Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2023 Sep 25;21(9):e3002316. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002316

Rapid mechanosensitive migration and dispersal of newly divided mesenchymal cells aid their recruitment into dermal condensates

Jon Riddell 1, Shahzeb Raja Noureen 2, Luigi Sedda 3, James D Glover 1, William K W Ho 1, Connor A Bain 4, Arianna Berbeglia 1, Helen Brown 1, Calum Anderson 4, Yuhang Chen 4, Michael L Crichton 4, Christian A Yates 2, Richard L Mort 5,*, Denis J Headon 1,*
Editor: Marianne E Bronner6
PMCID: PMC10553821  PMID: 37747910

Abstract

Embryonic mesenchymal cells are dispersed within an extracellular matrix but can coalesce to form condensates with key developmental roles. Cells within condensates undergo fate and morphological changes and induce cell fate changes in nearby epithelia to produce structures including hair follicles, feathers, or intestinal villi. Here, by imaging mouse and chicken embryonic skin, we find that mesenchymal cells undergo much of their dispersal in early interphase, in a stereotyped process of displacement driven by 3 hours of rapid and persistent migration followed by a long period of low motility. The cell division plane and the elevated migration speed and persistence of newly born mesenchymal cells are mechanosensitive, aligning with tissue tension, and are reliant on active WNT secretion. This behaviour disperses mesenchymal cells and allows daughters of recent divisions to travel long distances to enter dermal condensates, demonstrating an unanticipated effect of cell cycle subphase on core mesenchymal behaviour.


Embryonic mesenchymal cells are dispersed within an extracellular matrix but can coalesce to form condensates with key developmental roles. This study uses live-imaging of embryonic skin to reveal that mesenchymal cells migrate in a rapid and persistent manner for three hours after division, with the angle of mitosis and direction and speed of migration controlled by tissue tension.

Introduction

Many vertebrate organs, including lung, intestine, skin, kidney, and mammary gland, are composites of an epithelium and a connective tissue stroma. The stromal component originates from embryonic mesenchyme, consisting of motile cells dispersed within an extracellular matrix. In the skin, the mesenchyme is largely populated with embryonic fibroblasts, while also carrying adipocytes, blood vessels, lymphatics, nerves, macrophages, and melanocytes [1]. On the trunk, the dermal mesenchyme of the back originates from the somites [2], with surface ectodermal WNT signals driving specification of the dermal fibroblast precursors [3]. In the skin, the dermal mesenchymal cells acquire different fates based on their depth relative to the epithelium, with WNT signals maintaining the papillary dermis fate in the upper dermis and suppressing the acquisition of adipocyte identity, resulting in dermal adipocytes forming only in deeper dermis [4,5]. In adult skin, dermal fibroblasts decrease in number with age and are nonmotile, while embryonic populations undergo extensive movement [6,7].

Cells in the upper dermis form condensates at sites of emerging skin appendages, such as hair and feather follicles, morphologically similar to the condensates that form the mesenchymal component of intestinal villi, tooth buds, and cartilaginous template of the skeleton [810]. These dermal condensates are formed through recruitment of mesenchymal cells by focally produced epithelial signals, notably FGF20 and SHH [3,7,1113], though autonomous coalescence of mesenchymal cells can be triggered under certain conditions without epithelial signals [7,13]. Once formed, dermal condensates induce fate commitment and appendage growth in their overlying epithelium [1417]. In embryonic skin, proliferation of mesenchymal cells occurs widely outside condensates [12,18] but rarely once cells enter them [19,20]. A select, highly proliferative, fibroblast population in the peri-condensate zone has been hypothesised to provide cells for condensate construction, based on cell labelling with thymidine analogues and gene expression analyses [19,21].

Here, we delineate embryonic mesenchymal cell behaviour by direct observation in developing skin, finding a signature WNT-dependent mechanosensitive migratory mechanism that both disperses mesenchymal cells in the general dermis but also aids their recruitment into developing condensates.

Results

Rapid displacement of newly born mesenchymal cells in embryonic skin

To define individual cell behaviours during mesenchymal development, we analysed time-lapse confocal imaging of ex vivo cultured TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin containing H2B-GFP labelled mesenchymal cell nuclei [22], allowing us to track their movement throughout the cell cycle. Our observations first indicated that movement and mitosis of dermal cells occur in a planar manner in parallel to the epithelium at all depths of mesenchyme (Figs 1A, S1A, and S1B and S1 Video).

Fig 1. Mesenchymal mitosis is followed by rapid daughter cell displacement.

Fig 1

(A) Time-lapse series of embryonic day (E) 13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin explant culture. Magenta and cyan dots highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis, circles indicate the point at which cells divide, z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = deepest). (B) Diffusion plots showing the migration direction and dispersion of tracked mother (left; n = 45), daughter (middle; n = 89), and non-dividing (right; n = 51) cells from a single skin explant. (C, D) Plots showing speed (C) and Euclidean distance travelled (D) by tracked dividing (left panels; point of mitosis set at time = 0) and non-dividing (right panels) cells. (E) Persistence (Euclidean/accumulated distance) of mother, daughter, and non-dividing cells against time. (F) MSD of mother cells (Mo; n = 45) for 180 min prior to division, daughter cells for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division (Da; n = 89 in both windows), and non-dividing cells (ND; n = 51) for a single representative skin explant. (G) Mean diffusion coefficient (the slope of the line in F) of mother cells (Mo), daughter cells (Da) for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division, and non-dividing cells (ND). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA (p < 0.001)) followed by pairwise post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference tests revealed a significant difference between newly born daughters (0–180 min) and all other groups (***p < 0.001). (H, I) Single planes from confocal time-lapse series of a cultured E13.5 mTmG mouse skin showing (H) a dividing mesenchymal cell and resulting daughter cells and (I) a dividing peridermal cell. (J) Time series of mitosis in a dermal condensate. Magenta dots highlight mother and daughter nuclei. z-planes colour-coded as in A. (K) Single planes from confocal imaging of Collagen-I immunofluorescence in E13.5 and E13.75 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP dermal mesenchyme. C, D, E, and G time-lapse videos n = 8 from 4 independent embryos, mean number of dividing cells tracked per video = 42, non-dividing cells tracked per video = 50. The raw tracking data for BG can be found in S1 Data. Error bars represent the SEM. Scale bar in A = 50 μm; scale bar in H and I = 20 μm; scale bar in J = 50 μm; scale bar in K = 100 μm. MSD, mean squared displacement; SEM, standard error of the mean.

We assessed the behaviour of dividing cells and of cells that were not observed to divide within the duration of observation (hereafter referred to as non-dividing cells) in our time-lapse movies. Cells that did not divide over the 25 h duration of the time-lapse migrated without preferred direction (Fig 1B). Occasional cells (<1/1,000) migrated at high speed throughout the imaging period (S2 Video), but most moved at a mean speed of 0.02 μm min−1 (Fig 1C). Upon and following mitosis, we observed a stereotyped daughter cell displacement, characterised by rapid separation at cytokinesis, often followed by a short pause and then a 180 min period of rapid, persistent migration in early interphase, before returning to the behavioural characteristics of non-dividing cells (Figs 1C–1G and S1C and S3 Video). As a population, the diffusion coefficient of daughter cells in this window was significantly greater, resulting in a mean Euclidean displacement approximately 50% greater than in the equivalent non-dividing cells over the same time period (Fig 1D–1G). To determine if this newly born cell behaviour was conserved in vertebrates, we analysed dividing mesenchymal cell behaviour in chicken skin using recombinant cell permeable TAT-Cre–induced Chameleon chicken cells [12] (S2A Fig and S4 Video) in explant skin culture. We observed a similar increase in speed, Euclidean displacement, and diffusion coefficient of newly born cells, though we did not detect an increased persistence of movement (S2B–S2G Fig). In line with these short-term observations, longer term lineage tracing of cells derived from the somites or the surface ectoderm using TAT-Cre induction in the Chameleon chicken line over 4 days revealed the formation of elongated contiguous keratinocyte clones in the epidermis running dorsolaterally, while mesenchymal clones, although elongated and running dorsolaterally, were not contiguous (S2H Fig), consistent with dispersal of mesenchymal cells immediately upon mitosis. Similarly, when we transplanted a somite from a tdTomato (TPZ) chicken into a GFP chicken, we observed a dorsolateral streak of tissue expansion originating from the somite (S2I Fig), reflecting a favoured net direction of cell displacement in the growing embryo.

To assess individual cell shape through mitosis, we induced sparse labelling of membrane localised MARCKS-EGFP in mesenchymal, peridermal, and basal epidermal cells using the R26R-mTmG mouse line [23]. We induced labelling using TAT-Cre in E13.5 skin, then cultured and confocal imaged for 16 h. We noted that dermal mesenchymal cells typically have planar cell projections, running parallel to the epithelium. These projections are often, but not always, lost upon cell division, with rounding of the cells typically occurring as they enter mitosis (Fig 1H). However, several instances of retention of major cellular processes, followed by migration along their tracks, were evident (S5 Video). The behaviour we observed in mesenchymal cells was distinct from that in epithelia, where we observed divisions of periderm and of basal epidermal cells which produced adjacent daughter cells (Fig 1I and S6 Video), in agreement with the contiguous epithelial clones we observed in chicken embryos over a longer timescale (S2H Fig).

Mesenchymal fibroblasts contribute to hair follicles by forming dermal condensates, precursors to the dermal papilla [24]. Though the embryonic dermal mesenchyme is highly proliferative, cells in the dermal condensates are long recognised as being largely quiescent [11,19,21]. However, in our imaging experiments, we observed some mitoses taking place within dermal condensates (7 division events observed from 8 condensates over 25 h of imaging; Fig 1J and S7 Video). In sharp distinction to the general dermis, these mitoses resulted in very limited cell displacement, producing a pair of daughter cells that remained in close proximity to one another, suggesting that the local extracellular environment influences the behaviour of newly born cells in the mesenchyme. To assess this, we immunostained embryonic mouse skin and found that Collagen-I was absent from the dermal condensates, revealing their distinct extracellular matrix environment (Figs 1K and S3).

