The Experts below are selected from a list of 267 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Paul T Sharpe - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
tooth and jaw molecular mechanisms of patterning in the first branchial arch
Archives of Oral Biology, 2003Co-Authors: Martyn T Cobourne, Paul T SharpeAbstract:The mammalian jaw apparatus is ultimately derived from the first branchial arch derivatives, the maxillary and mandibular processes, and composed of a highly specialised group of structures. Principle amongst these are the skeletal components of the mandible and maxilla and the teeth of the mature dentition. Integral to the development of these structures are signalling interactions between the stomodeal ectoderm and underlying neural crest-derived ectomesenchymal cells that populate this region. Recent evidence suggests that in the early mouse embryo, regionally restricted expression of homeobox-containing genes, such as members of the Dlx, Lhx and Gsc classes, are responsible for generating early polarity in the first branchial arch and establishing the molecular foundations for patterning of the skeletal elements. Teeth also develop on the first branchial arch and are derived from both ectoderm and the underlying Ectomesenchyme. Reciprocal signalling interactions between these cell populations also control the odontogenic developmental programme, from early patterning of the future dental axis to the initiation of tooth development at specific sites within the ectoderm. In particular, members of the Fibroblast growth factor (Fgf), Bmp, Hedgehog and Wnt families of signalling molecules induce regionally restricted expression of downstream target genes in the odontogenic Ectomesenchyme. Finally, the processes of morphogenesis and cellular differentiation ultimately generate a tooth of specific class. Many of the same genetic interactions that are involved in early tooth development mediate these effects through the activity of localised signalling centres within the developing tooth germ.
-
fgf 8 determines rostral caudal polarity in the first branchial arch
Development, 1999Co-Authors: Abigail S Tucker, G Yamada, Maria Grigoriou, Vassilis Pachnis, Paul T SharpeAbstract:In mammals, rostral Ectomesenchyme cells of the mandibular arch give rise to odontogenic cells, while more caudal cells form the distal skeletal elements of the lower jaw. Signals from the epithelium are required for the development of odontogenic and skeletogenic mesenchyme cells. We show that rostral-caudal polarity is first established in mandibular branchial arch ectomesenchymal cells by a signal, Fgf-8, from the rostral epithelium. All neural crest-derived ectomesenchymal cells are equicompetent to respond to Fgf-8. The restriction into rostral (Lhx-7-expressing) and caudal (Gsc-expressing) domains is achieved by cells responding differently according to their proximity to the source of the signal. Once established, spatial expression domains and cell fates are fixed and maintained by Fgf-8 in conjunction with another epithelial signal, endothelin-1, and by positional changes in ectomesenchymal cell competence to respond to the signal.
-
interactions between bmp 4 and msx 1 act to restrict gene expression to odontogenic mesenchyme
Developmental Dynamics, 1998Co-Authors: Abigail S Tucker, Abdul Al Khamis, Paul T SharpeAbstract:Tooth development is regulated by a reciprocal series of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions. Bmp4 has been identified as a candidate signalling molecule in these interactions, initially as an epithelial signal and then later at the bud stage as a mesenchymal signal (Vainio et al. [1993] Cell 75:45–58). A target gene for Bmp4 signalling is the homeobox gene Msx-1, identified by the ability of recombinant Bmp4 protein to induce expression in mesenchyme. There is, however, no evidence that Bmp4 is the endogenous inducer of Msx-1 expression. Msx-1 and Bmp-4 show dynamic, interactive patterns of expression in oral epithelium and Ectomesenchyme during the early stages of tooth development. In this study, we compare the temporal and spatial expression of these two genes to determine whether the changing expression patterns of these genes are consistent with interactions between the two molecules. We show that changes in Bmp-4 expression precede changes in Msx-1 expression. At embryonic day (E)10.5–E11.0, expression patterns are consistent with BMP4 from the epithelium, inducing or maintaining Msx-1 in underlying mesenchyme. At E11.5, Bmp-4 expression shifts from epithelium to mesenchyme and is rapidly followed by localised up-regulation of Msx-1 expression at the sites of Bmp-4 expression. Using cultured explants of developing mandibles, we confirm that exogenous BMP4 is capable of replacing the endogenous source in epithelium and inducing Msx-1 gene expression in mesenchyme. By using noggin, a BMP inhibitor, we show that endogenous Msx-1 expression can be inhibited at E10.5 and E11.5, providing the first evidence that endogenous Bmp-4 from the epithelium is responsible for regulating the early spatial expression of Msx-1. We also show that the mesenchymal shift in Bmp-4 is responsible for up-regulating Msx-1 specifically at the sites of future tooth formation. Thus, we establish that a reciprocal series of interactions act to restrict expression of both genes to future sites of tooth formation, creating a positive feedback loop that maintains expression of both genes in tooth mesenchymal cells. Dev. Dyn. 1998;212:533–539. © 1998 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
-
role of dlx 1 and dlx 2 genes in patterning of the murine dentition
Development, 1997Co-Authors: Bethan Thomas, John L R Rubenstein, Abigail S Tucker, M Qui, Christine Ferguson, Zoe Hardcastle, Paul T SharpeAbstract:The molecular events of odontogenic induction are beginning to be elucidated, but until now nothing was known about the molecular basis of the patterning of the dentition. A role for Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 genes in patterning of the dentition has been proposed with the genes envisaged as participating in an ‘odontogenic homeobox gene code’ by specifying molar development. This proposal was based on the restricted expression of the genes in molar Ectomesenchyme derived from cranial neural crest cells prior to tooth initiation. Mice with targeted null mutations of both Dlx-1 and Dlx2 homeobox genes do not develop maxillary molar teeth but incisors and mandibular molars are normal. We have carried out heterologous recombinations between mutant and wild-type maxillary epithelium and mesenchyme and show that the Ectomesenchyme underlying the maxillary molar epithelium has lost its odontogenic potential. Using molecular markers of branchial arch neural crest (Barx1) and commitment to chondrogenic differentiation (Sox9), we show that this population alters its fate from odontogenic to become chondrogenic. These results provide evidence that a subpopulation of cranial neural crest is specified as odontogenic by Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 genes. Loss of function of these genes results in reprogramming of this population of Ectomesenchyme cells into chondrocytes. This is the first indication that the development of different shaped teeth at different positions in the jaws is determined by independent genetic pathways.
-
role of the dlx homeobox genes in proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches mutations of dlx 1 dlx 2 and dlx 1 and 2 alter morphogenesis of proximal skeletal and soft tissue structures derived from the first and second arches
Developmental Biology, 1997Co-Authors: Alessandro Bulfone, Paul T Sharpe, Ingrid Ghattas, Juanito J Meneses, Lars Christensen, R Presley, Roger A Pedersen, John L R RubensteinAbstract:Abstract The Dlx homeobox gene family is expressed in a complex pattern within the embryonic craniofacial ectoderm and Ectomesenchyme. A previous study established that Dlx-2 is essential for development of proximal regions of the murine first and second branchial arches. Here we describe the craniofacial phenotype of mice with mutations in Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2. The skeletal and soft tissue analyses of mice with Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutations provide additional evidence that the Dlx genes regulate proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches. This analysis also elucidates distinct and overlapping roles for Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 in craniofacial development. Furthermore, mice lacking both Dlx-1 and -2 have unique abnormalities, including the absence of maxillary molars. Dlx-1 and -2 are expressed in the proximal and distal first and second arches, yet only the proximal regions are abnormal. The nested expression patterns of Dlx-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 provide evidence for a model that predicts the region-specific requirements for each gene. Finally, the Dlx-2 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutants have ectopic skull components that resemble bones and cartilages found in phylogenetically more primitive vertebrates.
Jean Paul Thiery - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cell delamination in the mesencephalic neural fold and its implication for the origin of Ectomesenchyme
Development (Cambridge England), 2013Co-Authors: Raymond Teck Ho Lee, Hiroki Nagai, Yukiko Nakaya, Guojun Sheng, Paul A. Trainor, James A. Weston, Jean Paul ThieryAbstract:The neural crest is a transient structure unique to vertebrate embryos that gives rise to multiple lineages along the rostrocaudal axis. In cranial regions, neural crest cells are thought to differentiate into chondrocytes, osteocytes, pericytes and stromal cells, which are collectively termed Ectomesenchyme derivatives, as well as pigment and neuronal derivatives. There is still no consensus as to whether the neural crest can be classified as a homogenous multipotent population of cells. This unresolved controversy has important implications for the formation of Ectomesenchyme and for confirmation of whether the neural fold is compartmentalized into distinct domains, each with a different repertoire of derivatives. Here we report in mouse and chicken that cells in the neural fold delaminate over an extended period from different regions of the cranial neural fold to give rise to cells with distinct fates. Importantly, cells that give rise to Ectomesenchyme undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition from a lateral neural fold domain that does not express definitive neural markers, such as Sox1 and N-cadherin. Additionally, the inference that cells originating from the cranial neural ectoderm have a common origin and cell fate with trunk neural crest cells prompted us to revisit the issue of what defines the neural crest and the origin of the Ectomesenchyme.
-
an exclusively mesodermal origin of fin mesenchyme demonstrates that zebrafish trunk neural crest does not generate Ectomesenchyme
Development, 2013Co-Authors: Raymond Teck Ho Lee, Jean Paul Thiery, Ela W Knapik, Thomas J CarneyAbstract:The neural crest is a multipotent stem cell population that arises from the dorsal aspect of the neural tube and generates both non-ectomesenchymal (melanocytes, peripheral neurons and glia) and ectomesenchymal (skeletogenic, odontogenic, cartilaginous and connective tissue) derivatives. In amniotes, only cranial neural crest generates both classes, with trunk neural crest restricted to non-Ectomesenchyme. By contrast, it has been suggested that anamniotes might generate derivatives of both classes at all axial levels, with trunk neural crest generating fin osteoblasts, scale mineral-forming cells and connective tissue cells; however, this has not been fully tested. The cause and evolutionary significance of this cranial/trunk dichotomy, and its absence in anamniotes, are debated. Recent experiments have disputed the contribution of fish trunk neural crest to fin osteoblasts and scale mineral-forming cells. This prompted us to test the contribution of anamniote trunk neural crest to fin connective tissue cells. Using genetics-based lineage tracing in zebrafish, we find that these fin mesenchyme cells derive entirely from the mesoderm and that neural crest makes no contribution. Furthermore, contrary to previous suggestions, larval fin mesenchyme cells do not generate the skeletogenic cells of the adult fin, but persist to form fibroblasts associated with adult fin rays. Our data demonstrate that zebrafish trunk neural crest does not generate ectomesenchymal derivatives and challenge long-held ideas about trunk neural crest fate. These findings have important implications for the ontogeny and evolution of the neural crest.
-
A nonneural epithelial domain of embryonic cranial neural folds gives rise to Ectomesenchyme
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008Co-Authors: Marie Anne Breau, Jean Paul Thiery, Thomas Pietri, Marc P. Stemmler, James A. WestonAbstract:The neural crest is generally believed to be the embryonic source of skeletogenic mesenchyme (Ectomesenchyme) in the vertebrate head and other derivatives, including pigment cells and neurons and glia of the peripheral nervous system. Although classical transplantation experiments leading to this conclusion assumed that embryonic neural folds were homogeneous epithelia, we reported that embryonic cranial neural folds contain spatially and phenotypically distinct domains, including a lateral nonneural domain with cells that coexpress E-cadherin and PDGFRα and a thickened mediodorsal neuroepithelial domain where these proteins are reduced or absent. We now show that Wnt1-Cre is expressed in the lateral nonneural epithelium of rostral neural folds and that cells coexpressing Cre-recombinase and PDGFRα delaminate precociously from some of this nonneural epithelium. We also show that ectomesenchymal cells exhibit β-galactosidase activity in embryos heterozygous for an Ecad-lacZ reporter knock- in allele. We conclude that a lateral nonneural domain of the neural fold epithelium, which we call “metablast,” is a source of Ectomesenchyme distinct from the neural crest. We suggest that closer analysis of the origin of Ectomesenchyme might help to understand (i) the molecular-genetic regulation of development of both neural crest and Ectomesenchyme lineages; (ii) the early developmental origin of skeletogenic and connective tissue mesenchyme in the vertebrate head; and (iii) the presumed origin of head and branchial arch skeletal and connective tissue structures during vertebrate evolution.
John L R Rubenstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reassessing the dlx code the genetic regulation of branchial arch skeletal pattern and development
Journal of Anatomy, 2005Co-Authors: Michael J Depew, Carol A Simpson, Maria Morasso, John L R RubensteinAbstract:The branchial arches are meristic vertebrate structures, being metameric both between each other within the rostrocaudal series along the ventrocephalic surface of the embryonic head and within each individual arch: thus, just as each branchial arch must acquire a unique identity along the rostrocaudal axis, each structure within the proximodistal axis of an arch must also acquire a unique identity. It is believed that regional specification of metameric structures is controlled by the nested expression of related genes resulting in a regional code, a principal that is though to be demonstrated by the regulation of rostrocaudal axis development in animals exerted by the nested HOM-C/Hox homeobox genes. The nested expression pattern of the Dlx genes within the murine branchial arch Ectomesenchyme has more recently led to the proposal of a Dlx code for the regional specification along the proximodistal axis of the branchial arches (i.e. it establishes intra-arch identity). This review re-examines this hypothesis, and presents new work on an allelic series of Dlx loss-of-function mouse mutants that includes various combinations of Dlx1, Dlx2, Dlx3, Dlx5 and Dlx6. Although we confirm fundamental aspects of the hypothesis, we further report a number of novel findings. First, contrary to initial reports, Dlx1, Dlx2 and Dlx1/2 heterozygotes exhibit alterations of branchial arch structures and Dlx2-/- and Dlx1/2-/- mutants have slight alterations of structures derived from the distal portions of their branchial arches. Second, we present evidence for a role for murine Dlx3 in the development of the branchial arches. Third, analysis of compound Dlx mutants reveals four grades of mandibular arch transformations and that the genetic interactions of cis first-order (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx6), trans second-order (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx2) and trans third-order paralogues (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx1) result in significant and distinct morphological differences in mandibular arch development. We conclude by integrating functions of the Dlx genes within the context of a hypothesized general mechanism for the establishment of pattern and polarity in the first branchial arch of gnathostomes that includes regionally secreted growth factors such as Fgf8 and Bmp and other transcription factors such as Msx1, and is consistent both with the structure of the conserved gnathostome jaw bauplan and the elaboration of this bauplan to meet organismal end-point designs.
-
role of dlx 1 and dlx 2 genes in patterning of the murine dentition
Development, 1997Co-Authors: Bethan Thomas, John L R Rubenstein, Abigail S Tucker, M Qui, Christine Ferguson, Zoe Hardcastle, Paul T SharpeAbstract:The molecular events of odontogenic induction are beginning to be elucidated, but until now nothing was known about the molecular basis of the patterning of the dentition. A role for Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 genes in patterning of the dentition has been proposed with the genes envisaged as participating in an ‘odontogenic homeobox gene code’ by specifying molar development. This proposal was based on the restricted expression of the genes in molar Ectomesenchyme derived from cranial neural crest cells prior to tooth initiation. Mice with targeted null mutations of both Dlx-1 and Dlx2 homeobox genes do not develop maxillary molar teeth but incisors and mandibular molars are normal. We have carried out heterologous recombinations between mutant and wild-type maxillary epithelium and mesenchyme and show that the Ectomesenchyme underlying the maxillary molar epithelium has lost its odontogenic potential. Using molecular markers of branchial arch neural crest (Barx1) and commitment to chondrogenic differentiation (Sox9), we show that this population alters its fate from odontogenic to become chondrogenic. These results provide evidence that a subpopulation of cranial neural crest is specified as odontogenic by Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 genes. Loss of function of these genes results in reprogramming of this population of Ectomesenchyme cells into chondrocytes. This is the first indication that the development of different shaped teeth at different positions in the jaws is determined by independent genetic pathways.
-
role of the dlx homeobox genes in proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches mutations of dlx 1 dlx 2 and dlx 1 and 2 alter morphogenesis of proximal skeletal and soft tissue structures derived from the first and second arches
Developmental Biology, 1997Co-Authors: Alessandro Bulfone, Paul T Sharpe, Ingrid Ghattas, Juanito J Meneses, Lars Christensen, R Presley, Roger A Pedersen, John L R RubensteinAbstract:Abstract The Dlx homeobox gene family is expressed in a complex pattern within the embryonic craniofacial ectoderm and Ectomesenchyme. A previous study established that Dlx-2 is essential for development of proximal regions of the murine first and second branchial arches. Here we describe the craniofacial phenotype of mice with mutations in Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2. The skeletal and soft tissue analyses of mice with Dlx-1 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutations provide additional evidence that the Dlx genes regulate proximodistal patterning of the branchial arches. This analysis also elucidates distinct and overlapping roles for Dlx-1 and Dlx-2 in craniofacial development. Furthermore, mice lacking both Dlx-1 and -2 have unique abnormalities, including the absence of maxillary molars. Dlx-1 and -2 are expressed in the proximal and distal first and second arches, yet only the proximal regions are abnormal. The nested expression patterns of Dlx-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6 provide evidence for a model that predicts the region-specific requirements for each gene. Finally, the Dlx-2 and Dlx-1 and -2 mutants have ectopic skull components that resemble bones and cartilages found in phylogenetically more primitive vertebrates.
James A. Weston - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cell delamination in the mesencephalic neural fold and its implication for the origin of Ectomesenchyme
Development (Cambridge England), 2013Co-Authors: Raymond Teck Ho Lee, Hiroki Nagai, Yukiko Nakaya, Guojun Sheng, Paul A. Trainor, James A. Weston, Jean Paul ThieryAbstract:The neural crest is a transient structure unique to vertebrate embryos that gives rise to multiple lineages along the rostrocaudal axis. In cranial regions, neural crest cells are thought to differentiate into chondrocytes, osteocytes, pericytes and stromal cells, which are collectively termed Ectomesenchyme derivatives, as well as pigment and neuronal derivatives. There is still no consensus as to whether the neural crest can be classified as a homogenous multipotent population of cells. This unresolved controversy has important implications for the formation of Ectomesenchyme and for confirmation of whether the neural fold is compartmentalized into distinct domains, each with a different repertoire of derivatives. Here we report in mouse and chicken that cells in the neural fold delaminate over an extended period from different regions of the cranial neural fold to give rise to cells with distinct fates. Importantly, cells that give rise to Ectomesenchyme undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition from a lateral neural fold domain that does not express definitive neural markers, such as Sox1 and N-cadherin. Additionally, the inference that cells originating from the cranial neural ectoderm have a common origin and cell fate with trunk neural crest cells prompted us to revisit the issue of what defines the neural crest and the origin of the Ectomesenchyme.
-
A nonneural epithelial domain of embryonic cranial neural folds gives rise to Ectomesenchyme
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2008Co-Authors: Marie Anne Breau, Jean Paul Thiery, Thomas Pietri, Marc P. Stemmler, James A. WestonAbstract:The neural crest is generally believed to be the embryonic source of skeletogenic mesenchyme (Ectomesenchyme) in the vertebrate head and other derivatives, including pigment cells and neurons and glia of the peripheral nervous system. Although classical transplantation experiments leading to this conclusion assumed that embryonic neural folds were homogeneous epithelia, we reported that embryonic cranial neural folds contain spatially and phenotypically distinct domains, including a lateral nonneural domain with cells that coexpress E-cadherin and PDGFRα and a thickened mediodorsal neuroepithelial domain where these proteins are reduced or absent. We now show that Wnt1-Cre is expressed in the lateral nonneural epithelium of rostral neural folds and that cells coexpressing Cre-recombinase and PDGFRα delaminate precociously from some of this nonneural epithelium. We also show that ectomesenchymal cells exhibit β-galactosidase activity in embryos heterozygous for an Ecad-lacZ reporter knock- in allele. We conclude that a lateral nonneural domain of the neural fold epithelium, which we call “metablast,” is a source of Ectomesenchyme distinct from the neural crest. We suggest that closer analysis of the origin of Ectomesenchyme might help to understand (i) the molecular-genetic regulation of development of both neural crest and Ectomesenchyme lineages; (ii) the early developmental origin of skeletogenic and connective tissue mesenchyme in the vertebrate head; and (iii) the presumed origin of head and branchial arch skeletal and connective tissue structures during vertebrate evolution.
-
Neural crest and the origin of Ectomesenchyme: neural fold heterogeneity suggests an alternative hypothesis.
Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists, 2003Co-Authors: James A. Weston, Hisahiro Yoshida, Victoria Robinson, Satomi Nishikawa, Stuart T. Fraser, Shin-ichi NishikawaAbstract:The striking similarity between mesodermally derived fibroblasts and Ectomesenchyme cells, which are thought to be derivatives of the neural crest, has long been a source of interest and controversy. In mice, the gene encoding the alpha subunit of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFRα) is expressed both by mesodermally derived mesenchymal cells and by Ectomesenchyme. Whole-mount immunostaining previously revealed that PDGFRα is present in the cephalic neural fold epithelium of early murine embryos (Takakura et al. [1997] J Histochem Cytochem 45:883–893). We now show that, within the neural fold, a sharp boundary exists between E-cadherin–expressing non-neural epithelium and the neural epithelium of the dorsal ridge. In addition, we found that cells coexpressing E-cadherin and PDGFRα are present in the non-neural epithelium of the neural folds. These observations raise the possibility that at least some PDGFRα+ Ectomesenchyme originates from the lateral non-neural domain of neural fold epithelium. This inference is consistent with previous reports (Nichols [ 1981] J Embryol Exp Morphol 64:105–120; Nichols [ 1986] Am J Anat 176:221–231) that mesenchymal cells emerge precociously from an epithelial neural fold domain resembling the primitive streak in the early embryonic epiblast. Therefore, we propose the name “metablast” for this non-neural epithelial domain to indicate that it is the site of a delayed local delamination of mesenchyme similar to involution of mesoderm during gastrulation. We further propose the testable hypothesis that neural crest and Ectomesenchyme are developmentally distinct progenitor populations and that at least some Ectomesenchyme is metablast-derived rather than neural crest-derived tissue. Developmental Dynamics 229:118–130, 2004. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Raymond Teck Ho Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Cell delamination in the mesencephalic neural fold and its implication for the origin of Ectomesenchyme
Development (Cambridge England), 2013Co-Authors: Raymond Teck Ho Lee, Hiroki Nagai, Yukiko Nakaya, Guojun Sheng, Paul A. Trainor, James A. Weston, Jean Paul ThieryAbstract:The neural crest is a transient structure unique to vertebrate embryos that gives rise to multiple lineages along the rostrocaudal axis. In cranial regions, neural crest cells are thought to differentiate into chondrocytes, osteocytes, pericytes and stromal cells, which are collectively termed Ectomesenchyme derivatives, as well as pigment and neuronal derivatives. There is still no consensus as to whether the neural crest can be classified as a homogenous multipotent population of cells. This unresolved controversy has important implications for the formation of Ectomesenchyme and for confirmation of whether the neural fold is compartmentalized into distinct domains, each with a different repertoire of derivatives. Here we report in mouse and chicken that cells in the neural fold delaminate over an extended period from different regions of the cranial neural fold to give rise to cells with distinct fates. Importantly, cells that give rise to Ectomesenchyme undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition from a lateral neural fold domain that does not express definitive neural markers, such as Sox1 and N-cadherin. Additionally, the inference that cells originating from the cranial neural ectoderm have a common origin and cell fate with trunk neural crest cells prompted us to revisit the issue of what defines the neural crest and the origin of the Ectomesenchyme.
-
an exclusively mesodermal origin of fin mesenchyme demonstrates that zebrafish trunk neural crest does not generate Ectomesenchyme
Development, 2013Co-Authors: Raymond Teck Ho Lee, Jean Paul Thiery, Ela W Knapik, Thomas J CarneyAbstract:The neural crest is a multipotent stem cell population that arises from the dorsal aspect of the neural tube and generates both non-ectomesenchymal (melanocytes, peripheral neurons and glia) and ectomesenchymal (skeletogenic, odontogenic, cartilaginous and connective tissue) derivatives. In amniotes, only cranial neural crest generates both classes, with trunk neural crest restricted to non-Ectomesenchyme. By contrast, it has been suggested that anamniotes might generate derivatives of both classes at all axial levels, with trunk neural crest generating fin osteoblasts, scale mineral-forming cells and connective tissue cells; however, this has not been fully tested. The cause and evolutionary significance of this cranial/trunk dichotomy, and its absence in anamniotes, are debated. Recent experiments have disputed the contribution of fish trunk neural crest to fin osteoblasts and scale mineral-forming cells. This prompted us to test the contribution of anamniote trunk neural crest to fin connective tissue cells. Using genetics-based lineage tracing in zebrafish, we find that these fin mesenchyme cells derive entirely from the mesoderm and that neural crest makes no contribution. Furthermore, contrary to previous suggestions, larval fin mesenchyme cells do not generate the skeletogenic cells of the adult fin, but persist to form fibroblasts associated with adult fin rays. Our data demonstrate that zebrafish trunk neural crest does not generate ectomesenchymal derivatives and challenge long-held ideas about trunk neural crest fate. These findings have important implications for the ontogeny and evolution of the neural crest.
