Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Insights into cell motility provided by the iterative use of mathematical modeling and experimentation

Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, The University of Connecticut, 91 N. Eagleville Road, Storrs, CT 06269, USA

Topical Section: Physical Models of Cell Motility

Cell movement is a complex phenomenon that is fundamental to many physiological and disease processes. It has been the subject of study for more than 200 years, and yet we still do not fully understand this process. Cell movement consists of four steps; protrusion and adhesion formation at the front followed by contractile force generation and detachment at the rear. Much is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying these steps however, it is not clear how they are integrated at the cellular level. Part of the problem is the incorporation of a vast amount of molecular and biophysical data into a basic working model of motility. A promising solution to this problem is the combined approach of mathematical modeling and experimentation, using the fish epithelial keratocyte as a model system. The goal of this review is to illustrate, using examples, how the reciprocity between experimentation and modeling can provide new insights into the mechanism of cell motility. Several modeling approaches are described including: conceptual models, “bottom-up” models based on molecular dynamics, and “top-down” models that consider cell shape and movement. The Graded Radial Extension (GRE) model forms the basis of a several mathematical models, from a simpler 1D model that links actin filament dynamics to cell shape, to more complex 2D and 3D simulations of keratocyte movement. Together these models suggest that cell movement emerges from the mechanical interaction between different sub-processes of motility, namely, the treadmilling actin meshwork, the plasma membrane, adhesion turnover and contractile force generation. In addition, the feedback regulation between these sub-processes is important for the robust, self-organizing nature of movement.
  Article Metrics

Keywords cell motility; cytoskeleton; keratocyte; mathematical models

Citation: Juliet Lee. Insights into cell motility provided by the iterative use of mathematical modeling and experimentation. AIMS Biophysics, 2018, 5(2): 97-124. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2018.2.97