Rapid movement of the newly born mesenchymal cells increases dermal condensate entry

Dermal mesenchymal cells are drawn to condensates by soluble signals, notably FGF20 and SHH, from the overlying epithelial placodes [7,11]. In agreement with previous findings [19,21], our imaging experiments revealed that cells within the first 180 min post-division were more likely to enter a dermal condensate than non-dividing cells, with the rate of entry declining to that of the general interphase population thereafter (Fig 2A and S1 Table).

Fig 2. Newly born mesenchymal cells have increased probability of dermal condensate entry.

Fig 2

(A) Timing and proportion of tracked dividing and non-dividing cells entering the condensates as a cumulative percentage. Vertical dashed lines and asterisks indicate time windows and significance levels for a Fisher’s exact test (S1 Table). Time 0 is the point of mitosis for dividing cells. Cells from 0 to 180 min post-mitosis have an increased rate of condensate entry compared to all other cells (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Time-lapse videos n = 8 from 4 independent embryos, mean number of dividing cells tracked per video = 42, non-dividing cells tracked per video = 50. (B) Averaged spatially dependent variance (variogram) in mitosis angles. Approximately 70% of the variance in the mitosis angle occurs within a distance of 0 to 60 μm from the condensate (Monte Carlo probability p < 0.001). Time-lapse videos n = 5 from 5 independent embryos, mean number of mitosis angles plotted per video n = 622. (C) Upper: Cell division angles relative to their nearest condensate for a single representative time-lapse sequence. Black lines indicate direction of mitosis, green lines connect division events to the condensate centre, from which angles relative to the condensate were calculated. Lower: heat map of the cell division angles relative to nearest dermal condensate for the same dataset (black circle = centre). The coordinate system used is indicated in the top left-hand corner. The raw mitosis angle and follicle position data for B and C can be found in S2 Data. (D) Schematic of the agent-based model of mesenchymal cell division composed of a mitotic jump (left panel) displacing the daughters in diametrically opposite directions (at angle θ from the horizontal) followed by a persistent random walk (right panel—dashed lines). The angle of migration of step i, relative to the direction of the mitotic jump, is represented by Φi, and the distance travelled in each step is represented by dpers. (E) Plot showing the percentage (+/− SEM; n = 8) of simulated dividing and non-dividing cells entering a condensate in the model. Dashed blue and green lines indicate the proportion of dividing and non-dividing cells entering condensates, respectively, from experimental data. (F) Plot showing percentage of dividing and non-dividing cells entering a condensate against their initial position relative to the condensate centre from experimental data. Lineages with recent divisions can be recruited from further away. Time-lapse videos n = 8 from 4 independent embryos, mean number of dividing cells tracked per video = 42, non-dividing cells tracked per video = 50. (G) Initial locations of dividing (left) and non-dividing (right) agents that ultimately enter a condensate, from simulation. (H) For cells entering follicles, the probability density of entry from a given starting distance for dividing (blue) and non-dividing (green) cells–modelled (left) and experimental (right). The raw tracking data for A and EH can be found in S1 Data. Scale bars in C = 100 μm; scale bar in G = 50 μm. SEM, standard error of the mean.

We next examined whether the dermal condensate influences the orientation of nearby cell divisions. A permutation analysis of mitosis angles showed that, at distances closer than 177 μm, the distribution of mitosis angles cannot be explained by random process. We observed that 70% of the variability in mitosis direction was affected by the presence of a condensate up to a mean of 60 μm from its centre, and the remaining 30% up to a mean of 177 μm from its centre (Fig 2B). We also observed that mitoses occur at close to an orthogonal tangent to the condensate perimeter (Fig 2C and S8 Video). Therefore, dermal condensates influence the division angle of mesenchymal cells in their immediate proximity. However, dividing cells do not orientate directly towards the condensate, and thus, this effect does not explain the higher proportion of dividing cells ultimately entering the condensate (19.4%), compared to non-dividing cells (14.3%; Fig 2A).

In order to investigate the mechanisms underlying the observed recruitment bias in favour of newly born mesenchymal cells to condensates, we built an agent-based mathematical model (Fig 2D and S1 Appendix). Dermal fibroblast cells (the agents) were initialised uniformly at random on a square domain (representing the dermis) with periodic boundary conditions that contained preformed condensate recruitment sites with fully absorbing boundary conditions. Cells encountering the condensate were immediately absorbed and removed from the simulation, consistent with our findings that cells are not observed exiting established condensates. Cell movement on the domain was an off-lattice diffusive random walk, with migration parameters being those directly measured from the non-dividing mesenchymal cell population (Fig 1F). To model mitosis, cells were selected at random, then simulated to undergo a proliferation event forming 2 daughters, which then underwent mitotic displacement over 180 min according to our measured cell movement parameters (Fig 2D and S1 Appendix). In this model, newly born mesenchymal cells have a greater likelihood of condensate entry than non-dividing cells as a result of both cell number increase (through division) and the increased displacement of the resulting daughters, making them more likely to encounter a condensate (Fig 2E). Our modelling predicted that the probability of dividing cells being recruited from short distances would be lower than for non-dividing cells but that they could be recruited from a greater distance, as suggested by our cell tracking data (Fig 2F) and confirmed by plotting the probability density (Fig 2G and 2H).

Mitotic displacement of mesenchymal cells is locally coordinated in intact embryos

In our initial imaging of skin cultures, we noted that mitotic angles tended to be aligned with one another across the field of view (Fig 3A). To determine whether this observation was unique to ex vivo culture, we imaged intact E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP embryos using 2-photon microscopy (Fig 3B) and tracked mesenchymal cell behaviour for 2 h. Here, we observed the same stereotyped planar mitotic displacement mechanism (Fig 3C and 3D). Global mesenchymal cell division angles were not aligned with the cardinal axes of the embryos (Fig 3E). However, spatial statistical analysis confirmed that contiguous zones of coherent, aligned cell divisions were present (Fig 3F), with areas of correlated mitoses accounting for greater than 80% of the total area in our images. This suggests that the influence on mitosis angle that is global in our 2D skin cultures is instead more regional in intact and growing embryos, perhaps reflecting their more complex topology.

Fig 3. Mitotic orientations are locally aligned in embryonic mesenchyme.

Fig 3

(A) Distribution of mitotic angles (n = 1,135) in a TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant culture (left panel) and representative frame showing coherence of mitotic orientations (right panel). Daughter nucleus pairs are connected by white lines, showing the angle of mitosis. The raw mitosis angle data for A can be found in S2 Data. (B) Schematic of whole embryo culture and multiphoton imaging with corresponding image of the trunk skin of an E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP embryo. (C, D) Speed (C) and Euclidean distance travelled (D) by tracked dividing and non-dividing cells. Whole embryo time-lapse from 3 independent embryos, average number of divisions tracked/video = 65, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50. In dividing cell plots, time 0 = mitosis. (E) Distribution of angles (n = 43) of division from TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP whole mouse embryo imaging; 0 and 180 degrees are parallel to the A-P axis. (F) Spatial distribution of mitotic angles in E (white overlaid lines), with heat map showing areas where angles are correlated. Right panel shows areas (overlain in black) containing no significant local correlation (i.e., mitotic angles are random). The coordinate system used is indicated in the top left-hand corner. The randomness ratio (proportion of black area to total area) calculated at a significance level of 0.01, ranged from 14% to 21% between the fields of view analysed. The raw tracking and mitosis position data for CF can be found in S3 Data. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in A = 50 μm; scale bar in B = 100 μm. A-P, anterior-posterior; SEM, standard error of the mean.

The dispersal of newly born mesenchymal cells is mediated through a WNT-dependent mechanosensitive mechanism

Having observed correlation of mitotic angles in small domains surrounding the dermal condensates and in larger zones in their absence, we hypothesised that they were likely influenced by mechanical forces. To test this, we compared embryonic mouse skin that had been relaxed fully in culture (S4A Fig) with skin stretched to approximately twice its length along a single axis (S4B Fig). Relaxed skin carried nuclei with a generally oval morphology and no alignment of orientation, while stretched skin showed alignment of the long axis of the mesenchymal nuclei with the applied tension (Figs 4A, S4C, and S4D), though more pronounced for a lateral (dorsal-ventral) stretch than an equivalent axial (anterior-posterior) stretch. A lateral stretch also caused an increase in average nucleus length (Fig 4B). Immunofluorescent detection of Collagen-I confirmed that fibres of the extracellular matrix had aligned with the direction of stretch (S4E and S4F Fig), as had the actin cytoskeleton (S5 Fig). However, we did not observe activation of the mechanotransducer YAP1 [25] in the mesenchyme upon stretching of the skin for 1 h, while an epithelial YAP1 activation response was detected (S5 Fig).

Fig 4. Orientation of mesenchymal mitosis and newly born cell migration by mechanical cues.

Fig 4

(A) E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mesenchymal nuclei in skin in relaxed and stretched states. Skins were stretched to approximately twice their length along a single axis. White dashed line indicates the A-P axis. (B) Nucleus length from relaxed (n = 3), laterally stretched (n = 4), and A-P stretched (n = 3) skins. (C, E) Plotted deviations of cell division angles (left) and migration angle of dividing (middle) and non-dividing (right) cell migration angle from the A-P axis and total cell displacement for each angle in skins that were (C) relaxed (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 67, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50), (D) stretched laterally, (n = 4, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 72, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50) and (E) stretched along the A-P axis (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 79, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50). (F) Global alignment scores across entire skin of mitosis angles from relaxed skins (n = 3), laterally stretched skins (n = 4), A-P stretched skins (n = 3), laterally stretched skins from LGK-974 treated embryos (n = 4), and whole embryos (n = 3). (G) Speed of tracked dividing (left panel; time 0 = point of mitosis) and non-dividing (right panel) cells in skins that were relaxed (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 67), stretched (n = 7, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 78), or stretched after LGK-974 treatment (n = 4, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 53); 50 non-dividing cells tracked/video for all conditions. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. The raw numerical values and tracking data for BG can be found in S4 data. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in A = 20 μm. A-P, anterior-posterior; SEM, standard error of the mean.

