The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension

Tara M Finegan; Nathan Hervieux; Alexander Nestor-Bergmann; Alexander G Fletcher; Guy B Blanchard; Bénédicte Sanson

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522

. 2019 Dec 5;17(12):e3000522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522

The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension

Tara M Finegan ^1,^‡, Nathan Hervieux ^1,^‡, Alexander Nestor-Bergmann ¹, Alexander G Fletcher ^2,³, Guy B Blanchard ¹, Bénédicte Sanson ^1,^*

Editor: Nicolas Tapon⁴

PMCID: PMC6894751 PMID: 31805038

Abstract

In epithelia, tricellular vertices are emerging as important sites for the regulation of epithelial integrity and function. Compared to bicellular contacts, however, much less is known. In particular, resident proteins at tricellular vertices were identified only at occluding junctions, with none known at adherens junctions (AJs). In a previous study, we discovered that in Drosophila embryos, the adhesion molecule Sidekick (Sdk), well-known in invertebrates and vertebrates for its role in the visual system, localises at tricellular vertices at the level of AJs. Here, we survey a wide range of Drosophila epithelia and establish that Sdk is a resident protein at tricellular AJs (tAJs), the first of its kind. Clonal analysis showed that two cells, rather than three cells, contributing Sdk are sufficient for tAJ localisation. Super-resolution imaging using structured illumination reveals that Sdk proteins form string-like structures at vertices. Postulating that Sdk may have a role in epithelia where AJs are actively remodelled, we analysed the phenotype of sdk null mutant embryos during Drosophila axis extension using quantitative methods. We find that apical cell shapes are abnormal in sdk mutants, suggesting a defect in tissue remodelling during convergence and extension. Moreover, adhesion at apical vertices is compromised in rearranging cells, with apical tears in the cortex forming and persisting throughout axis extension, especially at the centres of rosettes. Finally, we show that polarised cell intercalation is decreased in sdk mutants. Mathematical modelling of the cell behaviours supports the notion that the T1 transitions of polarised cell intercalation are delayed in sdk mutants, in particular in rosettes. We propose that this delay, in combination with a change in the mechanical properties of the converging and extending tissue, causes the abnormal apical cell shapes in sdk mutant embryos.

This study identifies the adhesion molecule Sidekick as a resident protein of tricellular vertices between cells, at the level of adherens junctions. A combination of quantitative methods and modelling provides evidence that Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension.

Introduction

Vertices are the points of contact between three or more cells in an epithelium. Epithelial vertices have known specialised junctions at the level of occluding junctions [1] (see Fig 1A). In vertebrates, a protein complex containing tricellulin and the angulins Immunoglubulin-like domain-containing receptor (ILDR)1, ILDR2, and LSR Lipolysis-stimulated lipoprotein receptor (LSR) forms tricellular tight junctions (tTJs) [1–3]. Absence of tTJs causes loss of the epithelial barrier function and is associated with health defects such as familial deafness [4, 5]. In invertebrates, septate junctions (the functional homologue of vertebrate tight junctions) also harbour specialised proteins at tricellular junctions, namely the transmembrane proteins Gliotactin and Anakonda, both required for epithelial barrier function, and the more recently identified protein M6 [1, 6–9].

Fig 1 — (A) Cartoon summarising the geometry of tricellular vertices and the proteins known to localise specifically there in epithelia of different types. (B,C) Immunostaining of fixed ventral ectoderm of stage 7 *Drosophila* embryos for Sdk-YFP and the lateral marker Dlg. (B) Maximum projection. Scale bar = 5 μm. (C) Z-reconstruction based on confocal slices taken from confocal stack in B. Scale bar = 20 μm. (D–G) Super-resolution SIM imaging of fixed embryos immunostained with Sdk-YFP and either DE-Cad to show the position of AJs (D,E) or Gap43-mCherry (F) to label the whole membrane. This reveals the localisation of Sdk in ‘strings’ at apical vertices in embryonic epithelia. Images are maximum projection (labelled XY) and z-reconstruction (labelled XZ) from z-slices of the apical side of the cells. Scale bars, apical views (top panels) = 5 μm; lateral views (bottom panels) = 2 μm. (G) 3D reconstruction to show the z-component of the strings. Scale bars = 5 μm. (H) Example of an sdk^Δ15 clone (absence of nls-RFP signal) in the follicular epithelium (stage 6 egg chamber) stained for Sdk-YFP and actin phalloidin. Right panels show a close-up of the four-cell clone (asterisks) with individual channels on the left to show Sdk-YFP and actin, respectively, and the merge. Scale bars = 20 μm. (I) Cartoon summarising the results of the clone experiment shown in H. Vertex localisation of Sdk requires Sdk proteins in at least two of the three cells forming a vertex. AJ, adherens junction; DE-Cad, DE-cadherin; Dlg, Discs large; Gap43, growth-associated protein 43; ILDR, Immunoglubulin-like domain-containing receptor; LSR, Lipolysis-stimulated lipoprotein receptor; nls, nuclear localisation signal; RFP, red fluorescent protein; Sdk, Sidekick; SIM, Structured Illumination Microscopy; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

In addition to their role in epithelial barrier function, tricellular junctions might be important for the mechanical integrity of epithelia [10]. During animal development, dynamic cell behaviours drive the morphogenetic remodelling of epithelial tissues. For example, polarised cell intercalation, cell division, and cell extrusion require the remodelling of cell–cell contacts, posing a conformational problem at tricellular junctions that has started to be addressed [10–12]. Tricellular vertices might also be sites for tension sensing and transmission, which could be important for epithelial remodelling [1, 13–17]. Force sensing and transmission have been more often associated with adherens junctions (AJs) rather than occluding junctions [18]. While proteins are known to localise specifically at tricellular occluding junctions, it remains to be determined if a similarly specialised structure is present at the level of AJs at tricellular vertices. In Drosophila, many proteins are known to enrich at tricellular vertices at the level of AJs [19–22]. However, only one so far has been found to be specifically localised there, the Drosophila immunoglobulin (Ig) superfamily adhesion protein Sidekick (Sdk) [19]. To our knowledge, there are no other proteins known in invertebrate or vertebrate animals yet with such specific tricellular AJ (tAJ) localisation (see Fig 1A).

The sdk gene was first identified in Drosophila as required for normal ommatidial differentiation [23]. The vertebrate homologues Sidekick-1 (Sdk-1) and Sidekick-2 (Sdk-2) regulate lamina-specific connectivity during retinal development, with Sdk-2 being important for the circuitry detecting differential motion [24, 25]. In Drosophila, Sdk has also been demonstrated to establish the visual motion detection circuit [26]. Besides their neuronal functions, Sdk proteins have been implicated in podocyte function in the kidney [27], but to our knowledge, a localisation at tricellular vertices has not been reported. All Sdk proteins share large extracellular domains composed of Ig and fibronectin (FN) domains and a short cytoplasmic domain with a conserved C-terminal hexapeptide sequence predicted to bind postsynaptic density protein 95/Discs large (Dlg) protein/Zonula occludens 1 (PDZ) domains (see S1A and S1B Fig) [28]. Vertebrate Sdk molecules bind the Membrane-associated guanylate kinase inverted (MAGI) protein via this conserved C-terminal motif, which is important for both renal and neuronal functions [27, 28]. Structure studies of Sdk-1 and Sdk-2 ectodomains show that they form homophilic dimers in cis- and in trans- [29, 30].

In this paper, we address a possible role of Sdk in epithelial morphogenesis and investigate its function in an epithelium known to undergo active remodelling, the Drosophila germband. Drosophila axis extension (called germband extension, GBE) is a paradigm for convergence and extension movements in epithelia [31]. Cells undergo polarised cell intercalation under the control of the anteroposterior (AP) patterning genes [32]. Planar polarisation of the actomyosin cytoskeleton and AJs drives the rearrangement of groups of four cells (called T1 transitions) or more (rosettes), leading to tissue extension [33–36]. The cell biology of junctional remodelling has been extensively studied for bicellular contacts [20, 31, 37–39]. The role of vertices, however, has been the focus on only one study so far [40]. In parallel to the intrinsic forces of polarised cell intercalation, extrinsic forces also contribute to tissue extension [41]. These are caused by the invagination of the endoderm at the posterior of the germband, pulling on the extending tissue [42, 43]. The extensive knowledge available about germband extension makes it an excellent system to search for a role of the tricellular vertex protein Sidekick. Moreover, the Drosophila embryo at gastrulation does not have septate junctions yet, so potential redundant mechanical roles between those and AJs will be absent.

Results

The Ig superfamily adhesion molecule Sdk localises specifically at cell vertices at the level of AJs in Drosophila epithelia

We identified Sdk as a marker of tAJs in early embryos in a screen of the Cambridge Protein Trap Insertion (CPTI) collection of yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) traps [19]. The three independently generated CPTI protein traps in sdk, all located at the N-terminus of the protein (S1A and S1B Fig) [44], showed the same vertex-specific localisation (S1C Fig), so we used one of them, sdk-YFP^CPTI000337, for further characterisation (shortened as Sdk-YFP below). We surveyed other epithelia to ask whether Sdk also localised at apical vertices there. In the large majority of epithelia, Sdk-YFP localises at vertices at the level of AJs as in the early embryo [19] (Fig 1B and 1C and S1 Table and S2 Fig). For example, Sdk is at tAJs in the amnioserosa, a squamous epithelium in embryos; in the larval wing disc, a pseudostratified epithelium; and in the early adult follicular cells, a cuboidal epithelium. Vertex localisation of Sdk is found both in immature epithelia without septate junctions (early embryo, amnioserosa, and follicular layer) and in mature epithelia with septate junctions (S1 Table). This suggests that the localisation of Sdk at tAJs is independent of the presence of tricellular septate junctions (tSJs). There are a few notable exceptions to the tricellular localisation of Sdk in epithelia: in third instar salivary glands and in the follicular epithelium after stage 7, Sdk is all around the membrane (S1 Table and S2 Fig), whereas during GBE, Sdk-YFP appears planar-polarised at bicellular contacts in addition to tricellular localisation (see below and Fig 1B and S1F Fig). Also, in the adult midgut, Sdk is not detected, consistent with the midgut’s atypical apicobasal polarity [45] (S2F Fig and S1 Table). From this survey of many epithelia, we conclude that Sdk is a resident protein of tAJs in Drosophila epithelia, the first of its kind.

Next, we used Structured Illumination Microscopy (SIM) to examine Sdk localisation in fixed early embryos at a resolution higher than conventional confocal microscopy (see Materials and Methods). With this higher resolution (about 100 nm in XY and 125 nm in Z), the Sdk-YFP signal resolves as a string-like object at vertices (Fig 1D–1G). The Sdk-YFP strings are seen at all stages and in all regions of the early embryo, in epithelia that are remodelling such as the ventrolateral ectoderm (Fig 1D, 1E and 1G), and in more inactive epithelia such as the head ectoderm (Fig 1F). This suggests that the localisation of Sdk-YFP in strings or plaques is a general feature of the epithelium. The strings are continuous at vertices, and co-staining with E-Cadherin (Fig 1D and 1E) or Atypical protein kinase C (aPKC), a marker of the apical domain (S1D Fig), shows that Sdk strings extend a little beyond the E-Cadherin belt both apically and basally (S1E Fig). Sdk has a very long extracellular domain (>2,000 aa) and is tagged with YFP at the end of this domain (S1B Fig). The length of the strings, around 2 μm, suggests the formation of an assembly of Sdk proteins containing YFP in the extracellular space at apical vertices. Because the YFP tag is at the end of the extracellular domain of Sdk, a terminal fragment could be forming the strings alone. To rule this out, we co-stained Sdk-YFP–expressing embryos with an antibody raised against the intracellular domain of Sdk (S1B Fig)[26]. The same string-like localisation was observed, showing that the strings are likely made of the whole of the Sdk protein (S1F and S1G Fig).

The presence of string-like structures suggests that Sdk proteins form specialised assemblies at vertices. Because vertebrate Sdk proteins are known to bind homophilically, we asked how many cells expressing Sdk are required for Sdk vertex localisation. Because of the lack of cell divisions in the ectoderm at gastrulation, mosaic analysis cannot be performed using the yeast site-specific recombination system FRT/FLP [46], so we generated mosaics in the follicular cell layer of female ovaries. X chromosomes bearing either FRT (recombinase recognition site), nuclear localisation signal-red fluorescent protein (nls-RFP), and sdk-YFP or FRT and the mutation sdk^Δ15 [26] were constructed and mosaics produced using heat shock (hs)-Flp (recombinase under hs control) (see Materials and Methods). Heat shocks were timed to generate clones in the follicular epithelium, and tricellular vertices with one, two, or three mutant cells were examined for Sdk-YFP fluorescence (Fig 1H and 1I). We find that tricellular vertices with three mutant sdk cells do not have Sdk-YFP signal at vertices, showing that there is no perdurance of the protein in the mutant clones. Whereas vertices contributed by one mutant and two wild-type cells are positive for Sdk-YFP, we find that vertices contributed by two mutant cells and one wild-type are not (Fig 1H and 1I). This indicates that two cells contributing Sdk are sufficient for localising Sdk at tricellular vertices.

Sdk localisation changes when junctions are remodelled during axis extension

As mentioned above, Sdk-YFP appears planar-polarised during convergence and extension of the Drosophila germband at gastrulation (Fig 1B and S1F Fig). During this morphogenetic movement, vertices are remodelled during polarised cell intercalation, opening the possibility that the planar polarisation of Sdk was linked to this remodelling. To test this, we made movies of embryos labelled with Sdk-YFP and E-Cadherin-mCherry (to label the AJs). We consistently observed a different behaviour of Sdk at shortening versus elongating junctions during T1 transitions (Fig 2A and 2B). At some point during junction shortening, Sdk-YFP loses its sharp punctate localisation at vertices and apparently becomes distributed all along the shortening junction (time points 40 to 120 seconds in example shown in Fig 2A) until it sharpens again into a single punctum at the four-cell intermediate (time points 140 to 160 seconds, Fig 2A). In contrast, when the new junction begins to grow, the single Sdk-YFP punctum appears to immediately split into two sharp puncta flanking the elongating junction (time points 160 to 180 seconds, Fig 2A).

We examined further this differential localisation of Sdk in our super-resolution data. In non-intercalating cells, Sdk-YFP strings tend to be aligned parallel to the apicobasal axis, adopting a ‘vertical’ configuration (see, for example, in stage 9 embryos, Fig 1E and 1F). In contrast, in intercalating cells, Sdk-YFP strings tend to be more planar: some strings are completely planar (‘planar’ configuration), whereas others are vertical, then planar (‘step’ configuration) (see examples in Fig 2C–2E). Using 3D reconstruction of the super-resolution data (see Materials and Methods), we systematically classified the configurations of strings in stage 7 and stage 8 embryos. At stage 7, when cells are intercalating actively, 80% of the strings have a ‘planar or ‘step’ configuration, this proportion decreasing to about 50% at stage 8, when cell intercalation starts to decrease (Fig 2F). 3D reconstruction allows one to measure the length of Sdk-YFP strings accurately, and we find that strings are longer at dorsoventral (DV)-oriented junctions compared to AP-oriented junctions (Fig 2G). Strings are also longer at stage 7 compared to stage 8 (Fig 2H). Together, these quantifications support the notion that Sdk-YFP strings become longer and more planar during shrinkage of DV-oriented junctions, whereas the strings are shorter and more vertical when AP-oriented junctions are growing. We also infer that the planar string patterns of DV-oriented junctions in our super-resolution data are likely to correspond to the continuous distribution of Sdk-YFP observed at shortening junctions in the live data at lower resolution (Fig 2A and 2B).

Based on the above live and fixed data, we propose that Sdk localisation during a T1 transition follows the sequence illustrated in Fig 2C–2E. Two possible explanations are possible for this change in Sdk localisation: Sdk either moves to bicellular contacts at shortening junctions or, alternatively, remains at tricellular contacts, but cells form protrusions extending towards the shortening junctions (S1H and S1I Fig, and see Discussion). Because the increase in resolution with SIM is moderate, we were unable to distinguish between these two possibilities. We conclude that the localisation of Sdk is different between shortening and growing junctions, suggesting that Sdk may play a role in polarised cell intercalation.

