Mechanotransductive feedback control of endothelial cell motility and vascular morphogenesis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript puts forward the concept that there is a specific time window during which YAP/TAZ driven transcription provides feedback for optimal endothelial cell adhesion, cytoskeletal organization and migration. The study follows up on previous elegant findings from this group and others which established the importance of YAP/TAZ-mediated transcription for persistent endothelial cell migration. The data presented here extends the concept at two levels: first, the data may explain why there are differences between experimental setups where YAP/TAZ activity are inhibited for prolonged times (e.g. cultures of YAP knockdown cells), versus experiments in which the transient inhibition of YAP/TAZ and (global) transcription affects endothelial cell dynamics prior to their equilibrium.

All experiments are convincing, clearly visualized and quantified. I have some questions that the authors may address to strengthen this exciting new concept:

• Point for more elaborate discussion: Apparently the timescale of negative feedback signals is conserved between endothelial cell migration in vitro (with human cells) and endothelial migration during the formation of ISVs in zebrafish. What do you think might be an explanation for such conserved timescales? Are there certain processes within cytoskeletal tension build up that require this quantity of time to establish? Or does it relate to the time that is needed to begin to express the YAP/TAZ target genes that mediate feedback?
• Do you expect different timescales for slower endothelial migratory processes (e.g. for instance during fin vascular regeneration which takes days) ?
• Is the ~4hrs and 8hrs feedback time window a general property or does it differ between specific endothelial cell types? In the veins the endothelial cells generate less stress fibers and adhesions compared to in the arteries. Does this mean that there might be a difference in the feedback time window, or does that mean that certain endothelial cell types may not have such YAP/TAZ-controlled feedback system?
• The experiments are based on perturbations to prove that transcriptional feedback is needed for endothelial migration. What would happen if the feedback systems is always switched on? An experiment to add might be to analyse the responsiveness of endothelial cells expressing constitutively active YAP/TAZ.
• To investigate the role of YAP-mediated transcription in an accurate time-dependent manner the authors may consider using the recently developed optogenetic YAP translocation tool: https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202154401

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Here the effect of overall transcription blockade, and then specifically depletion of YAP/TAZ transcription factors was tested on cytoskeletal responses, starting from a previous paper showing YAP/TAZ-mediated effects on the cytoskeleton and cell behaviors. Here, primary endothelial cells were assessed on substrates of different stiffness and parameters such as migration, cell spreading, and focal adhesion number/length were tested upon transcriptional manipulation. Zebrafish subjected to similar manipulations were also assessed during the phase of intersegmental vessel elongation. The conclusion was that there is a feedback loop of 4 hours that is important for the effects of mechanical changes to be translated into transcriptional changes that then permanently affect the cytoskeleton.

The idea is intriguing, but it is not clear how the feedback actually works, so it is difficult to determine if the events needed could occur within 4 hrs. Specifically, it is not clear what gene changes initiated by YAP/TAZ translocation eventually lead to changes in Rho signaling and contractility. Much of the evidence to support the model is preliminary. Some of the data is consistent with the model, but alternative explanations of the data are not excluded. The fish washout data is quite interesting and does support the model. It is unclear how some of the in vitro data supports the model and excludes alternatives.

Major strengths: The combination of in vitro and in vivo assessment provides evidence for timing in physiologically relevant contexts, and rigorous quantification of outputs is provided. The idea of defining temporal aspects of the system is quite interesting.

Major weaknesses: The evidence for a "loop" is not strong; rather, most of the data can also be interpreted as a linear increase in effect with time once a threshold is reached. Washout experiments are key to setting up a time window, yet these experiments are presented only for the fish model. A major technical challenge is that siRNA experiments take time to achieve depletion status, making precise timing of events on short time scales problematic. Also, Actinomycin D blocks most transcription so exposure for hours likely leads to secondary and tertiary effects and perhaps effects on viability. No RNA profiling is presented to validate proposed transcriptional changes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors examined mechanotransductive feedback dynamics that govern endothelial cell motility and vascular morphogenesis. They investigated endothelial cell morphology, migration speed, cell shape, cytoskeletal and focal adhesion maturation in human derived ECFC. To substantiate their in vitro data set, they imaged intersegmental vessel development in zebrafish embryos treated with various inhibitors of translation and acto-myosin remodelling . They conclude that the transcriptional regulators, YAP and TAZ, are activated by mechanical cues to transcriptionally limit cytoskeletal and focal adhesion maturation, forming a conserved mechanotransductive feedback loop that mediates endothelial cell motility. Mechanistically, YAP and TAZ induced transcriptional suppression of myosin II activity to maintain dynamic cytoskeletal equilibria. Such transcriptional feedback loop may be necessary for persistent endothelial cell migration and vascular morphogenesis. The authors addressed an interesting aspect of vascular development and I have some comments and suggestions that are listed below.

