Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 79 references

Microtubule polymerization generates microtentacles important in circulating tumor cell invasion

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Microtubule polymerization, not microtubule sliding, is the force that builds the curved microtentacles circulating tumor cells use to attach to blood-vessel walls.

desk verdict FRAP perturbation data convincingly show polymerization dominates McTN formation, but the quantitative force ratio and curvature mechanism rest on assumptions that need pinning down. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18301 v1 pith:2SOBUBM7 submitted 2025-05-23 physics.bio-ph physics.med-ph

Lucina Kainka , Reza Shaebani , Kathi Kaiser , Jonas Bosche , Ludger Santen , Franziska Lautenschläger This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phphysics.med-ph
keywords microtentaclescirculatingtumorcellsmicrotubulepolymerizationslidingFRAPBrownianratchetcelladhesionsemi-flexiblefilamentmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Circulating tumor cells can extend long, thin, microtubule-filled membrane protrusions called microtentacles, which help them grab blood-vessel walls during metastasis. This paper argues that the dominant force that builds these protrusions is microtubule polymerization, not the sliding of microtubules past one another, and that the reaction force of the deformed membrane on the growing tip, resisted by the microtubule-organizing center at the other end, gives microtentacles their characteristic curvature. The claim rests on FRAP experiments in non-cancerous RPE-1 cells whose actin cortex is weakened with latrunculin A, combined with simulations of two-state microtubule dynamics, force-dependent polymerization, and semi-flexible filaments. If correct, microtentacle length, flexibility, and curvature are not incidental shapes but functional adhesion parameters that determine how well a circulating tumor cell attaches to a vessel wall, which would give clinicians new readouts for metastatic potential and new targets for therapy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a two-state model of microtubule dynamics with force-dependent polymerization and catastrophe rates, formulated through the Brownian ratchet relation and solved as master equations for the microtubule length distribution, coupled to a discrete semi-flexible filament model whose bending and extensional energies are minimized together with a Lennard-Jones adhesion energy when the microtentacle approaches a wall. The first model converts the measured polymerization parameters, growth and shrinkage velocities, catastrophe and rescue frequencies from EB3 kymographs, into a predicted protrusion-length distribution and FRAP recovery curves. The second converts length, bending rigidity, and adhesion strength into a wall-connection phase diagram. The bridge between them is the assumption that all microtubules in a microtentacle share the membrane force equally and remain anchored in the MTOC, so that tip forces translate into curvature rather than into sliding of the bundle.