In intercalating cells, rosette centres contain separable tricellular vertices marked by Sdk

Next, we examined the localisation of Sdk during rosette formation (Fig 3). Rosettes are observed in the germband when several contiguous DV-oriented junctions shorten together, merging into an apparently single vertex [35]. It is not known whether each rosette centre really represents a single junctional vertex structure or not. To address this, we made movies of Sdk-YFP embryos also labelled with growth-associated protein 43 (Gap43)-Cherry to label all cell membranes. Live imaging suggests that rosette centres are in fact made of several puncta of Sdk-YFP, which move relative to each other in a dynamic fashion during rosette cell rearrangements (Fig 3A). The sequence of shortening and elongation of very short junctions between Sdk-YFP puncta suggested that tricellular vertices marked by Sdk might remain separated in rosette centres. This has implications for how we understand polarised cell intercalation because this suggests that rosettes might resolve through successive T1 transitions.

To test this, we examined rosette centres in our super-resolution data (Fig 3B). Maximal projections (for example, see the XY projection in Fig 3B) are unable to reveal whether Sdk-YFP strings are continuous or separate. Thus, as above, we used 3D reconstruction to follow the path of the strings at rosette centres (Materials and Methods). This analysis revealed that several strings are always observed in the middle of rosettes and they are not in contact with each other (see reconstruction in Fig 3B). This indicates that rosette centres are composed of separable tricellular apical vertices marked by Sdk. We also examined the configuration of rosette centres below the AJs, marking the whole membrane (for example, using concavalin A, S3 Fig). As observed by others [47], we find that the cell connectivity can change significantly within the apical-most 3 μm. In the case shown in S3 Fig, whereas three distinct Sdk strings are present in the apical-most portion of the rosette centre, a single punctum of Sdk is found 2 μm below, where the connectivity of the cells differs. We conclude that Sdk strings corresponds to the apical-most junctional conformation and that during junctional exchange at the level of AJs, single junctional vertex intermediates are not usually formed between more than four cells. This suggests that intercalation events forming rosettes occur through separable T1-like events.

Loss of sdk causes abnormal cell shapes during GBE

To investigate a possible role of Sdk in GBE, we made movies of embryos homozygous for the sdk^MB5054 null mutant [26] and carrying E-cadherin-GFP [48] to label apical cell contours. Because sdk loss-of-function mutations are viable [23], these embryos are devoid of both maternal and zygotic contributions for Sdk. Consistent with a role in GBE, we observe an abnormal cell shape phenotype in sdk null mutants during GBE, with distinct differences in the geometry and topology of the apical planar cellular network compared to the wild type; in particular, many cells have a less regular and more elongated polygonal shape (Fig 4A and 4B).

To describe these phenotypes quantitatively, we acquired five wild-type and five sdk movies of the ventral side of embryos over the course of GBE. We then segmented the cell contours, tracked cell trajectories through time, and synchronised movies within and between each genotype group, as previously [41, 43, 49] (Materials and Methods). To allow comparisons between wild-type and sdk embryos, we defined the beginning of GBE (time 0) using a given threshold in the rate of tissue extension (see Materials and Methods, S4A and S4B Fig and S1 and S2 Movies). The total number of ventral ectoderm cells in view and analysed increased from start to end of GBE, from about 500 cells to above 2,000 cells for both wild-type and sdk embryos (S4C and S4D Fig).

We first analysed the anisotropy in cell shapes and their orientation in the course of GBE (Fig 4C). The eccentricity of ellipses fitted to the apical cell shapes is used as a measure of cell shape anisotropy (see Materials and Methods). The orientation of the ellipse’s major axis relative to the embryonic axes gives the cell orientation. At the beginning of GBE, ectodermal cells are elongated in DV because the tissue is being pulled ventrally by mesoderm invagination [41, 43] (Fig 4D and S5A–S5C Fig). In wild-type embryos, the cells then become progressively isotropic as the ectoderm extends, as we showed previously [41]. In contrast, in sdk embryos, the cell shapes become briefly isotropic and then become anisotropic again, this time along the AP axis (Fig 4D and S5B and S5C Fig). This anisotropy in the AP direction could be due to cells being longer in AP, thinner in DV, or both. To distinguish between these possibilities, we measured the cell lengths along AP or DV (Fig 4E and 4F and S5D and S5E Fig). We found that both cell lengths are significantly different in sdk mutants compared to the wild type, with cells being shorter in DV and also, but more moderately, longer in AP.

Because the AP and DV cell lengths described above are a projection of ellipses fitted to the cell shapes, we also looked directly at the length of the cell–cell interfaces in the course of GBE (Fig 4G and 4H and S5F–S5I Fig). We classified cell interfaces as being AP- or DV-oriented based on their angles with the embryonic axes (see Materials and Methods). Mirroring the cell length results, we find AP-oriented interfaces get a little longer and the DV-oriented interfaces shorter in sdk compared to wild-type embryos in the course of GBE.

Together, our cell shape quantifications demonstrate that overall, sdk cells become shorter in DV and, to a lesser extent, longer in AP in the course of GBE, consistent with our initial qualitative observation of many more elongated cells in sdk mutants. We hypothesised that this cell shape phenotype could be a consequence of a defect in polarised cell intercalation, which would, in turn, modify cell topologies.

Tears in the apical cortex persist in sdk mutants during polarised cell intercalation

A possibility is that Sdk is required for normal polarised cell intercalation through mediating homophilic adhesion or anchoring the actomyosin cytoskeleton when cells rearrange. Supporting this notion, we noticed apical discontinuities in the converging and extending epithelium in sdk mutants labelled with E-Cadherin-GFP^KI and Myosin II-Cherry (Fig 5 and S6 Fig). These apical tears or gaps are lined by the actomyosin cortex and usually associated with a depletion in E-Cadherin (Fig 5A and 5C). In an example in which E-Cadherin was still present around a small circular gap, following the signal more basally showed that the gap had closed already 1 μm below the AJs (Fig 5B). These apical tears seemed particularly prevalent and larger at the centres of rosettes, forming oval structures bordered by Myosin II, as shown in super-resolution images in Fig 5C.

Fig 5 — (A) A single z-frame at the level of AJs showing a gap or tear in the cortex at a presumed rosette centre in an *sdk* mutant embryo. Left panel shows merge between DE-Cad-GFP and Sqh-mCherry (shortened as MyoII-mCherry) signals, right panel, DE-Cad-GFP channel only. In the bottom panel, the different cells have been coloured to highlight the apical gap in the middle. (B) Single z-frames at different positions along the apicobasal axis of an apical gap in an *sdk* mutant embryo (from movie shown in S6A Fig) at the level of AJs (0 μm) and 1 and 2 μm below. The gap present at the level of AJs is closed in the planes basal to the AJs. Bottom panels show colourised cells, highlighting the apical gap in the apical-most z-slice. (C) Fixed and stained *sdk* mutant embryo against DE-Cad and GFP (to reveal MyoII-GFP), imaged by SIM super-resolution microscopy at stage 7. Each image is a maximum intensity projection over 3 μm at the level of AJs in the ventral ectoderm. Regions bounded by yellow and blue lines show discontinuities in E-Cad signal, indicating holes in apical adhesion, and are shown below as close-ups. (D–F) Apical gaps quantifications in WT and *sdk* mutant movies as shown in A, B. (D) Quantification of the number of gaps found at the level of AJs, normalised to a given area (2,500 μm²) of the ectoderm. One to two regions (embryo sides) were quantified per movie: WT, n = 7, from seven embryos; *sdk* mutant n = 10, from eight embryos; Mann–Whitney, p-value = 0.0018. (E) Quantification of how long apical gaps persist in the tissue. (F) Quantification of how long apical gaps persist as a function of the number of cells present at the gap’s border. We detected gaps where four to seven cells and more meet. For both E and F, the number of gaps quantified was n = 92 for WT and n = 115 for *sdk* mutant. In D, Mann–Whitney, p-value < 0.0001. Data for graphs D–F can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AJ, adherens junction; DE-Cad, DE-Cadherin; GFP, green fluorescent protein; MyoII, Myosin II; Sdk, Sidekick; SIM, Structured Illumination Microscopy; Sqh, spaghetti-squash; WT, wild type.

Next, we systematically looked for these cortical discontinuities, comparing movies of sdk and wild-type embryos labelled with E-Cadherin-GFP^KI and Myosin II-Cherry. Unexpectedly, we also found apical gaps in wild-type embryos in the course of GBE, which to our knowledge has never been reported. However, compared to the wild type, apical gaps are more numerous in sdk mutants and also persist in the epithelium for much longer (Fig 5D and 5E and S6A Fig). In both the wild type and sdk mutants, the apical gaps appear associated with groups of cells undergoing polarised rearrangements. Gaps forming where four cells meet are likely to represent single T1 transitions and are the most transient (Fig 5F). Apical holes forming where five cells or more meet are likely to correspond to rosette centres. We find that the more cells that are present, increasing from four to seven cells and above, the more persistent the apical gaps are in sdk mutants (Fig 5F). Whereas in the wild type, apical gaps are more transient and rapidly resolved, in sdk mutants, the apical gaps persist, sometimes for the whole duration of GBE. In the latter case, we find that these then resolve when cell division starts in the epithelium at the end of GBE (S6B Fig). Based on these results, we conclude that the presence of Sdk facilitates the resolution of cortical discontinuities at the level of AJs during cell rearrangements in an extending tissue, this requirement being more acute when cells are rearranging as rosettes (involving more than four cells).

Sdk is required for normal polarised cell intercalation during axis extension

We have shown previously that the tissue deformation of GBE is caused by a combination of cell intercalation and cell shape changes and that cell shape changes can compensate for cell intercalation defects [41, 43, 50]. We measure the relative contributions of these two cell behaviours by considering each cell and a corona of neighbours to calculate the different strain rates [50] (see Materials and Methods) (Fig 6A). Briefly, the relative movement of cell centroids in small patches of tissue is used to calculate the tissue strain rates; within each patch, individual cell shapes are approximated to ellipses to measure the cell shape strain rate; finally, the difference between tissue strain rates and cell shape strain rates gives a continuous measure of the strain rate due to cell intercalation (Fig 6A). Strain rates are then projected along the AP embryonic axis to calculate the rate of deformation in the direction of tissue extension. We find that the rate of tissue extension along AP is decreased in sdk mutants (Fig 6B and S7A and S7D Fig). Moreover, we find a decrease in cell intercalation contributing to extension (Fig 6D and S7C and S7F Fig), which is compensated to some extent by cell shape changes (Fig 6C and S7B and S7E Fig). This suggests that the relative contributions of cell intercalation and cell shape change to total tissue extension are altered in sdk mutants. Supporting this, we find that the proportion of the cell intercalation strain rate contributing to AP extension is indeed lower in sdk compared to the wild type (S8A Fig).

Fig 6 — (A) Graphical illustration of our measures of tissue and cell shape SRs (Materials and Methods). The cell intercalation SR is derived from these two measures. (B–D) Average SRs in the direction of extension (along AP) for five WT (blue) and five *sdk* mutant (red) embryos for the first 30 minutes of GBE. Total tissue SR (B), cell shape SR (C), and cell intercalation SR (D). Units are in pp per minute. (E) Diagram of a T1 transition leading to a loss of neighbours 1 and 3 along AP and a gain of neighbours 2 and 4 along DV. (F,G) Analysis of the number and orientation of T1 transitions averaged for five WT (blue) and five *sdk* mutant (red) embryos for the first 30 minutes of GBE (see also S8D and S8E Fig). (F) Orientation of all T1 transitions relative to the AP embryonic axis. Orientation is given by the angle of cell interfaces relative to AP, 5 minutes before a T1 swap (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, N = 1,786 for WT and 1,890 for *sdk* mutant, D = 0.1115, p < 0.0001). (G) Cumulative proportion of T1 swaps contributing to axis extension in AP (called productive T1 swaps; see Materials and Methods) for the first 30 minutes of GBE and expressed as a pp of DV-oriented interfaces tracked at each time point. Data for graphs B–G can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AP, anteroposterior; DV, dorsoventral; GBE, germband extension; pp, proportion; Sdk, Sidekick; SR, strain rate; WT, wild type.

The above measure of cell intercalation is a measure of the continuous movement of cells relative to each other. We wanted to confirm the cell intercalation defect using a discrete measure. For this, we detected the number of neighbour exchanges, called T1 swaps, occurring for any group of four cells in the tissue. In this method, a T1 swap is defined by a loss of neighbour caused by cell–cell contact shortening, followed by the growth of a new cell–cell contact and a gain of neighbour (Fig 6E and S8B and S8C Fig; Materials and Methods) [49, 51]. While the total number of T1 swaps is only moderately decreased in sdk mutants compared to the wild type (S8D and S8E Fig), their orientation is abnormal. First, we find that in sdk mutants, the T1 swaps are not as well-oriented relative to the embryonic axes compared to the wild type (Fig 6F and S8H Fig) (note, however, that the orientation of the shortening junctions relative to the growing junctions is unchanged in sdk mutants compared to the wild type; S8F and S8G Fig). Second, we can quantify the contribution of T1 swaps to AP extension (defined as ‘productive’ T1 swaps; see Materials and Methods), and those are robustly decreased in sdk versus the wild type (Fig 6G and S8I Fig). We also looked at the geometric arrangement of cells during junctional shortening. We find that the angle between the shortening junctions and the centroid–centroid line between intercalating cells is larger in sdk mutants compared to the wild type (S8J Fig), suggesting that cell intercalation patterns are less regular. In conclusion, both the continuous and discrete methods we employed above indicate that the polarised cell intercalation contributing to AP tissue extension is decreased in sdk mutants.

Modelling the sdk mutant phenotype

One hypothesis to explain a defect in polarised cell intercalation in sdk mutants is that the Sdk homophilic adhesion molecule facilitates the transition between shortening and elongating junctions at apical tricellular vertices. The Sdk adhesion molecule might provide a specialised adhesion system at vertices (perhaps bridging the intercellular vertex gap more effectively than the shorter E-Cadherin) or a specialised anchorage of the actomyosin cytoskeleton. To test this hypothesis, we extended our previously published vertex model of an intercalating tissue [49]. Vertex models traditionally implement cell rearrangement by imposing an instantaneous T1 swap on all small edges (below a threshold length) (Fig 7A). In order to model a putative phenotype in cell rearrangement, we developed a new framework in which the vertices of a shrinking edge temporarily merge to form higher-order vertices, which may resolve with some probability per unit time (Fig 7B and 7C and S1 Text). Vertices can be of rank 4 (four cells around a vertex; Fig 7B), to model a single T1 transition, or of rank 5 and above (five cells or more around a vertex; Fig 7C), to model rosettes. In addition to this change, we imposed periodic boundary conditions on the tissue, reducing artefacts that arise with a free boundary. Finally, we added a posterior pulling force to simulate the effects of the invaginating midgut [42, 43] (S9A Fig and S1 Text).

We used this new mathematical framework to model the cell intercalation defect we report for sdk mutants. First, we took into account the striking relationship between the number of cells involved in an intercalation event and the persistence of apical gaps or tears in sdk mutants (Fig 5F). Gaps forming between four cells, presumably as a consequence of a single T1 swap, take longer to close in sdk mutants compared to the wild type, but they eventually resolve. In contrast, gaps present at the centres of rosettes involving five cells or more often persist until the end of imaging (Fig 5F and S6B Fig). Second, our evidence indicates that a rosette centre is in fact made up of several separable Sdk string-like structures (Fig 3). Together, these results suggest that i) single T1 swaps might be delayed in sdk mutants and ii) this delay might increase when cells intercalate as rosettes because it requires the resolution of several T1 swaps in short succession. Our data in Fig 5F support the idea that rosettes accumulate and get stuck in sdk mutants (see also S1 and S2 Movies). To test whether intercalation might also be delayed in single T1s, we measured the resolution phase of T1 swaps in sdk mutants versus the wild type (S9B Fig). Note that in this analysis, only the successful T1 swaps are quantified, so this automatically excludes any stuck rosettes. We find a 1-minute delay between the wild type and sdk mutants (S9C Fig), supporting the assumptions of the model.

