| Literature DB >> 31102668 |
Katerina Lawlor1, Salvador Pérez-Montero1, Ana Lima1, Tristan A Rodríguez2.
Abstract
The maintenance of tissue homeostasis and health relies on the efficient removal of damaged or otherwise suboptimal cells. One way this is achieved is through cell competition, a fitness quality control mechanism that eliminates cells that are less fit than their neighbours. Through this process, cell competition has been shown to play diverse roles in development and in the adult, including in homeostasis and tumour suppression. However, over the last few years it has also become apparent that certain oncogenic mutations can provide cells with a competitive advantage that promotes their expansion via the elimination of surrounding wild-type cells. Thus, understanding how this process is initiated and regulated will provide important insights with relevance to a number of different research areas. A key question in cell competition is what determines the competitive fitness of a cell. Here, we will review what is known about this question by focussing on two non-mutually exclusive possibilities; first, that the activity of a subset of transcription factors determines competitive fitness, and second, that the outcome of cell competition is determined by the relative cellular metabolic status.Entities:
Keywords: Apoptosis; Cell competition; Cell fitness; Growth regulation; Hippo; Metabolism; Myc; NF-κB; P53; Stat
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31102668 PMCID: PMC7221347 DOI: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.05.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Semin Cancer Biol ISSN: 1044-579X Impact factor: 17.012
Fig. 1Competition versus Super-competition.
Cell competition occurs between cells which are viable and proliferate in a heterogeneous environment. During competition cells which are defective or sub-optimal are eliminated when surrounded by wild-type cells. In contrast to this, during super-competition, cells which have acquired mutations that make them more competitive, induce apoptosis in the surrounding wild-type cells, highlighting the relative nature of cell competition.
Transcription factors in cell competition. Summary of known transcription factors that play a role in several cell competition contexts as well the activities they produce. Dros. (Drosophila), Mam. (mammals).
| Irradiated bone marrow | Mam. | Increased p53 in losers | Bondar and Medzhitov [ | |
| Dros. | Increased p53 in winners | de la Cova et al. [ | ||
| Mam. | Increased p53 in losers | Bowling [ | ||
| Mam. | Increased p53 in losers | Wagstaff [ | ||
| Mam. | Increased p53 in losers | Zhang et al. [ | ||
| Myc overexpression in epithelial cells | Dros. | Increased Myc activity induces super-competition and increases p53 levels | de la Cova [ | |
| Mam. | Decreased MYC in losers | Sancho et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased Myc activity rescues loser cell elimination | Chen et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Decreased Myc levels | Froldi et al. [ | ||
| Mam. | High MYC levels produces super-competition | Clavería et al. [ | ||
| Mam. | Decreased MYC induces loser status | Di Giacomo et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased Myc induces winner status | Senoo-Matsuda and Johnston [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased activity in losers | Meyer et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased activity in losers | Meyer et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased activity in winners | Katsukawa et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | STAT promotes winner proliferation | Kolahgar et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Decreased STAT induces loser status and STAT activity induces super-competition | Rodrigues et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Suppressed Yki activity in losers | Chen et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased Yki activity in winners | Menéndez et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased Yki activity rescues loser elimination | Tyler et al. [ | ||
| Dros. | Increased Yki activity rescues loser elimination | Suijkerbuijk et al. [ | ||
| Hippo pathway manipulation in epithelial cells | Dros. | Increased Yki activity induces super-competition | Ziosi et al. [ | |
| Hippo pathway manipulation in embryonic fibroblasts | Mam. | Increased Yki activity induces super-competition, decreased Yki activity induces loser status | Mamada et al. [ | |
| Hippo pathway manipulation in the epiblast | Mam. | Decreased TEAD activity induces loser status | Hashimoto and Sasaki [ | |
Fig. 2Metabolic determinants of cell fitness in competition.
A. Protein synthesis capacity. Winner cells display increased protein synthesis rates compared to loser cells. This may be due to increased Myc expression or higher mTOR pathway activity in winner cells, or to ribosomal protein mutations in loser cells.
B. Glycolytic Flux. Winner cells display increased glycolytic flux relative to loser cells. This may be driven by transcriptional regulation of metabolic genes by transcription factors such as Myc and p53. Glucose availability in the microenvironment may also affect glycolysis, with winner cells displaying increased uptake of glucose.
C. Mitochondria Function. Loser cells may display impaired mitochondria function, resulting in decreased mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP), ATP production and mitophagy. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) production may also be elevated in loser cells with impaired mitochondrial function.