What would settle it

Using super-resolution or electron tomography to trace individual microtubules from a microtentacle tip back to the MTOC in latrunculin A-treated cells; if a substantial fraction of microtentacle microtubules are free fragments or have minus ends at the tip, the proposed tip-force-against-MTOC curvature mechanism and the kinesore-detachment interpretation both fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that microtubule polymerization inside a microtubule-organizing-center-anchored bundle is the primary force generator for microtentacle formation: the membrane pushes back on the growing plus ends with a fitted asymptotic force of about 28.7 pN, while the best-fit contribution from forward microtubule sliding is only about 3.2 pN, roughly one tenth as large. Because the microtubules are anchored in the MTOC at the cell body, the reaction force of the deformed membrane on the tip bends the bundle and produces the curved microtentacles seen in cells. When a microtentacle approaches a wall, nonspecific adhesion competes with the filament's bending energy; the simulations map out a phase diagram in which long, flexible microtentacles with strong adhesion maximize the contact area, while short, stiff ones minimize it. This links the formation mechanism, polymerization-driven growth and curvature, to the function, adhesion to vessel walls, and identifies length and curvature as quantifiable determinants of circulating tumor cell attachment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the microtubules inside a microtentacle remain anchored in the microtubule-organizing center with their growing plus ends toward the tip; the authors could not trace individual microtubules to the MTOC because of high density, so if many microtubules are unanchored fragments, the curvature mechanism and the kinesore-detachment interpretation collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations reproduce the measured microtentacle length distribution and FRAP recovery only when polymerization is combined with weak forward sliding; the fitted membrane force is about 28.7 pN versus about 3.2 pN for sliding, a factor of roughly ten.
  • Suppressing polymerization with paclitaxel reduces FRAP recovery and yields straighter, slightly shorter microtentacles, while enhancing kinesin-1 sliding with kinesore produces longer but straighter microtentacles and causes bleached regions to move, indicating microtubules detach from the MTOC.
  • The wall-connection phase diagram shows that long, flexible microtentacles with strong nonspecific adhesion maximize the cell-wall contact area, while short, stiff microtentacles minimize it.
  • Kinks, modeled as localized reductions in bending rigidity, generally decrease wall connection, although the effect depends on kink position and relative stiffness.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One testable extension: severing a microtentacle between tip and cell body with a laser should make the distal segment straighten in control cells but not in kinesore-treated cells, directly testing the anchoring assumption the authors could not resolve by imaging.
  • The model implies that modest changes in polymerization dynamics alone, without any adhesion change, should measurably shift the microtentacle curvature distribution; recording curvature histograms after low-dose drug treatments would probe this prediction.
  • If curvature is a functional adhesion parameter, then microtentacle length and curvature distributions in patient-derived circulating tumor cells might correlate with extravasation or clinical outcome; the paper does not test this, but its mechanism makes the correlation a reasonable hypothesis.
  • An implicit trade-off follows from the kinesore results: interventions that lengthen microtentacles by promoting sliding can also detach them from the MTOC and introduce kinks, so longer protrusions may be less adhesive; this suggests the optimal adhesive state is long, curved, and MTOC-anchored rather than simply maximally long.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the mechanism of microtentacle (McTN) formation in circulating tumor cells using a combination of fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) experiments and simulations. The authors first show that latrunculin A-treated RPE-1 cells form MT-based protrusions that resemble McTNs and promote adhesion. They then use EB3 kymographs to show that MT plus-ends grow predominantly anterogradely toward the McTN tip, and FRAP experiments with paclitaxel and kinesore to argue that polymerization dominates over MT sliding. A two-state stochastic model of MT growth against a deformable membrane is used to reproduce the McTN length distribution and the FRAP recovery curves, yielding an asymptotic membrane force of about 28.7 pN and a sliding force of about 3.2 pN. The paper concludes that polymerization of MTs anchored at the MTOC drives the generation of curved McTNs, and that longer, more flexible McTNs enhance cell-wall contact. The authors propose that McTN length and curvature are functionally relevant parameters for CTC adhesion and metastasis.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper identifies polymerization as the dominant force-generating mechanism for McTN formation and connects McTN morphology to adhesive function, which would be a meaningful advance for understanding CTC extravasation. Strengths include an independent perturbation design: paclitaxel slows FRAP recovery and kinesore produces clear ROI1/ROI2 intensity losses, providing qualitative support that does not rely on the simulation. The FRAP simulation is a genuine cross-check of the fitted model, and the adhesion simulations make falsifiable predictions about the role of McTN length and flexibility. The use of a non-cancerous cell line to argue that the mechanism is general is also a positive feature. However, the quantitative layer is fragile: the asymptotic force is fitted to the length distribution that it is later claimed to reproduce, and the sliding force is fitted to the same FRAP curves used for validation. The load-bearing assumption that McTNs remain anchored in the MTOC is supported only indirectly, and the curvature mechanism depends critically on this premise.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.E, Eqs. (1)-(5), Suppl. Fig. S7B] The asymptotic force F ≈ 28.7 pN is defined as the value that 'minimizes the error between simulated and experimental length distribution.' Consequently, the agreement between the simulated and experimental McTN length distributions shown in Fig. 5B is obtained by construction and does not independently validate the polymerization mechanism. The independent test is the FRAP recovery simulation; however, pure polymerization alone deviates by about 22%, and the improved 5% deviation is achieved by additionally fitting the sliding force to the same FRAP data. The text should explicitly distinguish fitted parameters from genuinely predicted quantities, and should present the 22% mismatch as a limitation of the pure-polymerization model rather than as confirmation.
  2. [Section III.B and III.F] The claim that MTs in McTNs are anchored in the MTOC is load-bearing for the curvature mechanism, yet it rests on indirect evidence. The authors state in III.B that individual MTs could not be traced back to the MTOC due to high MT density; the supporting evidence is the anterograde bias of EB3 comets and the absence of visible MT fragments in SEM images. As noted, plus-end growth direction does not establish minus-end location: MTs nucleated near the McTN base or along the bundle would also produce anterograde EB3 movement, and SEM continuity from the cell body does not prove continuity to the MTOC. Section III.F uses this premise to interpret paclitaxel-induced straightening as reduced tip force against the MTOC and kinesore-induced straightening as detachment from the MTOC; both interpretations are invalid if MTs are not anchored. The authors should either provide direct evidence for minus-end anchoring (e.g., minus-end markers or photoactivation experiments) or substantially weaken the curvature and detachment claims.
  3. [Section III.E and Fig. 5] The quantitative claim that 'the force exerted due to polymerization is ten times higher than the force generated by sliding' compares two fitted quantities: F = 28.7 pN is fitted to the length distribution, and the sliding force of 3.2 pN is fitted to the FRAP recovery curve. The reported ratio is therefore not a model prediction with quantified uncertainty; it is a statement about the best-fit values. The number of MTs per McTN, estimated as 10 from reference [56] and used to share the force in Section III.E, also affects the absolute values. Please provide a sensitivity analysis over these parameters and report confidence intervals for the fitted forces.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.C] The assumption of negligible free-tubulin diffusion inside McTNs is stated without quantitative support: 'the highly confined geometry of McTNs leads to drastically reduced diffusion coefficients... and is therefore insufficient to affect the observed trends.' Please provide an estimate of the diffusion timescale for tubulin dimers in a ~1 µm diameter McTN or a reference supporting this claim.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and encoding issues, including 'imp ortant' in the title, ligature artifacts in 'fluorescence,' 'ˆA°C' for degrees Celsius, '1 1 µM' in the Supplementary Materials, and 'Comapring' in the p-value section. Please proofread carefully.
  3. [Section II.E] The image-processing package is essential for McTN length and curvature quantification, but its details are deferred to a future publication. Please provide at least a brief validation of the length and curvature measurements (e.g., comparison to manual tracing or synthetic test images).
  4. [Section II.G] The description of the bleach region contains a redundant phrase: 'ROI* was manually located approximately at half the length of the McTN length.' Please clarify the selection criteria and the exact dimensions of the bleached region relative to the McTN diameter.
  5. [Supplementary Statistics] There is a suspicious duplication of p-values across different comparisons (e.g., 0.002117802 appears for both the 20-min adhesion time in Fig. 1G and the entering-vs-rescue comparison in Fig. 2B), suggesting a copy-paste error. Please verify all supplementary p-values.
  6. [Section III.E, Suppl. Table S1] The sliding velocity is set to equal the MT growth velocity 'as an approximation.' This choice directly affects the fitted sliding force and should be justified with a sensitivity analysis or a reference to measured sliding velocities.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Minor fitted-input issue: the polymerization force F is fit to the McTN length distribution and then the length match is cited as confirmation; the central polymerization-vs-sliding claim retains independent FRAP and drug-treatment support.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III.E, Results (MT polymerization drives McTN formation); equations (1)-(2) and Suppl. Fig. S7]
    "Therefore, we asked whether a pure polymerization mechanism could reproduce the length distribution of McTNs obtained in our experiments. The mean McTN length was calculated as a function of the force exerted by the membrane (Suppl. Fig. S7B). Comparison to the experiments shows that a force of F ≈ 28.7 pN minimizes the error between simulated and experimental length distribution."

    F is obtained by minimizing the error against the same experimental McTN length distribution that is later cited as agreement (simulated 4.1 ± 0.6 µm vs experimental 4.3 ± 0.8 µm; pure polymerization 3.9 µm). The length match is therefore by construction and cannot serve as independent confirmation of the polymerization mechanism. The subsequent claim that polymerization force is ten times the sliding force also compares this fitted F with a sliding force fitted to the same FRAP recovery curves, so the quantitative ratio is a model fit rather than a blind prediction. The central claim is not fully circular, because the pure-polymerization FRAP cross-check gives a 22% deviation and the paclitaxel/kinesore comparisons provide independent experimental support.

full rationale

The derivation chain is mostly self-contained: MT dynamics parameters are measured from kymographs, the two-state growth/catastrophe model is standard, and the pure-polymerization simulation with fixed F gives a genuine cross-check on FRAP recovery in ROI* (around 22% deviation) before sliding is added. The paclitaxel and kinesore perturbations are experimental manipulations whose FRAP signatures do not depend on the fitted force values. The main circularity caution is in Section III.E, where the force F is fit to the McTN length distribution and the resulting match is then reported as if it were a confirmation; that specific match is a restatement of the fit. The quantitative 10:1 force ratio is similarly built from two fitted parameters (F from length, sliding force from FRAP), so it should be read as model output, not an independent measurement. The MTOC-anchorage premise used in the curvature interpretation is load-bearing and not firmly established by the paper's own tracing data, but that is an unsupported geometric assumption rather than a definitional or self-citation circularity. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present, and the central polymerization-dominates conclusion retains independent experimental content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new entities; McTNs, MTs, kinesin, and the MTOC are known. The quantitative outputs rest on two fitted forces (28.7 pN membrane force, 3.2 pN sliding force) plus a literature-borrowed MT count of 10, so the simulation confirms trends whose magnitudes are fit-derived.

free parameters (5)
  • Asymptotic membrane force F = ~28.7 pN
    Fitted in Section III.E to minimize the error between simulated and experimental McTN length distribution; all downstream force comparisons inherit this fit.
  • MT sliding force (control) = ~3.2 pN
    Fitted to match the experimental FRAP recovery curve (Section III.E); the tenfold polymerization/sliding ratio follows from this fit.
  • MT sliding force (kinesore) = ~11.4 pN
    Fitted in simulations of the kinesore condition (Suppl. Fig. S7C).
  • Number of MTs per McTN = 10 (borrowed from Killilea et al. [56])
    Used to normalize EB3 event frequencies and to share membrane force across the bundle; not measured in this study (Section II.F).
  • Sliding velocity = Set equal to MT growth velocity
    Ad hoc approximation stated in Section III.E and Suppl. Table S1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Brownian ratchet force-velocity relation, Eq. (1)
    Standard model [31,48,49] relating membrane force to polymerization rate; carries the whole force-response structure.
  • domain assumption Force-dependent catastrophe frequency, Eq. (2)
    Taken from Janson et al. [50]; reduces the catastrophe interval under load.
  • standard math Two-state MT master equation with reflecting boundaries
    Kinetic scheme for growing/shrinking filaments (Dogterom-Leibler [42]); its steady-state solution yields the length distribution.
  • domain assumption Force sharing equally between MTs in the bundle
    Invoked before fitting F (Section III.E), citing bundle force-sharing results [66-68].
  • domain assumption MTs anchored in MTOC, plus ends toward the tip
    Inferred in Section III.B from EB3 directionality and SEM, stated as 'likely'; load-bearing for the curvature mechanism.
  • ad hoc to paper Negligible free-tubulin diffusion inside McTNs
    Asserted in Section III.C ('insufficient to affect the observed trends') without a diffusion measurement; the FRAP sliding interpretation depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Piecewise linear deformation-force membrane model
    Adopted in Section II.I and Fig. S7A; the asymptotic plateau F is then fitted.
  • domain assumption Lennard-Jones potential represents nonspecific McTN-wall adhesion
    Used in Section III.G; authors note conclusions are independent of the adhesive interaction choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microtubule polymerization generates microtentacles important in circulating tumor cell invasion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SOBUBM7

@misc{pith2026250518301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microtubule polymerization generates microtentacles important in circulating tumor cell invasion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SOBUBM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18301}
}
read the original abstract

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) have crucial roles in the spread of tumors during metastasis. A decisive step is the extravasation of CTCs from the blood stream or lymph system, which depends on the ability of cells to attach to vessel walls. Recent work suggests that such adhesion is facilitated by microtubule (MT)-based membrane protrusions called microtentacles (McTNs). However, how McTNs facilitate such adhesion and how MTs can generate protrusions in CTCs remain unclear. By combining fluorescence recovery after photobleaching (FRAP) experiments and simulations we show that polymerization of MTs provides the main driving force for McTN formation, whereas the contribution of MTs sliding with respect to each other is minimal. Further, the forces exerted on the McTN tip result in curvature, as the MTs are anchored at the other end in the MT organizing center. When approaching vessel walls, McTN curvature is additionally influenced by the adhesion strength between the McTN and wall. Moreover, increasing McTN length, reducing its bending rigidity, or strengthening adhesion enhances the cell-wall contact area and, thus, promotes cell attachment to vessel walls. Our results demonstrate a link between the formation and function of McTNs, which may provide new insight into metastatic cancer diagnosis and therapy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18301 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [56]

    Govindan, B. S. & Spillman, W. B. Steady states of a microtubule assembly in a confined geometry. Phys. Rev. E 70, 032901 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [1]

    Mann-Whitney U -Test was performed

    p-values figure 1 G and Figure S1 B Comparing the relative number of attached cells of untreated RPE- 1 cells to RPE-1 cells treated with 1 1 µM latrunculin A at different adhesion times or coatings. Mann-Whitney U -Test was performed. Adhesion Time/ Coating p-Value 20 min 0.002117802 40 min 0.012090025 60 min 0.323213811 90 min 0.009979962 no coating 0.016...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Mann-Whitne y U-Test was performed

    p-values figure 2 B-D Comapring different parameters of EB3-tip dynamics. Mann-Whitne y U-Test was performed

    work page

  4. [3]

    4A) confirmed this inhibition

    as well as the slower and reduced intensity recovery in ROI* (Fig. 4A) confirmed this inhibition. While treat- ment with paclitaxel had no clear influence on the in- tensity in ROI1, the intensity in ROI2 consistently de- creased within 600 s after the bleaching pulse (Fig. 4A). These results demonstrate that there is an effect of for- ward sliding dynamics ...

    work page

  5. [4]

    T-Test was performed

    p-values figure 4 A Comapring the mean intensity change between different conditons a t different times. T-Test was performed

    work page

  6. [5]

    Mann-Whitney U-Test was performed because data were not norm ally distributed

    p-values 6 A Comapring McTN straightness and McTN length for control conditio n, paclitaxel condition and kinesore condition. Mann-Whitney U-Test was performed because data were not norm ally distributed. Parameter control vs paclitaxel control vs kinesore paclitaxel vs kinesore straightness 1.74E-08 1.61E-23 1.46E-12 length 0.058759533 0.001120942 6.73E-...

    work page

  7. [6]

    & Pantel, K

    Alix-Panabi ˘A¨res, C. & Pantel, K. Challenges in circu- lating tumour cell research. Nature Reviews Cancer 14, 623–631 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    & Speicher, M

    Pantel, K. & Speicher, M. The biology of circulating tumor cells. Oncogene 35, 1216–1224 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    Hamza et al

    B. Hamza et al. Optofluidic real-time cell sorter for lon- 21 gitudinal CTC studies in mouse models of cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 2232–2236 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Vermesh et al

    O. Vermesh et al. An intravascular magnetic wire for the high-throughput retrieval of circulating tumour cells in vivo. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 2, 696–705 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    D. T. Ting et al. Single-cell RNA sequencing identifies extracellular matrix gene expression by pancreatic circu- lating tumor cells. Cell Rep. 8, 1905–1918 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    D. T. Miyamoto et al. RNA-Seq of single prostate CTCs implicates noncanonical Wnt signaling in antiandrogen resistance. Science 349, 1351–1356 (2015)

    2015

  5. [12]

    Aceto et al

    N. Aceto et al. Circulating tumor cell clusters are oligo - clonal precursors of breast cancer metastasis. Cell 158, 1110–1122 (2014)

    2014

  6. [13]

    S. H. Au et al. Clusters of circulating tumor cells traver se capillary-sized vessels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 4947–4952 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    A. F. Sarioglu et al. A microfluidic device for label-free , physical capture of circulating tumor cell clusters. Nat. Methods 12, 685–691 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    F., Groom, A

    Chambers, A. F., Groom, A. C. & MacDonald, I. C. Dissemination and growth of cancer cells in metastatic sites. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2, 563–572 (2002)

    2002

  9. [16]

    & Obenauf, A

    Massagu´ e, J. & Obenauf, A. C. Metastatic colonization by circulating tumour cells. Nature 529, 298–306 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    & Offermanns, S

    Strilic, B. & Offermanns, S. Intravascular survival and extravasation of tumor cells. Cancer Cell 32, 282–293 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    A., Cheung, A

    Whipple, R. A., Cheung, A. M. & Martin, S. S. De- tyrosinated microtubule protrusions in suspended mam- mary epithelial cells promote reattachment. Exp. Cell Res. 313, 1326–1336 (2007)

    2007

  12. [19]

    M., Whipple, R

    Balzer, E. M., Whipple, R. A., Cho, E. H., Matrone, M. A. & Martin, S. S. Antimitotic chemotherapeutics promote adhesive responses in detached and circulating tumor cells. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.121, 65–78 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Boggs, A. E. et al. alpha-tubulin acetylation elevated in metastatic and basal-like breast cancer cells promotes mi- crotentacle formation, adhesion, and invasive migration. Cancer Res. 75, 203–215 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Matrone, M. A. et al. Metastatic breast tumors express increased tau, which promotes microtentacle formation and the reattachment of detached breast tumor cells. Oncogene 29, 3217–3227 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    R. A. Whipple et al. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transi - tion promotes tubulin detyrosination and microtentacles that enhance endothelial engagement. Cancer Res. 70, 8127–8137 (2010)

    2010

  16. [23]

    Korb, T. et al. Integrity of actin fibers and microtubules influences metastatic tumor cell adhesion. Exp. Cell Res. 299, 236–247 (2004)

    2004

  17. [24]

    Bouchet, B. P. & Akhmanova, A. Microtubules in 3d cell motility. J. Cell Sci. 130, 39–50 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    Microtubules in cell migratio n

    Etienne-Manneville, S. Microtubules in cell migratio n. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 29, 471–499 (2013)

    2013

  19. [26]

    Yamada, K. M. & Sixt, M. Mechanisms of 3d cell migra- tion. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 20, 738–752 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Caswell, P. T. & Zech, T. Actin-based cell protrusion in a 3d matrix. Trends Cell Biol. 28, 823–834 (2018)

    2018

  21. [28]

    Laughlin, S. B. & Sejnowski, T. J. Communication in neuronal networks. Science 301, 1870–1874 (2003)

    2003

  22. [29]

    & Yamashita, Y

    Buszczak, M., Inaba, M. & Yamashita, Y. M. Signaling by cellular protrusions: Keeping the conversation private . Trends Cell Biol. 26, 526–534 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    Mattila, P. K. & Lappalainen, P. Filopodia: molecular architecture and cellular functions. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 9, 446–454 (2008)

    2008

  24. [31]

    Marshall, W. F. & Nonaka, S. Cilia: Tuning in to the cell’s antenna. Curr. Biol. 16, R604–R614 (2006)

    2006

  25. [32]

    Clainche, C. L. & Carlier, M.-F. Regulation of actin assembly associated with protrusion and adhesion in cell migration. Physiol. Rev. 88, 489–513 (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    & Condeelis, J

    Linder, S., Cervero, P., Eddy, R. & Condeelis, J. Mech- anisms and roles of podosomes and invadopodia. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 24, 86–106 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Bender, M. et al. Microtubule sliding drives proplatelet elongation and is dependent on cytoplasmic dynein. Blood 125, 860–868 (2015)

    2015

  28. [35]

    Lu, W., Fox, P., Lakonishok, M., Davidson, M. W. & Gelfand, V. I. Initial neurite outgrowth in drosophila neurons is driven by kinesin-powered microtubule sliding. Curr. Biol. 23, 1018–1023 (2013)

    2013

  29. [36]

    S., Odell, G

    Peskin, C. S., Odell, G. M. & Oster, G. F. Cellular motions and thermal fluctuations: the brownian ratchet. Biophys. J. 65, 316–324 (1993)

    1993

  30. [37]

    Theriot, J. A. The polymerization motor. Traffic 1, 19– 28 (2000)

    2000

  31. [38]

    & Zemel, A

    Jakobs, M., Franze, K. & Zemel, A. Force generation by molecular-motor-powered microtubule bundles; implica- tions for neuronal polarization and growth. Front. cell. neurosci. 9, 441 (2015)

    2015

  32. [39]

    B., Del Castillo, U., Gelfand, V

    Oelz, D. B., Del Castillo, U., Gelfand, V. I. & Mogilner, A. Microtubule dynamics, kinesin-1 sliding, and dynein action drive growth of cell processes. Biophys. J. 115, 1614–1624 (2018)

    2018

  33. [40]

    & Gelfand, V

    Lu, W., Lakonishok, M. & Gelfand, V. I. Kinesin-1- powered microtubule sliding initiates axonal regeneratio n in drosophila cultured neurons. Mol. Biol. Cell 26, 1296– 1307 (2015)

    2015

  34. [41]

    K., Marko, J

    Fygenson, D. K., Marko, J. F. & Libchaber, A. Mechan- ics of microtubule-based membrane extension. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4497–4500 (1997)

    1997

  35. [42]

    & Tabeling, P

    Emsellem, V., Cardoso, O. & Tabeling, P. Vesicle defor- mation by microtubules: A phase diagram. Phys. Rev. E 58, 4807–4810 (1998)

    1998

  36. [43]

    Gavriljuk, K. et al. A self-organized synthetic mor- phogenic liposome responds with shape changes to local light cues. Nat. Commun. 12, 1548 (2021)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Bouchet, B. P. et al. Mesenchymal cell invasion requires cooperative regulation of persistent microtubule growth by slain2 and clasp1. Dev. Cell 39, 708–723 (2016)

    2016

  38. [45]

    Jakobs, M. A. H., Dimitracopoulos, A. & Franze, K. Ky- mobutler, a deep learning software for automated kymo- graph analysis. eLife 8, e42288 (2019)

    2019

  39. [46]

    & Charras, G

    Fritzsche, M. & Charras, G. Dissecting protein reac- tion dynamics in living cells by fluorescence recovery af- ter photobleaching. Nat. Protoc. 10, 660–680 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    & Leibler, S

    Dogterom, M. & Leibler, S. Physical aspects of the growth and regulation of microtubule structures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1347 (1993)

    1993

  41. [48]

    & Santen, L

    Ebbinghaus, M. & Santen, L. Theoretical modeling of aging effects in microtubule dynamics. Biophys. J. 100, 832–838 (2011)

    2011

  42. [49]

    L., Redner, S., Mailman, M

    Antal, T., Krapivsky, P. L., Redner, S., Mailman, M. & Chakraborty, B. Dynamics of an idealized model of microtubule growth and catastrophe. Phys. Rev. E 76, 041907 (2007)

    2007

  43. [50]

    & Prost, J

    Der´ enyi, I., J¨ ulicher, F. & Prost, J. Formation and inter- 22 action of membrane tubes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 238101 (2002)

    2002

  44. [51]

    R., Huber, G

    Powers, T. R., Huber, G. & Goldstein, R. E. Fluid- membrane tethers: Minimal surfaces and elastic bound- ary layers. Phys. Rev. E 65, 041901 (2002)

    2002

  45. [52]

    Sheetz, M. P. Cell control by membrane–cytoskeleton adhesion. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 392–396 (2001)

    2001

  46. [53]

    Dogterom, M. et al. Force generation by polymerizing microtubules. Appl. Phys. A 75, 331–336 (2002)

    2002

  47. [54]

    Stukalin, E. B. & Kolomeisky, A. B. Simple growth mod- els of rigid multifilament biopolymers. J. Chem. Phys. 121, 1097–1104 (2004)

    2004

  48. [55]

    E., de Dood, M

    Janson, M. E., de Dood, M. E. & Dogterom, M. Dynamic instability of microtubules is regulated by force. J. Cell Biol. 161, 1029–1034 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    & Santen, L

    Weber, I., Appert-Rolland, C., Schehr, G. & Santen, L. Non-equilibrium fluctuations of a semi-flexible filament driven by active cross-linkers. Europhys. Lett. 120, 38006 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    & Porod, G

    Kratky, O. & Porod, G. R¨ ontgenuntersuchung gel¨ oster fadenmolek¨ ule.Recueil des Travaux Chimiques des Pays- Bas 68, 1106–1122 (1949)

    1949

  51. [59]

    & J¨ ulicher, F

    Camalet, S. & J¨ ulicher, F. Generic aspects of axonemal beating. New J. Phys. 2, 324 (2000)

    2000

  52. [60]

    A., Whipple, R

    Matrone, M. A., Whipple, R. A., Balzer, E. M. & Martin, S. S. Microtentacles tip the balance of cytoskeletal forces in circulating tumor cells. Cancer Res. 70, 7737–7741 (2010)

    2010

  53. [61]

    Killilea, A. N. et al. Cytoskeletal organization in micro- tentacles. Exp. Cell Res. 357, 291–298 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Vardas, V. et al. Functional analysis of viable circulating tumor cells from triple-negative breast cancer patients using tetherchip technology. Cells 12 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Kapitein, L. C. & Hoogenraad, C. C. Building the neu- ronal microtubule cytoskeleton. Neuron 87, 492–506 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    & Italiano, J., J

    Hartwig, J. & Italiano, J., J. The birth of the platelet. J. Thromb. Haemost 1, 1580–1586 (2003)

    2003

  57. [65]

    Italiano, J., Joseph E., Lecine, P., Shivdasani, R. A. & Hartwig, J. H. Blood platelets are assembled principally at the ends of proplatelet processes produced by differ- entiated megakaryocytes. J. Cell Biol. 147, 1299–1312 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Dallon, J. C. et al. Using fluorescence recovery after pho- tobleaching data to uncover filament dynamics. PLoS Comput Biol 18, e1010573 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Jolly, A. L. et al. Kinesin-1 heavy chain mediates micro- tubule sliding to drive changes in cell shape. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 12151–12156 (2010)

    2010

  60. [68]

    Randall, T. S. et al. A small-molecule activator of kinesin-1 drives remodeling of the microtubule network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 13738–13743 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    R., Pasula, A., Ott, A

    Shaebani, M. R., Pasula, A., Ott, A. & Santen, L. Track- ing of plus-ends reveals microtubule functional diversity in different cell types. Sci. Rep. 6, 30285 (2016)

    2016

  62. [70]

    R., Wysocki, A., Winkler, R., Gompper, G

    Shaebani, M. R., Wysocki, A., Winkler, R., Gompper, G. & Rieger, H. Computational models for active matter. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 181 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    L., Kerssemakers, J

    Laan, L., Husson, J., Munteanu, E. L., Kerssemakers, J. W. J. & Dogterom, M. Force-generation and dynamic instability of microtubule bundles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 8920–8925 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    S., Tanase, C., Mulder, B

    van Doorn, G. S., Tanase, C., Mulder, B. M. & Dogterom, M. On the stall force for growing micro- tubules. Eur. Biophys. J. 29, 2–6 (2000)

    2000

  65. [73]

    & Kierfeld, J

    Krawczyk, J. & Kierfeld, J. Stall force of polymerizing microtubules and filament bundles. Europhys. Lett. 93, 28006 (2011)

    2011

  66. [74]

    & Kapitein, L

    Akhmanova, A. & Kapitein, L. C. Mechanisms of micro- tubule organization in differentiated animal cells. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 23, 541–558 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    & Kappl, M

    Butt, H., Graf, K. & Kappl, M. Physics and Chemistry of Interfaces (Wiley-VCH Verlag Co, Weinheim, Germany, 2003)

    2003

  68. [76]

    Li, Y. et al. Compressive forces stabilize microtubules in living cells. Nat. Mater. 22, 913–924 (2023)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Schaedel, L. et al. Microtubules self-repair in response to mechanical stress. Nat. Mater. 14, 1156–1163 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    Triclin, S. et al. Self-repair protects microtubules from destruction by molecular motors. Nat. Mater. 20, 883– 891 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Chugh, P. et al. Actin cortex architecture regulates cell surface tension. Nat. Cell Biol. 19, 689–697 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.