  • 1. Pollard TD, Borisy GG (2003) Cellular motility driven by assembly and disassembly of actin filaments. Cell 112: 453–465.    
  • 2. Pollard TD (2003) The cytoskeleton, cellular motility and the reductionist agenda. Nature 422: 741–745.    
  • 3. Holmes WR, Edelsteinkeshet L (2012) A comparion of computational models for eukaryotic cell hape and motility. PLoS Comput Biol 8: e1002793.    
  • 4. Danuser G, Allard J, Mogliner A (2013) Mathematical modeling of eukaryotic cell migration: Insights beyond experiments. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 29: 501–528.    
  • 5. Mogiler A (2009) Mathematics of cell motility: Have we got its number? J Math Biol 58: 105–134.    
  • 6. Mogilner A, Keren AK (2009) The shape of motile cells. Curr Biol 15: 762–771.
  • 7. Oelz D, Schmeiser C (2011) Simulation of lamellipodial fragments. J Math Biol 64: 513–528.
  • 8. Adler Y, Givli S (2013) Closing the loop: Lamellipodia dynamics from the perspective of front propagation. Phys Rev E 88: 042708.
  • 9. Recho P, Putelat T, Truskinovsky L (2013) Contraction-driven cell motility. Phys Rev Lett 111: 108102.    
  • 10. Tjhung E, Tiribocchi A, Marenduzzo D, et al. (2015) A minimal physical model captures the shapes of crawling cells. Nat Commun 6: 5420.    
  • 11. Ambrosi D, Zanzottera A (2016) Mechanics and polarity in cell motility. Physica D 330: 58–66.
  • 12. Raynaud F, Ambühl ME, Gabella C, et al. (2016) Minimal models for spontaneous cell polarization and edge activity in oscillating, rotating and migrating cells. Nat Phys 12: 367–374.    
  • 13. Pollard TD, Cooper JA (2009) Actin, a central player in cell shape and movement. Science 326: 1208–1212.    
  • 14. Rafelski SM, Theriot JA (2004) Crawling toward a unified model of cell motility: Spatial and temporal regulation of actin dynamics. Annu Rev Biochem 73: 209–239.    
  • 15. Mogilner A (2006) On the edge: Modeling protrusion. Curr Opin Cell Biol 18: 32–39.
  • 16. Svitkina TM, Verkhovsky AB, Mcquade KM, et al. (1997) Analysis of the actin-myosin II system in fish epidermal keratocytes: Mechanism of cell body translocation. J Cell Biol 139: 397–415.    
  • 17. Clainche CL, Carlier MF (2008) Regulation of actin assembly associated with protrusion and adhesion in cell migration. Physiol Rev 88: 489–513.    
  • 18. Vincente-Manzaneres M, Choi CK, Horwitz AR (2009) Integrins in cell migration-the actin connection. J Cell Sci 122: 199–206.    
  • 19. Gardel ML, Schneider IC, Aratyn-Schaus Y, et al. (2010) Mechanical integration of actin and adhesion dynamics in cell migration. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 26: 315–333.    
  • 20. Suter DM, Forscher P (2000) Substrate-cytoskeletal coupling as a mechanism for the regulation of growth cone motility and guidance. Dev Neurobiol 44: 97–113.    
  • 21. Vincente-Manzaneres M, Ma X, Adelstein RS, et al. (2009) Non-muscle myosin II takes centre stage in cell adhesion and migration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 10: 788–790.
  • 22. Kirfel G, Rigort A, Borm B, et al. (2004) Cell migration: Mechanisms of rear detachment and the formation of migration tracks. Eur J Cell Biol 83: 717–724.    
  • 23. Lee J, Ishihara A, Oxford G, et al. (1999) Regulation of cell movement is mediated by stretch-activated calcium channels. Nature 400: 382–386.    
  • 24. Huttenlocher A, Palecek SP, Lu Q, et al. (1997) Regulation of cell migration by the calcium-dependent protease calpain. J Biol Chem 272: 32719–32722.    
  • 25. Wolfenson H, Bershadsky A, Henis Y, et al. (2011) Actomyosin-generated tension controls the molecular kinetics of focal adhesions. J Cell Sci 124: 1425–1432.    
  • 26. Verkhovsky AB, Svitkina T, Borisy GG (1999) Self-polarization and directional motility of cytoplasm. Curr Biol 9: 11–20.
  • 27. Ridley AJ, Horwitz AR (2003) Cell migration: Integrating signals from front to back. Science 302: 1704–1709.    
  • 28. Friedl P, Sahai E, Weiss S, et al. (2012) New dimensions in cell migration. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 13: 743–747.
  • 29. Lo CM, Wang HB, Dembo M, et al. (2000) Cell movement is guided by the rigidity of the substrate. Biophys J 79: 144–152.    
  • 30. Abercrombie M (1961) The bases of locomotory behaviour of fibroblasts. Exp Cell Res 8: 188.    
  • 31. Allan RB, Wilkinson PC (1978) A visual analysis of chemotactic and chemokinetic locomotion of human neutrophil leukocytes. Exp Cell Res 111: 191–203.    
  • 32. Lee J, Ishihara A, Jacobson K (1993) The fish epidermal keratocyte as a model system for the study of cell locomotion. Symp Soc Exp Biol 47: 73–89.
  • 33. Tranquillo RT, Lauffenburger DA, Zigmond SH (1988) A stochastic model for leukocyte random motility and chemotaxis bases on receptor binding fluctuations. J Cell Biol 106: 303–309.    
  • 34. Mogilner A, Verzi DW (2003) A Simple 1-D physical model for the crawling nematode sperm cell. J Stat Phys 110: 1169–1189.
  • 35. Herant M, Dembo M (2010) Form and function in cell motility: From fibroblasts to keratocytes. Biophys J 98: 1408–1417.    
  • 36. Satulovsky J, Lui R, Wang Yl (2008) Exploring the control circuit of cell migration by mathematical modeling. Biophys J 94: 3671–3683.    
  • 37. Grimm HP, Verkhovsky AB, Mogilner A, et al. (2003) Analysis of actin dynamics at the leading edge of crawling cells: Implications for the shape of the keratocyte lamellipodia. Eur Biophys J 32: 563–577.    
  • 38. Hellewell SB, Taylor DL (1979) The contractile basis of amoeboid movements. VI. The solation-contraction coupling hypothesis. J Cell Biol 83: 633–648.
  • 39. Chen WT (1979) Induction of spreading during fibroblast movement. J Cell Biol 81: 684–691.    
  • 40. Harris A, Dunn G (1972) Centripetal transport of attached particles on both surfaces of moving fibroblasts. Exp Cell Res 73: 519–523.    
  • 41. Lee J, Ishihara A, Teriot JA, et al. (1993) Principles of locomotion for simple-shaped cells. Nature 362: 167–171.    
  • 42. Keren K, Pincus Z, Allen GM, et al. (2008) Mechanism of shape determination in motile cells. Nature 453: 475–480.    
  • 43. Rubenstein B, Jacobson K, Moglilner A (2005) Multiscale two-dimensional modeling of a motile simple-shaped cell. Multiscale Model Sim 3: 413–439.    
  • 44. Barnhart EL, Lee KC, Keren K, et al. (2011) An adhesion-dependent switch between mechanisms that determine motile cell shape. PLoS Biol 9: 1–16.
  • 45. Wolgemuth C, Stajic J, Mogliner A (2011) Redundant mechanisms for stable cell locomotion revealed by minimal models. Biophys J 101: 545–553.    
  • 46. Bottino D, Moglilner A, Roberts T, et al. (2001) How nematode sperm crawl. J Cell Sci 115: 367–384.
  • 47. Roberts T, Stewart M (2000) Acting like actin: The dynamics of the nematode major sperm protein (MSP) cytoskeleton indicate a push-pull mechanism for amoeboid cell motility. J Cell Biol 149: 7–12.    
  • 48. Janson LW, Kolega J, Taylor DL (1991) Modulation of contraction by gelation/solation in a reconstituted motile model. J Cell Biol 114: 1005–1015.    
  • 49. Forscher P, Smith SJ (1988) Actions of cytochalasins on the organization of actin filaments and microtubules in a neuronal growth cone. J Cell Biol 107: 1505–1516.    
  • 50. Theriot JA, Mitchison TJ (1991) Actin microfilament dynamics in locomoting cells. Nature 352: 126–131.    
  • 51. Harris AK, Wild P, Stopal D (1980) Silicone rubber substrata: A new wrinkle in the study of cell locomotion. Science 208: 177–179.    
  • 52. Wang JHC, Shang JS (2007) Cell traction force and measurement methods. Biomech Model Mechan 6: 361–371.    
  • 53. Beningo KA, Dembo M, Kverina I, et al. (2001) Nascent focal adhesions are responsible for the generation of strong propulsive forces in migrating fibroblasts. J Cell Biol 153: 881–887.    
  • 54. Hind LE, Dembo M, Hammer DA (2015) Macrophage motility is driven by frontal-towing with a force magnitude dependent on substrate stiffness. Integr Biol 7: 447–453.    
  • 55. Doyle A, Marganski W, Lee J (2004) Calcium transients induce spatially coordinated increases in traction force during the movement of fish keratocytes. J Cell Sci 117: 2203–2214.    
