pH-responsive hydrogel pillar on the culture conditions and tissue compressibility. In our experiments, the expandable hydrogels are kept separate from the cells until the pH of the hydrogel is elevated to 7.4, ensuring that the hydrogel does not impact the culture environment. However, we acknowledge the concern and will include additional controls in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we will insert a hydrogel pillar with a smaller diameter that would not induce compression on culture cells in a larger ring to assess any potential influence of the hydrogel pillar itself. This will help to further validate our experimental setup.

The authors focus on the study of cell compaction of the transformed cells, but how does this ultimately lead to a competitive benefit of wild type cells? Is a higher rate of extrusion observed and associated with the compaction of transformed cells or is their cell death rate increased? While transformed cells seem to maintain a proliferative advantage it is not clear which consequences of tissue compression ultimately drive cell competition between wild type and transformed cells.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. We agree that understanding how tissue compression leads to a competitive advantage for wild type cells is crucial. While our current study focuses on the mechanical properties of transformed cells leading to the compaction and subsequent extrusion of the transformed cells, we recognize the need to explicitly connect these properties to the final outcomes of cell competition, such as extrusion or cell death. Although extrusion and cell death have been extensively characterized in previous studies (e.g., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27896-z; https://www.nature.com/articles/ncb1853), we have indeed performed additional experiments to investigate the relationship between pressure, density, and these processes in our system. In the revised manuscript, we will include these new data, which will help to clarify how mechanical stress, driven by tissue compression, contributes to the competition between wild type and transformed cells and influences their eventual fate.

The argumentation that softer tissues would be more easily compressed is plausible. However, which mechanism do the authors suggest is generating the actual compressive stress to drive the compaction of transformed cells? They exclude a proliferative advantage of wild type cells, which other mechanisms will generate the compressive forces by wild type cells?

We thank the reviewer for raising this important question. As rightly pointed out by the reviewer indeed in our model system, we do not observe a proliferative advantage for the wild-type cells, and the compressive forces exerted by the wild-type cells are due to their intrinsic mechanical properties, such as lesser compressibility compared to the transformed cells. This difference in compressibility results in wild-type cells generating compressive stress at the interface with the transformed cells. Regarding the mechanism underlying the increased compressibility of the transformed cells, our newer findings indicate that the differences in compressibility arise from variations in the intracellular organization, specifically changes in nuclear and cytoskeletal organization between wild-type and transformed cells. While a detailed molecular characterization of these mechanisms is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, we acknowledge its significance and plan to investigate it in future work. We will, nevertheless, include a detailed discussion on the mechanism underlying the differential compressibility of wild-type and transformed cells in the revised manuscript.