To model such a delay in sdk mutants, we imposed a lower probability of successful resolution of T1 swaps per unit time than in the wild type (Fig 7B and 7C). We distinguished isolated T1 swaps involving only four cells (Fig 7B) from linked T1 swaps in rosettes involving five or more cells by lowering the resolution probability further for rosettes (vertices connected to five or more cells) (Fig 7C). Rosettes appear in both sdk mutant and WT simulations, but as expected from the probabilities imposed, they get stuck in the sdk simulation, while they are resolved quickly in the wild-type simulation (Fig 7D, 7E and 7G) (S3 and S4 Movies). This leads to the topology of the cellular network being different in the sdk simulation in ways reminiscent of the sdk phenotype (see Fig 4A and 4B). We next compared the tissue strain rates in these simulations (Fig 7F and 7H). The strain rates are initially very similar, suggesting that the posterior pulling force is the main contribution to the initial AP strain rate. Then, the imposed delay in rearrangements leads to a reduced strain rate as the strength of the pull declines and DV-oriented junctions have shortened to the point of rearrangement (Fig 7H). When compared with the biological data, however, these strain rate patterns did not mimic the initial decrease in tissue strain rate in sdk mutants compared to the wild type (Fig 6B).

To capture the difference in the initial tissue-level strain rate, we made one additional modification to the model. We reasoned that the loss of Sdk may lower intercellular adhesion globally in the tissue since vertebrate Sdk homologues are known homophilic adhesion molecules [27, 28]. To model this, we perturbed the mechanical properties of the sdk tissue (in a manner equivalent to a decrease in the shear modulus of a mechanically homogenous tissue; see S1 Text). The posterior pull and the properties of the neighbouring tissues were left unchanged. In the new sdk simulation, the initial extension strain rate is now lower compared to the wild type, more accurately reproducing the biological data (Fig 7J; compare with Fig 6B). Interestingly, more rosettes form in this simulation (Fig 7I and S5 Movie). Because of the probability imposed for rosette resolution, this results in more stuck rosettes in this simulation, which, in turn, has an increased impact on the topology of the cellular network (Fig 7I). In conclusion, our mathematical modelling supports the notion that together, a change in the elastic mechanical properties of the cells and a delay in cell rearrangement could explain the sdk mutant phenotypes we observe in vivo.

Discussion

In this paper, we identify the adhesion molecule Sdk as a resident protein of tricellular contacts at the level of AJs (tAJs) in Drosophila. To our knowledge, this is the only protein found specifically at this location in either invertebrates or vertebrates. Indeed, in Drosophila, other AJ proteins such as Canoe and many actin-binding proteins are enriched at tricellular contacts but also present at bicellular contacts [19–22]. Sdk, in contrast, is present specifically at tAJs in the large majority of Drosophila epithelia we surveyed. Its presence at the level of AJs is also distinct from the localisation of proteins marking tricellular occluding junctions, namely Gliotactin, Anakonda, and M6 at Drosophila tSJs and tricellulin and angulins at vertebrate tTJs [1, 6].

We show here that the localisation of Sdk does not require the contribution of three cells at tricellular contacts and that two cells contributing Sdk are sufficient. This suggests that Sdk molecules form homophilic adhesions between cell pairs at tricellular vertices. Consistent with this finding, biochemical and structural data support the notion that the vertebrate homologues of Sdk are homophilic adhesion molecules [24, 29]. This binding of Sdk in homophilic pairs is in contrast with the Drosophila protein Anakonda or the vertebrate protein angulin-2, which is thought to form tripartite complexes at tricellular occluding junctions [8, 52]. If a contribution of Sdk from three cells is not required, then this raises the question of the mechanism by which Sdk ends up at tricellular contacts in epithelia. Broadly, two hypotheses can be considered. One possibility is that an unknown molecular pathway targets Sdk to tricellular contacts. To target tricellular rather than bicellular contacts, such a pathway would need to include proteins that recognise special features of tricellular membranes such as curvature or a specialised actin cortex. In neurons, vertebrate Sdk proteins bind via their intracellular PDZ domain binding motif to members of the Membrane-associated guanylate kinase (MAGUK) family scaffolding proteins MAGI [27, 28]. Based on this, the Drosophila homologue Magi would be a candidate for binding the intracellular domain of Drosophila Sdk [53]. It remains to be seen whether such interaction could explain the tricellular localisation of Sdk. A different class of hypotheses is raised by the length of Sdk, which is more than three times the length of E-Cadherin. Because of their geometry, vertices in epithelia might have larger intercellular spaces than bicellular contacts. A possibility, therefore, is that Sdk resides at tricellular contacts because of a sizing mechanism that excludes Sdk from bicellular spaces and concentrates it at tricellular spaces. For example, evidence for a sizing mechanism has been shown in vitro for bicellular contacts, whereby engineered proteins with different length in the intercellular space can sort from each other [54]. Further work will aim to distinguish between these hypotheses.

It is worth noting that although Sdk is normally at tricellular contacts in Drosophila epithelia, we have found that in the follicular cells after stage 7 and in larval salivary glands, Sdk is at the bicellular membranes. As hypothesised above, specific components targeting Sdk to tAJs might be missing, or the physical configuration of the bicellular space might be different in those cells. We also observed a change in Sdk localisation at shortening junctions during polarised cell intercalation. One possibility is that Sdk remains at tricellular contacts, and what we observed is in fact a thin membrane protrusion following the shortening contact (S1H Fig). This is compatible with our observation that the Sdk ‘strings’ extending from vertices into shortening junctions are never discontinuous. Alternatively, Sidekick might be invading the bicellular contact at shortening junctions (S1I Fig). We have tried with structured illumination to distinguish between a tricellular versus bicellular localisation of Sdk at shortening junctions. The increase in resolution was not sufficient to draw a conclusion, and better super-resolution techniques will be required to distinguish between the two possibilities proposed in S1H and S1I Fig.

Because of its unique localisation at the level of AJs at tricellular contacts, our starting hypothesis for the function of Sdk in epithelia was that it could be important in tissues where AJs are actively remodelled. Our findings support this hypothesis. We find that tissue remodelling does not occur normally during GBE in sdk mutants. Our quantifications demonstrate that on the apical side of the cells, cell shape changes, cell cortex organisation (at vertices), and polarised cell intercalation are all abnormal in sdk mutants compared to the wild type. Our mathematical model supports the notion that a delay in cell rearrangements in sdk mutants contributes to these defects. Sdk might facilitate T1 swaps through homophilic adhesion and/or anchorage to the actomyosin cytoskeleton at tricellular vertices. Alternatively, Sdk may be affecting the mechanical properties of the tissue, reducing the speed at which junctions can shrink and/or grow (see below). In support of a delay in cell rearrangement, we find a measurable difference in the resolution of successful T1 swaps in sdk mutants (S9C Fig). In addition, we find that apical gaps or tears in the cortex form and persist at vertices contributed by four cells and above. The prevalence and persistence of these apical gaps is particularly acute at rosette centres formed by five cells or more. An explanation for this could be that Sdk is important for maintaining tricellular vertex integrity during rosette formation, allowing the resolution of successive T1 swaps. This is supported by our super-resolution data, which show that in the wild type, separable Sdk-YFP strings are always found at the centres of rosettes. It is possible that in sdk mutants, this partitioning does not occur and that tricellular vertices coalesce together during rosette formation. These multicellular vertices might be unable to undergo successive T1 swaps, leading to rosette resolution failure for the remainder of GBE, as was suggested by our data in Fig 5F.

Our analyses of sdk mutants also give insight into the dynamics of cell intercalation at the tissue-scale. It is striking that in our first mathematical simulation, a delay in T1 swaps has little effect on the initial phase of tissue-extension strain rate. However, the cell shapes become abnormal due to the increased presence of rosettes. This highlights how the balance between the rate of polarised intercalation and the mechanical properties of the tissue is important for maintaining isotropic cell shapes. In addition to introducing a delay in T1 swaps, it is possible that the absence of Sdk changes the general mechanical properties of the tissue, for example, via decreasing intercellular adhesion. Our second simulation attempts to capture this, mimicking better the initial decrease in the extension strain rate we find in sdk mutants. More rosettes appear in this simulation, and as a consequence, the topology of the cellular network becomes more abnormal. This supports the notion that the in vivo phenotype of sdk mutants might be the consequence of both a delay in T1 resolution (worse in rosettes) and a change in the mechanical properties of the converging and extending tissue. Future work will aim at characterising the contribution of Sdk to the mechanical properties in this system.

Mutations in sdk are viable [23], suggesting that compensatory pathways exist for any epithelial remodelling mechanisms involving the Sdk adhesion molecule. In GBE, a pathway has been recently identified that promotes the intercalation of cells on their basolateral sides through protrusive activity [55]. While they both act downstream of AP patterning, apical-junctional and basolateral pathways are thought to be independent. This suggests that in sdk mutants, the basolateral protrusive activity might be intact and could rescue, in part, polarised cell intercalation, explaining the moderate defects we observe. The apical phenotypes (gaps in the cortex, abnormal cell shapes, and reduced intercalation) themselves are short-lived in sdk mutants, and we find that cell rearrangements caused by cell divisions can resolve these defects (S6B Fig). Since each cell in the ectoderm divides at least twice after the end of GBE, this is likely to account for restoring isotropic apical shapes to cells in the embryonic epithelium. Despite the viability of sdk mutants, two studies published while this article was under review report cell intercalation defects in sdk mutants in three other Drosophila tissues: the embryonic trachea and the pupal retina [56] and the genitalia disc [57]. This indicates that a role of Sdk in cell rearrangements might be widespread in Drosophila epithelia.

Materials and methods

Fly strains

We used the null alleles sdk^MB5054 (caused by the insertion of the Minos transposable element) and sdk^Δ15 (a small deletion) [26]. Note that null sdk alleles are viable, and the flies could be kept homozygous/hemizygous (sdk is located on the X). We also used the null allele sqh^AX3 (sqh encodes the Myosin II regulatory light chain) in combination with sqh-FP constructs to label Myosin II as described in [58]. The Cambridge Protein Trap Insertions lines CPTI-000337, CPTI-000812, and CPTI-001692 all tag endogenous sdk with YFP via the insertion of a PiggyBac transposable element [44] (S1A–S1C Fig). Other transgenes used were Gap43-mCherry [59] to label cell membranes; ubi-DE-Cad-GFP [48], DE-Cad-GFP^KI [60], and DE-Cad-mCherry^KI [60] to label AJs; sqh-GFP⁴² [58] and sqh-mCherry [61] to label Myosin II; and hs-flp³⁸ to induce clones [46].

Genotypes

The genotypes used for main figures were as follows. Fig 1: (B–E, G) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337, (F) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337;Gap43-mCherry/CyO, and (H) FRT19A sdk^Δ15/FRT19A sdk^Δ15 clones surrounded by FRT19A sdk^Δ15/FRT19A nls-RFP sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337 tissue. Fig 2: (A) sdk-YFP ^CPTI-000337;DE-Cad-mCherry^KI. (C–E) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337. Fig 3: (A–C) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337;Gap43-mCherry/CyO and (B) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337. Fig 4:; ubi-DE-Cad-GFP and sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP. Fig 5: (A–B) sqh^AX3, sdk^MB5054;DE-Cad-GFP^KI, sqh-mCherry; (C) sqh^AX3, sdk^MB5054;sqh-GFP; (D–F) sqh^AX3;DE-Cad-GFP^KI, sqh-mCherry and sqh^AX3, sdk^MB5054;DE-Cad-GFP^KI, sqh-mCherry. Fig 6: ubi-DE-Cad-GFP and sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP.

The genotypes used for supporting figures are as follows. S1 Fig: (C) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337;sdk-YFP^CPTI-000812;sdk-YFP^CPTI-001692 and (D–G) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337. S2 Fig: sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337. S3 Fig: (A,B) sdk-YFP^CPTI-000337. S4 Fig: (A,C) ubi-DE-Cad-GFP. (B,D) sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP. S5 Fig: ubi-DE-Cad-GFP and sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP. S6 Fig: sqh^AX3, sdk^MB5054;DE-Cad-GFP^KI, sqh-mCherry. S7, S8, and S9B and S9C Figs: ubi-DE-Cad-GFP and sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP.

Clonal induction

sdk^Δ15 mutant clones were induced in the follicular epithelium in the ovaries using the FRT/FLP system [46]. L3 larvae from the cross FRT19A nls-RFP, sdk-YFP;hs-flp³⁸ × FRT19A, sdk^Δ15 were heat-shocked at 37°C for 2 h every 12 h until pupariation. Ovaries from female progeny were dissected for immunostaining.

Immunostainings

Embryos were collected on apple plates, aged to the desired stage, then dechorionated in 100% commercial bleach for 1 minute and rinsed in tap water. Embryos were fixed at the interface between heptane and 37% formaldehyde for 5 minutes. Embryos were then washed in PBS and PBS with 0.1% Triton-100 and devitelinised by hand. Embryos were washed twice in PBS with 0.1% Triton-100, followed by a 30-minute blocking incubation in PBS + 1% BSA. Embryos were incubated overnight with primary antibodies at 4°C and washed 3 times for 10 minutes in PBST. Embryos were incubated with secondary antibodies for 1 h at room temperature and then washed 3 times for 10 minutes in PBS with 0.1% Triton-100 before mounting in Vectashield containing DAPI (Vectorlabs Catalog No. H-1000; Burlingame, CA, USA) (with the exception of super-resolution imaging; see below). For adult midgut and ovaries, tissue was dissected from 2-day–old females and heat-fixed for 30 seconds at 100°C. Fixed tissue was incubated overnight with the primary antibody, followed by secondary antibodies at 4°C with 3 × 10 minutes washes in PBST following both incubations.

Primary antibodies and their dilutions were rat anti-DE-Cad 1:300 (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank #DCAD2; University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA), chicken anti-GFP 1:200 (Abcam #ab13970; Cambridge, UK), goat anti-GFP conjugated with FITC 1:200 (Abcam #ab6662), mouse anti-Dlg 1:100 (DSHB #4F3), rabbit anti-RFP conjugated with CF594 1:1,000 (Biotium #20422; Fremont, CA, USA), rabbit anti-aPKC 1:200 (Santa Cruz Biotechnology sc216; Dallas, TX, USA), mouse anti-Sdk 1:200 [26], and mouse anti-Arm 1:100 (DSHB #N2 7A1). Cell membranes were stained using the lectin fluorescent conjugate Concanavalin A, Alexa Fluor 594 Conjugate (Thermo Fisher Scientific C11253; Waltham, MA, USA) at 1:1,000 dilution.

Secondary antibodies (diluted 1:500) were sourced from Abcam or Life Technologies (Carlsbad, CA, USA). F-Actin was stained with phalloidin conjugated with CF594 or CF568 (1:500) (Biotium #00044 and #00045, respectively).

Confocal imaging of fixed tissues

Immunostained tissues were imaged on a Nikon D-Eclipse C1 TE2000-E scanning confocal with a Nikon 40× PlanApo (NA 1.3; Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) or a Nikon 60× PlanApo (NA 1.4) oil objectives or on a Leica SP8 with Leica HC PL 40× (NA 1.3; Leica, Wetzlar, Germany) or Leica HC PL 63× (NA 1.4) oil objectives. Immunostained ovaries were imaged on a Leica SP5 confocal system using a Leica HCX PL Apo CS Oil 63× (NA 1.4) objective.

SIM imaging and analysis

Immunostained embryos were mounted in SlowFade Diamond Antifade mountant (Molecular Probes, refractive index 1.42; Eugene, OR, USA) after application of a glycerol series up to 75% glycerol in PBS under a coverslip to match the refractive index of the imaging system. Images were acquired using an OMX microscope (Applied Precision, Issaquah, WA, USA) in super-resolution mode, with an Olympus PlanApoN Oil 60× oil immersion lens (NA 1.42; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) and 1.515 refractive index immersion oil (Applied Precision). Embryos were first mapped with a DeltaVision inverted widefield microscope with the stage mapped to the OMX stage. Z-stacks were imaged at 0.125-μm intervals and widefield image deconvolution, and super-resolution reconstruction was done using SoftWoRx software (Applied Precision). Image acquisition and SIM reconstruction parameters were modified based on the quality and type of stainings, guided by analysis from the FIJI Toolbox SIMcheck [62]. Channel-specific Wiener filters based on the filter optimum suggested by this software were used with values >0.004 to prevent smoothening of detail because the software did not optimise for the nature of signal present in the acquired images (sparse, bright signal).

The path of Sdk-YFP strings (Fig 2C–2H, Fig 3B and S3 Fig) were followed manually and measured in three dimensions through reconstructed super-resolution images using the FIJI plugin ‘Simple neurite tracer’ [63].

Confocal imaging of live embryos

After dechorionation in bleach and rinsing well in tap water, embryos were mounted in Voltalef 10S oil (Arkema, Pierre Benite, France) on a custom-made mount between a coverslip and a Lumox O₂-permeable membrane (Sarstedt, Newton, NC, USA).

Images presented in Fig 2A, Fig 5B, S1C Fig and S6 Fig were acquired using a Nikon Eclipse E1000 microscope coupled to a Yokogawa CSU10 spinning disc head (Tokyo, Japan) and Hamamatsu EM-CCD camera (Hamamatsu City, Japan) controlled by Volocity software (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA) with a Nikon 60× PlanApo oil objective (NA 1.3). Images in Fig 3A and Fig 5A were acquired on a Leica SP8 scanning confocal with a Leica HC PL 63× (NA 1.4) oil objective.

For cell tracking and cell behaviour analysis (Fig 4, Fig 6, S4 Fig, S5 Fig, S7 Fig and S8 Fig), movies were acquired as described in [49]. Briefly, embryos were imaged under a 40× NA 1.3 oil objective on a spinning disc confocal, consisting of a Nikon Eclipse E1000 microscope coupled to a Yokogawa CSU10 spinning disc head and Hamamatsu EM-CCD camera controlled by Volocity software (Perkin Elmer). All movies for tracking were recorded at 21°C ± 1°C for consistency in developmental timing. Embryos were imaged ventrally, and z-stacks were acquired at 1-μm intervals every 30 seconds from stage 6 onwards. The viability of the embryos was checked postimaging by transferring the imaging apparatus to a humid box at 25°C. In the rare eventuality that embryos did not hatch, the corresponding movies were discarded.

Analysis of apical epithelial gaps

We use the terms apical epithelial gaps or tears to refer to discontinuities in the usual apposed localisation of actomyosin and E-Cadherin along cell–cell contacts where the membranes of two or more cells meet. As observed in our movies, apical gaps are first detected by a decrease in local E-Cadherin signal, suggesting that local adhesion between cells has been reduced. We assume that cell membranes at the level of AJs become separated, but we have not been able to image single membranes convincingly. By contrast, Myosin II enrichments surrounding these apical gaps are clearly observable (S6A Fig). We therefore defined apical gaps in our movies as an observable ring in the Myosin II channel that arises between previously abutting cells and that is subsequently eliminated. These gaps are distinct from the known delamination events occurring in GBE.

The presence of gaps was quantified in movies of wild-type and sdk mutant embryos labelled with sqh-GFP-mCherry and DE-Cad-GFP^KI (see genotype list), acquired on a confocal spinning disc at 40× magnification (see above) in order to view a large area of the germband. Observations were made on z-stack projections of up to 40 minutes of GBE. We manually followed Myosin II rings during GBE in order to quantify the persistence of those gaps from their appearance to their disappearance (Fig 5E and 5F). For this analysis, we did not include data on gaps that did not resolve within the duration of the movie (over 40 minutes). The number of gaps in view for each embryo movie (Fig 5D) was quantified at the image frame when the first ventral midline cell divided (with a dumbbell shape), which corresponds to 26–30 minutes into GBE in WT [41]. The number of gaps was then expressed relative to the area of the embryo in view.

Image segmentation and cell tracking

Image segmentation and the tracking of cell centroids and cell–cell interfaces was performed using the custom-made software ‘otracks’ as in [41, 43, 49]. Briefly, confocal z-stacks of movies of genotype ubi-DE-Cad-GFP or sdk^MB5054;ubi-DE-Cad-GFP were used to identify an apical plane at the level of AJs that follows the curvature of the embryo for image segmentation. Note that we used ubi-DE-Cad-GFP rather than DE-Cad-GFP^KI because the signal was brighter with ubi-DE-Cad-GFP, and, as a consequence, the segmentation of the cell contours was easier. The tracking software identifies cells and links them through time using an adaptive watershedding algorithm. Following automated tracking, manual correction of the tracks was performed for each of the five wild-type and five sdk mutant movies analysed in this study. An example of a tracked movie for each genotype is provided in S1 and S2 Movies. For each cell at each time point, coordinates of cell centroids, perimeter shapes, cell–cell interfaces, and links forwards and backwards in time for both cells and interfaces are stored.

Movie synchronisation, cell type selection, and embryonic axes orientation

For each genotype, movies were synchronised at the time point when the tissue strain rate in the AP axis exceeded 0.01 proportion per minute. This movie frame was set to time 0 of GBE (see S4A and S4B Fig). This time point corresponds to the end of mesoderm invagination (see S1 and S2 Movies).

Note that for calculating strain rates and all further analyses, we included only neurectoderm cells (the population of cells that undergo convergent extension), having classified and excluded all head, mesoderm, mesectoderm, non-neural ectoderm, and amnioserosa cells, as previously described in [49]. The resulting cell population tracked is shown with purple centroids in the example S1 and S2 Movies. For each genotype, the number of cells tracked and selected for analysis at each time point is shown in S4C and S4D Fig. Although the movies are longer, in this study, we focused our analyses on the first 30 minutes of GBE from the zero defined during movie synchronisation.

To be able to measure angles relative to embryonic axes in some of the analyses, the orientation of the ventral midline at the start of GBE was used as the orientation of the AP axis. Note that some embryos rolled a little in the DV axis; this is taken into account and corrected.

Cell shape analyses

Cell shapes are approximated by best-fit ellipses that are constrained to have the same area and centroid as the raw pixelated cell. The best-fit ellipses are found by minimising the area of mismatch between pixelated contours and ellipses.

Axial shape elongation (Fig 4C and 4D)

We formulated a single measure that encapsulated both the degree of cell shape anisotropy and the orientation of the cell’s longest axis. Cell shape anisotropy is calculated as the log ratio of the fitted ellipse’s major axis to the minor axis, giving values ranging from 0 (isotropic) up to around 1.5 (strongly elongated) in our data. The orientation of the fitted ellipse’s major axis is measured relative to the embryonic axes (given by the ventral midline orientation; see above), with 0° aligned with the AP axis and 90° aligned with the DV axis. We then calculated

A x i a l s h a p e e l o n g a t i o n = (o r i e n t a t i o n / 45 - 1) * (e l o n g a t i o n l o g r a t i o)

This gives a range of values from around −1.5 to 1.5, in which negative values correspond to AP-elongated cells and positive values correspond to DV-elongated cells (see Fig 4C). Note that isotropic cells and cells oriented at 45° relative to the embryonic axes will score zero, irrespective of how much the latter cells are elongated.

AP and DV cell lengths (Fig 4E and 4F)

To calculate the length of the cell along embryonic axes, we projected the cell shape ellipse onto the embryonic axis orientations, giving the diameter of the ellipse in those orientations.

AP and DV interface lengths (Fig 4G and 4H)

The lengths of cell–cell interfaces are calculated as the straight-line length between neighbouring vertices (vertex–vertex line) along which three cells meet. We classified interfaces as being either AP- or DV-oriented, depending on whether the vertex–vertex line was less than or greater than 45° from the orientation of the AP axis, respectively.

Contoured heat maps (S5 Fig)

Heat maps show the above measures as a function of time into GBE along the y-axis, plotted against DV location along the x-axis, with the heat scale representing the third variable. The third variable is averaged over the AP axis. Heat maps show the mean values of the third variable for each grid square of the plot, the population size of which is shown in ‘N’ heat maps. For example, for S5B Fig, the ‘N’ heat map is in S5C Fig, with 30 one-minute time bins in the y-axis and 20 DV-coordinate bins of 3 μm width in the x-axis.

Strain rates analysis

Strain rates were calculated as previously [19, 41, 49]. Briefly, following cell tracking (see above), local tissue strain rates are calculated for small spatiotemporal domains, using the relative movement of tracked cell centroids [50]. For the analysis of GBE, we use small spatiotemporal domains composed of a focal cell and one corona of neighbouring cells over a 2-minute interval (contained within 5 movie frames) (Fig 6A). Such domains, focused on each cell in each movie frame, are located at cell apices, following the DV curvature and more gentle AP curvature of the germband surface. The domains are therefore first untilted and uncurved to give flat (2D) domain data. From these domains, two strain rates describing an ellipse are calculated, one in the orientation of greatest absolute strain rate and the other perpendicular to the first one [50]. These strain rates are then projected onto the embryonic axes (see above for the determination of embryonic axes) to find the sign and magnitude of the rate of tissue deformation along AP or DV. Graphs of average tissue strain rate over time for deformation along AP and deformation along DV are shown in S4A and S4B Fig.

Next, the tissue strain rates are decomposed into the additive contribution of two cell behaviours, cell shape change and cell intercalation [50] (Fig 6A). For each cell in the small spatiotemporal domains defined above, the rate of cell shape change is calculated using minimisation, finding the 2D strain rates that most accurately map a cell’s pixelated shape to its shape in the subsequent time point. The area-weighted average of these individual cell shape strain rates is then taken for each domain. Intercalation strain rates, which capture the continuous process of cells in a domain sliding past each other in a particular orientation, are then calculated as the difference between the total tissue strain rates and the cell shape strain rates [50].

Strain rates were calculated using custom software written in IDL (code provided in [50]). Strain rates in units of proportional size change per minute can be averaged in space (along AP or DV) or accumulated over time. In Fig 6 and S7 Fig, we average strain rates between five movies for each genotype and show within-embryo confidence intervals. For statistical tests, we employed mixed-effects models (see Statistics section below).

We also calculated the proportion of tissue extension accounted for by intercalation in wild-type and sdk mutant embryos for each local domain (S8A Fig). For these domains, we calculated the ratio of AP intercalation strain rate/AP tissue strain rate. We took the natural log of this ratio because log-ratio space is more appropriately linear for averaging and comparisons.

Neighbour exchange analysis

Detection of T1 swaps

As previously, we used changes in neighbour connectivity of quartets of cells in our tracked cell data to identify neighbour exchange events (T1 processes) [49, 51] (Fig 6E–6G and S8 Fig). For many T1 swaps, we found that interface shortening to the swap was followed immediately by interface lengthening. In these cases, the consecutive image frames in which one pair of the quartet of cells handed over the interface to the other pair was straightforward to identify. However, there were also examples in which the precise timing of the T1 was less obvious, either for biological reasons or because of the vagaries of pixel ownership during image segmentation. We needed algorithmic rules to locate the timing of T1 events when topology was unresolved for periods of time, for example, when a quartet of cells met temporarily (for several frames) at a four-way vertex or when a quartet was involved in repeated back and forth topological swaps with very short interfaces. We therefore took the approach of making interfaces ‘immortal’, with the identity of a shortening interface transferred to the lengthening interface after a swap, forcing three-way connectivity through all movie frames of a T1 swap and smoothing out rapidly swapping interfaces. For four-way vertices, this meant assigning connectivity to one of the opposed cell pairs of the quartet even though no physical interface existed. This was normally the pair of the quartet that most recently shared an interface, though it also depended on the following rules for simplifying rapidly swapping T1s. When a quartet of cells swapped ownership of the included interface for periods shorter than 5 image frames (less than 2.5 min), ownership of the interface was retained by the cell pair that was connected before and after this short interlude. For multiple short bouts of swapping connectivity, interface ownership for the shortest bouts were reversed first. The above rules ensured that connectivity within a local quartet of cells was always known and that rapid changes of connectivity were smoothed over. After the above forced connectivity and swap smoothing was applied, ‘T1 gain’ events were defined in the frame when cells made first contact, and minutes before and after T1 swapping were calculated relative to this time origin. Note that this method does not distinguish between solitary T1s and T1s involved in rosette-like structures.

Defining the resolution phase of a T1

For an interface that has been detected as undergoing a T1 swap (using the above criteria), the resolution phase is defined as the time the interface spends with length less than 0.75 μm from before to after the interface swap (see S9B Fig). The 1D signal of interface length is filtered with a Hanning smoothing window to eliminate noise, during which the interface length may temporarily jump. Resolutions that are occurring when tracking begins or do not complete when tracking ends are not included.

T1 swap counting and orientation

The total number of T1 swaps are given in S8D and S8E Fig, normalised by the total number of tracked cell–cell interfaces. To analyse the orientation of T1 swaps, we measured either the orientation of the shortening interface before the T1 (shared by cells 1 and 3 in Fig 6E) or the lengthening interface after the T1 (shared by cells 2 and 4). Alternatively, we measured the orientation of the centroid–centroid line between the pair of cells that gained connectivity through the T1 (line between centroid of cell 2 and centroid of cell 4 in Fig 6E). Orientations were measured with respect to the embryonic axes. For example, Fig 6F and S8H Fig show the orientation of the shortening interfaces 5 minutes before their T1 swap relative to the AP axis. The 5-minute interval was chosen as a compromise, ensuring that interfaces were both long enough to be measured accurately and also actively shortening (see, for example, S9B Fig).

For Fig 6G, we defined a measure of ‘productive’ T1 swaps, meaning swaps contributing to tissue extension [49, 51]. We first classified T1 swaps as either AP- or DV-oriented, depending on whether the centroid–centroid line between gaining neighbours was less than or greater than 45° from the AP axis, respectively. Not all T1 swaps were DV-oriented, with occasional AP-oriented swaps being subsequently reversed or, even more rarely, permanent. We therefore subtracted the AP-oriented gains from the DV-oriented gains to calculate the net number of productive T1 swaps contributing to tissue extension. In Fig 6G, to be able to compare genotypes, this measure was then normalised by the total number of DV-oriented interfaces.

Other angular measures

We compared the orientation of interfaces before and after T1 transition (S8F and S8G Fig). To do this, we first calculated the angular difference between the interfaces 5 minutes before and after the T1. We then controlled for rotation of the local four-cell domain by adding or subtracting any change in orientation of the centroid–centroid line of the gaining neighbours over this time period. For ‘cartoon’ T1s represented as hexagons (see Fig 6E), we expect this angle between shortening and elongating junctions to be 90°. We find a distribution skewed towards 90° as expected (S8F Fig), with a mean around 75° all through the first 30 minutes of GBE (S8G Fig).

We further characterised the orientation of T1 swaps by comparing angles between interfaces and centroid–centroid lines. In S8J Fig, we measured the angle between the shortening interface in a T1 swap and the centroid–centroid line joining the cells that will gain contact during the swap. We monitored this angle for the first 15 minutes before T1 swap. For ‘cartoon’ T1s represented as hexagons (see Fig 6E), we expect this angle to be 0°. In both the wild type and sdk mutants, this angle is between 12° and 17° (S8J Fig).

Statistics

Average strain rate, cell shape, and junction length plots from tracked movies were generated in R, with profiles smoothed over 3 bins for presentation. Statistical significance was calculated on unsmoothed data. Statistical tests were performed using the ‘lmer4’ package and custom-written procedures in R as used previously in [41, 43, 51]. A mixed-effects model was used to test for significant differences between genotypes [64]. This test estimates the p-value associated with a fixed effect of differences between genotypes, allowing for random effects contributed by differences between embryos within genotypes. An independent test was performed at each time point in the analysis. Time periods during which the test shows a statistical difference of p < 0.01 are highlighted by dark grey on temporal plots.

For mixed-effects models, it is not possible to present a single overall confidence interval. Instead, we have a choice to show one of within- or between-genotype confidence intervals, and we have chosen the former, as previously [41, 43, 49, 51]. Therefore, error bars in time-lapse plots show an indicative confidence interval of the mean, calculated as the mean of within-embryo variances. The between-embryo variation is not depicted, even though both are accounted for in the mixed-effects tests.