  • 56. Loisel TP, Boujemaa R, Pantaloni D, et al. (1999) Reconstitution of actin-based motility of Listeria and Shigella using pure proteins. Nature 401: 613–616.    
  • 57. Roy P, Rajfur Z, Jones D (2001) Local photorelease of caged thymosin beta 4 in locomoting keratocytes causes cell turning. J Cell Biol 153: 1035–1047.    
  • 58. DiMilla PA, Barbee K, Lauffenburger DA (1991) Mathematical model for the effects of adhesion and mechanics on cell migration speed. Biophys J 60: 15–37.    
  • 59. Gupton SL, Waterman-Storer CM (2006) Spatiotemporal feedback between actomyosin and focal-adhesion systems optimizes rapid cell migration. Cell 125: 1361–1374.    
  • 60. Jurado C, Haserick JR, Lee J (2005) Slipping or gripping? Fluorescent speckle microscopy in fish keratocytes reveals two different mechanisms for generating a retrograde flow of actin. Mol Biol Cell 16: 507–518.
  • 61. Wilson CA, Tsuchida MA, Allen GM, et al. (2010) Myosin II contributes to cell-scale actin network treadmilling through network disassembly. Nature 465: 373–377.    
  • 62. Fournier MF, Sauser S, Ambrosi D, et al. (2010) Force transimission in migrating cells. J Cell Biol 188: 287–297.    
  • 63. Lee J, Leonard M, Oliver T, et al. (1994) Traction forces generated by locomoting keratocytes. J Cell Biol 127: 1957–1964.    
  • 64. Hartwell LH, Hopfield JJ, Leibler S, et al. (1999) From molecular to modular cell biology. Nature 402: C47–C52.    
  • 65. Italiano JE, Stewart M, Roberts TM (2001) How the assembly dynamics of the nematode major sperm protein generate amoeboid cell motility. Int Rev Cytol 202: 1–34.    
  • 66. Friedl P, Wolf K (2010) Plasticity of cell migration: A multiscale tuning model. J Cell Biol 188: 11–19.    
  • 67. Doyle AD, Lee J (2005) Cyclic changes in keratocyte speed and traction stress arise from Ca2+-dependent regulation of cell adhesiveness. J Cell Sci 118: 369–379.    
  • 68. Paku S, Tóvári J, Lörincz Z, et al. (2003) Adhesion dynamics and cytoskeletal structure of gliding human fibrosarcoma cells: A hypothetical model of cell migration. Exp Cell Res 290: 246–253.    
  • 69. Huang C, Rajfur Z, Borchers C, et al. (2003) JNK phosphorylates paxillin and regulates cell migration. Nature 424: 219–223.    
  • 70. Asano Y, Mizuno T, Kon T, et al. (2004) Keratocyte-like locomotion in amiB-null Dictyostelium cells. Cell Motil Cytoskel 59: 17–27.    
  • 71. Ma L, Janetopoulos C, Yang L, et al. (2004) Two complementary, local excitation, global inhibition mechanisms acting in parallel can explain the chemoattractant-induced regulation of PI(3,4,5)P-3 response in Dictyostelium cells. Biophys J 87: 3764–3774.    
  • 72. Yam PT, Wilson CA, Ji L, et al. (2007) Actin-myosin network reorganization breaks symmetry at the cell rear to spontaneously initiate polarized cell motility. J Cell Biol 178: 1207–1221.    
  • 73. Lee J, Jacobson K (1997) The composition and dynamics of cell-substratum adhesions in locomoting fish keratocytes. J Cell Sci 110: 2833–2844.
  • 74. Anderson KI, Cross R (2000) Contact dynamics during keratocyte motility. Curr Biol 10: 253–260.    
  • 75. Morin TR, Ghassemzadeh SA, Lee J (2014) Traction force microscopy in rapidly moving cells reveals separate roles for ROCK and MLCK in the mechanics of retraction. Exp Cell Res 326: 280–294.    
  • 76. Shao D, Levine H, Rappel WJ (2012) Coupling actin flow, adhesion, and morphology in a computational cell motiliy model. PNAS 109: 6851–6856.    
  • 77. Ziebert F, Aranson IS (2014) Modular approach for modeling cell motility. Eur Phys J-Spec Top 223: 1265–1277.    
  • 78. Camely BA, Zhao Y, Li B, et al. (2017) Crawling and turning in a minimal reaction-diffusion cell motility model: Coupling cell shape and biochemistry. Phys Rev E 95: 012401.    
  • 79. Barnhart EL, Allen GM, Julicher F, et al. (2010) Bipedal locomotion in crawling cells. Biophys J 98: 933–942.    
  • 80. Sanz-Morena V, Gadea G, Paterson H, et al. (2008) Rac activation and inactivation control plasticity of tumor cell movement. Cell 135: 510–523.    


Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved