Colin et al. (Current Biology, 2018) showed in actin-intact Xenopus egg extracts and in a purified-protein reconstitution that the architecture of the actin filament meshwork dictates its effect on microtubules: branched, Arp2/3-generated networks reduce microtubule growth rate and length, trigger catastrophes, constrain aster mobility, and arrest monopolar spindle assembly, whereas unbranched networks stabilize microtubules. The mechanism was inferred to be mechanical — a stiff, reticulated network opposing microtubule polymerization, with friction at microtubule–actin contacts — but no forces were measured and the molecular basis was speculative. The open problem is to establish this mechanism quantitatively and causally: measure how actin-network microscopic parameters (branching density, cross-linker identity and density) map to the resistive forces experienced by growing microtubule plus ends, including force–velocity relations per architecture; and identify the molecular origin of the frictional or adhesive microtubule–actin interactions in cytoplasm (steric crowding, generic filament–filament friction, or specific cross-linking proteins). Related directions that the same work raises or suggests include whether this mechanical regulation also operates in living cells and complements biochemical regulators such as RanGTP, and how meshwork stiffness and remodeling govern the contrast between arrested and permissive spindle growth. Follow-up work (2019–2026) has provided semi-quantitative reconstitutions of microtubule–actin encounters, evidence that passive cross-linkers can transmit plus-end forces, and first in vivo demonstrations that branched actin networks regulate spindle mechanics, but the calibrated force mapping and the cytoplasmic friction mediator remain unresolved, and the roles of stiffness and remodeling have not been quantified.

Background

Microtubules are hollow protein polymers of tubulin that assemble the mitotic spindle and most intracellular organization. They elongate at their 'plus end' by subunit addition and stochastically switch to rapid shortening (a behavior called dynamic instability; the switch from growth to shrinkage is called a catastrophe); their growth rate, lifetime, and catastrophe frequency determine how large microtubule arrays such as spindles become. Actin filaments are the other major cytoskeletal polymer; in cells they form either unbranched bundles and networks, generated for example by formins (processive proteins that elongate actin filaments while remaining bound to the growing end), or branched meshworks generated by the Arp2/3 complex, a protein assembly that nucleates new actin filaments off the sides of existing ones at a characteristic angle of about 70 degrees. The two systems interact through both biochemical regulators and, as became clear around 2010–2018, direct mechanics. Quantitative single-microtubule experiments had long shown that opposing force slows microtubule growth (the force–velocity relation measured by Dogterom and Yurke for microtubules growing against microfabricated barriers), and reconstitutions had shown actin filaments can be steered by growing microtubule ends through cross-linking proteins (Preciado López et al., 2014). What was missing was the converse question at network scale: does the mesoscale architecture of an actin meshwork, by itself, regulate microtubule dynamics? Colin, Singaravelu, Théry, Blanchoin and Gueroui (Current Biology 28, 2647–2656, 2018; DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.028) addressed this in actin-intact Xenopus egg extracts (cell-free cytoplasm from frog eggs, a standard system for spindle self-organization) confined in droplets, and in a minimal system of purified proteins. They found that branched actin meshworks reduce microtubule length and growth rate in a density-dependent manner, trigger catastrophes when growing plus ends encounter the network, immobilize microtubule asters (radial microtubule arrays nucleated by centrosomes, by constitutively active RanGTP — the GTP-bound form of the Ran small GTPase, which releases spindle assembly factors from their importin chaperones — or by chromosomes), and arrest monopolar spindle assembly when the meshwork is dense and static, whereas a sparse, contractile (remodeling) meshwork permits spindle assembly and unbranched actin networks even stabilize microtubules. Their interpretation was mechanical: branches act as reticulation (cross-connection) points that stiffen the network, so the meshwork opposes microtubule polymerization with resistive forces, while multiple microtubule–actin contacts, 'probably mediated by the presence of cross-linkers', could generate friction; the dense-static versus sparse-contractile contrast was attributed to meshwork stiffness. These mechanisms were proposed, not measured: no force was measured at any microtubule plus end, no cross-linker was identified, and no in vivo test was performed. The paper's Discussion therefore leaves open, in its own words and logic, a coherent set of unanswered questions that define this problem.

Problem Statement

Establish, quantitatively and causally, the mechanism by which actin-network architecture regulates microtubule dynamics and spindle assembly, as left open by Colin et al. (2018). At its core, defined by the source paper's unresolved gaps, the problem asks: (1) Force mapping: measure directly the resistive forces experienced by growing microtubule plus ends as they encounter actin networks of different architectures, and determine the force-velocity relations and the quantitative mapping from network microscopic parameters — branching density, cross-linker identity and density — to those forces and to the observed reductions in growth rate and lifetime. (2) Molecular origin: identify whether the frictional or adhesive interactions between microtubules and actin networks in cytoplasm arise from passive steric crowding, generic filament-filament friction, or specific cross-linking proteins, and which molecules mediate the observed blocking (branched networks) and stabilization (unbranched networks). Two related directions, raised but not resolved by the paper, are scientifically linked to this core: (3) In vivo relevance — the paper suggests only that such mechanical regulation 'may play a role in living cells' — test whether branched actin architectures similarly regulate microtubule dynamics and spindle assembly in living cells, and how this mechanical regulation interacts with biochemical regulators such as RanGTP gradients and microtubule-stabilizing factors; (4) Dynamics versus static connectivity — the paper attributes the dense-static versus sparse-contractile contrast qualitatively to meshwork stiffness — dissect the role of network remodeling versus static connectivity and stiffness in determining whether an actin network arrests or permits microtubule and spindle growth. An answer that resolves only part of this mapping (for example, breach statistics in one reconstituted geometry, or in vivo corroboration without force data) is progress on the problem, not its completion; completion requires the architecture-to-force-to-dynamics chain to be established quantitatively — that is, the core parts (1) and (2) — while parts (3) and (4) are related extensions that are not required for completion.

References

  1. Colin A, Singaravelu P, Théry M, Blanchoin L, Gueroui Z. Actin-Network Architecture Regulates Microtubule Dynamics. Current Biology 28, 2647-2656 (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.06.028
  2. Dogterom M, Yurke B. Measurement of the Force-Velocity Relation for Growing Microtubules. Science 278, 856-860 (1997). DOI: 10.1126/science.278.5339.856. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5339.856
  3. Preciado López M, Huber F, Grigoriev I, Steinmetz MO, Akhmanova A, Koenderink GH, Dogterom M. Actin-microtubule coordination at growing microtubule ends. Nature Communications 5, 4778 (2014). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5778. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5778
  4. Inoue D, Obino D, Pineau J, Farina F, Gaillard J, Guerin C, Blanchoin L, Lennon-Duménil A-M, Théry M. Actin filaments regulate microtubule growth at the centrosome. The EMBO Journal 38 (2019). DOI: 10.15252/embj.201899630. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201899630
  5. Yamamoto S, Gaillard J, Vianay B, Guerin C, Orhant-Prioux M, Blanchoin L, Théry M. Actin network architecture can ensure robust centering or sensitive decentering of the centrosome. The EMBO Journal 41 (2022). DOI: 10.15252/embj.2022111631. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2022111631
  6. Kučera O, Gaillard J, Guérin C, Utzschneider C, Théry M, Blanchoin L. Actin Architecture Steers Microtubules in Active Cytoskeletal Composite. Nano Letters 22, 8584-8591 (2022). DOI: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03117. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03117
  7. Kučera O, Gaillard J, Guérin C, Théry M, Blanchoin L. Actin-microtubule dynamic composite forms responsive active matter with memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119, e2209522119 (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2209522119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2209522119
  8. Alkemade C, Wierenga H, Volkov VA, Preciado López M, Akhmanova A, ten Wolde PR, Dogterom M, Koenderink GH. Cross-linkers at growing microtubule ends generate forces that drive actin transport. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119, e2112799119 (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2112799119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2112799119
  9. Gélin M, Schaeffer A, Gaillard J, Guérin C, Vianay B, Orhant-Prioux M, Braun M, Leterrier C, Blanchoin L, Théry M. Microtubules under mechanical pressure can breach dense actin networks. Journal of Cell Science 136, jcs261667 (2023). DOI: 10.1242/jcs.261667. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.261667
  10. Xie J, Najafi J, Le Borgne R, Verbavatz J-M, Durieu C, Sallé J, Minc N. Contribution of cytoplasm viscoelastic properties to mitotic spindle positioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 119, e2115593119 (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2115593119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115593119
  11. Pimm ML, Henty-Ridilla JL. New twists in actin-microtubule interactions. Molecular Biology of the Cell 32, 211-217 (2021). DOI: 10.1091/mbc.E19-09-0491. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E19-09-0491
  12. Gudimchuk NB, Alexandrova VV. Measuring and modeling forces generated by microtubules. Biophysical Reviews 15, 1095-1110 (2023). DOI: 10.1007/s12551-023-01161-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-023-01161-7
  13. Tong CS, Su M, Sun H, Chua XL, Xiong D, Guo S, Raj R, Ong NWP, Lee AG, Miao Y, Wu M. Collective dynamics of actin and microtubule and its crosstalk mediated by FHDC1. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 11, 1261117 (2024). DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1261117. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2023.1261117
  14. Aquino-Perez C, Safaralizade M, Podhajecky R, Wang H, Lansky Z, Grosse R, Macurek L. FAM110A promotes mitotic spindle formation by linking microtubules with actin cytoskeleton. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 121, e2321647121 (2024). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2321647121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321647121
  15. Hernandez B, Tetlak P, Domingo-Muelas A, Akizawa H, Skory RM, Ardestani G, Biro M, Liu X, Bissiere S, Sakkas D, Plachta N. Actin organizes chromosomes and microtubules to ensure mitotic fidelity in the preimplantation embryo. Science 388, eads1234 (2025). DOI: 10.1126/science.ads1234. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ads1234
  16. Marthiens V, Jawish L, Malosse M, Basto C, Krndija D, Macé A-S, Laigna E, Terrizzano A, Peyret C, Pan T, Zajac O, Perrin L, Logarinho E, Villard C, Basto R. Mechanical constraints regulate embryonic stem cell mitosis in the developing brain. The EMBO Journal 45, 5622-5656 (2026). DOI: 10.1038/s44318-026-00848-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44318-026-00848-3