Mathematical model

The model is described in S1 Text.

Supporting information

S1 Movie. Example of tracked WT movie (embryo 2).

WT, wild type.

(MOV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, mov)}

S2 Movie. Example of tracked sdk movie (embryo 3).

Sdk, Sidekick.

(MOV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.1MB, mov)}

S3 Movie. Simulation of WT GBE, corresponding to Fig 7E.

GBE, germband extension; WT, wild type.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.8MB, mp4)}

S4 Movie. Simulation of sdk mutant GBE, corresponding to Fig 7G.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.6MB, mp4)}

S5 Movie. Simulation of sdk mutant GBE, corresponding to Fig 7I.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.8MB, mp4)}

S1 Text. Supplementary methods for the vertex model of Drosophila GBE in the wild type and sdk mutant.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(89.6KB, docx)}

S1 Table. Summary of the localisation of Sdk-YFP in Drosophila epithelia.

Sdk, Sidekick; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.4KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Localisation of Sdk-YFP protein traps at tAJs.

(A and B) Schematics showing the genomic structure of the sdk gene (A) and the domains of the corresponding protein (B). Transposon insertions, alleles, and C-term location of the antibody epitope are indicated. C) All three YFP protein traps from the CPTI collection localise at vertices in the embryonic ectoderm, shown here in images of the ventral embryonic ectoderm in live embryos, taken by Claire Lye and Huw Naylor during our CPTI screen [19]. Scale bar = 20 μm. (D) Super-resolution SIM imaging of fixed embryos immunostained with Sdk-YFP and aPKC. Maximum projection (XY) and z-reconstruction (XZ). Scale bars = 1 μm. (E) Cartoon summarising the apicobasal localisation of Sdk in Drosophila epithelia based on SIM imaging in D. (F, G) Super-resolution SIM imaging of fixed embryos immunostained with Sdk-YFP and an antibody recognising a C-term epitope in Sdk [26]. (F) Maximum projection, apical view. Scale bars = 5 μm. (G) Close-ups of individual strings to show the colocalisation between Sdk-YFP and the Sdk antibody signal. Alignment between channels for super-resolution imaging was performed with the help of fluorescent beads. Scale bars = 1 μm. (H) In model 1, Sdk-YFP remains at tricellular contacts, and protrusions containing Sdk-YFP follow the shortening contact, explaining its apparent localisation at shortening junctions. (I) Alternatively, in model 2, Sdk-YFP molecules do not remain tricellular and invade the bicellular contact at shortening junctions. aPKC, Atypical protein kinase C; CPTI, Cambridge Protein Trap Insertion; Sdk, Sidekick; SIM, Structured Illumination Microscopy; tAJ, tricellular adherens junction; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(4.5MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Localisation of Sdk-YFP in Drosophila epithelia.

Images show stainings or live imaging of Sdk-YFP in diverse epithelia from different developmental stages. (A) Hindgut, stage 13 embryo, fixed and immunostained tissue, maximum intensity projection. (B) Salivary glands, stage 13 embryo, fixed and immunostained tissue, maximum intensity projection. (C) Eye imaginal disc posterior to the morphogenetic furrow. Dissected from third instar wandering larvae. Fixed and immunostained tissue, maximum intensity projection. (D) Salivary gland. Dissected from third instar wandering larvae. In this tissue, Sdk-YFP localises to all lateral and basal cell–cell junctions. Fixed and immunostained tissue, maximum intensity projection. (E) Follicular epithelium from stage 6 egg chamber from ovaries of adult female flies. Sdk-YFP localises to apical vertices at mitotic stages. Live imaging. Top: apical view, maximum intensity projection. Bottom: lateral view, single z-slice. (F) Posterior midgut of 3-day–old adult female flies. Fixed and immunostained tissue, lateral view, single z-slice. All scale bars = 20 μm. Sdk, Sidekick; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(7.5MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. Localisation of Sdk at rosette centres.

(A) Sdk-YFP string localisation at a rosette centre involving five cells, imaged by super-resolution SIM. The image is from a stage 8 embryo fixed and stained for GFP and the leptin Concanavalin A, a membrane binding protein. Maximum projection over 15 slices = 1.875 μm. Close-ups of the rosette centre with different projections are shown in yellow boxes to demonstrate that three distinct strings can be resolved in the apical-most projections. (B) Single z-slices of the stack shown in A at different apicobasal depths. Sdk-YFP strings represent the apical-most organisation of junctions. Yellow arrows point to junctions that have a different configuration in the z-slice 1.875 μm more basal. All scale bars = 2 μm (including in close-ups). GFP, green fluorescent protein; Sdk, Sidekick; SIM, Structured Illumination Microscopy; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.3MB, tif)}

S4 Fig. Movie synchronisation and cell counts.

(A–B) Summary of tissue deformation (strain) rates for five wild-type (A) and five sdk (B) embryos in the course of GBE. Tissue strain rates are plotted for both tissue extension along AP (full curves) and convergence along DV (dashed curves). All movies are synchronised to a time point corresponding to the extension strain rate first exceeding 0.01 (proportion per minute), which defines time 0 of GBE. In analyses throughout the paper, we summarise data for the first 30 minutes of GBE. Note that the positive deformation in DV (dotted curves) around the start of extension is due to the ectoderm tissue being pulled ventrally by mesoderm invagination. Averaged data between all five movies are shown as black curves for each genotype. (C,D) Numbers of cells tracked then selected for analysis for each wild-type and sdk movie (total cell number for each genotype in shown in black). The number of successfully tracked cells is low at the onset of GBE because fewer ventral ectodermal cells are in view because of mesoderm invagination. Data for graphs can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AP, anteroposterior; DV, dorsoventral; GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

S5 Fig. Quantification of cell shape changes in sdk mutants versus the WT.

(A) Coordinate system used for spatiotemporal plots shown in B–I. Spatial data are collapsed along AP and given as a function of location along the DV axis. Locations are indicated in μm from the ventral midline (0 at the midline, up to 70 μm laterally). Because of bilateral symmetry, we can mirror the data from the two halves of the embryo along the midline. This simplifies the DV coordinates, and we use x-axes showing locations from 10 to 70 μm. The y-axis gives the time from GBE onset. (B) Evolution of axial shape elongation (see also Fig 4C and 4D) for WT and sdk for the first 30 mins of GBE (y-axis) and as a function of cell position along DV (x-axis). (C) Number of analysed cells per bin for the same spatiotemporal parameters, for graphs B, D, E. (D,E) Spatiotemporal evolution of AP or DV cell length (see also Fig 4E and 4F). (F–I) Spatiotemporal evolution of the lengths of AP or DV cell interfaces (see also Fig 4G and 4H). G and I give the number of AP or DV cell interfaces analysed for each spatiotemporal bin. Note that the raw data shown in all above panels are summarised in Fig 4D–4H. AP, anteroposterior; DV, dorsoventral; GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick; WT, wild type.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, tif)}

S6 Fig. Apical gap dynamics in sdk mutants.

(A) Representative example of the formation and resolution of an apical gap in an sdk mutant embryo labelled with DE-Cadherin and MyoII-Cherry. A projection of 3 μm (± 1 μm from AJ) is shown for each time point. (B) Representative example of a persistent apical gap in an sdk mutant embryo that is finally resolved when cells nearby the gap start dividing (stars marks dividing cells). AJ, adherens junction; MyoII, Myosin II; Sdk, Sidekick.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(7.5MB, tif)}

S7 Fig. Strain rates for all wild-type and sdk mutant embryos.

(A–C) Strain rates for each of five wild-type movies. (D–F) Strain rates for each of five sdk movies. (A,D) Total tissue strain rates. (B,E) Cell shape strain rates. (C,F) Cell intercalation strain rates. All movies are labelled with ubi-E-Cad-GFP (see Materials and Methods). Strain rates are along AP, the direction of tissue extension, and are given in pp per minute for the first 30 minutes of GBE. The average for each genotype is shown as a black curve. Data for graphs can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AP, anteroposterior; E-Cad, E-Cadherin; GBE, germband extension; GFP, green fluorescent protein; pp, proportion; Sdk, Sidekick; ubi, Ubiquitin.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, tif)}

S8 Fig. Comparison of polarised cell intercalation in wild-type and sdk mutant embryos.

For all graphs, data shown are from the analysis of five wild-type and five sdk mutant embryos (see Materials and Methods). (A) Ratio of cell intercalation/tissue strain rates in AP in wild-type and sdk mutant embryos (see also Fig 6B–6D). (B–C) Detection of T1 swaps in tracked movies for a wild-type (B) and an sdk mutant embryo (C). Movie frames at 10 and 30 minutes into GBE show the cell interfaces that will be lost (blue) and gained (red), respectively, for the detected T1 swaps. (D–E) Cumulative curve of T1 swaps in any direction for the first 30 mins of GBE, expressed as a pp of all cell interfaces tracked at each time point. Average curves for wild-type and sdk embryos (D) and individual curves for each movie (E). (F) Angle between lost and gained cell interfaces during a T1 swap for the first 30 minutes of GBE. The orientation of cell interfaces is measured 5 minutes before and after a swap, respectively. (G) Same quantification as (F) but over the first 30 mins of GBE (x-axis). (H,I) Individual curves for each movie for the quantifications shown in Fig 6F and 6G, respectively. (J) Angle between the shortening cell interfaces in a T1 swap and the line between centroids of the future cell neighbours, as a function of time before swap, in wild-type and sdk mutant embryos. Data for graphs can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AP, anteroposterior; GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.8MB, tif)}

S9 Fig

(A) Visualisation of how the posterior strain is calculated in our vertex models given the applied stress, σ^posterior. A small deformation, E_x, mapping the x-coordinates of vertices as x→x+E_xx, is applied to the posterior nodes of the tissue in its current configuration. The AP component of the tissue stiffness tensor, C_xx, can be calculated as the AP component of the change in tissue-level stress over E_x. The tissue is then reverted back to its original configuration, and the true posterior strain is calculated as E^posterior = σ^posterior/C_xx, which is applied by mapping x-coordinates of vertices as x→x+E^posteriorx. (B) Example of a captured T1 cell rearrangement event in which the junction between cells C and D shortens and is then replaced by a new junction elongating between cells A and B. We define the resolution phase (grey shading) by the time interval when the shortening and subsequently elongating junctions have a length below 0.75 microns. (C) Cumulative histogram of time spent in the resolution phase for the wild type (blue; n = 1,445) and sdk mutant (red; n = 990) tissues during 0–30 min of GBE. Exchanges that do not resolve by 30 min of GBE (for example, stuck rosettes and late rearrangements) are excluded. Wild-type cells have a median resolution time of 4 min, whereas sdk mutants have a median of 5 min. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test finds significant difference between the distributions (p < 1.45 × 10⁻¹³). Data for graph in C can be found at https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798. AP, anteroposterior; GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

Acknowledgments

We thank Jessica Treisman, Daniel St Johnston, the Bloomington Drosophila Stock center, and the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank for fly stocks and antibodies. We thank Jessica Treisman for the information prior to publication that sdk[MB5054] was a null allele. We thank Dan Bergstralh (University of Rochester) for hosting Tara Finegan in his laboratory during the completion of this manuscript, Nicola Lawrence (Gurdon Institute, UK) for help with super-resolution imaging, Jenny Evans for technical help, and Claire Lye for feedback on the manuscript.

Abbreviations

AJ: adherens junction
AP: anteroposterior
aPKC: Atypical protein kinase C
CPTI: Cambridge Protein Trap Insertion
Dlg: Discs large
DV: dorsoventral
Fn: fibronectin
FRT/FLP: yeast site-specific recombination system
Gap43: growth-associated protein 43
GBE: germband extension
GFP: green fluorescent protein
hs: Heat shock
Ig: immunoglobulin
ILDR: Immunoglubulin-like domain-containing receptor
LSR: Lipolysis-stimulated lipoprotein receptor
MAGI: Membrane-associated guanylate kinase inverted
nls: nuclear localisation signal
PDZ: postsynaptic density protein 95/Dlg protein/Zonula occludens 1 domain
RFP: red fluorescent protein
Sdk: Sidekick
SIM: Structured Illumination Microscopy
Sqh: spaghetti-squash
tAJ: tricellular adherens junction
tSJ: tricellular septate junction
tTJ: tricellular tight junction
YFP: yellow fluorescent protein

Data Availability

Data for all graphs in the paper are stored in the University of Cambridge Apollo repository with the permanent DOI: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.44798 Simulations code and source data are stored in the GitHub repository at https://github.com/Alexander-Nestor-Bergmann/GBE_vertex_model_sdk

Funding Statement

This work was supported by two successive Wellcome Trust Investigator Awards (099234/Z/12/Z and 207553/Z/17/Z) and a BBSRC standard grant (BB/J010278/1) to BS; a University of Cambridge ISSF Junior Interdisciplinary Fellowship and then a Herchel Smith Postdoctoral Fellowship to ANB; a University of Sheffield Vice-Chancellor’s Fellowship to AGF; and a University of Cambridge Studentship from the Wellcome Trust Developmental Biology PhD program to TMF. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Higashi T, Miller AL. Tricellular junctions: how to build junctions at the TRICkiest points of epithelial cells. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2017;28(15):2023–34. 10.1091/mbc.E16-10-0697 WOS:000406472100001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Ikenouchi J, Furuse M, Furuse K, Sasaki H, Tsukita S, Tsukita S. Tricellulin constitutes a novel barrier at tricellular contacts of epithelial cells. J Cell Biol. 2005;171(6):939–45. 10.1083/jcb.200510043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Masuda S, Oda Y, Sasaki H, Ikenouchi J, Higashi T, Akashi M, et al. LSR defines cell corners for tricellular tight junction formation in epithelial cells. J Cell Sci. 2011;124(Pt 4):548–55. 10.1242/jcs.072058 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Higashi T, Tokuda S, Kitajiri S, Masuda S, Nakamura H, Oda Y, et al. Analysis of the 'angulin' proteins LSR, ILDR1 and ILDR2—tricellulin recruitment, epithelial barrier function and implication in deafness pathogenesis. J Cell Sci. 2013;126(Pt 4):966–77. Epub 2012 Dec 13. 10.1242/jcs.116442 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Krug SM, Amasheh S, Richter JF, Milatz S, Gunzel D, Westphal JK, et al. Tricellulin forms a barrier to macromolecules in tricellular tight junctions without affecting ion permeability. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(16):3713–24. 10.1091/mbc.E09-01-0080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Dunn BS, Rush L, Lu JY, Xu T. Mutations in the Drosophila tricellular junction protein M6 synergize with Ras(V12) to induce apical cell delamination and invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(33):8358–63. 10.1073/pnas.1807343115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Schulte J, Charish K, Que J, Ravn S, MacKinnon C, Auld VJ. Gliotactin and Discs large form a protein complex at the tricellular junction of polarized epithelial cells in Drosophila. J Cell Sci. 2006;119(Pt 21):4391–401. 10.1242/jcs.03208 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Byri S, Misra T, Syed ZA, Batz T, Shah J, Boril L, et al. The Triple-Repeat Protein Anakonda Controls Epithelial Tricellular Junction Formation in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2015;33(5):535–48. 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.03.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Hildebrandt A, Pflanz R, Behr M, Tarp T, Riedel D, Schuh R. Bark beetle controls epithelial morphogenesis by septate junction maturation in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2015;400(2):237–47. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.02.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Bosveld F, Wang Z, Bellaiche Y. Tricellular junctions: a hot corner of epithelial biology. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2018;54:80–8. 10.1016/j.ceb.2018.05.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Higashi T, Arnold TR, Stephenson RE, Dinshaw KM, Miller AL. Maintenance of the Epithelial Barrier and Remodeling of Cell-Cell Junctions during Cytokinesis. Curr Biol. 2016;26(14):1829–42. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Yokouchi M, Atsugi T, Logtestijn MV, Tanaka RJ, Kajimura M, Suematsu M, et al. Epidermal cell turnover across tight junctions based on Kelvin's tetrakaidecahedron cell shape. Elife. 2016;5:e19593 10.7554/eLife.19593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Razzell W, Wood W, Martin P. Recapitulation of morphogenetic cell shape changes enables wound re-epithelialisation. Development. 2014;141(9):1814–20. 10.1242/dev.107045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Bosveld F, Markova O, Guirao B, Martin C, Wang Z, Pierre A, et al. Epithelial tricellular junctions act as interphase cell shape sensors to orient mitosis. Nature. 2016;530(7591):495–8. 10.1038/nature16970 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Acharya BR, Nestor-Bergmann A, Liang X, Gupta S, Duszyc K, Gauquelin E, et al. A Mechanosensitive RhoA Pathway that Protects Epithelia against Acute Tensile Stress. Dev Cell. 2018;47(4):439–52 e6. 10.1016/j.devcel.2018.09.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Oda Y, Otani T, Ikenouchi J, Furuse M. Tricellulin regulates junctional tension of epithelial cells at tricellular contacts via Cdc42. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:4201–4212. 10.1242/jcs.150607 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Choi W, Acharya BR, Peyret G, Fardin MA, Mege RM, Ladoux B, et al. Remodeling the zonula adherens in response to tension and the role of afadin in this response. J Cell Biol. 2016;213(2):243–60. 10.1083/jcb.201506115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Lecuit T, Yap AS. E-cadherin junctions as active mechanical integrators in tissue dynamics. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17(5):533–9. 10.1038/ncb3136 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Lye CM, Naylor HW, Sanson B. Subcellular localisations of the CPTI collection of YFP-tagged proteins in Drosophila embryos. Development. 2014;141(20):4006–17. 10.1242/dev.111310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Razzell W, Bustillo ME, Zallen JA. The force-sensitive protein Ajuba regulates cell adhesion during epithelial morphogenesis. J Cell Biol. 2018;217(10):3715–30. 10.1083/jcb.201801171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Sawyer JK, Harris NJ, Slep KC, Gaul U, Peifer M. The Drosophila afadin homologue Canoe regulates linkage of the actin cytoskeleton to adherens junctions during apical constriction. J Cell Biol. 2009;186(1):57–73. 10.1083/jcb.200904001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Simoes Sde M, Mainieri A, Zallen JA. Rho GTPase and Shroom direct planar polarized actomyosin contractility during convergent extension. J Cell Biol. 2014;204(4):575–89. 10.1083/jcb.201307070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Nguyen DN, Liu Y, Litsky ML, Reinke R. The sidekick gene, a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily, is required for pattern formation in the Drosophila eye. Development. 1997;124(17):3303–12. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Yamagata M, Weiner JA, Sanes JR. Sidekicks: synaptic adhesion molecules that promote lamina-specific connectivity in the retina. Cell. 2002;110(5):649–60. 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00910-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Krishnaswamy A, Yamagata M, Duan X, Hong YK, Sanes JR. Sidekick 2 directs formation of a retinal circuit that detects differential motion. Nature. 2015;524(7566):466–70. 10.1038/nature14682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Astigarraga S, Douthit J, Tarnogorska D, Creamer MS, Mano O, Clark DA, et al. Drosophila Sidekick is required in developing photoreceptors to enable visual motion detection. Development. 2018;145(3). 10.1242/dev.158246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Kaufman L, Potla U, Coleman S, Dikiy S, Hata Y, Kurihara H, et al. Up-regulation of the homophilic adhesion molecule sidekick-1 in podocytes contributes to glomerulosclerosis. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(33):25677–85. 10.1074/jbc.M110.133959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Yamagata M, Sanes JR. Synaptic localization and function of Sidekick recognition molecules require MAGI scaffolding proteins. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2010;30(10):3579–88. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6319-09.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Goodman KM, Yamagata M, Jin X, Mannepalli S, Katsamba PS, Ahlsen G, et al. Molecular basis of sidekick-mediated cell-cell adhesion and specificity. Elife. 2016;5:e19058 10.7554/eLife.19058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Tang H, Chang H, Dong Y, Guo L, Shi X, Wu Y, et al. Architecture of cell-cell adhesion mediated by sidekicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(37):9246–51. 10.1073/pnas.1801810115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Kong D, Wolf F, Grosshans J. Forces directing germ-band extension in Drosophila embryos. Mech Dev. 2017;144(Pt A):11–22. Epub 2016 Dec 22. 10.1016/j.mod.2016.12.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Irvine KD, Wieschaus E. Cell intercalation during Drosophila germband extension and its regulation by pair-rule segmentation genes. Development. 1994;120(4):827–41. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Zallen JA, Wieschaus E. Patterned gene expression directs bipolar planar polarity in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2004;6(3):343–55. 10.1016/s1534-5807(04)00060-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Bertet C, Sulak L, Lecuit T. Myosin-dependent junction remodelling controls planar cell intercalation and axis elongation. Nature. 2004;429(6992):667–71. 10.1038/nature02590 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Blankenship JT, Backovic ST, Sanny JS, Weitz O, Zallen JA. Multicellular rosette formation links planar cell polarity to tissue morphogenesis. Dev Cell. 2006;11(4):459–70. 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.09.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Levayer R, Pelissier-Monier A, Lecuit T. Spatial regulation of Dia and Myosin-II by RhoGEF2 controls initiation of E-cadherin endocytosis during epithelial morphogenesis. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(5):529–40. 10.1038/ncb2224 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Rauzi M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Planar polarized actomyosin contractile flows control epithelial junction remodelling. Nature. 2010;468(7327):1110–4. 10.1038/nature09566 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Kale GR, Yang X, Philippe JM, Mani M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Distinct contributions of tensile and shear stress on E-cadherin levels during morphogenesis. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):5021 10.1038/s41467-018-07448-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Simoes Sde M, Roper JC, Eaton S, Zallen JA. Myosin II dynamics are regulated by tension in intercalating cells. Dev Cell. 2009;17(5):736–43. 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Vanderleest TE, Smits CM, Xie Y, Jewett CE, Blankenship JT, Loerke D. Vertex sliding drives intercalation by radial coupling of adhesion and actomyosin networks during Drosophila germband extension. Elife. 2018;7:e34586 10.7554/eLife.34586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Butler LC, Blanchard GB, Kabla AJ, Lawrence NJ, Welchman DP, Mahadevan L, et al. Cell shape changes indicate a role for extrinsic tensile forces in Drosophila germ-band extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(7):859–64. 10.1038/ncb1894 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Collinet C, Rauzi M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Local and tissue-scale forces drive oriented junction growth during tissue extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17(10):1247–58. 10.1038/ncb3226 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Lye CM, Blanchard GB, Naylor HW, Muresan L, Huisken J, Adams RJ, et al. Mechanical Coupling between Endoderm Invagination and Axis Extension in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(11):e1002292 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Lowe N, Rees JS, Roote J, Ryder E, Armean IM, Johnson G, et al. Analysis of the expression patterns, subcellular localisations and interaction partners of Drosophila proteins using a pigP protein trap library. Development. 2014;141(20):3994–4005. 10.1242/dev.111054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Chen J, Sayadian AC, Lowe N, Lovegrove HE, St Johnston D. An alternative mode of epithelial polarity in the Drosophila midgut. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(10):e3000041 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Chou TB, Perrimon N. The autosomal FLP-DFS technique for generating germline mosaics in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1996;144(4):1673–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Gomez-Galvez P, Vicente-Munuera P, Tagua A, Forja C, Castro AM, Letran M, et al. Scutoids are a geometrical solution to three-dimensional packing of epithelia. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):2960 10.1038/s41467-018-05376-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Oda H, Tsukita S. Real-time imaging of cell-cell adherens junctions reveals that Drosophila mesoderm invagination begins with two phases of apical constriction of cells. J Cell Sci. 2001;114(Pt 3):493–501. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Tetley RJ, Blanchard GB, Fletcher AG, Adams RJ, Sanson B. Unipolar distributions of junctional Myosin II identify cell stripe boundaries that drive cell intercalation throughout Drosophila axis extension. Elife. 2016;5:e12094 10.7554/eLife.12094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Blanchard GB, Kabla AJ, Schultz NL, Butler LC, Sanson B, Gorfinkiel N, et al. Tissue tectonics: morphogenetic strain rates, cell shape change and intercalation. Nat Methods. 2009;6(6):458–64. 10.1038/nmeth.1327 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Sanchez-Corrales YE, Blanchard GB, Roper K. Radially patterned cell behaviours during tube budding from an epithelium. Elife. 2018;7:e35717 10.7554/eLife.35717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Kim NK, Higashi T, Lee KY, Kim AR, Kitajiri S, Kim MY, et al. Downsloping high-frequency hearing loss due to inner ear tricellular tight junction disruption by a novel ILDR1 mutation in the Ig-like domain. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0116931 10.1371/journal.pone.0116931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Zaessinger S, Zhou Y, Bray SJ, Tapon N, Djiane A. Drosophila MAGI interacts with RASSF8 to regulate E-Cadherin-based adherens junctions in the developing eye. Development. 2015;142(6):1102–12. 10.1242/dev.116277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Schmid EM, Bakalar MH, Choudhuri K, Weichsel J, Ann H, Geissler PL, et al. Size-dependent protein segregation at membrane interfaces. Nat Phys. 2016;12(7):704–11. 10.1038/nphys3678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Sun Z, Amourda C, Shagirov M, Hara Y, Saunders TE, Toyama Y. Basolateral protrusion and apical contraction cooperatively drive Drosophila germ-band extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(4):375–83. 10.1038/ncb3497 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Letizia A, He D, Astigarraga S, Colombelli J, Hatini V, Llimargas M, et al. Sidekick Is a Key Component of Tricellular Adherens Junctions that Acts to Resolve Cell Rearrangements. Dev Cell. 2019;50(3):313–26 e5. 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.07.007 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Uechi H, Kuranaga E. The Tricellular Junction Protein Sidekick Regulates Vertex Dynamics to Promote Bicellular Junction Extension. Dev Cell. 2019;50(3):327–38 e5. 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Royou A, Field C, Sisson JC, Sullivan W, Karess R. Reassessing the role and dynamics of nonmuscle myosin II during furrow formation in early Drosophila embryos. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(2):838–50. Epub 2003 Dec 2. 10.1091/mbc.E03-06-0440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Martin AC, Gelbart M, Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Kaschube M, Wieschaus EF. Integration of contractile forces during tissue invagination. J Cell Biol. 2010;188(5):735–49. 10.1083/jcb.200910099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Huang J, Zhou W, Dong W, Watson AM, Hong Y. Directed, efficient, and versatile modifications of the Drosophila genome by genomic engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(20):8284–9. 10.1073/pnas.0900641106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.Martin AC, Kaschube M, Wieschaus EF. Pulsed contractions of an actin-myosin network drive apical constriction. Nature. 2009;457(7228):495–9. 10.1038/nature07522 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62.Ball G, Demmerle J, Kaufmann R, Davis I, Dobbie IM, Schermelleh L. SIMcheck: a Toolbox for Successful Super-resolution Structured Illumination Microscopy. Scientific reports. 2015;5:15915 10.1038/srep15915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Longair MH, Baker DA, Armstrong JD. Simple Neurite Tracer: open source software for reconstruction, visualization and analysis of neuronal processes. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(17):2453–4. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr390 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. [Google Scholar]

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r001

Decision Letter 0

Hashi Wijayatilake

22 Jul 2019

Dear Dr Sanson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

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.

**Important**: Please also see below for further information regarding completing the MDAR reporting checklist. The checklist can be accessed here: https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

Please re-submit your manuscript and the checklist, within two working days, i.e. by Jul 24 2019 11:59PM.

During resubmission, 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 when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

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

Kind regards,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

==================

INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTING CHECKLIST:

PLOS Biology is pleased to support the "minimum reporting standards in the life sciences" initiative (https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/9sm4x/). This effort brings together a number of leading journals and reproducibility experts to develop minimum expectations for reporting information about Materials (including data and code), Design, Analysis and Reporting (MDAR) in published papers. We believe broad alignment on these standards will be to the benefit of authors, reviewers, journals and the wider research community and will help drive better practise in publishing reproducible research.

We are therefore participating in a community pilot involving a small number of life science journals to test the MDAR checklist. The checklist is intended to help authors, reviewers and editors adopt and implement the minimum reporting framework.

IMPORTANT: We have chosen your manuscript to participate in this trial. The relevant documents can be located here:

MDAR reporting checklist (to be filled in by you): https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

**We strongly encourage you to complete the MDAR reporting checklist and return it to us with your full submission, as described above. We would also be very grateful if you could complete this author survey:

https://forms.gle/seEgCrDtM6GLKFGQA

Additional background information:

Interpreting the MDAR Framework: https://plos.io/MDARFramework

Please note that your completed checklist and survey will be shared with the minimum reporting standards working group. However, the working group will not be provided with access to the manuscript or any other confidential information including author identities, manuscript titles or abstracts. Feedback from this process will be used to consider next steps, which might include revisions to the content of the checklist. Data and materials from this initial trial will be publicly shared in September 2019. Data will only be provided in aggregate form and will not be parsed by individual article or by journal, so as to respect the confidentiality of responses.

Please treat the checklist and elaboration as confidential as public release is planned for September 2019.

We would be grateful for any feedback you may have.

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r002

Decision Letter 1

Hashi Wijayatilake

20 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Sanson,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

The reviewers are generally positive and, in light of their reviews (appended below), we are pleased to offer you the opportunity to address their comments in a revised version that we anticipate should not take you very long. We have discussed the reviews in detail with the Academic Editor and feel that the suggested experiments are not particularly challenging and can be performed in a reasonable time-frame. We will not however insist on Reviewer 2's points 2 and 3 and Reviewer 3's suggested experiment.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

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.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

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.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, 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

Upon resubmission, the editors will assess your revision and, assuming the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we may send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within one month. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this 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 wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready 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.

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,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1:

Specialized junctional structures at epithelial cell vertices were first described in the 1970s, and more recently a number of their protein components were identified in vertebrates and in Drosophila. However, while several recent studies have focused on tricellular occluding (tight) junctions, which seal the paracellular space at cell vertices in epithelia, essentially no information has been available thus far on the structure and molecular composition of cell vertices at the level of adherens junctions, located adjacent to the occluding junctions. This is an important issue because tricellular junctions (TCJs) are increasingly recognized to play fundamental roles in barrier function, epithelial morphogenesis and tissue homeostasis in development and disease. TCJs integrate mechanical forces in epithelia and act as cell shape sensors that can direct mitotic spindle orientation in dividing epithelial cells. A key prerequisite to understand the dynamics and functions of TCJs in these processes will be to dissect their components, both at the level of the force-transmitting adherens junctions and the occluding tight junctions at cell vertices.

In this manuscript Finegan et al. describe the subcellular distribution and function of Sidekick (Sdk), a large adhesion molecule with Immunoglobulin and Fibronectin domain repeats that specifically localizes at cell vertices at the level of adherens junctions in various epithelial tissues of Drosophila. The authors use super-resolution imaging to show that Sdk forms string-like structures that appear to extend from the vertex into the adjacent bicellular spaces. Consistent with its predicted role as a homophilic adhesion molecule, Sdk protein is required in pairs of cells for accumulation at tricellular vertices, as the authors demonstrate using genetic mosaic analysis. The distribution of Sdk strings at vertices changes when junctions shrink during cell intercalation events, suggesting that Sdk is involved in this process.

Surprisingly, sdk function is dispensable for viability. However, the authors demonstrate that sdk is required for cell intercalation during germband elongation in the Drosophila embryo. Careful quantitative analyses of live imaging data revealed that adhesion at vertices between intercalating cells is compromised in sdk mutants, leading to abnormal cell shapes and persisting apical indentations between intercalating cells. Interestingly, loss of sdk affects cell behavior in an anisotropic fashion, with differential effects on anterior-posteriorly (AP) and dorsoventrally (DV) oriented junctions, respectively, resulting in DV shortening and AP elongation of cells during germband elongation. The authors also analyzed the behavior of Sdk in rearranging multicellular rosette structures, which have previously received considerable attention in the field. They show that rosette centers consist of multiple Sdk puncta, arguing that rosettes in fact contain separable apical vertices and that intercalation events within these structures reflect multiple T1 transitions. Together, these new findings represent a significant advance for understanding the dynamic behavior of cells during tissue morphogenesis.

Finally, the authors employed mathematical modeling to support their experimental findings. The computer simulations (the mathematical basis and validity of which this reviewer is unable to assess) reproduced the cell behaviors observed in sdk mutants, supporting the conclusion that a delay in T1 transitions and altered mechanical properties of the rearranging tissue can explain the observed abnormal cell behavior in sdk mutants.

Overall, this an excellent piece of work with convincing microscopy data that are carefully quantified and appropriately interpreted. The characterization of the structure and function of apical cell vertices provides an important conceptual advance for the field, with significant implications for epithelial biology in many different contexts and model systems. The work should therefore be of interest to a broad audience of readers.

Two very recent papers in Developmental Cell describe roles of Sidekick in epithelial morphogenesis and have reached conclusions that are largely similar and complementary to those of Finegan et al. (Letizia et al. (2019). Sidekick Is a Key Component of Tricellular Adherens Junctions that Acts to Resolve Cell Rearrangements. Dev Cell 1–33;

Uechi and Kuranaga (2019). The Tricellular Junction Protein Sidekick Regulates Vertex Dynamics to Promote Bicellular Junction Extension. Dev Cell 1–27).

Of note, the work by Finegan et al. is complementary to these two papers, as it provides a more in-depth quantitative analysis of cell intercalation in sdk mutants, and it combines the experimental data with mathematical modeling.

The authors should address the following (minor) points before the work should be accepted for publication:

The manuscript needs to be carefully checked for typographical errors.

Fig. 1A: “G6” should presumably read “M6”

Line 197: There is no cartoon in Fig. 2A (but in Fig. 2B).

Line 88: change “domain” to “motif”

line 442: change “intracellular PDZ domain” to “intracellular PDZ domain-binding motif”

Fig. 2C-E: To support the authors' interpretations, DV as well as AP oriented junctions should be shown for each stage.

Line 152: The colocalisation between Sdk-YFP (extracellular) and anti-Sdk (intracellular) staining (Fig. S1) does not strictly rule out the possibility that Sdk protein may be cleaved, because potential cleavage fragments may remain associated. This does not affect the author´s conclusion that Sdk strings are likely contain the entire Sdk protein (Fig. S1F,G), but the wording should be adjusted accordingly.

Apical “holes” (Fig. 4A): Holes are not evident from the images shown. Can these be shown more clearly using a membrane marker to outline cell surfaces? Also, a cross-sectional view should be shown to better visualize the “holes”.

The term “hole” suggests that a cell or the tissue is perforated, which does not appear to be the case here. The term apical “indentation” therefore appears more appropriate.

Line 28, 168: The statement that pair-wise homophilic adhesion is sufficient to enrich Sdk at tricellular vertices is misleading, because the term “sufficient” suggests that bicellular homophilic adhesion alone could provide a mechanism for vertex-specific localization of the protein. The genetic mosaic experiment indicates that two (rather than three) cells contributing Sdk are sufficient for localizing the protein at vertices. However, this does not imply that homophilic adhesion alone mediates vertex localization. Additional mechanisms are likely to be involved. The statement should be rephrased.

The authors speculate that a sizing mechanism may localize Sdk protein at vertices by excluding it from bicellular spaces and concentrating it at tricellular spaces. They suggest that cell vertices might have larger intercellular spaces than bicellular contacts: This should be readily evident from TEM images. Can the authors show an example to support their hypothesis, or cite a study showing this?

The authors should comment on whether vertebrate homologues of Sdk also localize at cell vertices.

Reviewer #2:

Advance Summary and Potential Significance to Field:

In this manuscript, Finegan, Hervieux et al. study the role of the Ig-containing molecule Sidekick (Sdk) which is specifically localised at tricellular junctions at the level of AJs, in the control of cell shape changes and cell rearrangements during gastrulation movement in early Drosophila embryos. This manuscript extends a previous study made by this team reporting the localisation of Sdk at tricellular junctions, bringing better resolution using super-resolution microscopy approaches, and describes defects in ectodermal cells D/V extension and vertices resolutions during germ band extension (GBE) associated with sdk mutations using elaborate quantitative approaches in live embryos. Finally, adopting their previously published mathematical modelling of GBE cell rearrangements they suggest that the observed defects in sdk mutants are for the most part dependent of delayed vertex resolution.

Comments

The main observations of the paper are the fine description of Sdk localisation at tri-cellular junctions and the identification and fine quantification of a sdk mutant phenotype in the embryonic ectodermal cells where sdk mutations result in defects in cell shape and in vertices and rosette resolution during gastrulation movements. While this observation is interesting, the current study remains however very descriptive and lacks molecular insights to start understanding how Sdk at the tricellular adherens junctions could regulate these morphogenetic events. Below are detailed the main points that would need to be addressed before I can support publication.

1. The phenotype associated with sdk loss-of-function is quantified in great details. However, it is rather weak, since the sdk null mutants are homozygous viable and one could question the specificity of the effects observed which might be unrelated to the sdk gene function, and merely reflect genetic background variations. The authors should thus either provide rescue experiments or at least analyse another independent mutation of sdk, such as sdk∆15, and report similar observations.

As a note here, since sdk null mutants are viable, the defects observed should remain transient and be resolved later in development. Are the differences observed in Figure 3D and 3H on axial shape elongation and DV interface length ever resolved or is the embryo making do with misshapen ectodermal cells?

2. With respect to the sdk mutant phenotype, the observation of the occurrence of holes/gaps in the E-Cadherin and junctions that last longer than in wild-type, is really interesting. Can this phenotype be modified, for instance by lowering the dosage of the shg or arm genes? This would bring more weight to the specificity of the phenotypes reported.

Authors report this defect in particular at the level of rosettes. Even though not explicitly stated, one could thus anticipate that rosettes accumulate over time as gaps at vertices fail to resolve. Authors should thus quantify the number of rosettes over time in wild-type and sdk mutants.

A side note of Figure 4; authors state that holes last longer in sdk mutants, but authors should provide the reader with the information about the relative length of the GBE process in both wild-type and sdk mutants. If the whole development and GBE are slower in sdk mutants, some of the interpretations on persistence of this particular features might have to include that the whole development is slower, and not just the vertices resolution.

3. The current study fails to bring any hints at the molecular mechanisms underlying the sdk mutant phenotype. Given the importance of Myosin planar orientation for some of the features measured here such as DV vs AP axis of junction elongation/shrinkage or rosette formation, and given the importance of Bazooka and of the E-Cadherin complexes for AJ remodelling, authors should study what are the effects of sdk mutations on MyosinII, Bazooka, E-Cad, and alpha- and beta-Catenin distribution either on live or fixed embryos. This is especially important with respect to the E-Cad holes observed in sdk mutants.

4. Finally, while mathematical modelling is provided here, it is not clear how close the different tweaks added and the mathematical model predictions match the observations. Authors should thus show how the different parameters measured in Figure 3 (or at least some of them) and which appear grossly independent from the “delayed vertices resolution” constant that has been modified in the model, are changed and whether they match the experimental data. Authors could also indicate whether the model predicts the perdurance of rosettes as seems to be observed in the experiments (see point 2).

More minor points

A. Authors should try to link more clearly, at least in their interpretations/discussions, the dynamics of Sdk during D/V oriented boundary shrinkage (Figure2) and the phenotypes observed in Figure 3/4/5.

Reviewer #3 (Mark Peifer):

One key question for the cell and developmental biology field is to define mechanisms that allow cells to change shape and move, which requires force generation and major remodeling of cell-cell junctions, without disrupting tissue integrity. Several recent studies have suggested that the actomyosin force-generating structures may be anchored to the cadherin-based cell adhesion machinery at tricellular and multicellular junctions. The authors (and others) have identified a protein, Sidekick, that is highly concentrated at tricellular and multicellular adherens junctions. They combine super-resolution microscopy, genetic analysis, and powerful quantitative and modeling tools to explore the structure of tricellular junctions and the function of Sidekick. I found the results both compelling and exciting. I have some suggestions for a modest set of experiments that would amplify on what is present as well as some suggestions for clarification. This will be of broad interest to cell and developmental biologists.

Suggested experiment

Several proteins have been found that concentrate at tricellular junctions during the stage the authors are studying (though not as completely as Sidekick), and which have known or predicted roles in the process. It would be quite interesting to see super-resolution images of tricellular junctions during germband extension double labeled with Sidekick and non-muscle myosin, Canoe and Enabled.

Data questions and clarifications

The combination of experiments, quantitative analysis and modeling is extremely powerful. However, several of the approaches used are described quite briefly and thus were hard for a simple-minded cell biologist like me to follow. Slight amplifications would allow us to appreciate what was being measured.

1. Fig 5 and associated text. Add a more complete description of the different types of strain rates to go with the nice diagrams.

2. P. 10—this goes through an extremely complex series of measures of intercalation—mostly supplemental. Perhaps focusing in the main text on those which were the most informative?

3. p. 11 what is a Voronoi tiling

The simulations in Figure 6 are a central part of the paper but I felt the authors did not explain them very clearly. My interpretation of these is that the 1st simulation does not match observed tissue strain rates—they should explicitly tell us this and then use the 2nd simulation to add what they now view as an important parameter and walk us through how this improves the match. As part of this they should annotate their resulting cell shape outputs: for example, it’s not obvious that 6G is that different from 6E—point out places where it is and then use additional arrows to point out how 6I is much more similar to what is observed in the mutant

There was one place where I thought there was an overstatement of facts I think needs to be corrected. In both the results and the Discussion the authors make a claim I think needs to be tempered—an example is Discussion-p. 13 “Sidekick, in contrast, is present only at tricellular contacts”. When I examine their superresolution imaging (e.g., Fig. 1D,E) it seems like this is simply not true. It’s highly concentrated there, but there is signal along bicellular borders. This should be toned down.

Introduction

There are a number of places in the Drosophila and mammalian literature where people have explored tension at tricellular and multicellular junctions and proteins that are enriched there. A slightly expanded section on this in the Introduction would help put this work in context.

Tell us directly in the Introduction that Sidekick loss is non-essential.

Minor points

p. 5, paragraph 1. Reference figure panels—is it all in S2? Several things in Fig, S1 and S2 could use explanatory arrows (e.g lines 150-152, 167-169

p. 5, paragraph 2. I found it hard to visualize the directionality of the “strings”—X/Y versus Z. Walk us through this a bit more clearly.

p. 7, lines 186 ff. Rephrase “In this data, Sdk signal along DV-oriented junctions….”

The data in Fig S3A-D is quite interesting and might be moved to a main figure.

PS I loved this idea and saw an intriguing talk at a Gordon Conference this summer that tested the basic mechanism in a simplified model—I wonder if there is an existing literature that might be cited for the underlying principle? “Because of their geometry, vertices in epithelia might have larger intercellular spaces than bicellular contacts. A possibility therefore is that Sdk resides at tricellular contacts because of a sizing mechanism that excludes Sdk from bicellular spaces and concentrate it at tricellular spaces”

PLoS Biol. 2019 Dec 5;17(12):e3000522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 1

20 Sep 2019

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.5MB, pdf)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r004

Decision Letter 2

Hashi Wijayatilake

25 Sep 2019

Dear Dr Sanson,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension" for publication in PLOS Biology. The Academic Editor has now evaluated the revision and your response to the reviewers. We're pleased to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript. Please do however see below for Data Policy-related requests.

Additionally, before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

*******

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

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.

Early Version

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

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

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

Sincerely,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

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

DATA POLICY:

You are 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:

1) 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).

2) 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:

Figs. 2FGH, 4C-H, 5DEF, 6B-G, 7D-J, S4A-D, S5, S7, S8, S9

ALSO:

- Please update your Data Availability Statement (in the submission form) to remove the 'if the paper is accepted...' sentence and just refer to the source data file/s.

- Please provide legends for the supplementary methods S1 Text file and the S1 Table.

- Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found.

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

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

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

PLoS Biol. 2019 Dec 5;17(12):e3000522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 2

23 Oct 2019

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_edited.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.4MB, docx)}

PLoS Biol. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000522.r006

Decision Letter 3

Hashi Wijayatilake

31 Oct 2019

Dear Dr Sanson,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Nicolas Tapon, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

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 not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so 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 submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Hannah Harwood

Publication Assistant,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Hashi Wijayatilake,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

S1 Movie. Example of tracked WT movie (embryo 2).

WT, wild type.

(MOV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, mov)}

S2 Movie. Example of tracked sdk movie (embryo 3).

Sdk, Sidekick.

(MOV)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.1MB, mov)}

S3 Movie. Simulation of WT GBE, corresponding to Fig 7E.

GBE, germband extension; WT, wild type.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.8MB, mp4)}

S4 Movie. Simulation of sdk mutant GBE, corresponding to Fig 7G.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.6MB, mp4)}

S5 Movie. Simulation of sdk mutant GBE, corresponding to Fig 7I.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(MP4)

Click here for additional data file.^{(6.8MB, mp4)}

S1 Text. Supplementary methods for the vertex model of Drosophila GBE in the wild type and sdk mutant.

GBE, germband extension; Sdk, Sidekick.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(89.6KB, docx)}

S1 Table. Summary of the localisation of Sdk-YFP in Drosophila epithelia.

Sdk, Sidekick; YFP, yellow fluorescent protein.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.4KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Localisation of Sdk-YFP protein traps at tAJs.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(4.5MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. Localisation of Sdk-YFP in Drosophila epithelia.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(7.5MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. Localisation of Sdk at rosette centres.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(5.3MB, tif)}

S4 Fig. Movie synchronisation and cell counts.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

S5 Fig. Quantification of cell shape changes in sdk mutants versus the WT.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3MB, tif)}

S6 Fig. Apical gap dynamics in sdk mutants.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(7.5MB, tif)}

S7 Fig. Strain rates for all wild-type and sdk mutant embryos.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, tif)}

S8 Fig. Comparison of polarised cell intercalation in wild-type and sdk mutant embryos.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(3.8MB, tif)}