We then tracked cell division and migration in relaxed and stretched E13.5 skin cultures. In relaxed skin, cell migration and mitotic displacement occurred with the same characteristics as observed earlier (Figs 1C, 1D, and S6), but with no preferred angle of mitotic division or migration in dividing cells. Non-dividing cells exhibited a slight preference for anterior-posterior (A-P) movement (Fig 4C). In stretched skin, mitotic displacements and the migration of the newly born and the non-dividing cells aligned with the direction of applied stretch (Fig 4D and 4E and S9 Video). Mitotic displacements in chicken skins also aligned with the direction of tension (S4G Fig). As observed for nuclear elongation, a lateral stretch was more effective in aligning mitotic angles than an equivalent axial stretch (Fig 4F), and relaxed skins showed a similar global alignment score to that from our whole embryo imaging analysis (Figs 3E, 4C, and 4F). We found that suppression of WNT secretion in skins stretched to the same extent, through pharmacological inhibition of the WNT acyltransferase PORCN using LGK-974 (S7 Fig), reduced the alignment of mitoses with the direction of stretch, indicating a role for WNTs in sensing and responding to mechanical cues by mesenchymal cells (Fig 4F). We also identified priming phosphorylation of LRP6 in embryonic mesenchymal cells at mitosis (S8 Fig), previously reported in a range of systems to confer cell cycle based WNT pathway augmentation [26], suggesting that cells in the developing skin are sensitised to WNT signals immediately prior to their division.

Strikingly, we found a unique responsiveness of newly born cells to tissue strain, in which daughter cells move more rapidly in stretched skin compared to relaxed skin, while mother and non-dividing cells did not change their speed of movement. This phenomenon relies on WNT availability, as PORCN inhibition selectively inhibits the post-mitosis migratory behaviour, but not the speed of mother or non-dividing cells (Fig 4G). This reveals that newly born mesenchymal cells enter a WNT-dependent mechanosensitive state in early G1 phase, responding to tissue strain with increased migration rates (Fig 4G).

Discussion

We report a stereotypical migratory behaviour of early G1 phase mesenchymal cells that drives their displacement in tissue growth and patterning. These cells separate rapidly at mitosis and over the next 180 min migrate with greater speed and persistence than their peers further into G1 and S phases. This rapid migratory behaviour is not a continuation of cytokinesis, but instead cells move rapidly and engage in one or more saltatory leaps in the 180 min after mitosis. Cell division and movement is planar, occurring almost entirely in parallel with the epithelium. This stability of mesenchymal cell vertical positions relative to the epithelium allows positional signals, such as epithelial WNT, to direct the appropriate differentiation of distinct layers of the dermis [1,27].

The behaviour of mesenchymal cells at mitosis is highly mechanosensitive, orienting division and migration along lines of tension in the tissue. Mechanosensitivity, or mechanoresponsiveness, requires WNT availability, and WNT signalling likely varies across the cell cycle in developing skin through accumulation of phospho-LRP6 at mitosis to prime WNT reception in early G1 [26]. The contribution of distinct WNT downstream pathways to mesenchymal cell behaviours, and their possible WNT concentration-dependence at different depths of dermis, remains to be elucidated. However, the effect of PORCN inhibition we observe suggests that the focal dermal hypoplasia observed in Goltz syndrome, caused by mutation of PORCN (OMIM 305600), may be contributed to by locally dysregulated mesenchymal cell movement.

The behaviour of mesenchymal cells at mitosis defined here matches the long-recognised orientation of dividing cells in epithelial sheets, which align their plane of division perpendicular to orientation of tissue tension [28]. Epithelial cells remain adjacent or close to one another after division, leading to the formation of contiguous epithelial clones indicative of the mode of tissue growth, such as the sharply demarcated lines of Blaschko in the dorsal skin of mammals [20,29]. However, in the mesenchyme, cell division is followed by directed dispersal of newly born daughters, immediately spreading them across the tissue. This mechanism will effectively fill gaps [30] and enforce the disruption of mesenchymal cell clones, preventing formation of mesenchymal condensates through clonal expansion.

Previous work identified an increased frequency of daughter cells from recent cell divisions within mesenchymal condensates [19,21]. This result is explained by our observations as resulting from the increased dispersal of newly born cells compared to their mid and late G1, and S phase peers, making them more likely to encounter recruitment signals. Our simulations show that this observed behaviour alone, without a need to invoke neither spatially heterogeneous proliferation nor a cell cycle phase-specific sensitivity to placode-derived recruitment signals, is sufficient to account for the increased representation of products of recent cell divisions in dermal condensates.

Future work will address the mechanistic basis of this phenomenon and its reliance on WNT availability, its generality in the body’s diverse mesenchymal populations, the relationship between intracellular events and extracellular matrix interaction and sensing, and whether orientation of mesenchymal cell division and interphase migration can be modulated by extracellular signals to achieve polarised tissue growth.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All animal work was conducted under approval of the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body (AWERB) at The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, under the project license (PPL) P682B81E4 provided by the United Kingdom Home Office in accordance with the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Animals underwent euthanasia by cervical dislocation according to Schedule 1 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Animals

TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP embryos were obtained by crossing male hemizygous TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mice on a FVB/N genetic background with female FVB/N mice. mTmG mice were on a C57Bl/6JCrl background. Intragastric gavage using LGK-974 (Selleckchem, Houston, Texas, United States) at a dose of 8 mg/kg was performed twice on pregnant mice within a 24 h period before harvesting embryos. LGK-974 was dissolved in 0.5% methylcellulose (Sigma-Aldrich Burlington, Massachusetts, USA), 0.5% Tween-80 (Sigma-Aldrich) in water. Skin collected from LGK-974 treated embryos was maintained in culture medium supplemented with 20 μm LGK-974.

Hyline non-transgenic, transgenic green fluorescent (CAG-GFP), TPZ, Chameleon and membrane GFP reporter chicken eggs were obtained from the Roslin Institute National Avian Research Facility (NARF). Chicken eggs were incubated vertically at 37.8°C.

Tissue explant culture and stretching experiments

Dorsolateral skin was dissected from embryos in PBS and attached onto MF-Millipore nitrocellulose filters, 0.45 μm pore size (Catalogue number: HABP04700; Millipore, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA). Explants were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM; Sigma-Aldrich) supplemented with 2% foetal bovine serum (FBS; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) and 1% penicillin-streptomycin (Thermo Fisher Scientific) at 37°C, 5% CO2.

For stretching experiments, skin was dissected and left free-floating for 20 min to permit full relaxation of the tissue. Skin explants were then manually stretched onto a nitrocellulose filter using fine-tipped forceps. For investigation of non-phospho (active) YAP1, skin explants were cultured in either a stretched or relaxed state for 1 h at 37°C, 5% CO2 prior to fixation.

mTmG cell labelling

To sparsely label cells with membrane GFP in mTmG mouse skin, explants from embryonic day (E) 13.5 were dissected as previously described, before being gently placed epidermis side down. The dermis was injected with approximately 2 to 5 μl TAT-Cre recombinase (200 U/ml; Sigma-Aldrich) using a glass microcapillary pipette. Explants were then attached to nitrocellulose filters epidermis side up and incubated for 24 h at 37°C, 5% CO2 before being imaged.

Chameleon cell labelling

Chameleon chicken line eggs were incubated until E3 before being windowed and the somites injected with approximately 2 to 5 μl TAT-Cre recombinase (200 U/ml) using a glass microcapillary pipette. Eggs were resealed and incubated at 37.8°C until E7 when skin explants were dissected and attached to nitrocellulose filters as described above.

Immunofluorescent detection and actin staining

Samples for whole-mount immunofluorescence were fixed overnight in 10% neutral buffered formalin, washed in PBST (PBS + 0.5% Triton ×100), and incubated in blocking buffer 1 (10% goat serum/PBST) for 2 h at room temperature. Samples were incubated in mouse anti-Collagen type I (1:50 dilution; Cat#AB765P; Sigma-Aldrich), rabbit polyclonal anti-phospho-LRP6 (S1490) (1:100 dilution; Cat#2568S, Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, Massachusetts, USA), rabbit anti-phospho-histone H3 (S10) (1:100 dilution; Cat#9701, Cell Signaling Technology), mouse anti-non-phosphorylated (active) YAP1 (1:100 dilution; Cat#sc-101199, Santa Cruz) in blocking buffer 1 overnight at 4°C, washed in PBST and incubated in blocking buffer 1 containing secondary antibodies (goat anti-mouse IgG Alexa Fluor 647 (1:250 dilution; Cat#A21236, Thermo Fisher Scientific), goat anti-rabbit IgG Alexa Fluor 546, (1:500 dilution; Cat#A21245, Thermo Fisher Scientific), goat anti-mouse IgG, Alexa Fluor 488, (1:500 dilution; Cat#A11029, Thermo Fisher Scientific), and Alexa Fluor 647 phalloidin (1:200; Cat#A22287, Thermo Fisher Scientific) overnight at 4°C. Samples were washed in PBST, counterstained with DAPI (Sigma-Aldrich), washed in PBST, and mounted on Superfrost slides (Thermo Fisher Scientific) with ProLong Gold Antifade mountant (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Samples for immunofluorescence on sections were fixed overnight in 10% neutral buffered formalin, before being processed into paraffin wax. Antigen retrieval was performed on dewaxed 6 μm sections using an Antigen Retriever 2100 (Aptum Biologics, United Kingdom) and citrate buffer. Sections were then washed in TBS, 0.1% Triton X-100 for 10 min before being washed in TBS, 0.1% Tween 20 (TBST) and incubated in blocking buffer 2 (5% goat serum/TBST) for 1 h at room temperature. Sections were then incubated in anti-mouse non-phosphorylated (active) β-catenin ABC (1:200 dilution; Cat#05–665, Sigma-Aldrich) and rabbit anti-LEF1 (1:200, Cat# ab137872, Abcam) in blocking buffer 2 overnight at 4°C, before being washed in TBST and incubated in blocking buffer 2 containing secondary antibodies for 1 h at room temperature. Samples were then washed in TBST, counterstained with DAPI, and mounted using ProLong Gold Antifade mountant.

Imaging

Live time-lapse imaging sequences of TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse and Chameleon chicken skin explants from Glover and colleagues and Ho and colleagues, respectively, [7,12] were used for tracking of dividing and non-dividing cells for Figs 1 and 2. Images were captured at 10 min intervals for mouse time-lapse imaging and at 15 min intervals for chicken.

