Filopodia-based contact stimulation of cell migration drives tissue morphogenesis

Cells migrate collectively to form tissues and organs during morphogenesis. Contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL) drives collective migration by inhibiting lamellipodial protrusions at cell–cell contacts and promoting polarization at the leading edge. Here, we report a CIL-related collective cell behavior of myotubes that lack lamellipodial protrusions, but instead use filopodia to move as a cohesive cluster in a formin-dependent manner. We perform genetic, pharmacological and mechanical perturbation analyses to reveal the essential roles of Rac2, Cdc42 and Rho1 in myotube migration. These factors differentially control protrusion dynamics and cell–matrix adhesion formation. We also show that active Rho1 GTPase localizes at retracting free edge filopodia and that Rok-dependent actomyosin contractility does not mediate a contraction of protrusions at cell–cell contacts, but likely plays an important role in the constriction of supracellular actin cables. Based on these findings, we propose that contact-dependent asymmetry of cell–matrix adhesion drives directional movement, whereas contractile actin cables contribute to the integrity of the migrating cell cluster.


Statistics
For all statistical analyses, confirm that the following items are present in the figure legend, table legend, main text, or Methods section.
n/a Confirmed The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a discrete number and unit of measurement A statement on whether measurements were taken from distinct samples or whether the same sample was measured repeatedly The statistical test(s) used AND whether they are one-or two-sided Only common tests should be described solely by name; describe more complex techniques in the Methods section.
A description of all covariates tested A description of any assumptions or corrections, such as tests of normality and adjustment for multiple comparisons A full description of the statistical parameters including central tendency (e.g. means) or other basic estimates (e.g. regression coefficient) AND variation (e.g. standard deviation) or associated estimates of uncertainty (e.g. confidence intervals) For null hypothesis testing, the test statistic (e.g. F, t, r) with confidence intervals, effect sizes, degrees of freedom and P value noted Give P values as exact values whenever suitable.

For Bayesian analysis, information on the choice of priors and Markov chain Monte Carlo settings
For hierarchical and complex designs, identification of the appropriate level for tests and full reporting of outcomes Estimates of effect sizes (e.g. Cohen's d, Pearson's r), indicating how they were calculated Our web collection on statistics for biologists contains articles on many of the points above.

Software and code
Policy information about availability of computer code Data collection

Data analysis
For manuscripts utilizing custom algorithms or software that are central to the research but not yet described in published literature, software must be made available to editors/reviewers. We strongly encourage code deposition in a community repository (e.g. GitHub). See the Nature Research guidelines for submitting code & software for further information.

Data
Policy information about availability of data All manuscripts must include a data availability statement. This statement should provide the following information, where applicable: Field-specific reporting Please select the one below that is the best fit for your research. If you are not sure, read the appropriate sections before making your selection.

Life sciences Behavioural & social sciences Ecological, evolutionary & environmental sciences
For a reference copy of the document with all sections, see nature.com/documents/nr-reporting-summary-flat.pdf

Life sciences study design
All studies must disclose on these points even when the disclosure is negative. Sample sizes were based on applicable standards and routinely employed sample sizes in the field. For genetic experiments involving crossing animals, each cross was set up at least three times. The sample sizes are indicated in the legends of each figure and were determined before the experiments were performed.
No data were excluded.
All replicates are reported in the manuscript.
Flies and pupa were chosen at random from the same genetic background. For all experiments we chose flies with the appropriate genotype. Among flies with the appropriate genotype flies were chosen at random. Animal controls were performed wherever possible. For each experiment, the experimental and control flies were collected, treated, and tested at the same time.
Blinding was not feasible as pheneotypic strength and distinctive characteristics allows clear identification of the genotype in microscopic data. Blinding was not necessary as Excel was used for semi-automatic unbiased quantification of data based on experiments performed all by the same investigator.