In contrast, chemotactic cells dominantly select the elongation pattern due to signals from G-proteins and then move toward the source of the chemoattractant by coordinating cell movement with the selected elongation pattern.
Although cell polarity that is sustained by PI3K and PTEN in chemotaxis could be related to the elongation pattern of cell shape, neither the cell polarity nor the elongation pattern may be necessary for chemotaxis.
A previous study reported rotation and oscillation patterns in starved cells [2]; however, the elongation pattern in WT STA and the ordered patterns in WT VEG cells have not been reported.
The elongation pattern indicated that the cells amplify shallow gradients of spontaneously produced PIP3 and maintain cell polarity through PI3K and PTEN.
Comparison of internode elongation patterns among Srs5, d1-1, and d61-2 revealed that the internode elongation pattern of Srs5 differs from that of d1-1 and d61-2 (Figure 1E).
Schematic representation of the internode elongation pattern of T65, Srs5, d1-1, and d61-2.
The forces reported in this paper were elicited by imposing the following elongation patterns: Saccade-like elongations (i.e., half-sinusoid velocity profiles), having a range of amplitudes (between 1 and 4 mm), peak speeds (between 60 and 160 mm/s) and starting from different initial muscle lengths.
Therefore, the EL or AR elongation pattern of PCs in vitro does not appear to be related to the ongoing dendritogenic process.
First, viscoelastic responses are quite complex, and without a model that acts as a reference it is often difficult to have an idea about what force to expect under an elongation pattern given the response to another elongation pattern.
Hence, cell polarity in chemotaxis could be considered as the property that cells dominantly choose an elongation pattern.