For time-lapse imaging of mTmG explants and stretched TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP dorsal skin, explants on membrane filters were submerged in DMEM, supplemented with 2% FBS, and 1% penicillin-streptomycin, in glass-bottomed 24-well plates (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany), epidermis down. Explants were immobilised using a black plastic washer and imaged at 10 min intervals using an LSM-880 confocal microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) in an incubation chamber at 37°C.

For whole embryo live time-lapse imaging experiments, embryos were harvested in PBS and affixed to a Petri dish using superglue, before being submerged in DMEM, 2% FBS, and 1% penicillin-streptomycin. Embryos were imaged at 5 min intervals using an LSM 7 MP multiphoton microscope (Zeiss) with a perfusion system to maintain embryo temperature at 37°C (see Fig 3B).

The percentage decrease in mouse skin explant size after dissection was determined by imaging freshly dissected explants at 3 min intervals using an Axiozoom V16 (Zeiss) and averaging 5 measurements across the A-P axis and perpendicular to the A-P axis for each time point. The degree of stretch was obtained by imaging explants before and after stretching, averaging 5 measurements across the A-P axis and perpendicular to the A-P axis each.

Fixed tissue samples were imaged using an LSM-880 confocal microscope.

Cell tracking and division analyses

Cell tracking and division analysis was performed using custom written macros for ImageJ. Source code is available through GitHub (https://github.com/richiemort79/mitosis_tools) and Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8229691). To analyse mitosis angles, maximum intensity Z-projections of time-lapse sequences were drift-corrected, using the “Correct 3D Drift” plugin (https://imagej.net/plugins/correct-3d-drift). The condensate positions (if condensates were present) were recorded and all visible mitoses were mapped by connecting the middle of each daughter nuclei in the first frame after cytokinesis with a line. The angle of this line relative to x and y axes of the imaging frame was calculated using ImageJ.

To track cell behaviour, all visible dividing cells, their resulting daughter cells and at least 50 non-dividing cells were tracked manually until either the video ended, the cell entered a condensate, or the cell migrated beyond the boundary of the video. The mean squared displacement (MSD) of migrating cell populations was calculated using the time ensemble averaging approach [31].

Spatial analyses

Experimental angular variograms [32] were produced on a point process represented by the mitosis locations in relation to the follicle, i.e., the variogram bins are calculated not between mitoses but between mitoses and follicle. Directional variograms are calculated considering the mitoses at 4 directions in respect to the follicle: 0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees, each of which within a cone of + and − 22.5 degrees. Experimental omnidirectional and directional variograms were estimated using the method of moments and fitted with exponential function by minimization of the weighted (by number of pairs in each bin) sum of squares [33]. From the fitted variograms, the spatial range of influence of the follicle on the variance of the mitoses directions and the explained variance of the mitoses directions by follicle distance has been estimated. The latter is expressed in terms of nugget-to-sill ratio [34].

Permutation analyses were employed to identify whether the modelled variogram (and its parameters) were statistically different, at a significance level of 0.001, from a random process [35]. Directions were permuted across all mitoses, and for each permutation, the experimental variogram was estimated and fitted. This process was repeated 1,000 times. We estimated the Monte Carlo probability that permuted allocations of the directions produced smaller ranges, i.e., the probability that follicles were less influential on the mitoses direction. This is calculated as the number of permutations with lower spatial range divided by the total number of permutations (1,000). If this value is lower than 0.001 then the null hypothesis (no influence) is rejected.

Maps of the direction of the mitoses around the follicle (Fig 2C) were produced by conventional ordinary kriging.

Local alignment analysis of in vivo embryo mitoses

The random process of embryo mitotic directions, conditional to the mean and variance of the embryo mitoses, was estimated by permuting the directions and predicting them in a 100 by 100 pixel grid via conventional ordinary kriging. The latter uses the modelled variogram of the in vivo embryo mitoses (unchanged). This process was repeated 100 times and the predicted average direction was estimated for each pixel [36]. Finally, we tested if the mean of the distribution of predicted mitosis directions derived from a random process in each pixel was different from the experimental mean of the direction of the mitoses in the same pixel [37]. The map of pixels containing directions that were not significantly different (at a 0.01 significance level) from a random process is shown in Fig 3F.

Nuclei length and orientation analyses

Per skin sample, nucleus shape and orientation of the longest nucleus axis of 50 individual cells were measured using ImageJ. The length and angle of the cells were gathered and compared to the A-P axis direction.

Alignment score analysis

Global alignment quantification for cell division angles and orientation of nuclei was conducted by analysing the vector movement of all nuclei within a dataset. Using all paired permutations of vectors and calculating the respective dot products, we computed an overall “alignment coefficient”:

d=i=1i=Nj=1j=NNN.

Where i and j = the upper and lower bounds, respectively, of the summation series, and N = total number of permutations of vector pairs. An alignment coefficient of 1 represents an ideally linear case, where all vectors are oriented across 1 primary angle. An alignment coefficient of 0 represents ideal isotropy where we observe a truly random distribution of vectors.

We used a colour-based segmentation approach to compute the overall alignment of stained Collagen fibrils. Images were converted from the RGB colour space to the L*a*b colour space where we isolated the a-channel and negative region of the b-channel. Images were converted to a grayscale representation and passed through a median filter of order n = 2 to minimise the levels of salt and pepper noise. Contrast and brightness enhancement was applied with island size removal performed to maximise the isolation of fibrils from the background and nuclei. Images were converted to the frequency domain using a 2D Fourier transformation followed by transformation to polar coordinates. Using the polar form, the column intensities of all pixels were summed, representing the overall image intensity at each 1-degree bin size. The intensity values obtained relate to the proportion of Collagen fibres that are oriented across each specific bin. These values were then used to calculate an overall alignment coefficient.

Statistical methods

To compare the rate of condensate entry between newly born daughter and non-dividing cells, Fisher’s exact tests were performed between the frequency of daughter cells entering a condensate in the first 180 min post division and the frequencies of non-dividing cells entering the condensate in 180 min time windows throughout the imaging period. Fisher’s exact tests were also performed to assess timing of condensate entry after mitosis between the frequencies of dividing cells entering a condensate in the first 180 min post division and the frequencies of the same class of cells in later 180 min time windows.

Unpaired Student’s T tests were performed to determine p-values for average nucleus length values and alignment scores.

For comparing cell migration speed in stretched and relaxed skins, log cell speed was analysed using a mixed model with: frame, group, the frame x group interaction and log pre-division speed (based on the mean of frames −4 to −1) fitted as fixed effects; and skin piece, family, cell ID, and the “frame x skin piece” interaction fitted as random effects. A “family” is made up of a parent cell and its 2 daughters. Inclusion of the random effects allowed for additional random variation between skin pieces, family, and cell IDs. In order to avoid the minus infinity values occurring for zero speeds, 0.01 was added to speeds before taking logs. The analysis was carried out using the MIXED procedure in the SAS/STAT software package, Version 9.4.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Newly born daughter cells migrate extensively after division.

(A) Schematic depicting the position of mesenchymal cells migrating and dividing in a planar manner, parallel to the epidermis. Orientation of view is shown. (B) Quantification of cells remaining in-plane after 3 h of imaging (number of tracked daughter cells = 100; z-slice depth = 6 μm). (C) Mitosis plots mapping mother and daughter tracks before and after cell division, with corresponding cell speed plots over the time course of imaging below. Tracks were chosen from cells in which cell division took place within a time point of 40%–60% through the imaging, and both daughter cells were tracked until the end of the video. The raw numerical values and tracking data for B and C can be found in S1 Data.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Newly born mesenchymal cells exhibit rapid migration in embryonic chicken skin.

(A) Single z-planes from confocal time-lapse series of an E6 Chameleon chicken skin explant culture treated with cell permeant TAT-Cre and cultured for 24 h. Magenta dots highlight mother and daughter cells. (B) Diffusion plots showing the migration direction and dispersion of tracked mother (left; n = 62), daughter (middle; n = 124), and non-dividing (right; n = 50) cells from a single skin explant. (C, D) Speed (C) and Euclidean distance travelled (D) of dividing (left panels; time 0 = point of mitosis) and non-dividing (right panels) cells from Chameleon chicken skin explants. (E) Persistence (Euclidean/accumulated distance) of mother, daughter, and non-dividing cells against time. (F) Mean squared displacement (MSD) of mother cells (Mo; n = 62) for 180 min prior to division, daughter cells for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division (Da; n = 124 in both windows), and non-dividing cells (ND; n = 50) for a single representative skin explant. (G) Mean diffusion coefficient (the slope of the line in F) of mother cells (Mo), daughter cells (Da) for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division, and non-dividing cells (ND). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA (p < 0.01)) followed by pairwise post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference tests revealed a significant difference between daughters (0–180 min) and mother cells, and between daughters (0–180 min) and non-dividing cells (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). The raw tracking data for BG can be found in S5 Data. (H) Confocal images of clonally labelled mesenchymal (left) and epithelial (right) cells in E7 Chameleon skin explant culture following somite and overlying epithelium injection of cell permeant TAT-Cre at E3. (I) Tissue derivatives of a tdTomato somite (TPZ transgenic line) transplanted into a CAG-GFP host embryo, at E6.5. Left panel, intact embryo; right panel, isolated skin. C, D, E, and G time-lapse videos n = 3 from 3 independent samples, mean number of dividing cells tracked per video = 60, mean number of non-dividing cells tracked per video = 91. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in A = 20 μm, scale bar in H = 200 μm, scale bar in I = 2 mm.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Collagen-I is reduced in dermal condensates.

Single planes and orthoviews from confocal imaging of Collagen-I immunofluorescence in E14.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant stained with phalloidin (to detect F-actin) and DAPI. White dashed lines indicate the plane of the z-section. Scale bar = 50 μm.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Mesenchymal nuclei and Collagen-I align with mechanical strain.

(A) Plot showing the percentage decrease in anterior-posterior (A-P) and dorsal-ventral (Lat) length of mouse skin explants in a 30 min period (n = 5) when suspended freely in culture medium. (B) Images of E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin explants before and after a lateral stretch (upper panels) or a stretch along the anterior-posterior (A-P) axis of the embryo (lower panels). White dashed arrows show direction of stretch. (C) Nucleus orientation angle for relaxed (n = 3; upper), lateral stretched (n = 4; middle), and A-P stretched (n = 3; lower) skins. (D) Alignment score of nucleus orientation angle from relaxed (n = 3), laterally stretched (n = 4), and A-P stretched (n = 3) skins. (E) Single planes from confocal imaging of Collagen-I immunofluorescence in E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explants in stretched states. Dashed white line indicates direction of stretch. (F) Alignment scores of Collagen fibres from skin samples shown in E. The raw numerical values for A, C, D, and F can be found in S4 Data. (G) Single planes from confocal imaging of an A-P stretched E7 membrane GFP (mGFP) chicken skin. Daughter nucleus pairs are connected by white lines, showing coherent angles of mitosis aligned with applied tension. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in B = 2 mm; scale bar in E = 100 μm; scale bar in G = 50 μm.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. YAP1 is activated in the basal epidermis but not in mesenchymal cells after 1 h of skin stretching.

Single planes of the dermis and basal epidermis from confocal imaging of active (non-phospho) YAP1 immunofluorescence in E13.5 mouse skin explants, stained with phalloidin (to detect F-actin) and DAPI, in relaxed and laterally stretched states. Scale bar = 50 μm.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Newly born cells in stretched skin show increased speed and displacement.

(A, B) Speed (A) and Euclidean distance travelled (B) of tracked dividing (top panels; time 0 = point of mitosis) and non-dividing (bottom panels) cells in skins that were relaxed (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 67, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50), stretched laterally, (n = 4, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 72, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50), and stretched along the A-P axis (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 79, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50). The raw tracking data for A and B can be found in S4 Data. Error bars represent SEM.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Suppression of active β-catenin in embryos of LGK-974 treated pregnant mice.

Confocal imaging of active β-catenin (ABC) and LEF1 immunofluorescence in E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin sections, stained with DAPI, from embryos from pregnant mice untreated (control) or treated with LGK-974 for 24 h. Less active β-catenin signal is detected in the mesenchyme of treated embryos. Scale bar = 50 μm.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Detection of phospho-LRP6 (serine 1490) in mesenchymal and basal epidermal cells at mitosis.

(A, B) Single planes of the dermis and basal epidermis from confocal imaging of phospho-LRP6 (S1490) (A) and phospho-histone H3 (S10) (B) immunofluorescence in E13.5 mouse skin explants, stained with phalloidin (detecting F-actin) and DAPI. Phospho-histone H3 signal illustrates the morphology of nuclei undergoing mitosis. Yellow arrows indicate cells that are in mitosis and have condensed chromatin. Phospho-LRP6 (S1490) is detected at highest levels in cells undergoing division in mesenchyme and epithelium. Scale bar = 20 μm.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Statistical comparisons of rate of cell entry to dermal condensates in 180 min windows for dividing and non-dividing cells.

Newly born daughter cells have a higher rate of condensate entry compared to non-dividing cells in their first 180 min.

(XLSX)

S1 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing cells in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta, cyan, and red dots highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis; magenta, cyan, and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In the second round of playing dividing cell migration tracks are in blue and non-dividing cell tracks in green.

(AVI)

S2 Video. Fast-moving cell in dermis.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). A fast-moving cell is highlighted by a magenta dot and circle.

(AVI)

S3 Video. Daughter cells pause after cytokinesis before making large migration movements.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta and cyan dots highlight dividing cells that pause after division before moving rapidly. Magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In the second round of playing dividing cell migration tracks are in blue and non-dividing cell tracks in green.

(AVI)

S4 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing cells in chicken skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of sparsely labelled and cultured E6.5 Chameleon chicken skin explant. Magenta, cyan, and red dots highlight cells undergoing mitosis; magenta, cyan, and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. Note that the entire cell volume is labelled with these cytoplasmic fluorescent proteins.

(AVI)

S5 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing mesenchymal cells in mTmG mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of cultured E13.5 mTmG skin explant. Magenta and cyan dots highlight mesenchymal cells undergoing mitosis, magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. White arrowhead points to a cell process that persists through mitosis.

(AVI)

S6 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing epithelial cell in mTmG mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of cultured E13.5 mTmG skin explant, showing an example of a peridermal cell undergoing mitosis. The daughter cells remain in contact with one another.

(AVI)

S7 Video. Time-lapse imaging of cells dividing within a dermal condensate in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Magenta and cyan dots highlight nuclei that have divided within a condensate, magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In contrast to the general dermal mesenchyme, dividing cells within dermal condensates produce daughters that remain in close proximity to one another.

(AVI)

S8 Video. Time-lapse imaging of peripheral cells dividing tangentially around a dermal condensate in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta and cyan dots highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis around a condensate, magenta and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. Cells that are peripheral to the condensate have elongated nuclei running at a tangent to the condensate and divide along this axis.

(AVI)

S9 Video. Time-lapse imaging of cell divisions aligning with stretch in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant stretched along the dorsolateral axis. Magenta circles highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis, in which the division angle aligns with the direction of applied stretch.

(AVI)

S1 Appendix. Description of agent-based mathematical model used to generate data for Fig 2D–2H.

(PDF)

S1 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 1B–1G, 2A, 2F, 2H, S1B and S1C.

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 2B, 2C, and 3A.

(XLSX)

S3 Data. Data pertaining to Fig 3C–3F.

(XLSX)

S4 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 4B–4, S4A, S4C, S4D, S4F, S6A, and S6B.

(XLSX)

S5 Data. Data pertaining to S2B–S2G Fig.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank staff of the Biological Research Facility and National Avian Research Facility at the Roslin Institute for technical support and Lorraine Rose for providing mTmG mouse embryos. We thank Raphael Voituriez for insightful discussion on cell movement and James Headon for help with image processing. This research made use of the Balena High Performance Computing (HPC) Service at the University of Bath.

Abbreviations

A-P

anterior-posterior

AWERB

the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body

DMEM

Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium

FBS

foetal bovine serum

MSD

mean squared displacement

NARF

National Avian Research Facility

Data Availability

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Source code has been deposited in Zenodo repositories https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8229691 and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8229341.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by BBSRC awards BB/T007788/1 and BBS/E/D/10002071 received by DJH, and by North West Cancer Research Fund award CR1132, Royal Society award RGS\R2\212427 and Dr. Philip Welch STEM research project funding received by RLM. SRN is supported by a scholarship from the EPSRC Centre for Doctoral Training in Statistical Applied Mathematics at Bath (SAMBa), under the project EP/S022945/1. This research made use of the Balena High Performance Computing (HPC) Service at the University of Bath. CAB is supported by a Carnegie Trust for Scotland PhD studentship. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Plikus MV, Wang X, Sinha S, Forte E, Thompson SM, Herzog EL, et al. Fibroblasts: Origins, definitions, and functions in health and disease. Cell. 2021;184(15):3852–72. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thulabandu V, Chen D, Atit RP. Dermal fibroblast in cutaneous development and healing. WIREs Dev Biol. 2018;7(2):e307. doi: 10.1002/wdev.307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Myung P, Andl T, Atit R. The origins of skin diversity: lessons from dermal fibroblasts. Development. 2022;149(23). doi: 10.1242/dev.200298 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10112899. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Driskell RR, Watt FM. Understanding fibroblast heterogeneity in the skin. Trends Cell Biol. 2015;25(2):92–9. Epub 2014/12/03. doi: 10.1016/j.tcb.2014.10.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mastrogiannaki M, Lichtenberger BM, Reimer A, Collins CA, Driskell RR, Watt FM. beta-Catenin Stabilization in Skin Fibroblasts Causes Fibrotic Lesions by Preventing Adipocyte Differentiation of the Reticular Dermis. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(6):1130–42. Epub 2016/02/24. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.01.036 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4874948. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Marsh E, Gonzalez DG, Lathrop EA, Boucher J, Greco V. Positional Stability and Membrane Occupancy Define Skin Fibroblast Homeostasis In Vivo. Cell. 2018;175(6):1620–33.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Glover JD, Wells KL, Matthaus F, Painter KJ, Ho W, Riddell J, et al. Hierarchical patterning modes orchestrate hair follicle morphogenesis. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(7):e2002117. Epub 2017/07/13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2002117 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5507405. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hall BK, Miyake T. All for one and one for all: condensations and the initiation of skeletal development. BioEssays. 2000;22(2):138–47. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Biggs LC, Mikkola ML. Early inductive events in ectodermal appendage morphogenesis. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2014;25–26:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Walton KD, Kolterud Å, Czerwinski MJ, Bell MJ, Prakash A, Kushwaha J, et al. Hedgehog-responsive mesenchymal clusters direct patterning and emergence of intestinal villi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109(39):15817–15822. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205669109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Biggs LC, Mäkelä OJM, Myllymäki S-M, Das Roy R, Närhi K, Pispa J, et al. Hair follicle dermal condensation forms via Fgf20 primed cell cycle exit, cell motility, and aggregation. elife. 2018;7:e36468. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36468 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ho WKW, Freem L, Zhao D, Painter KJ, Woolley TE, Gaffney EA, et al. Feather arrays are patterned by interacting signalling and cell density waves. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Qu R, Gupta K, Dong D, Jiang Y, Landa B, Saez C, et al. Decomposing a deterministic path to mesenchymal niche formation by two intersecting morphogen gradients. Dev Cell. 2022;57(8):1053–67 e5. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2022.03.011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9050909. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hardy MH. The Secret Life of the Hair Follicle. Trends Genet. 1992;8(2):55–61. ISI:A1992HB95200007. doi: 10.1016/0168-9525(92)90350-d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Inamatsu M, Tochio T, Makabe A, Endo T, Oomizu S, Kobayashi E, et al. Embryonic dermal condensation and adult dermal papilla induce hair follicles in adult glabrous epidermis through different mechanisms. Develop Growth Differ. 2006;48(2):73–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-169X.2006.00848.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kollar EJ. The induction of hair follicles by embryonic dermal papillae. J Invest Dermatol. 1970;55(6):374–8. Epub 1970/12/01. doi: 10.1111/1523-1747.ep12260492 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Osada A, Kobayashi K. Appearance of hair follicle-inducible mesenchymal cells in the rat embryo. Develop Growth Differ. 2000;42(1):19–27. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-169x.2000.00485.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bailleul R, Curantz C, Desmarquet-Trin Dinh C, Hidalgo M, Touboul J, Manceau M. Symmetry breaking in the embryonic skin triggers directional and sequential plumage patterning. PLoS Biol. 2019;17(10):e3000448. Epub 2019/10/03. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000448 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6791559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wessells NK, Roessner KD. Nonproliferation in dermal condensations of mouse vibrissae and pelage hairs. Dev Biol. 1965;12(3):419–33. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(65)90007-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Widelitz RB, Baker RE, Plikus M, Lin CM, Maini PK, Paus R, et al. Distinct mechanisms underlie pattern formation in the skin and skin appendages. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today. 2006;78(3):280–91. Epub 2006/10/25. doi: 10.1002/bdrc.20075 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gupta K, Levinsohn J, Linderman G, Chen D, Sun TY, Dong D, et al. Single-Cell Analysis Reveals a Hair Follicle Dermal Niche Molecular Differentiation Trajectory that Begins Prior to Morphogenesis. Dev Cell. 2019;48(1):17–31.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2018.11.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ferrer-Vaquer A, Piliszek A, Tian G, Aho RJ, Dufort D, Hadjantonakis A-K. A sensitive and bright single-cell resolution live imaging reporter of Wnt/ß-catenin signaling in the mouse. BMC Dev Biol. 2010;10(1):121. doi: 10.1186/1471-213X-10-121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Muzumdar MD, Tasic B, Miyamichi K, Li L, Luo L. A global double-fluorescent Cre reporter mouse. Genesis. 2007;45(9):593–605. doi: 10.1002/dvg.20335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saxena N, Mok K-W, Rendl M. An updated classification of hair follicle morphogenesis. Exp Dermatol. 2019;28(4):332–44. doi: 10.1111/exd.13913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Panciera T, Azzolin L, Cordenonsi M, Piccolo S. Mechanobiology of YAP and TAZ in physiology and disease. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017;18(12):758–770. doi: 10.1038/nrm.2017.87 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6192510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Davidson G, Shen J, Huang YL, Su Y, Karaulanov E, Bartscherer K, et al. Cell cycle control of wnt receptor activation. Dev Cell. 2009;17(6):788–799. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.11.006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Driskell RR, Jahoda CA, Chuong CM, Watt FM, Horsley V. Defining dermal adipose tissue. Exp Dermatol. 2014;23(9):629–31. Epub 2014/05/21. doi: 10.1111/exd.12450 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4282701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tarannum N, Singh R, Woolner S. Sculpting an Embryo: The Interplay between Mechanical Force and Cell Division. J Dev Biol. 2022;10(3). doi: 10.3390/jdb10030037 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC9502278. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Molho-Pessach V, Schaffer JV. Blaschko lines and other patterns of cutaneous mosaicism. Clin Dermatol. 2011;29(2):205–225. doi: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.09.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Bertrand T, Chatenay D, Voituriez R. Nonlinear diffusion and hyperuniformity from Poisson representation in systems with interaction mediated dynamics. New J Phys. 2019;21(12):123048. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Charsooghi MA, Akhlaghi EA, Tavaddod S, Khalesifard HR. A MATLAB program to calculate translational and rotational diffusion coefficients of a single particle. Comput Phys Commun. 2011;182(2):400–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2010.09.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gumiaux C, Gapais D, Brun JP. Geostatistics applied to best-fit interpolation of orientation data. Tectonophysics. 2003;376(3):241–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tecto.2003.08.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cressie NAC. Statistics for Spatial Data. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Webster R, Oliver MA. Geostatistics for environmental scientists. John Wiley & Sons; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Diblasi A, Bowman AW. On the Use of the Variogram in Checking for Independence in Spatial Data. Biometrics. 2001;57(1):211–8. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2001.00211.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Challenor P. Experimental design for the validation of kriging metamodels in computer experiments. J Simul. 2013;7(4):290–296. doi: 10.1057/jos.2013.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Schechtman E, Sherman M. The two-sample t-test with a known ratio of variances. Stat Methodol. 2007;4(4):508–14. doi: 10.1016/j.stamet.2007.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Richard Hodge

13 Feb 2023

Dear Dr Headon,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Newly born mesenchymal cells disperse through a rapid mechanosensitive migration" for consideration as a Short Report by PLOS Biology. Please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back to you as we consulted with an academic editor about your submission.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. After your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Feb 15 2023 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously peer-reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like us to consider previous reviewer reports, please edit your cover letter to let us know and include the name of the journal where the work was previously considered and the manuscript ID it was given. In addition, please upload a response to the reviews as a 'Prior Peer Review' file type, which should include the reports in full and a point-by-point reply detailing how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

During the process of completing your manuscript submission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Decision Letter 1

Richard Hodge

23 Mar 2023

Dear Dr Headon,

Thank you for your patience while your manuscript "Newly born mesenchymal cells disperse through a rapid mechanosensitive migration" was peer-reviewed at PLOS Biology. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delays that you have experienced during the peer review process. Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews, which you will find at the end of this email, we would like to invite you to revise the work to address the reviewers' reports.

As you will see, the reviewers agree that your findings are interesting and well done, but Reviewer’s #2 and #3 note that the study lacks further molecular insights into the mechanism underlying the enhanced migration after cell division. Whilst we appreciate that your manuscript is being considered as a Short Report, after discussions with the Academic Editor, we agree with the reviewers suggestions here to strengthen the molecular characterization and provide some preliminary insights. This would include a molecular characterization to provide more insights into the potential mechanism of the rapid migration after mitosis, and how this then leads to the formation of dermal condensates.

Given the extent of revision needed, we cannot make a decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is likely to be sent for further evaluation by all or a subset of the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 3 months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension.

At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may withdraw it.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point-by-point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Associate Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

------------------------------------

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript, Riddell et al. use live imaging to assess the migratory behavior of mesenchymal cells in mouse and chick skin. They find that mesenchymal cells undergo much faster dispersal in early interphase, within first three hours after cytokinesis, in a sub-phase of G1. The authors posit that this migratory behavior allows the recently divided cells to travel longer distances thereby facilitating their entry to dermal condensates.

This is potentially highly interesting paper describing a novel phenomenon and is by large of high technical quality. The stretching experiments are innovative, although their relevance to formation of dermal condensates could be better clarified. In its current form, there's quite a few points that the authors should address and clarify.

Specific points:

1. While the phenomenon described (fibroblasts moving faster in early G1) by the authors is intriguing, I still wonder how generalizable these findings are, even in the mouse? Imaging of adult mice is unlikely not feasible to the authors, but what about other developmental stages than E13.5 � 14.5?

2. In many cases it is not clear on how many independent experiments the data are based on. Please, include that information in the Figure legends.

3. The authors make a point about mesenchymal cells moving (and dividing) parallel to the epithelium at all depths of mesenchyme, and discuss this in the context of epithelial signaling and differentiation of distinct dermal layers. Maybe I missed something, but I could not find quantifications to back up this statement.

4. Figure 2A and S1 Table reports important data about the likelihood of dividing vs. non-dividing cells to enter the dermal condensate. How far from the placode/dermal condensate were the cells that were included in the analysis shown here?

5. The previous point leads to my next questions. I am quite confused about data shown in Fig. 2B and C. Based on Fig. 2B, are the authors concluding that the distance from the center on one DC to the center of the next one is on average 600µm? To me this distance sounds terribly long. It seems that division angle from cells as far as 1 mm away from the center of the dermal condensate has been quantified. But wouldn't these be cells that are influenced by other dermal condensates? In Fig. 2C, are the authors stating that within an area of approx. 0.7 x 0.5 mm, one can typically observes only one dermal condensate forming at E13.5 � E14.5? Could the authors explain better the lower part of 2C, please. Why are the angles on the "north-south" axis around 20 degrees and in the "west-east" axis around 70 degrees when the text reads "We also observed that mitoses occur at a tangent to the condensate perimeter". Wouldn't this mean that the angles should be close to 90 degrees everywhere in the vicinity of the DC?

6. The authors claim that collagen-I forms "rings" around the hair bud and that Tcf/Lef1-H2B-GFP+ cells align their nuclei around the placode. However, I have hard times in seeing the collagen "ring" from Fig. 2D. Moreover, H2B-GFP+ nuclei appear 'merged' and blurry in the figure. A higher quality image with orthoviews should be shown. Now it is not clear at what depth is this optical section from (presumable close to the interfollicular epithelium rather than the actual dermal condensate at the bottom of the E15.5 hair bud?). Co-staining with a dermal condensate marker such as Sox2 plus an arrow indicating A-P orientation would be helpful, as E15.5, placodes and DCs are already highly polarized.

7. The authors state that "Global mesenchymal cell division angles were not aligned with the cardinal axes of the embryos (Fig. 3E)". However, it is unclear what is 0 degrees stands for in Fig. 3E.

8. In Discussion, the authors make the following conclusion: "…in the mesenchymal condensate, where the extracellular matrix is depleted." I find this a strong overstatement based on mere absence of collagen-I staining. I guess there could be also other ECM molecules than collagen-I, and I believe the transcriptomic profiling of DC cells is also indicative DC-specific ECM molecules.

9. Some technical details are missing:

Materials and methods report how whole embryos were immobilized for imaging. But what about explants? It is said that explants on membrane filters were submerged in DMEM in glass-bottomed plates epidermis down. Were the explants immobilized somehow?

Drift correction was made to videos, but it remained unclear how this was made.

Minor comments:

1. Movies like S3 would be easier to follow if they were running twice, the second round including tracks color coded separately for dividing and non-dividing cells.

2. Please orient all images in Fig. 4A the same way with respect to A-P axis as that would make it much easier to appreciate the nuclear orientations.

3. There are some mistakes when referring to the Figures. E.g. in Materials and Methods, it reads "Maps of the direction of the mitoses around the follicle (Fig 2D) were produced by conventional ordinary kriging."

Reviewer #2: Riddel et al., Critique 2023 Plos Biology

The manuscript, authored by Riddell et al., is a characterization of dermal fibroblasts progenitors that contribute to the dermal condensate in mouse and chicken embryonic skin. Their observations show a rapid, persistent, migration in a three-hour period. They found that (a) the newly born dermal mesenchymal cells migrate rapidly and persistently resulting in greater displacement upon and following mitosis compared to the non-dividing cells in mouse embryos. (b) The newly born mesenchymal cells are more likely to encounter the dermal condensates. (c) The orientations of mitoses are aligned in the mouse embryonic mesenchyme cultured ex vivo while the global mesenchymal cell division angles are not aligned in the intact E13.5 embryos, suggesting the mitotic orientation is possibly influenced by the topology of tissue. (d) The orientation of the newly born mesenchymal cells are sensitive to the orientation of tension.

Their findings are interesting, relevant, and provocative. They have elegant imaging techniques to visualize the cell behaviors in the dermis. The major concern with this report is the study design is largely descriptive in wildtype over a short time period predominantly and one aspect such as tension is manipulated in figure4. The authors do not demonstrate which of the variables they have identified is causative for the cell behavior (orientation, collagen pattern, condensate, movement). For instance can they compare a skin model that has condensates versus not in chick or mouse? Or can they use pharmacological inhibition of collagen assembly? Or can they manipulate a specific aspect of mechanosensation (stretch is complex because it can also affect planar cell polarity) ? One of the main findings such as “recruitment” of daughter cells into the condensates concept is not clearly demonstrated in their results or experimental strategies. Couldn’t the spreading migration makes just make it more plausible and convenient for daughter cells to encounter the condensate?

Here are some additional concerns and suggestions:

Introduction text: Introduce some more relevant detail and context for the early events in pre-dermal condensate morphogenesis at the cell biology level. Recent review from Myung P. et al., in Development 2022 on this issue might be cited. Why mention dermal adipocyte origin because it is not relevant to this study. What does it mean that there is “high developmental potential” of fibroblasts?

For Figure 1:

Figure 1K: Microenvironment analysis is cursory. There can be more differences than just collagen. It does not add to the analysis of the wild-type scenario. There is not that much mature collagen protein. Which type of collagen? In this window there is not that much collagen protein.

Figure1 will be easier to understand if it could include a simple schematic depicting the position of the ex vivo mouse skin tissue and the mitotic dermal cells they are testing and the displacement direction of those mesenchymal cells. In Fig 1C, it turns out that the migration speed of the non-dividing cells is close to 0, however the Fig 1D indicates that the non-dividing cells still showed increasing Euclidean distance during the time period. And in text, they indicate that the daughter cells result in ‘a mean Euclidean displacement ~50% greater than’ the non-dividing cells, but it is not displayed in Fig 1G.

For Fig 1J and S7 video, authors suggested they observed some mitoses occurring in dermal condensates while cells in dermal condensates are largely quiescent. What is the incidence of mitosis in dermal condensates under their observation? Have they also observed similar mitosis in chicken embryonic skin mesenchymal cells?

Figure 2:

In text, they suggested that they found the orientation of mitosis is at a tangent to the condensate perimeter and the collagen ring is generated surrounding the condensate, thus they concluded that the extracellular environment surrounding the dermal condensate influences the orientation of cell migration and mitosis. This is not shown with causative data or ruling out other possibilities. But what if the orientations of the cell movement and the mitosis are already set up in a chemotaxis manner for entering and constituting the dermal condensate later? To rule out this possibility, it would be convincing to show the expression of signals such as FGF20 and SHH, or show the cell polarity distribution a day earlier.

Figure 2 text: Does the original orientation of division relative to condensate influences the direction of displacement of the daughter cells? If these cells are not oriented directly towards the condensate (lines 173-176) to begin with, how do they get displaced towards the condensate? Figure 2D: If dermal condensates influence division angle within this radius, can they show this in a causative manner in a system that lacks dermal condensates in chick or mouse.

Figure 2D: Similarly, if collagen ring surrounding the condensate “influences the orientation of the cells and direction of mitosis” can they show this in a collagen mutant or Loxl2-inhibition models. Which collagen (collagen 1 or 3)? Also, the image is not clearly annotated for peri-condensate nuclei alignment.

Figure 3:

In figure 3, the in vivo imaging shows regional alignment of mitotic cells. Where is this in relation to the condensate? If it is regionally aligned, how large are the regions.

Figure 2C & 3F: Adding the coordinate system that the angles come from would make it slightly quicker to interpret. Like where is 0 degrees?

Figure 4:

For Fig 4G, how to explain that the non-dividing cells in relaxed tissue show a higher speed than them in stretched tissue in the first 20 mins?

Lines 289 and 290: What makes newly born mesenchymal cells enter a more mechanosensitive state in early G1? It is interesting that the mother cells do not demonstrate the same speed of movement but could they contribute to the mechanism at all of what is going on during G1 to make newly born cells more sensitive?

Reviewer #3: In this report, Riddell et al., described live imaging observation and quantitative analysis of dermal fibroblast cells during dermal condensate formation in embryonic skin. They made an interesting finding that newly divided fibroblast cells tend to migrate more rapidly and have a higher probability to enter dermal condensates than their non-dividing counterparts. The imaging results are of high quality and obtained from multiple systems, including ex vivo cultured mouse skin, live mouse embryos and explant chicken skin culture. The quantitative analysis is well done, and the results are informative. However, this is a largely descriptive study, which can benefit from some molecular characterization.

Major points:

1. What is the molecular basis for the increased migration immediately after the cell division? A key observation is that newly divided fibroblast cells migrate more rapidly in the first 180min after the division and gradually reduce their motility (Fig. 1C-D). They provided evidence that the lack of Collagen I in dermal condensates, where cell division doesn't lead to rapid migration, is correlated with immobility of fibroblasts within the DC. However, this doesn't explain (at least provide some clues) why fibroblasts outside of the DC gain mobility upon division. Collagen I expression doesn't appear to distinguish dividing vs non-dividing cells. Could it be other cell adhesion molecules or cytoskeleton machinery?

2. Fig. S3 show the dermal condensate formation over time. However, the display was not very informative, and I can't quite distinguish what is the difference from 0 to 4 hours. They should use 3D visualization to show the dynamics of the DC formation. Based on their description that "DC form from the epithelium downwards", does it suggest newly added cells, some of them should be newly born cells and some of them should be non-dividing cells, are added to the middle to low portion of the DC and only on the periphery? Does the destination vary for newly born vs non-dividing cells?

3. Single-cell analysis and morphological studies suggest the DC has the highest WNT signaling, which should be reported by their TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP reporter. Do the newly incorporated cells into the DC have higher H2BGFP levels than the ones left behind?

4. In Fig 4H-I, why do dividing cells have lower probability to enter the DC if they're located very close to the DC?

5. They further reported that newly born fibroblasts migrate even faster under a stretched condition in Fig. 4G, and they suggested that these cells are at a more mechanosensitive state. To probe deeper, they should examine several markers that are associated with mechanosensitivity of the cells, such as cell adhesion (reduced adhesion?), actin cytoskeleton and YAP signaling pathway, which is known to drive the cell cycle and sensing cell mechanics.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Riddel et al critique 2023.docx

Decision Letter 2

Richard Hodge

2 Aug 2023

Dear Dr Headon,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "Newly born mesenchymal cells disperse through a rapid mechanosensitive migration" for publication as a Short Report at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, the Academic Editor and the original reviewers.

Based on the reviews, I am pleased to say that we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the remaining points raised by the reviewers. Please also make sure to address the following data and other policy-related requests that I have provided below (A-F):

(A) We would like to suggest the following modification to the title:

“Rapid mechanosensitive migration and dispersal of newly divided mesenchymal cells aid their recruitment into dermal condensates”

(B) In the ethics statement in the Methods section, we would be grateful if you could clarify whether the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Body is an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) that reviewed and approved the study. Please also include the specific approval number issued by your ethics committee and the method of euthanasia used to sacrifice the animals.

(C) You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

-Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

-Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Figure 1B-G, 2A-C, 2E-H, 3A, 3C-F, 4B-G, S1B-C, S2B-G, S4A, S4C-D, S4F, S6A-B

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

(D) Thank you for already depositing the source code used for the cell tracking analyses in Github (https://github.com/richiemort79/mitosis_tools). We ask that you please attach this deposition to the Zenodo repository or similar so that the deposition is issued a DOI and has long term maintenance.

(E) Please also ensure that each of the relevant figure legends in your manuscript include information on *WHERE THE UNDERLYING DATA CAN BE FOUND*, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

(F) Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found and is in final format, as it will be published as written there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Kind regards,

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #1: The authors of Riddell et al. have been largely able to respond to the criticism I raised, either by deleting data, providing new data and/or new analysis/images. In S3, I would appreciate seeing the plane of the z-section in the orthoviews to still better appreciate at what depth the optical section is from.

The new data on the role of the Wnt pathway is intriguing, having seen the effect on the migration of newly born cells (as in Fig. 1) without strecth would have interesting.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the extensive revisions on the text and figures and the inclusion of some functional experiments. The focus on the Wnt pathway is a good addition to the paper and demonstrates the pre-DC events. Your findings are consistent with the scRNA-seq and functional analysis from the Myung and Rendl labs. I apologize for the delay. I did not get the reviewer responses with the manuscript files.

Reviewer #3: In the revised manuscript, Riddell et al. have strengthened this interesting study. Notably, they have shown that the pharmacological inhibition of Wnt by LGK-974 disrupts the alignment of mitosis along the stretch and reduces the migratory speed of the newly born daughter cells. Furthermore, they have demonstrated that LRP6 phosphorylation peaks at mitosis, providing a plausible mechanism for enhanced Wnt signaling at mitosis, which subsequently affects daughter cell migration. Therefore, I have no further concerns about the manuscript. However, the Wnt-dependent behaviors of cell division and post-division migration are highly interesting. It is known that basal epithelial cells are the major source of WNT ligand production during embryonic development, and this generates a gradient of WNT signaling from the epidermis to the dermis. The authors should discuss whether they observed a differential migratory speed in newly born mesenchymal daughter cells, depending on the distance of these cells from the basal epidermis, and whether WNT high mesenchymal cells (marked by TCF:LEF-H2bGFP reporter) migrate more rapidly in general.

