Bleb expansion2018-02-06T11:04:55+08:30

How do blebs expand?

Expansion lasts between 5 to 30 seconds, following bleb initiation and preceding reformation of the cortical actomyosin cytoskeleton just beneath the membrane [1]. During this time, the bleb proceeds to grow as a result of actomyosin driven pressure, resulting in the influx of cytoplasm into the bleb. Cytoplasmic flow within the cell follows a fountain-like pattern through the inner and outer regions [2].

The cytoplasmic volume of the bleb increases in concert with its membrane surface area [3]. Expansion of the membrane surface area is enabled by lipid flow through the neck of the bleb [4][5]. If the growth of the bleb is too rapid to be facilitated by lipid flow alone, the membrane-cortex connection adjacent to the neck of the bleb can get further disrupted due to increased membrane tension [6].

Growing blebs are generally devoid of cortical actin, both in non-motile [7][8][9] and motile cells [10] [11] [12]. Instead, they possess a spectrin-based cytoskeleton, such as that observed in red blood cells [13]. The maximal size of the bleb is determined by its initial growth rate, membrane tension and the time required for repolymerization of the cortical cytoskeleton [7].

Motile Blebbing Expansion

Motile blebbing (as opposed to non-motile) occurs primarily at the leading edge. The stimulus and subsequent downstream signaling that initiates this polarization is not yet clear. However, two polarization models have been proposed, one based on the local membrane detachment (1) and the other based on the local cortex rupture scenario (2) [1]:

Local membrane detachment (1)

In this case, polarization may result from discrete, local weakening of membrane-cortex attachments. This may may be the consequence of uneven distribution of the actin-membrane linker ERM (ezrin, radixin and moesin) to the rear of the cell. This model is supported by fixed Walker carcinosarcoma cells [14].

Local cortex rupture (2)

In this case, preferential tearing at the leading edge may result from higher contractility at the rupture point [8]f, without the need for asymmetry in membrane-cortex attachments.

In both models, old cortex is disassembled at leading edge and new cortex is formed under the growing bleb. Since the leading edge cortex is always younger and more fragile, once the symmetry is broken, polarization continues.


In motile blebbing, cells move by exerting a force against the underlying substrate. In lamellipodial motility, this is achieved through adherence of lamellipodia to the substrate. However, in blebbing motility, the mechanism is still unknown. Two models have been proposed [1]:

Weak substrate adhesion (1)

The blebbing cell creates weak adhesions to the substrate. This model is supported by findings from Walker carcinosarcoma cells, showing loose cell-substrate contacts during motile blebbing [15]. Loose cell-cell contacts have also been observed, with contacts spanning a greater distance than that of tight or adherens junctions [16].

Perpendicular force generation (2)

If a motile, blebbing cell is in a confined environment, such as between two glass cover slips, it is able to migrate without the use of cell-substrate adhesions. This is due to the generation of forces perpendicular to the substrate that push the cell forward, squeezing it through the confined space, in a process termed ‘chimneying’ [17]. This is supported by findings in adhesion-deficient leukocytes that are nonetheless able to migrate efficiently [18].


As expansion of the bleb begins to slow, cortical actin just beneath the bleb membrane begins to repolymerize. This mechanims of actin nucleation is unclear, as two of the most common actin nucleaters, the Arp2/3 complex and the formin mDia1, are not present beneath the membrane of filamin-deficient cells [13]. Studies have, however, shown the sequential recruitment of proteins to the bleb membrane, including F-actin, membrane-linker proteins, actin, actin-bundling proteins, and contractile proteins. The resultant bleb cytoskeleton underlying the membrane comprises multiple layers of F-actin tethered together by actin bundling proteins. During this process of repolymerization in the main cortical body of the bleb, F-actin at the base of the neck of the bleb disassembles due to actin turnover and redistribution [1].

View All

Latest Findings

Protein Info


  1. Charras G, and Paluch E. Blebs lead the way: how to migrate without lamellipodia. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2008; 9(9):730-6. [PMID: 18628785]
  2. Taylor DL, Condeelis JS, Moore PL, and Allen RD. The contractile basis of amoeboid movement. I. The chemical control of motility in isolated cytoplasm. J. Cell Biol. 1973; 59(2 Pt 1):378-94. [PMID: 4805006]
  3. Hamill OP, and Martinac B. Molecular basis of mechanotransduction in living cells. Physiol. Rev. 2001; 81(2):685-740. [PMID: 11274342]
  4. Tickle C, and Trinkaus JP. Some clues as to the formation of protrusions by Fundulus deep cells. J. Cell. Sci. 1977; 26:139-50. [PMID: 562891]
  5. Fedier A, Eggli P, and Keller HU. Redistribution of surface-bound con A is quantitatively related to the movement of cells developing polarity. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 1999; 44(1):44-57. [PMID: 10470018]
  6. Charras GT, Coughlin M, Mitchison TJ, and Mahadevan L. Life and times of a cellular bleb. Biophys. J. 2007; 94(5):1836-53. [PMID: 17921219]
  7. Cunningham CC. Actin polymerization and intracellular solvent flow in cell surface blebbing. J. Cell Biol. 1995; 129(6):1589-99. [PMID: 7790356]
  8. Paluch E, Piel M, Prost J, Bornens M, and Sykes C. Cortical actomyosin breakage triggers shape oscillations in cells and cell fragments. Biophys. J. 2005; 89(1):724-33. [PMID: 15879479]
  9. Mills JC, Stone NL, and Pittman RN. Extranuclear apoptosis. The role of the cytoplasm in the execution phase. J. Cell Biol. 1999; 146(4):703-8. [PMID: 10459006]
  10. Blaser H, Reichman-Fried M, Castanon I, Dumstrei K, Marlow FL, Kawakami K, Solnica-Krezel L, Heisenberg C, and Raz E. Migration of zebrafish primordial germ cells: a role for myosin contraction and cytoplasmic flow. Dev. Cell 2006; 11(5):613-27. [PMID: 17084355]
  11. Yoshida K, and Soldati T. Dissection of amoeboid movement into two mechanically distinct modes. J. Cell. Sci. 2006; 119(Pt 18):3833-44. [PMID: 16926192]
  12. Jaglarz MK, and Howard KR. The active migration of Drosophila primordial germ cells. Development 1995; 121(11):3495-503. [PMID: 8582264]
  13. Charras GT, Hu C, Coughlin M, and Mitchison TJ. Reassembly of contractile actin cortex in cell blebs. J. Cell Biol. 2006; 175(3):477-90. [PMID: 17088428]
  14. Rossy J, Gutjahr MC, Blaser N, Schlicht D, and Niggli V. Ezrin/moesin in motile Walker 256 carcinosarcoma cells: signal-dependent relocalization and role in migration. Exp. Cell Res. 2007; 313(6):1106-20. [PMID: 17292355]
  15. Pinner S, and Sahai E. PDK1 regulates cancer cell motility by antagonising inhibition of ROCK1 by RhoE. Nat. Cell Biol. 2008; 10(2):127-37. [PMID: 18204440]
  16. Trinkaus JP. Surface activity and locomotion of Fundulus deep cells during blastula and gastrula stages. Dev. Biol. 1973; 30(1):69-103. [PMID: 4735370]
  17. Malawista SE, and De Boisfleury Chevance A. The cytokineplast: purified, stable, and functional motile machinery from human blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes. J. Cell Biol. 1982; 95(3):960-73. [PMID: 6891383]
  18. Malawista SE, de Boisfleury Chevance A, and Boxer LA. Random locomotion and chemotaxis of human blood polymorphonuclear leukocytes from a patient with leukocyte adhesion deficiency-1: normal displacement in close quarters via chimneying. Cell Motil. Cytoskeleton 2000; 46(3):183-9. [PMID: 10913965]