Cargando…

Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes

Cellular morphogenesis is governed by the prepattern based on the symmetry-breaking emergence of dense protein clusters. Thus, a cluster of active GTPase Cdc42 marks the site of nascent bud in the baker’s yeast. An important biological question is which mechanisms control the number of pattern maxim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goryachev, Andrew B., Leda, Marcin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7563139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32882972
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9092011
_version_ 1783595423625117696
author Goryachev, Andrew B.
Leda, Marcin
author_facet Goryachev, Andrew B.
Leda, Marcin
author_sort Goryachev, Andrew B.
collection PubMed
description Cellular morphogenesis is governed by the prepattern based on the symmetry-breaking emergence of dense protein clusters. Thus, a cluster of active GTPase Cdc42 marks the site of nascent bud in the baker’s yeast. An important biological question is which mechanisms control the number of pattern maxima (spots) and, thus, the number of nascent cellular structures. Distinct flavors of theoretical models seem to suggest different predictions. While the classical Turing scenario leads to an array of stably coexisting multiple structures, mass-conserved models predict formation of a single spot that emerges via the greedy competition between the pattern maxima for the common molecular resources. Both the outcome and the kinetics of this competition are of significant biological importance but remained poorly explored. Recent theoretical analyses largely addressed these questions, but their results have not yet been fully appreciated by the broad biological community. Keeping mathematical apparatus and jargon to the minimum, we review the main conclusions of these analyses with their biological implications in mind. Focusing on the specific example of pattern formation by small GTPases, we speculate on the features of the patterning mechanisms that bypass competition and favor formation of multiple coexisting structures and contrast them with those of the mechanisms that harness competition to form unique cellular structures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7563139
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75631392020-10-27 Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes Goryachev, Andrew B. Leda, Marcin Cells Perspective Cellular morphogenesis is governed by the prepattern based on the symmetry-breaking emergence of dense protein clusters. Thus, a cluster of active GTPase Cdc42 marks the site of nascent bud in the baker’s yeast. An important biological question is which mechanisms control the number of pattern maxima (spots) and, thus, the number of nascent cellular structures. Distinct flavors of theoretical models seem to suggest different predictions. While the classical Turing scenario leads to an array of stably coexisting multiple structures, mass-conserved models predict formation of a single spot that emerges via the greedy competition between the pattern maxima for the common molecular resources. Both the outcome and the kinetics of this competition are of significant biological importance but remained poorly explored. Recent theoretical analyses largely addressed these questions, but their results have not yet been fully appreciated by the broad biological community. Keeping mathematical apparatus and jargon to the minimum, we review the main conclusions of these analyses with their biological implications in mind. Focusing on the specific example of pattern formation by small GTPases, we speculate on the features of the patterning mechanisms that bypass competition and favor formation of multiple coexisting structures and contrast them with those of the mechanisms that harness competition to form unique cellular structures. MDPI 2020-09-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7563139/ /pubmed/32882972 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9092011 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Perspective
Goryachev, Andrew B.
Leda, Marcin
Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title_full Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title_fullStr Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title_short Compete or Coexist? Why the Same Mechanisms of Symmetry Breaking Can Yield Distinct Outcomes
title_sort compete or coexist? why the same mechanisms of symmetry breaking can yield distinct outcomes
topic Perspective
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7563139/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32882972
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cells9092011
work_keys_str_mv AT goryachevandrewb competeorcoexistwhythesamemechanismsofsymmetrybreakingcanyielddistinctoutcomes
AT ledamarcin competeorcoexistwhythesamemechanismsofsymmetrybreakingcanyielddistinctoutcomes