Author response:
Reviewing Editor Comments:
Based on the feedback from the reviewers, a focus on the following major points has the potential to improve the overall assessment of the significance of the findings and the strength of the evidence:
(1) It would be helpful to clearly articulate how these findings advance the field beyond what has already been demonstrated or suggested in other systems.
We will revise the Introduction and Discussion to better contextualize our findings. We will provide a careful comparison of the Ciona atrial siphon invagination with the other established systems to elucidate the unique aspects of our model. Highlighting our discovery of a novel bidirectional "lateral-apical-lateral" contractility as a distinct mechanical paradigm for sequential morphogenesis.
(2) It would be helpful to clarify the meaning of "translocation" and more explicitly describe the temporal and spatial patterns of active myosin localization during the two steps of invagination.
We will replace “translocation” with the more accurate and conservative term “redistribution” throughout the manuscript, including in the title. We will also revise the text in Result and Discussion sections to avoid overinterpretation. To provide a more explicit description of the spatiotemporal patterns, we will add new quantitative analyses of active myosin intensity from earlier time points (13-14 hpf) to rigorously support the initial lateral-to-apical redistribution phase. Then, we will add high-resolution top-view images to unambiguously show the ring-like localization of myosin at the apical cell-cell junctions during the initial stage. Finally, we will correct the schematic in Figure 2C to accurately reflect the predominant localization of active myosin at the apical cell-cell borders.
(3) It would be helpful to explain how the optogenetic data support the conclusion that "redistribution of myosin contractility from the apical to lateral regions is essential for the development of invagination".
We acknowledge the limitation of the original global inhibition experiment. We will perform additional experiments that combine optogenetic inhibition with subsequent immunostaining of the active myosin. By quantitatively comparing the distribution of actomyosin in light-stimulated versus dark-control embryos, we will be able to demonstrate whether the inhibition prevents the establishment of the lateral contractility domain. This will allow us to refine our conclusion.
(4) It would be helpful to describe how the modeling work fits within the existing literature on modeling epithelial folding and to address discrepancies between the model and the actual biological observations, such as tissue curvature, limited invagination depth in the model, and the "puckering" surrounding the invagination. In addition, certain descriptions of the modeling results should be clarified, as suggested by Reviewer #3.
We fully agree that we should discuss the existing theoretical work on epithelial folding more clearly. Clarifying how physical forces contribute to invagination is central to interprete the underlying mechanisms, and we appreciate the opportunity to better connect our framework to existing studies. In the revision, we will expand the Introduction and Discussion to place our model in the appropriate theoretical context and highlight how it relates to and differs from previous approaches. At the same time, we will extend the model to a curved geometric framework to more accurately reproduce the experimental observations, which will improve its predictive value. We will also revise the descriptions and schematic representations of the modeling results to enhance clarity and better align them with the biological data.
(5) It would be helpful to elaborate on the methods for quantitative image analysis and statistical tests.
We will thoroughly expand the Methods section to provide a detailed step-by-step description of image quantification procedures, including precise definitions of the apical, lateral, and basal domains used for intensity measurements and the measurement of cell surface areas and invagination depths.
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This paper investigates the physical basis of epithelial invagination in the morphogenesis of the ascidian siphon tube. The authors observe changes in actin and myosin distribution during siphon tube morphogenesis using fixed specimens and immunohistochemistry. They discover that there is a biphasic change in the actomyosin localization that correlates with changes in cell shapes. Initially, there is the well-known relocation of actomyosin from the lateral sides to the apical surface of cells that will invaginate, accompanied by a concomitant lengthening of the central cells within the invagination, but not a lot of invagination. Coincident with a second, more rapid, phase of invagination, the authors see a relocalization of actomyosin back to the lateral sides of the cells. This 2nd "bidirectional" relocation of actin appears to be important because optogenetic inhibition of myosin in the lateral domain after the initial invaginations phase resulted in a block of further invagination. Although not noted in the paper, that the second phase of siphon invagination is dependent on actomyosin is interesting and important because it has been shown that during Drosophila mesoderm invagination that a second "folding" phase of invagination is independent of actomyosin contraction (Guo et al. elife 2022), so there appear to be important differences between the Drosophila mesoderm system and the ascidian siphon tube systems.
Using the experimental data, the authors create a vertex model of the invagination, and simulations reveal a coupled mechanism of apicobasal tension imbalance and lateral contraction that creates the invagination. The resultant model appears to recapitulate many aspects of the observed cell behaviors, although there are some caveats to consider (described below).