Comments:

The authors used ECFC - endothelial colony forming cells (circulating endothelial cells that activate in response to vascular injury).

Q: did the authors characterize these cells and made sure that they are truly endothelial cells - for example examine specific endothelial markers, arterial-venous identity markers & Notch signalling status, overall morphology etc prior to the start of the experiment. How were ECFC isolated from human individuals, are these "healthy" volunteers - any underlying CVD risk factors, cells from one patient or from pooled samples, what injury where these humans exposed to trigger the release of the ECPFs into the circulation, etc. The materials & methods on ECFC should be expanded.

The authors suggest that loss of YAP/TAZ phenocopies actinomycin-D inhibition - "both transcription inhibition and YAP/TAZ depletion impaired polarization, and induced robust ventral stress fiber formation and peripheral focal adhesion maturation". However, the cell size of actinomycin-D treated cells (Fig. 1B, top right panel), differs from the endothelial cell size upon siYAP/TAZ (Fig. 1E, top right panel) - and vinculin staining seems more pronounced in actinomyocin-D treated cells (B, bottom right) when compared to siYAP/TAZ group. Cell shape is defined by acto-myosin tension.

Q: besides Fraction of focal adhesion >1um; focal adhesion number did the authors measure additional parameters related to cytoskeleton remodelling / focal adhesions that can substantiate their statement on similarity between loss of YAP/TAZ and actinomycin-D treatment. Would it be possible to make a more specific genetic intervention (besides YAP/TAZ) interfering with the focal adhesion pathway as opposed to the broad spectrum inhibitor actinomyocin-D.
Q: does the actinomycin-D treatment affect responsiveness to Vegf? induce apoptosis or reduce survival of the ECFC?
Q: Which mechanism links ECM stiffness with endothelial surface area in the authors scenario. In zebrafish, activity of endothelial guanine exchange factor Trio specifically at endothelial cell junctions (Klems, Nat Comms, 2020) and endoglin in response to hemodynamic factors (Siekmann, Nat Cell Biol 2017) have been show to control EC shape/surface area - do these factors play a role in the scenario proposed by the authors.
Q: the authors report that EC migrate faster on stiff substrate, and concomitantly these cells have a larger surface area. What is the physiological rationale behind these observations. Did the authors observe such behaviors in their zebrafish ISV model? How do these observation integrate with the tip - stalk cell shuffling model (Jakobsson&Gerhardt, Nat Cell Biol, 2011) and Notch activity in developing ISVs.

The authors examined the formation of arterial intersegmental vessels in the trunk of developing zebrafish embryos in vivo. They used a variety of pharmacological inhibitors of transcription and acto-myosin remodelling and linked the observed morphological changes in ISV morphogenesis with changes in endothelial cell motility.
Q: reduced formation and dorsal extension of ISVs may have several reasons, including reduced EC migration and proliferation. The Tg(fli1a:EGFP) reporter however is not the most suitable line to monitor migration of individual endothelial cells. Can the authors repeat the experiments in Tg(fli1a:nEGFP); Tg(kdrl:HRAS-mCherry) double transgenics to visualise movement-migration of the individual endothelial cells and EC proliferation events, in the different treatment regimes.
ISV formation is furthermore affected by Notch signalling status and a series of (repulsive) guidance cues.
Q: Does de novo blockade of gene expression with Actinomycin D affect Notch signalling status, expression of PlexinD - sFlt1, netrin1 or arterial-venous identify genes.

Remark: the authors may want to consider using the Tg(fli1:LIFEACT-GFP) reporter for in vivo imaging of actin remodelling events.

Remark: the authors report "As with broad transcription inhibition, in situ depletion of YAP and TAZ by RNAi arrested cell motility, illustrated here by live-migration sparklines over 10 hours: siControl: , siYAP/TAZ: (25 μm scale-bar: -)". Can the authors make a separate figure panel for this, how many cells were measured?
Remark: in the wash-out experiments, exposure to the inhibitors is not the same in the different scenarios - could it be that the longer exposure time induces "toxic" side effect that cannot be "washed out" when compared to the short treatment regimes?