Cell Adhesion-Dependent Biphasic Axon Outgrowth Elucidated by Femtosecond Laser Impulse

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Axon growth is of course essential to the formation of neural connections. Adhesion is generally needed to anchor and rectify such motion, but whether the tenacity or forces of adhesion must be optimal for maximal axon extension is unknown. Measurements and contributing factors are generally lacking and are pursued here with a laser-induced shock wave approach near the axon growth cone. The authors claim to make measurements of the pressure required to detach axons from low to high matrix density. The results seem to support the authors' conclusions, and the work - with further support - is likely to impact the field of cell adhesion. In particular, there could be some utility of the methods for the adhesion and those interested in aspects of axon growth.

Strengths:

A potential ability to control the pressure simply via proximity of the laser spot is convenient and perhaps reasonable. The 0 to 1 scale for matrix density is a good and appropriate measure for comparing adhesion and other results. The attention to detachment speed, time, F-actin, and adhesion protein mutant provides key supporting evidence. Lastly, the final figure of traction force microscopy with matrix varied on a gel is reasonable and more physiological because neural tissue is soft (cite PMID: 16923388); an optimum in Fig.6 also perhaps aligns with axon length results in Fig.5.

Weaknesses:

The results seem incomplete and less than convincing. This is because the force calibration curve seems to be from a >10 yr old paper without any more recent checks or validating measurements. Secondly, the claimed effect of pressure on the detachment of the growth cone does not consider other effects such as cavitation or temperature, and certainly needs validation with additional methods that overcome such uncertainties. The authors need to check whether the laser perturbs the matrix, particularly local density. A relation between traction stresses of ~20-50 pN/um2 in Fig.6 and the adhesion pressure of 3-5 kPa of FIg.3 needs to be carefully explained; the former units equate to 0.02-0.05 kPa, and would perhaps suggest cells cannot detach themselves and move forward.

The authors need to measure axon length on gels (Fig.6) as more physiological because neural tissue is soft. The studies are also limited to a rudimentary in vitro model without clear relevance to in vivo.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors measure axon outgrowth rate, laminin adhesion strength, and actin rearward flow rate. They find that the axon outgrowth rate has a biphasic dependence on adhesion strength. In interpreting the results, they suggest that the results "imply that adhesion modulation is key to the regulation of axon guidance"; however, they measure elongation rate, not guidance.

Strengths:

The measurements of adhesion strength by laser-induced shock waves are reasonable as is the measurement of actin flow rates by speckle microscopy.

Weaknesses:

They only measure the length of the axons after 3 days and have no measurements of the actual rate of growth cone movements when they are moving. They do not measure the rate of actin growth at the leading edge to know its contribution to the extension rate. This is inadequate.

These studies are unlikely to have an impact on the field because the measurement of axon growth rate at short times is missing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Yamada et al. build on classic and more recent studies (Chen et al., 2023; Lemmon et al., 1992; Nichol et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 1994; Schense and Hubbell, 2000) to better understand the relationship between substrate adhesion and neurite outgrowth.

Strengths:

The primary strength of the manuscript lies in developing a method for investigating the role of adhesion in axon outgrowth and traction force generation using a femtosecond laser technique. The most exciting finding is that both outgrowth and traction force generation have a biphasic relationship with laminin concentration.

Weaknesses:

The primary weaknesses are a lack of discussion of prior studies that have directly measured the strength of growth cone adhesions to the substrate (Zheng et al., 1994) and traction forces (Koch et al., 2012), the inverse correlation between retrograde flow rate and outgrowth (Nichol et al., 2016), and prior studies noting a biphasic effect of substrate concentration of neurite outgrowth (Schense and Hubbell, 2000).

Overall, the claims and conclusions are well justified by the data. The main exception is that the data is more relevant to how the rate of neurite outgrowth is controlled rather than axonal guidance.

This manuscript will help foster interest in the interrelationship between neurite outgrowth, traction forces, and substrate adhesion, and the use of a novel method to study this problem.