S9 Fig

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.6MB, tif)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.5MB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_edited.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.4MB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pbio.3000522.ref001] 1.Higashi T, Miller AL. Tricellular junctions: how to build junctions at the TRICkiest points of epithelial cells. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2017;28(15):2023–34. 10.1091/mbc.E16-10-0697 WOS:000406472100001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref002] 2.Ikenouchi J, Furuse M, Furuse K, Sasaki H, Tsukita S, Tsukita S. Tricellulin constitutes a novel barrier at tricellular contacts of epithelial cells. J Cell Biol. 2005;171(6):939–45. 10.1083/jcb.200510043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref003] 3.Masuda S, Oda Y, Sasaki H, Ikenouchi J, Higashi T, Akashi M, et al. LSR defines cell corners for tricellular tight junction formation in epithelial cells. J Cell Sci. 2011;124(Pt 4):548–55. 10.1242/jcs.072058 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref004] 4.Higashi T, Tokuda S, Kitajiri S, Masuda S, Nakamura H, Oda Y, et al. Analysis of the 'angulin' proteins LSR, ILDR1 and ILDR2—tricellulin recruitment, epithelial barrier function and implication in deafness pathogenesis. J Cell Sci. 2013;126(Pt 4):966–77. Epub 2012 Dec 13. 10.1242/jcs.116442 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref005] 5.Krug SM, Amasheh S, Richter JF, Milatz S, Gunzel D, Westphal JK, et al. Tricellulin forms a barrier to macromolecules in tricellular tight junctions without affecting ion permeability. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(16):3713–24. 10.1091/mbc.E09-01-0080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref006] 6.Dunn BS, Rush L, Lu JY, Xu T. Mutations in the Drosophila tricellular junction protein M6 synergize with Ras(V12) to induce apical cell delamination and invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(33):8358–63. 10.1073/pnas.1807343115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref007] 7.Schulte J, Charish K, Que J, Ravn S, MacKinnon C, Auld VJ. Gliotactin and Discs large form a protein complex at the tricellular junction of polarized epithelial cells in Drosophila. J Cell Sci. 2006;119(Pt 21):4391–401. 10.1242/jcs.03208 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref008] 8.Byri S, Misra T, Syed ZA, Batz T, Shah J, Boril L, et al. The Triple-Repeat Protein Anakonda Controls Epithelial Tricellular Junction Formation in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2015;33(5):535–48. 10.1016/j.devcel.2015.03.023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref009] 9.Hildebrandt A, Pflanz R, Behr M, Tarp T, Riedel D, Schuh R. Bark beetle controls epithelial morphogenesis by septate junction maturation in Drosophila. Dev Biol. 2015;400(2):237–47. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.02.008 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref010] 10.Bosveld F, Wang Z, Bellaiche Y. Tricellular junctions: a hot corner of epithelial biology. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2018;54:80–8. 10.1016/j.ceb.2018.05.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref011] 11.Higashi T, Arnold TR, Stephenson RE, Dinshaw KM, Miller AL. Maintenance of the Epithelial Barrier and Remodeling of Cell-Cell Junctions during Cytokinesis. Curr Biol. 2016;26(14):1829–42. 10.1016/j.cub.2016.05.036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref012] 12.Yokouchi M, Atsugi T, Logtestijn MV, Tanaka RJ, Kajimura M, Suematsu M, et al. Epidermal cell turnover across tight junctions based on Kelvin's tetrakaidecahedron cell shape. Elife. 2016;5:e19593 10.7554/eLife.19593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref013] 13.Razzell W, Wood W, Martin P. Recapitulation of morphogenetic cell shape changes enables wound re-epithelialisation. Development. 2014;141(9):1814–20. 10.1242/dev.107045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref014] 14.Bosveld F, Markova O, Guirao B, Martin C, Wang Z, Pierre A, et al. Epithelial tricellular junctions act as interphase cell shape sensors to orient mitosis. Nature. 2016;530(7591):495–8. 10.1038/nature16970 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref015] 15.Acharya BR, Nestor-Bergmann A, Liang X, Gupta S, Duszyc K, Gauquelin E, et al. A Mechanosensitive RhoA Pathway that Protects Epithelia against Acute Tensile Stress. Dev Cell. 2018;47(4):439–52 e6. 10.1016/j.devcel.2018.09.016 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref016] 16.Oda Y, Otani T, Ikenouchi J, Furuse M. Tricellulin regulates junctional tension of epithelial cells at tricellular contacts via Cdc42. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:4201–4212. 10.1242/jcs.150607 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref017] 17.Choi W, Acharya BR, Peyret G, Fardin MA, Mege RM, Ladoux B, et al. Remodeling the zonula adherens in response to tension and the role of afadin in this response. J Cell Biol. 2016;213(2):243–60. 10.1083/jcb.201506115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref018] 18.Lecuit T, Yap AS. E-cadherin junctions as active mechanical integrators in tissue dynamics. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17(5):533–9. 10.1038/ncb3136 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref019] 19.Lye CM, Naylor HW, Sanson B. Subcellular localisations of the CPTI collection of YFP-tagged proteins in Drosophila embryos. Development. 2014;141(20):4006–17. 10.1242/dev.111310 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref020] 20.Razzell W, Bustillo ME, Zallen JA. The force-sensitive protein Ajuba regulates cell adhesion during epithelial morphogenesis. J Cell Biol. 2018;217(10):3715–30. 10.1083/jcb.201801171 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref021] 21.Sawyer JK, Harris NJ, Slep KC, Gaul U, Peifer M. The Drosophila afadin homologue Canoe regulates linkage of the actin cytoskeleton to adherens junctions during apical constriction. J Cell Biol. 2009;186(1):57–73. 10.1083/jcb.200904001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref022] 22.Simoes Sde M, Mainieri A, Zallen JA. Rho GTPase and Shroom direct planar polarized actomyosin contractility during convergent extension. J Cell Biol. 2014;204(4):575–89. 10.1083/jcb.201307070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref023] 23.Nguyen DN, Liu Y, Litsky ML, Reinke R. The sidekick gene, a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily, is required for pattern formation in the Drosophila eye. Development. 1997;124(17):3303–12. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref024] 24.Yamagata M, Weiner JA, Sanes JR. Sidekicks: synaptic adhesion molecules that promote lamina-specific connectivity in the retina. Cell. 2002;110(5):649–60. 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00910-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref025] 25.Krishnaswamy A, Yamagata M, Duan X, Hong YK, Sanes JR. Sidekick 2 directs formation of a retinal circuit that detects differential motion. Nature. 2015;524(7566):466–70. 10.1038/nature14682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref026] 26.Astigarraga S, Douthit J, Tarnogorska D, Creamer MS, Mano O, Clark DA, et al. Drosophila Sidekick is required in developing photoreceptors to enable visual motion detection. Development. 2018;145(3). 10.1242/dev.158246 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref027] 27.Kaufman L, Potla U, Coleman S, Dikiy S, Hata Y, Kurihara H, et al. Up-regulation of the homophilic adhesion molecule sidekick-1 in podocytes contributes to glomerulosclerosis. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(33):25677–85. 10.1074/jbc.M110.133959 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref028] 28.Yamagata M, Sanes JR. Synaptic localization and function of Sidekick recognition molecules require MAGI scaffolding proteins. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2010;30(10):3579–88. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6319-09.2010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref029] 29.Goodman KM, Yamagata M, Jin X, Mannepalli S, Katsamba PS, Ahlsen G, et al. Molecular basis of sidekick-mediated cell-cell adhesion and specificity. Elife. 2016;5:e19058 10.7554/eLife.19058 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref030] 30.Tang H, Chang H, Dong Y, Guo L, Shi X, Wu Y, et al. Architecture of cell-cell adhesion mediated by sidekicks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(37):9246–51. 10.1073/pnas.1801810115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref031] 31.Kong D, Wolf F, Grosshans J. Forces directing germ-band extension in Drosophila embryos. Mech Dev. 2017;144(Pt A):11–22. Epub 2016 Dec 22. 10.1016/j.mod.2016.12.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref032] 32.Irvine KD, Wieschaus E. Cell intercalation during Drosophila germband extension and its regulation by pair-rule segmentation genes. Development. 1994;120(4):827–41. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref033] 33.Zallen JA, Wieschaus E. Patterned gene expression directs bipolar planar polarity in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2004;6(3):343–55. 10.1016/s1534-5807(04)00060-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref034] 34.Bertet C, Sulak L, Lecuit T. Myosin-dependent junction remodelling controls planar cell intercalation and axis elongation. Nature. 2004;429(6992):667–71. 10.1038/nature02590 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref035] 35.Blankenship JT, Backovic ST, Sanny JS, Weitz O, Zallen JA. Multicellular rosette formation links planar cell polarity to tissue morphogenesis. Dev Cell. 2006;11(4):459–70. 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.09.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref036] 36.Levayer R, Pelissier-Monier A, Lecuit T. Spatial regulation of Dia and Myosin-II by RhoGEF2 controls initiation of E-cadherin endocytosis during epithelial morphogenesis. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(5):529–40. 10.1038/ncb2224 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref037] 37.Rauzi M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Planar polarized actomyosin contractile flows control epithelial junction remodelling. Nature. 2010;468(7327):1110–4. 10.1038/nature09566 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref038] 38.Kale GR, Yang X, Philippe JM, Mani M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Distinct contributions of tensile and shear stress on E-cadherin levels during morphogenesis. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):5021 10.1038/s41467-018-07448-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref039] 39.Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Simoes Sde M, Roper JC, Eaton S, Zallen JA. Myosin II dynamics are regulated by tension in intercalating cells. Dev Cell. 2009;17(5):736–43. 10.1016/j.devcel.2009.09.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref040] 40.Vanderleest TE, Smits CM, Xie Y, Jewett CE, Blankenship JT, Loerke D. Vertex sliding drives intercalation by radial coupling of adhesion and actomyosin networks during Drosophila germband extension. Elife. 2018;7:e34586 10.7554/eLife.34586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref041] 41.Butler LC, Blanchard GB, Kabla AJ, Lawrence NJ, Welchman DP, Mahadevan L, et al. Cell shape changes indicate a role for extrinsic tensile forces in Drosophila germ-band extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2009;11(7):859–64. 10.1038/ncb1894 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref042] 42.Collinet C, Rauzi M, Lenne PF, Lecuit T. Local and tissue-scale forces drive oriented junction growth during tissue extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2015;17(10):1247–58. 10.1038/ncb3226 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref043] 43.Lye CM, Blanchard GB, Naylor HW, Muresan L, Huisken J, Adams RJ, et al. Mechanical Coupling between Endoderm Invagination and Axis Extension in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(11):e1002292 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref044] 44.Lowe N, Rees JS, Roote J, Ryder E, Armean IM, Johnson G, et al. Analysis of the expression patterns, subcellular localisations and interaction partners of Drosophila proteins using a pigP protein trap library. Development. 2014;141(20):3994–4005. 10.1242/dev.111054 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref045] 45.Chen J, Sayadian AC, Lowe N, Lovegrove HE, St Johnston D. An alternative mode of epithelial polarity in the Drosophila midgut. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(10):e3000041 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000041 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref046] 46.Chou TB, Perrimon N. The autosomal FLP-DFS technique for generating germline mosaics in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1996;144(4):1673–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref047] 47.Gomez-Galvez P, Vicente-Munuera P, Tagua A, Forja C, Castro AM, Letran M, et al. Scutoids are a geometrical solution to three-dimensional packing of epithelia. Nature communications. 2018;9(1):2960 10.1038/s41467-018-05376-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref048] 48.Oda H, Tsukita S. Real-time imaging of cell-cell adherens junctions reveals that Drosophila mesoderm invagination begins with two phases of apical constriction of cells. J Cell Sci. 2001;114(Pt 3):493–501. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref049] 49.Tetley RJ, Blanchard GB, Fletcher AG, Adams RJ, Sanson B. Unipolar distributions of junctional Myosin II identify cell stripe boundaries that drive cell intercalation throughout Drosophila axis extension. Elife. 2016;5:e12094 10.7554/eLife.12094 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref050] 50.Blanchard GB, Kabla AJ, Schultz NL, Butler LC, Sanson B, Gorfinkiel N, et al. Tissue tectonics: morphogenetic strain rates, cell shape change and intercalation. Nat Methods. 2009;6(6):458–64. 10.1038/nmeth.1327 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref051] 51.Sanchez-Corrales YE, Blanchard GB, Roper K. Radially patterned cell behaviours during tube budding from an epithelium. Elife. 2018;7:e35717 10.7554/eLife.35717 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref052] 52.Kim NK, Higashi T, Lee KY, Kim AR, Kitajiri S, Kim MY, et al. Downsloping high-frequency hearing loss due to inner ear tricellular tight junction disruption by a novel ILDR1 mutation in the Ig-like domain. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(2):e0116931 10.1371/journal.pone.0116931 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref053] 53.Zaessinger S, Zhou Y, Bray SJ, Tapon N, Djiane A. Drosophila MAGI interacts with RASSF8 to regulate E-Cadherin-based adherens junctions in the developing eye. Development. 2015;142(6):1102–12. 10.1242/dev.116277 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref054] 54.Schmid EM, Bakalar MH, Choudhuri K, Weichsel J, Ann H, Geissler PL, et al. Size-dependent protein segregation at membrane interfaces. Nat Phys. 2016;12(7):704–11. 10.1038/nphys3678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref055] 55.Sun Z, Amourda C, Shagirov M, Hara Y, Saunders TE, Toyama Y. Basolateral protrusion and apical contraction cooperatively drive Drosophila germ-band extension. Nat Cell Biol. 2017;19(4):375–83. 10.1038/ncb3497 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref056] 56.Letizia A, He D, Astigarraga S, Colombelli J, Hatini V, Llimargas M, et al. Sidekick Is a Key Component of Tricellular Adherens Junctions that Acts to Resolve Cell Rearrangements. Dev Cell. 2019;50(3):313–26 e5. 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.07.007 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref057] 57.Uechi H, Kuranaga E. The Tricellular Junction Protein Sidekick Regulates Vertex Dynamics to Promote Bicellular Junction Extension. Dev Cell. 2019;50(3):327–38 e5. 10.1016/j.devcel.2019.06.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref058] 58.Royou A, Field C, Sisson JC, Sullivan W, Karess R. Reassessing the role and dynamics of nonmuscle myosin II during furrow formation in early Drosophila embryos. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(2):838–50. Epub 2003 Dec 2. 10.1091/mbc.E03-06-0440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref059] 59.Martin AC, Gelbart M, Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Kaschube M, Wieschaus EF. Integration of contractile forces during tissue invagination. J Cell Biol. 2010;188(5):735–49. 10.1083/jcb.200910099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref060] 60.Huang J, Zhou W, Dong W, Watson AM, Hong Y. Directed, efficient, and versatile modifications of the Drosophila genome by genomic engineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(20):8284–9. 10.1073/pnas.0900641106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref061] 61.Martin AC, Kaschube M, Wieschaus EF. Pulsed contractions of an actin-myosin network drive apical constriction. Nature. 2009;457(7228):495–9. 10.1038/nature07522 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref062] 62.Ball G, Demmerle J, Kaufmann R, Davis I, Dobbie IM, Schermelleh L. SIMcheck: a Toolbox for Successful Super-resolution Structured Illumination Microscopy. Scientific reports. 2015;5:15915 10.1038/srep15915 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref063] 63.Longair MH, Baker DA, Armstrong JD. Simple Neurite Tracer: open source software for reconstruction, visualization and analysis of neuronal processes. Bioinformatics. 2011;27(17):2453–4. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr390 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pbio.3000522.ref064] 64.Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The tricellular vertex-specific adhesion molecule Sidekick facilitates polarised cell intercalation during Drosophila axis extension

Tara M Finegan

Nathan Hervieux

Alexander Nestor-Bergmann

Alexander G Fletcher

Guy B Blanchard

Bénédicte Sanson

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Fig 1. Sdk is a novel component of apical vertices in epithelia.

Results

The Ig superfamily adhesion molecule Sdk localises specifically at cell vertices at the level of AJs in Drosophila epithelia

Sdk localisation changes when junctions are remodelled during axis extension

Fig 2. Sdk localises differently at shortening versus elongating junctions during polarised cell intercalation.

In intercalating cells, rosette centres contain separable tricellular vertices marked by Sdk

Fig 3. tAJs marked by Sdk-YFP are separate at rosette centres.

Loss of sdk causes abnormal cell shapes during GBE

Fig 4. Cell shapes are more anisotropic in sdk mutants versus the WT during GBE.

Tears in the apical cortex persist in sdk mutants during polarised cell intercalation

Fig 5. Apical adhesion is disrupted during polarised cell intercalation in sdk mutants.

Sdk is required for normal polarised cell intercalation during axis extension

Fig 6. Sdk is required for normal polarised cell intercalation.

Modelling the sdk mutant phenotype

Fig 7. Vertex models of the sdk mutant phenotype.

Discussion

Materials and methods

Fly strains

Genotypes

Clonal induction

Immunostainings

Confocal imaging of fixed tissues

SIM imaging and analysis

Confocal imaging of live embryos

Analysis of apical epithelial gaps

Image segmentation and cell tracking

Movie synchronisation, cell type selection, and embryonic axes orientation

Cell shape analyses

Axial shape elongation (Fig 4C and 4D)

AP and DV cell lengths (Fig 4E and 4F)

AP and DV interface lengths (Fig 4G and 4H)

Contoured heat maps (S5 Fig)

Strain rates analysis

Neighbour exchange analysis

Detection of T1 swaps

Defining the resolution phase of a T1

T1 swap counting and orientation

Other angular measures

Statistics

Mathematical model

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Abbreviations

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Hashi Wijayatilake

Roles

Decision Letter 1

Hashi Wijayatilake

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Hashi Wijayatilake

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Hashi Wijayatilake

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases