How Cells Learn to Listen: Unlocking the Rules of Early Life

Image by Eduardo Ramos on Unsplash

Every human being begins life as a single cell. 

That cell divides, multiplies, and transforms into many different types of cells — muscle, nerve, skin, blood, bone, and so on — until, somehow, a complete body emerges. But this transformation raises one of biology’s oldest and most fascinating questions: how do cells know what to become? What determines whether one group of cells forms the brain and spinal cord, while another group becomes the skin, the heart, or the liver? 

My PhD research focused on this fundamental mystery — how cells gain the ability to choose their fate. This process is not only beautiful in its precision but also deeply relevant to medicine. When this decision-making system goes wrong, as it often does in diseases like cancer, cells lose their sense of identity and start to grow uncontrollably. Conversely, understanding how cells decide what they should become could allow us to guide stem cells to form new tissues, opening new possibilities in regenerative medicine and healing. 

The Big Picture: The Signals That Shape an Embryo

In the early embryo, a small cluster of cells acts like a conductor leading an orchestra. These cells are known as organisers — regions that send out signals to nearby cells, instructing them on how to develop. The concept of the organiser dates back to 1924, when scientists Hans Spemann and Hilde Mangold transplanted a tiny piece of tissue from one amphibian embryo into another. Astonishingly, this fragment was able to instruct surrounding cells to form a second body axis — effectively generating a second nervous system. This discovery revolutionised developmental biology, earning Spemann a Nobel Prize and establishing organisers as key “instruction hubs” of early life. 

Organisers do not build tissues themselves; rather, they communicate with their neighbours. They release chemical messages that tell nearby cells, “You will become part of the nervous system,” or “You will form the skin.” But these instructions only work on cells that are ready to receive them. That readiness is what scientists call 'competence'. Competence determines whether a cell can “listen” to an organiser’s message and act upon it. It is a bit like having the right lock and key: the organiser’s signal is the key, but if the cell’s lock is jammed or mismatched, the door will not open. Without competence, even the most powerful developmental cue will be ignored.

This concept — that not all cells are equally receptive — has intrigued scientists for nearly a century. Yet despite decades of study, the underlying reasons for competence remained unclear. What molecular changes make some cells capable of responding to organiser signals, while others remain deaf to them? My PhD set out to uncover the hidden mechanisms behind this ability — and to ask whether competence, once lost, could ever be restored. 

Image by Getty Images on Unsplash

My Approach: Watching Fate Unfold in the Chick Embryo

To investigate, I turned to a model organism that has guided embryology for generations: the chick embryo.

For over a hundred years, chick embryos have been a cornerstone of developmental biology. They are large enough to manipulate easily, develop outside the mother’s body, and share many features of early human development. Historically, scientists used chick embryos to map how organs form, how the heart begins to beat, and how the brain takes shape. In the modern era, they offer the perfect bridge between traditional observation and cutting-edge molecular biology. 

In my work, I combined classical embryological manipulations — the kind used by Spemann and his successors — with modern molecular tools such as gene-expression analysis, single-cell profiling, and imaging. This allowed me to see, at the level of individual cells, which genes switched on or off when a cell gained or lost competence. 

I compared four different groups of cells within the same embryo: one group that was competent to respond to organiser signals and form nervous tissue, and three groups that were non-competent — exposed to the same signals but unable to form the nervous system. By analysing and contrasting these groups, I sought to understand what distinguishes a cell that can “hear” the organiser’s call from one that cannot — and whether those silent cells could ever learn to listen again. 

What I Found: The Rules of Cellular Competence — and How to Restore It

My experiments revealed that competence depends on a combination of timing, molecular readiness, and signal interpretation — a developmental choreography that determines whether a cell can change its fate. 

Non-competent cells often had their “locks” jammed by inhibitory pathways, preventing them from opening to the organiser’s instructions. Others lacked the right “keys” altogether — the specific transcription factors required to decode the signal. Some cells attempted to respond, but too late, after the critical developmental window had closed. Others never performed an initial “reset,” a step that wipes away their former identity and allows a new fate to emerge. 

But my research went further. By reapplying specific combinations of organiser-like signals, I was able to reawaken competence in cells that had previously lost it. In essence, I showed that the ability to respond can be restored. Once those dormant cells received the correct molecular cues, they once again became receptive — capable of forming neural tissue and interpreting developmental instructions. 

This finding overturned the long-held assumption that competence loss is irreversible. It demonstrated that cellular deafness is not permanent; with the right signals, even silent cells can learn to listen again. 

Image by Galina Nelyubova on Unsplash

Why It Matters

Understanding why some cells can respond to developmental signals while others cannot — and how to reverse that silence — has far-reaching implications. My research provides one of the first mechanistic explanations of cellular competence and shows that it is a flexible, recoverable state rather than a fixed property. 

Competence also reframes how we think about therapeutics. Today, most treatments — whether aimed at regenerating tissues or blocking tumour growth — focus on the signals we deliver to cells: growth factors, drugs, or engineered molecules designed to influence behaviour. Yet these approaches often overlook a crucial variable: whether the target cells are actually capable of responding. My work highlights that the effectiveness of these signals depends as much on the cell’s internal readiness as on the quality of the cue itself. 

This insight helps explain why some cells fail to respond to tissue-repair signals in the body, or why certain cancer cells resist even the most sophisticated therapies. It suggests that future treatments might not only need to deliver the right messages but also restore the ability of cells to hear them — making competence itself a therapeutic target. 

In cancer, for example, tumour cells often lose responsiveness to signals that normally keep growth in check. Restoring their competence might make them sensitive again to the body’s natural control mechanisms or to anti-cancer drugs. In regenerative medicine, ensuring that stem cells are competent before applying differentiation signals could improve the reliability and precision of tissue generation. 

Beyond its medical implications, these discoveries deepen our understanding of basic biology. They reveal that development is not a one-way script but a dialogue — a conversation between signals and receivers that can be interrupted, misunderstood, or reawakened. 

Conclusion: Restoring the Ability to Listen

My PhD uncovered the molecular logic of competence: why some cells hear developmental instructions while others cannot — and, crucially, how that ability can be restored once lost. I demonstrated that by carefully tuning the molecular environment, it is possible to re-open the developmental window and make previously unresponsive cells receptive again. 

This discovery shifts the paradigm from simply sending biological messages to ensuring they can be received. It raises new questions that now drive my work: Can competence restoration be used to improve tissue repair or reprogram diseased cells? Could it help us design therapies that reactivate communication between cells rather than just amplify signals? 

In the end, studying competence reminded me of a profound truth: building a body is not merely about construction, but communication. Every cell must learn when to speak, when to remain silent, and, most importantly, when to listen. My work helps decode that language — showing that even when silence falls, life’s instructions can still be heard again.