We sincerely thank you for this insightful comment and for bringing the important study by Guo et al. (2022) to our attention. We fully agree that a direct comparison between these two mechanisms is important of our findings. As you astutely point out, the fundamental difference lies in the autonomy and driving force of the second, rapid invagination phase. To highlight this important conceptual advance, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section to explicitly discuss this point.
Strengths:
The studies and presented results are well done and provide important insights into the physical forces of epithelial invagination, which is important because invaginations are how a large fraction of organs in multicellular organisms are formed.
Thank you for this positive assessment and for recognizing the significance of our work in elucidating the physical mechanisms underlying fundamental morphogenetic processes. We have striven to provide a comprehensive and rigorous analysis, and are grateful for this encouraging feedback.
Weaknesses:
(1) This reviewer has concerns about two aspects of the computational model. First, the model in Figure 5D shows a simulation of a flat epithelial sheet creating an invagination. However, the actual invagination is occurring in a small embryo that has significant curvature, such that nine or so cells occupy a 90-degree arc of the 360-degree circle that defines the embryo's cross-section (e.g., see Figure 1A). This curvature could have important effects on cell behavior.
Thank you for bringing up the issue of tissue curvature. In this initial version of the model, we treated the tissue as flat because although the anterior epidermis indeed has significant curvature, the region that actually undergoes invagination occupies only a small arc of the embryo's cross-section—roughly 30-degree arc of the 360-degree circle. In addition, the embryo elongates anisotropically, and by 16.5 hpf the curvature has largely diminished (Fig.1A), leaving this local region effectively flattened. We agree that this simplification may overlook contributions from early curvature, and we will examine curvature changes more carefully in the data and incorporate curved geometry into the model to evaluate their impact.
(2) The second concern about the model is that Figure 5 D shows the vertex model developing significant "puckering" (bulging) surrounding the invagination. Such "puckering" is not seen in the in vivo invagination (Figure 1A, 2A). This issue is not discussed in the text, so it is unclear how big an issue this is for the developed model, but the model does not recapitulate all aspects of the siphon invagination system.
Thank you for pointing out the issue regarding the accuracy of the deformation pattern in our simulations. We do observe a mild puckering in vivo around 17 hpf (Fig. 1A), but it is clearly less pronounced than in the current model. The presence of such deformation suggests that bending stiffness of the epithelial sheet contributes to the mechanics of the invagination, which is included in our current model. While the discrepancy reflects limitations in our mechanical assumptions and geometric simplifications, including oversimplified interactions between the apical cell layer and the underlying basal cells, as well as the omission of tissue curvature. We will refine these aspects in the revised model to better reproduce the deformation patterns observed in vivo.
(3) In Figure 2A, Top View, and the schematic in Figure 2C, the developing invagination is surrounded by a ring of aligned cell edges characteristic of a "purse string" type actomyosin cable that would create pressure on the invaginating cells, which has been documented in multiple systems. Notably, the schematic in Figure 2C shows myosin II localizing to aligned "purse string" edges, suggesting the purse string is actively compressing the more central cells. If the purse string consistently appears during siphon invagination, a complete understanding of siphon invagination will require understanding the contributions of the purse string to the invagination process.
Thank you for this excellent observation. We agree that the ring-like actomyosin structure is a prominent feature during the initial stages of invagination, and its potential role warrants discussion. We carefully re-examined our data. Our analysis confirms that this myosin ring is most pronounced during the early initial invagination stage (approximately 13-14 hpf). This inward compression from the periphery would work in concert with apical constriction to help shape the initial invagination. However, this ring-like myosin pattern significantly diminishes in the accelerated invagination stage. We feel that the purse string may play a collaborative role in the early phase, however, its dissolution at the accelerated invagination stage indicates that Ciona atrial siphon invagination does not entirely rely on the sustained compression from the purse string of surrounding cells. These data will be included in the supplementary materials.
(4) The introduction and discussion put the work in the context of work on physical forces in invagination, but there is not much discussion of how the modeling fits into the literature.
We apologize for not providing sufficient context on how our theoretical framework relates to prior work on the mechanics of invagination. You are absolutely right that the Introduction and Discussion sessions should more clearly situate our model within the existing literature, including the classical formulations it builds upon and the more recent models that address similar morphogenetic processes. In the revision, we will expand this section to acknowledge relevant work, clarify how our approach connects to and differs from previous models, and explicitly discuss the strengths and limitations of our framework. We appreciate this helpful suggestion and will make these connections much clearer.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
The authors propose that bidirectional translocation of actomyosin drives tissue invagination in Ciona siphon tube formation. They suggest a two-stage model where actomyosin first accumulates apically to drive a slow initial invagination, followed by translocation to lateral domains to accelerate the invagination process through cell shortening. They have shown that actomyosin activity is important for invagination - modulation of myosin activity through expression of myosin mutants altered the timing and speed of invagination; furthermore, optogenetic inhibition of myosin during the transition of the slow and fast stages disrupted invagination. The authors further developed a vertex model to validate the relationship between contractile force distribution and epithelial invagination.
Thank you for your thoughtful and accurate summary of our work and for your constructive critique.
Strengths:
(1) The authors employed various techniques to address the research question, including optogenetics, the use of MRLC mutants, and vertex modelling.
(2) The authors provide quantitative analyses for a substantial portion of their imaging data, including cell and tissue geometry parameters as well as actin and myosin distributions. The sample sizes used in these analyses appear appropriate.
(3) The authors combined experimental measurements with computer modeling to test the proposed mechanical models, which represents a strength of the study. It provides a framework to explore the mechanical principles underlying the observed morphogenesis.
We are grateful for your positive assessment of the multidisciplinary approaches, quantitative analyses, and the integration of modeling with experiments.
Weaknesses:
(1) The concept of coordinated and sequential action of apical and lateral actomyosin in support of epithelial folding has been documented through a combination of experimental and modeling approaches in other contexts, such as ascidian endoderm invagination (PMID: 20691592) and gastrulation in Drosophila (PMIDs: 21127270, 22511944, 31273212). While the manuscript addresses an important question, related findings have been reported in these previous studies. This overlap reduces the degree of novelty, and it remains to be clarified how their work advances beyond these prior contributions.
We thank you for raising this important point regarding the novelty of our work and for directing us to the key literature on ascidian endoderm invagination (PMID: 20691592) and Drosophila gastrulation (PMIDs: 21127270, 22511944, 31273212). We agree with the reviewer that the sequential activation of contractility in different cellular domains is a fundamental mechanism driving epithelial morphogenesis, as elegantly demonstrated in these prior studies. Our work builds upon this foundational concept. However, we believe we reveals a novel and distinct mechanical model: The ascidian endoderm and the atrial siphon involve a sequential shift of actomyosin contractility. However, the spatial pattern and functional outcomes are fundamentally different. In the ascidian endoderm (PMID: 20691592), the transition is from apical constriction to basolateral contraction. Basolateral contraction works in concert with a persistent circumferential to overcome tissue resistance and drive invagination. In contrast, our study of the atrial siphon reveals a bidirectional actomyosin redistribution between the apical and lateral domains. The basal domain in our system appears to play a more passive, structural role. While, Drosophila gastrulation also involves apical and lateral myosin, the mechanisms and dependencies differ. As supported by recent work (Guo et al. elife 2022), ventral furrow invagination can proceed even when lateral contractility is compromised, indicating that it is not an absolute requirement. In our system, however, optogenetic inhibition and our vertex model strongly suggest that the acquisition of lateral contractility is essential for the accelerated invagination stage. We will revise the text to better articulate these points of distinction and novelty in the Introduction and Discussion sections.
(2) One of the central statements made by the authors is that the translocation of actomyosin between the apical and lateral domains mediates invagination. The use of the term "translocation" infers that the same actomyosin structures physically move from one location to another location, which is not demonstrated by the data. Given the time scale of the process (several hours), it is also possible that the observed spatiotemporal patterns of actomyosin intensity result from sequential activation/assembly and inactivation/disassembly at specific locations on the cell cortex, rather than from the physical translocation of actomyosin structures over time.
Your critique regarding the term "translocation" was well-founded. We will replace “translocation” with the more accurate and conservative term “redistribution” throughout the manuscript, including in the title. We will also revise the text in the Results and Discussion sections to avoid overinterpretation.
(3) Some aspects of the data on actomyosin localization require further clarification. (1) The authors state that actomyosin translocation is bidirectional, first moving from the lateral domain to the apical domain; however, the reduction of the lateral actomyosin at this step was not rigorously tested. (2) During the slow invagination stage, it is unclear whether myosin consistently localizes to the apical cell-cell borders or instead relocalizes to the medioapical domain, as suggested by the schematic illustration presented in Figure 2C. (3) It is unclear how many cells along the axis orthogonal to the furrow accumulate apical and lateral myosin.
Thank you for your insightful comments, which will help us significantly improve the clarity and rigor of our actomyosin localization analysis. To address the points raised, we will undertake several key revisions: First, we will add new quantitative analyses of active myosin intensity from earlier time points (13-14 hpf) to rigorously support the initial lateral-to-apical redistribution phase. Second, we will correct the schematic in Figure 2C to accurately reflect the predominant localization of active myosin at the apical cell-cell borders. Finally, we will clarify that the actomyosin redistribution occurs within a broader domain of approximately 15-20 cells in the invagination primordium, not being restricted to the single central cell on which our quantitative measurements were focused.
(4) The overexpression of MRLC mutants appears to be rather patchy in some cases (e.g., in Figure 3A, 17.0 hpf, only cells located at the right side of the furrow appeared to express MRLC T18ES19E). It is unclear how such patchy expression would impact the phenotype.
Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge that mosaic expression is common in Ciona electroporation. For all quantitative analyses, we only selected embryos in which the central cell, along with more than half of the surrounding cells in the primordium, showed clear expression of the plasmid.
(5) In the optogenetic experiment, it appears that after one hour of light stimulation, the apical side of the tissue underwent relaxation (comparing 17 hpf and 16 hpf in Figure 4B). It is therefore unclear whether the observed defect in invagination is due to apical relaxation or lack of lateral contractility, or both. Therefore, the phenotype is not sufficient to support the authors' statement that "redistribution of myosin contractility from the apical to lateral regions is essential for the development of invagination".
We agree that our optogenetic inhibition experiment does not distinguish between apical and lateral roles. To directly address this point, we will perform additional experiments in which we conduct the optogenetic inhibition and subsequently fix and stain the embryos for active myosin and F-actin. This will allow us to quantitatively compare the distribution of actomyosin in the light-stimulated experimental group versus the dark control group. We expect that light activation will have a more pronounced inhibitory effect on the lateral domains than on the apical domain, as the latter is naturally undergoing a reduction in contractility at this stage.
(6) The vertex model is designed to explore how apical and lateral tensions contribute to distinct morphological outcomes. While the authors raise several interesting predictions, these are not further tested, making it unclear to what extent the model provides new insights that can be validated experimentally. In addition, modeling the epithelium as a flat sheet and not accounting for cell curvature is a simplification that may limit the model's accuracy. Finally, the model does not fully recapitulate the deeply invaginated furrow configuration as observed in a real embryo (comparing 18 hpf in Figure 5D and 18 hpf in Figure 1A) and does not fully capture certain mutant phenotypes (comparing 18 hpf in Figure 5F and 18 hpf in Figure 3B right panel).
Thank you for raising these important points. We agree that several model predictions require stronger experimental grounding, and that the flat-sheet assumption is an oversimplification that likely contributes to the model not fully capturing certain morphological features. Our current simulations of myosin perturbation are largely consistent with the optogenetic experiments and the behavior of the myosin mutant. However, the predictions obtained by theoretically decoupling apical and lateral tension are difficult to validate experimentally, given the challenges of selectively manipulating these two components in vivo. Based on your helpful suggestions, we will extend the model to incorporate tissue curvature and examine how initial bending influences the mechanics of invagination, which we expect will improve the accuracy of the model’s morphological predictions.
Reviewer #3 (Public review):
Summary:
In this manuscript by Qiao et al., the authors seek to uncover force and contractility dynamics that drive tissue morphogenesis, using the Ciona atrial siphon primordium as a model. Specifically, the authors perform a detailed examination of epithelial folding dynamics. Generally, the authors' claims were supported by their data, and the conceptual advances may have broader implications for other epithelial morphogenesis processes in other systems.
Thank you for your positive summary and for recognizing the broader implications of our work.
Strengths:
The strengths of this manuscript include the variety of experimental and theoretical methods, including generally rigorous imaging and quantitative analyses of actomyosin dynamics during this epithelial folding process, and the derivation of a mathematical model based on their empirical data, which they perturb in order to gain novel insights into the process of epithelial morphogenesis.
Thank you for highlighting the strengths of our multidisciplinary methodology.
Weaknesses:
There are concerns related to wording and interpretations of results, as well as some missing descriptions and details regarding experimental methods.
We will revise the manuscript to address your concerns regarding wording and methodological details. Your feedback led us to improve clarity, precision, and the depth of methodological description throughout the text.