Decision Letter 3

Richard Hodge

29 Aug 2023

Dear Dr Headon,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Short Report "Rapid mechanosensitive migration and dispersal of newly divided mesenchymal cells aid their recruitment into dermal condensates" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Marianne Bronner, I am pleased to say that we can accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Best wishes, 

Richard

Richard Hodge, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Biology

rhodge@plos.org

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge, CB4 3DN, United Kingdom

ORCiD I plosbio.org I @PLOSBiology I Blog

California (U.S.) corporation #C2354500, based in San Francisco

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Newly born daughter cells migrate extensively after division.

    (A) Schematic depicting the position of mesenchymal cells migrating and dividing in a planar manner, parallel to the epidermis. Orientation of view is shown. (B) Quantification of cells remaining in-plane after 3 h of imaging (number of tracked daughter cells = 100; z-slice depth = 6 μm). (C) Mitosis plots mapping mother and daughter tracks before and after cell division, with corresponding cell speed plots over the time course of imaging below. Tracks were chosen from cells in which cell division took place within a time point of 40%–60% through the imaging, and both daughter cells were tracked until the end of the video. The raw numerical values and tracking data for B and C can be found in S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Newly born mesenchymal cells exhibit rapid migration in embryonic chicken skin.

    (A) Single z-planes from confocal time-lapse series of an E6 Chameleon chicken skin explant culture treated with cell permeant TAT-Cre and cultured for 24 h. Magenta dots highlight mother and daughter cells. (B) Diffusion plots showing the migration direction and dispersion of tracked mother (left; n = 62), daughter (middle; n = 124), and non-dividing (right; n = 50) cells from a single skin explant. (C, D) Speed (C) and Euclidean distance travelled (D) of dividing (left panels; time 0 = point of mitosis) and non-dividing (right panels) cells from Chameleon chicken skin explants. (E) Persistence (Euclidean/accumulated distance) of mother, daughter, and non-dividing cells against time. (F) Mean squared displacement (MSD) of mother cells (Mo; n = 62) for 180 min prior to division, daughter cells for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division (Da; n = 124 in both windows), and non-dividing cells (ND; n = 50) for a single representative skin explant. (G) Mean diffusion coefficient (the slope of the line in F) of mother cells (Mo), daughter cells (Da) for 180 min after division, daughter cells for 180–360 min after division, and non-dividing cells (ND). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA (p < 0.01)) followed by pairwise post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference tests revealed a significant difference between daughters (0–180 min) and mother cells, and between daughters (0–180 min) and non-dividing cells (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01). The raw tracking data for BG can be found in S5 Data. (H) Confocal images of clonally labelled mesenchymal (left) and epithelial (right) cells in E7 Chameleon skin explant culture following somite and overlying epithelium injection of cell permeant TAT-Cre at E3. (I) Tissue derivatives of a tdTomato somite (TPZ transgenic line) transplanted into a CAG-GFP host embryo, at E6.5. Left panel, intact embryo; right panel, isolated skin. C, D, E, and G time-lapse videos n = 3 from 3 independent samples, mean number of dividing cells tracked per video = 60, mean number of non-dividing cells tracked per video = 91. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in A = 20 μm, scale bar in H = 200 μm, scale bar in I = 2 mm.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Collagen-I is reduced in dermal condensates.

    Single planes and orthoviews from confocal imaging of Collagen-I immunofluorescence in E14.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant stained with phalloidin (to detect F-actin) and DAPI. White dashed lines indicate the plane of the z-section. Scale bar = 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Mesenchymal nuclei and Collagen-I align with mechanical strain.

    (A) Plot showing the percentage decrease in anterior-posterior (A-P) and dorsal-ventral (Lat) length of mouse skin explants in a 30 min period (n = 5) when suspended freely in culture medium. (B) Images of E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin explants before and after a lateral stretch (upper panels) or a stretch along the anterior-posterior (A-P) axis of the embryo (lower panels). White dashed arrows show direction of stretch. (C) Nucleus orientation angle for relaxed (n = 3; upper), lateral stretched (n = 4; middle), and A-P stretched (n = 3; lower) skins. (D) Alignment score of nucleus orientation angle from relaxed (n = 3), laterally stretched (n = 4), and A-P stretched (n = 3) skins. (E) Single planes from confocal imaging of Collagen-I immunofluorescence in E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explants in stretched states. Dashed white line indicates direction of stretch. (F) Alignment scores of Collagen fibres from skin samples shown in E. The raw numerical values for A, C, D, and F can be found in S4 Data. (G) Single planes from confocal imaging of an A-P stretched E7 membrane GFP (mGFP) chicken skin. Daughter nucleus pairs are connected by white lines, showing coherent angles of mitosis aligned with applied tension. Error bars represent SEM. Scale bar in B = 2 mm; scale bar in E = 100 μm; scale bar in G = 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. YAP1 is activated in the basal epidermis but not in mesenchymal cells after 1 h of skin stretching.

    Single planes of the dermis and basal epidermis from confocal imaging of active (non-phospho) YAP1 immunofluorescence in E13.5 mouse skin explants, stained with phalloidin (to detect F-actin) and DAPI, in relaxed and laterally stretched states. Scale bar = 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Newly born cells in stretched skin show increased speed and displacement.

    (A, B) Speed (A) and Euclidean distance travelled (B) of tracked dividing (top panels; time 0 = point of mitosis) and non-dividing (bottom panels) cells in skins that were relaxed (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 67, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50), stretched laterally, (n = 4, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 72, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50), and stretched along the A-P axis (n = 3, average number of dividing cells tracked/video = 79, non-dividing cells tracked/video = 50). The raw tracking data for A and B can be found in S4 Data. Error bars represent SEM.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Suppression of active β-catenin in embryos of LGK-974 treated pregnant mice.

    Confocal imaging of active β-catenin (ABC) and LEF1 immunofluorescence in E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin sections, stained with DAPI, from embryos from pregnant mice untreated (control) or treated with LGK-974 for 24 h. Less active β-catenin signal is detected in the mesenchyme of treated embryos. Scale bar = 50 μm.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Detection of phospho-LRP6 (serine 1490) in mesenchymal and basal epidermal cells at mitosis.

    (A, B) Single planes of the dermis and basal epidermis from confocal imaging of phospho-LRP6 (S1490) (A) and phospho-histone H3 (S10) (B) immunofluorescence in E13.5 mouse skin explants, stained with phalloidin (detecting F-actin) and DAPI. Phospho-histone H3 signal illustrates the morphology of nuclei undergoing mitosis. Yellow arrows indicate cells that are in mitosis and have condensed chromatin. Phospho-LRP6 (S1490) is detected at highest levels in cells undergoing division in mesenchyme and epithelium. Scale bar = 20 μm.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Statistical comparisons of rate of cell entry to dermal condensates in 180 min windows for dividing and non-dividing cells.

    Newly born daughter cells have a higher rate of condensate entry compared to non-dividing cells in their first 180 min.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing cells in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta, cyan, and red dots highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis; magenta, cyan, and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In the second round of playing dividing cell migration tracks are in blue and non-dividing cell tracks in green.

    (AVI)

    S2 Video. Fast-moving cell in dermis.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). A fast-moving cell is highlighted by a magenta dot and circle.

    (AVI)

    S3 Video. Daughter cells pause after cytokinesis before making large migration movements.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta and cyan dots highlight dividing cells that pause after division before moving rapidly. Magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In the second round of playing dividing cell migration tracks are in blue and non-dividing cell tracks in green.

    (AVI)

    S4 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing cells in chicken skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of sparsely labelled and cultured E6.5 Chameleon chicken skin explant. Magenta, cyan, and red dots highlight cells undergoing mitosis; magenta, cyan, and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. Note that the entire cell volume is labelled with these cytoplasmic fluorescent proteins.

    (AVI)

    S5 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing mesenchymal cells in mTmG mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of cultured E13.5 mTmG skin explant. Magenta and cyan dots highlight mesenchymal cells undergoing mitosis, magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. White arrowhead points to a cell process that persists through mitosis.

    (AVI)

    S6 Video. Time-lapse imaging of dividing epithelial cell in mTmG mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of cultured E13.5 mTmG skin explant, showing an example of a peridermal cell undergoing mitosis. The daughter cells remain in contact with one another.

    (AVI)

    S7 Video. Time-lapse imaging of cells dividing within a dermal condensate in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Magenta and cyan dots highlight nuclei that have divided within a condensate, magenta and cyan circles indicate the point at which cells divide. In contrast to the general dermal mesenchyme, dividing cells within dermal condensates produce daughters that remain in close proximity to one another.

    (AVI)

    S8 Video. Time-lapse imaging of peripheral cells dividing tangentially around a dermal condensate in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant. Nuclei in different z-planes are colour-coded (red = closest to epithelium, green = middle, grey = plane furthest from epithelium). Magenta and cyan dots highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis around a condensate, magenta and red circles indicate the point at which cells divide. Cells that are peripheral to the condensate have elongated nuclei running at a tangent to the condensate and divide along this axis.

    (AVI)

    S9 Video. Time-lapse imaging of cell divisions aligning with stretch in TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP mouse skin.

    Confocal time-lapse imaging of a cultured E13.5 TCF/Lef::H2B-GFP skin explant stretched along the dorsolateral axis. Magenta circles highlight nuclei undergoing mitosis, in which the division angle aligns with the direction of applied stretch.

    (AVI)

    S1 Appendix. Description of agent-based mathematical model used to generate data for Fig 2D–2H.

    (PDF)

    S1 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 1B–1G, 2A, 2F, 2H, S1B and S1C.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 2B, 2C, and 3A.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data. Data pertaining to Fig 3C–3F.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Data. Data pertaining to Figs 4B–4, S4A, S4C, S4D, S4F, S6A, and S6B.

    (XLSX)

    S5 Data. Data pertaining to S2B–S2G Fig.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Riddel et al critique 2023.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers Riddell et al..docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Source code has been deposited in Zenodo repositories https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8229691 and https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8229341.


    Articles from PLOS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES