![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||
Neural Crest Origins of the Neck and Shoulder 1 Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, UCL, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT 2 Laboratory of Functional Genomics, 3 Department of Biology, UCL 4 Subdepartment of Evolutionary Organismal Biology, Department of Physiology and Developmental Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyvägen 18 A, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden 5 Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard University, Divinity Avenue 02138 Cambridge, MA, USA Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.K. ( Email: g.koentges/at/ucl.ac.uk). Summary The neck and shoulder region of vertebrates has undergone a complex evolutionary history. In order to identify its underlying mechanisms we map the destinations of embryonic neural crest and mesodermal stem cells using novel Cre-recombinase mediated transgenesis. The single-cell resolution of this genetic labelling reveals cryptic cell boundaries traversing seemingly homogeneous skeleton of neck and shoulders. Within this complex assembly of bones and muscles we discern a precise code of connectivity that mesenchymal stem cells of neural crest and mesodermal origin both obey as they form muscle scaffolds. Neural crest anchors the head onto the anterior lining of the shoulder girdle, while a Hox gene controlled mesoderm links trunk muscles to the posterior neck and shoulder skeleton. The skeleton that we identify as neural crest is specifically affected in human Klippel-Feil syndrome, Sprengel’s deformity and Arnold-Chiari I/II malformation, providing first insights into their likely aetiology. We identify genes involved in the cellular modularity of neck and shoulder skeleton and propose a new methodology for determining skeletal homologies that is based on muscle attachments. This has allowed us to trace the whereabouts of the cleithrum, the major shoulder bone of extinct land vertebrate ancestors which appears to survive as the scapular spine in living mammals. The vertebrate neck has undergone a dramatic evolutionary transformation from an immobile bony bridge between head and shoulder in early vertebrates with paired fins1 to a mobile system of muscle scaffolds inter-connecting head and shoulders in early jaw-bearing fish such as placoderms2. These scaffolds have retained a remarkably conserved structure and function in jaw opening and head mobility ever since3. The fundamental changes in the skeleton of neck and shoulders reflect evolving embryonic differentiation processes of mesenchymal stem cells: from bone to muscle connective tissues and cartilage. These have defied mechanistic analysis as the detection of fate changes among homologous cell populations requires experimental long-term lineage labeling which was so far only possible in the chick4, a species with a highly modified neck architecture5. Gills and the majority of the head skeleton are derived from the embryonic cranial neural crest4, while the limb skeleton is derived from trunk mesoderm6. Neural crest and mesoderm do not provide obvious landmarks for their respective boundaries in the intervening neck transition zone: cranial neural crest is not segmentally deployed in this post-otic region (behind rhombomere 5)7 and limb lateral plate mesoderm does not appear to pattern the shoulder girdle proper8. With post-otic neural crest (PONC) and paraxial (somitic) mesoderm as candidate components, the neck between the ear (otic) capsule of the head and the trunk forelimbs has remained an uncharted embryonic territory. Bone formation versus muscle scaffolds Neural crest and mesodermal cells appear to differ in the way they form bones: neural crest forms dermal and endochondral bones in the head whereas mesoderm forms endochondral skeleton in the trunk. To date no evidence for mesoderm-derived dermal bones has been produced. The shoulder girdle and neck in between head and limbs contains dermal as well as endochondral bones. All previous investigations into the evolution of this region have therefore assumed this dermal-endochondral distinction to be a safe indicator for bone origins and homologies: Accordingly, all dermal bones in the post-otic region are considered to be exclusively neural crest-derived while all endochondral bones are mesodermal 9,10. The validity of this widely held ‘ossification model’ has remained untested in the neck of any living vertebrate. Indeed, in apparent contradiction to it, a current view holds the posterior boundary of neural crest-derived skeleton to be the parietal (or frontal) bone of the skull 11,12 : no neural crest-derived skeleton behind the ear capsule has as yet been identified. Comparative neck anatomy in living jawed vertebrates challenges the likelihood of the prevailing ‘ossification model 1’: We note that the pattern of neck muscles (red in Fig.1
By utilizing a (recombinase-mediated) genetic lineage labelling strategy in transgenic mice we can now discriminate between these two models. We map neck neural crest and mesoderm with single-cell resolution onto muscular (connective tissue) attachment points and skeletal structures of a given (dermal versus endochondral) ossification type. The two models make mutually exclusive predictions for shoulder girdle origins: If model 1 is correct the anterior scapular spine would be mesodermal as it is endochondral (left part of box1 in Fig. 1 Here we reveal a cryptic neural crest-mesoderm boundary inside the neck and shoulder girdle skeleton, which ignores traditional skeletal landmarks or (endochondral vs. dermal) ossification types and thus invalidates the traditional ‘ossification model’. Instead, cellular distributions of neural crest and mesoderm precisely correspond to muscle attachment scaffolds onto the shoulder girdle, corroborating the nonintuitive ‘scaffold model ’. This finding illuminates the aetiology of various hitherto poorly understood congenital diseases in humans that are co-extensive with neural crest derived shoulder structures. By using the ‘scaffold model’ as a new arbiter for bone homologies, paleontology can date fate changes of common precursor populations in fossils. This reveals an unexpected evolutionary directionality in underlying fate decisions of mesenchymal stem cells that originate from mesoderm and neural crest. Cryptic neural crest in neck and shoulders The key problem we wish to address is the full distribution of skeletal post-otic neural crest (PONC). By using Wnt-1 17 and Sox-10-Cre-recombinase mediated fate mapping we ask three questions: 1. Can we find evidence for post-otic neural crest (PONC) to form endochondral bones? This determines whether either the ‘ossification’ or the ‘scaffold model’ are applicable to the neck region. 2. Is the entire dermal skeleton behind the otic capsule neural crest derived, or is some of it mesodermal? This will test the validity of the ‘ossification model’ in the only species that is currently accessible to high-resolution lineage mapping: the mouse. 3. Does the distribution of neural crest and mesoderm correlate with muscle attachment points or with ossification types in the neck and shoulder skeleton? This will distinguish the explanatory value of the ‘ossification model’ from that of the ‘scaffold model’ as each model makes non-overlapping predictions about anterior shoulder girdle origins. Neural crest proves to have an unexpectedly pervasive role in the mouse neck region, forming bone, cartilage and muscle connective tissue within two domains. First, an external, essentially tubular domain dominated by pharyngeal arch muscles that extends from the head to the entire ancestral shoulder girdle and incorporates its anterior part (Fig.3
The largest component of the external crest domain is the trapezius muscle and its attachment regions (tra in Fig. 3a–c
The ventral shoulder girdle carries a series of muscles that connect it to ventral branchial elements (Box4, Co1, Co2 in Fig. 1
Rules of engagement in the mesodermal neck In addition to branchial muscles at its anterior margin, the shoulder girdle in all jawed vertebrates serves as attachment for mesodermal trunk and limb muscles (with spinal motor neuron innervation and connective tissues derived from mesoderm) at its posterior margin5. Mesodermal trunk muscles also attach to the occipital head (Fig.2b Analysis of HoxD4-CREM-LacZ transgenics shows that that posterior margin of the scapular spine (right part of Box1 in Fig. 1 This demonstrates not only that the clavicle itself is a neural crest-mesodermal interface, but also that postcranial mesoderm gives rise to dermal skeletal elements. It was well-known that the posterior dermal clavicle ossifies independently from the anterior dermal ossification centre, but its separate (mesodermal) origin was unknown15,16. This is the first experimental precedent for interpreting other trunk dermal armour plates among fossil and extant vertebrates as mesodermal. Based on our findings it is conceivable that the posterior dermal clavicle is the last remnant of a more widespread body armour of mesodermal origin. More ventrally, the sternum (Box4 in Fig. 1 In the occipital head region (Fig.3d,e Neural crest and human neck pathology The flexibility of shoulder ossification types inside a highly constrained (trapezius) muscle scaffold as observed in comparative neck anatomy (Fig. 1 Discussion: Scaffold model, homologies and mechanisms We have identified the neck and shoulder region as the interface of the neural crest and mesodermal cell populations. We show that boundaries of embryonic cell populations precisely correspond to muscle attachment regions but not to ossification modes. The evolutionary conservation of muscle patterns (Fig. 1 The connectivity patterns which we observe with single cell resolution in the mesodermal occipital and shoulder girdle are stricter than anticipated 14,24. Muscles are directly connected onto skeleton of the same axial HoxD4+ gene identity– without mediation through connective tissue (dots in Fig.4,e,f Fossil fates: chasing the cleithrum’s ghost [43, preferred or] Chasing the ghost of the cleithrum [34] The conservation of the neck muscle scaffold among jawed vertebrates and its precise correspondence to cell population boundaries provides refined (single cell) criteria for tracing skeletal fate changes of a more fundamental nature. This permits us to determine the whereabouts of elements such as the elusive cleithrum, the central most shoulder bone of all bony fish (osteichthyan) ancestors which is absent in all extant land living vertebrates (tetrapods)35 except frogs36. The cleithrum is uniquely defined by its position and connectivity. In extant bony fish and frogs it serves as the sole attachment region for the (trapezius/cucullaris) muscles anteriorly5,36 and for fin/limb/trunk muscles at its posterior margin (Fig.7 The present study provides a first identification of the embryonic cell populations involved in neck patterning: postotic neural crest and somitic mesoderm. These mesenchymal stem cell populations are subject to considerable muscle patterning constraints while they retain (pathological and evolutionary) flexibility in their osteogenic differentiation. The molecular basis of such constraints and flexibilities and their integration in single cells remains to be discovered. Ultimately, this ‘Protean’ flexibility of mesenchymal stem cells to ’morph’ into cartilage, bone and connective tissue will have to be explained in the language of evolving gene-regulatory circuitry. This genetic circuitry will have to be placed into future reconstructions of phylogenetic trees as it was causative for the diverse neck morphologies that we observe. We anticipate that traces of other major evolutionary transformations and novelties will become detectable on a single cell level once comparative genetic lineage-mapping becomes possible. Methods We generated two independent transgenic mouse lines in which all postotic neural crest (PONC) are permanently labelled by means of recombinase-activated marker cassettes. Wnt1 is expressed in all premigratory PONC cell precursors 17 and Sox10 is expressed strongly in the entire post-migratory PONC population during early embryonic development and not at all in mesoderm 44. We therefore labeled pre-migratory PONC with a Wnt-1-Cre transgene 17 and post-migratory PONC by a Sox 10-Cre BAC transgene, introduced into founders by pronuclear injection (Fig.2a SI guide Click here to view.(7.9K, pdf) SI methods S1 Click here to view.(344K, pdf) SI methods S2 Click here to view.(47K, pdf) Supp fig 1 Click here to view.(148K, pdf) Acknowledgments We are indebted to A. Lumsden for help with a complex manuscript. P. Soriano and S. Orkin kindly provided Cre-reporters. A. West, G. Felsenfeld and J. Green gave advice on insulators and plasmids. This work was funded by BBSRC (GK, PEA), the Wellcome Trust (GK, WDR), the UK-MRC (WDR), the Swedish Research Council (PEA), NIH (APM) and WIBR-UCL (GK). GK and TM were long-term postdoctoral fellows of HFSPO. GK gratefully acknowledges Salvador Moncada for support in establishing a new lab. Footnotes Supplementary information accompanies the paper on www.nature.com/nature. Authors’ contribution T.M. and P.E.A are equally contributing first-authors of this work. Competing interests statement The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests. References 1. Janvier, P. Early Vertebrates (Oxford Science Publications, 1996). 2. Johanson Z. Placoderm branchial and hypobranchial muscles and origins in jawed vertebrates. J Vert Pal. 2003;23:735–749. 3. Motta, P.J. & Wilga, C.D. Advances in the study of feeding behaviours, mechanisms, and mechanics of sharks. in Environmental Biology of Fishes. 60, 131–156 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 2001). 4. LeDouarin N. & Kalcheim, C. The Neural Crest (Cambridge University Press, 2nd Edition 1999. 5. Edgeworth, F. H. The cranial muscles of vertebrates (Cambridge University Press, 1935). 6. Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S. Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):639–48. [PubMed] 7. Lumsden A, Sprawson N, Graham A. Segmental origin and migration of neural crest cells in the hindbrain region of the chick embryo. Development. 1991;113:1281–1291. [PubMed] 8. Saunders JWJ. The proximo-distal sequence of origin of the parts of the chick wing and the role of the ectoderm. J Exp Zool. 1948;108:363–403. 9. Smith MM, Hall BK. Development and evolutionary origins of vertebrate skeletogenic and odontogenic tissues. Biol Rev. 1990;65:277–373. [PubMed] 10. Smith MM & Hall, B.K. A developmental model for evolution of the vertebrate exoskeleton and teeth: The role of cranial and trunk neural crest. In: M. K. Hecht, R. J. MacIntyre and M. T. Clegg, Editors, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 27, Plenum Press, pp. 387–448 New York (1993). 11. Couly GF, Coltey PM, LeDouarin NM. The triple origin of skull in higher vertebrates: a study inquail-chick chimeras. Development. 1993;114:1–15. [PubMed] 12. Jiang X, Iseki S, Maxson RE, Sucov HM, Morriss-Kay GM. Tissue origins and interactions in themammalian skull vault. Dev Biol. 2002;241:106–116. [PubMed] 13. Koentges G, Lumsden AGS. Rhombencephalic neural crest segmentation is preserved throughout craniofacial ontogeny. Development. 1996;122:3229–3242. [PubMed] 14. Huang R, et al. Contribution of single somites to the skeleton and muscles of the occipital and cervicalregions in avian embryos. Anat Embryol. 2000;202:375–383. [PubMed] 15. Huang LF, et al. Mouse clavicular development: analysis of wild-type and cleidocranial dysplasia mutant mice. Dev Dyn. 1997;210:33–40. [PubMed] 16. Hall BK. Development of the clavicles in birds and mammals. J Exp Zool. 2001;289:153–161. [PubMed] 17. Danielian PS, Muccino D, Rowitch DH, Michael SK, McMahon AP. Modification of geneactivity in mouse embryos in utero by a tamoxifen-inducible form of Cre recombinase. Curr Biol. 1998;8:1323–1326. [PubMed] 18. Burke AC, Nelson CE, Morgan BA, Tabin C. Hox genes and the evolution of vertebrate axialmorphology, Development 121, 333–346 (1995). 19. Clarke RA, Catalan G, Diwan AD, Kearsley JH. Heterogeneity in Klippel-Feil syndrome: a newclassification. Pediatr Radiol. 1998 Dec;28(12):967–74. [PubMed] 20. Horwitz AE. Congenital elevation of the scapula – Sprengel’s deformity. Am J Orthop Surg. 1908;6:260–311. 21. Otto F, et al. Cbfa1, a candidate gene for cleidocranial dysplasia syndrome, is essential for osteoblast differentiation and bone development. Cell. 1997;89:765–771. [PubMed] 22. Greenfield’s Neuropathology, 7th edition, D.I. Graham & Lantos, P.L. (Oxford University Press 2002). 23. Kjaer I, Niebuhr E. Studies of the cranial base in 23 patients with cri-du-chat syndrome suggest a cranial developmental field involved in the condition. Am J Med Genet. 1999 Jan 1;82(1):6–14. [PubMed] 24. Huang R, Zhi Q, Patel K, Wilting J, Christ B. Dual origin and segmental organisation of the avian scapula. Development. 2000;127:3789–3794. [PubMed] 25. Alvares LE, et al. Intrinsic, Hox-dependant cues determine the fate of skeletal muscle precursors. Devel Cell. 2003;5:379–390. [PubMed] 26. Schweitzer R, et al. Analysis of the tendon cell fate using Scleraxis, a specific marker for tendons and ligaments. Development. 2001 Oct;128(19):3855–66. [PubMed] 27. Baylies MK, et al. Myogenesis: a view from Drosophila. Cell. 1998;93:921–7. [PubMed] 28. Takio Y, et al. Evolutionary Biology: lamprey Hox genes and the evolution of jaws. Nature. 2004;429:262. [PubMed] 29. Barrow JR, Capecchi MR. Compensatory defects associated with mutations in Hoxa1 restore normal palatogenesis to Hoxa2 mutants. Development. 1999;126:5011–26. [PubMed] 30. Smith A, et al. The EphA4 and EphB1 receptor tyrosine kinases and ephrin-B2 ligand regulate targeted migration of branchial neural crest cells. Curr Biol. 1997 Aug 1;7(8):561–70. [PubMed] 31. Selleri L, et al. Requirement for Pbx1 in skeletal patterning and programming chondrocyte proliferation and differentiation. Development. 2001 Sep;128(18):3543–57. [PubMed] 32. Dietrich S, Gruss P. undulated phenotypes suggest a role of Pax-1 for the development of vertebral andextravertebral structures. Dev Biol. 1995 Feb;167(2):529–48. [PubMed] 33. Peters H, et al. Pax1 and Pax9 synergistically regulate vertebral column development. Development. 1999 Dec;126(23):5399–408. [PubMed] 34. Prols F, et al. The role of Emx2 during scapula formation. Dev Biol. 2004 Nov 15;275(2):315–24. [PubMed] 35. Jarvik, E. Basic Structure and Evolution of Vertebrates, vol. 1 (Academic Press, London, 1980). 36. Shearman RM. Growth of the pectoral girdle of the Leopard Frog Rana pipiens (Anura:Ranidae). J Morph. 2005;264:94–104. [PubMed] 37. Schoch RR. Comparative osteology of Mastodonsaurus giganteus (Jaeger, 1828) from the Middle Triassic (Lettenkeuper: Longobardian) of Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Thüringen). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde, Serie B. 1999;278:1–175. 38. Sumida, S. S. in Amniote Origins (eds. Sumida, S. S. & Martin, K. L. M.) 353–398 (Academic, San Diego,1997). 39. Lebedev, O. A. in The Second Gross Symposium “Advances in Palaeoichthyology” (ed. Luksevics, E.) 79–98 (Acta Universitatis Latviensis 679, 2005). 40. Clack JA, Finney SM. Pederpes finneyae, an articulated tetrapod from the Tournaisian of WesternScotland. J Syst Palaeont. 2005;2:311–346. 41. Reisz RR, Berman DS, Scott D. The anatomy and relationships of the Lower Permian reptile Araeoscelis. J Vert Paleontol. 1984;4:57–67. 42. Jaekel O. Die Wirbeltierfunde aus dem Keuper von Halberstadt. Paläont Zeitschrift. 1915–16;2:88–214. 43. Joyce W. The presence of cleithra in the primitive turtle Kayentachelys aprix. J Vert Paleontol Suppl. 2003;23(3):66A. 44. Ferguson CA, Graham A. Redefining the head-trunk interface for the neural crest. Dev Biol. 2004;269:70–80. [PubMed] 45. Soriano P. Generalized lacZ expression with the ROSA26 Cre reporter strain. Nature Genet. 1999;21:70–71. [PubMed] 46. Mao X, et al. Activation of EGFP expression by Cre-mediated excision in a new ROSA26 reporter mouse strain. Blood. 2001;97:324–326. [PubMed] 47. Condie BG, Capecchi MR. Mice with targeted disruptions in the paralogous genes Hoxa-3 and Hoxd-3 reveal synergistic interactions. Nature. 1994;370:304–307. [PubMed] 48. Zhang F, et al. Elements both 5′ and 3′ to the murine Hoxd4 gene establish anterior borders of expression in mesoderm and neuroectoderm. Mech Dev. 1997;67:49–58. [PubMed] 49. Winterbottom R. A descriptive synonymy of the striated muscles of the teleostei. Proc Acad Nat Scil, Philadelphia. 1974;125:225–317. 50. Loonstra A, et al. Growth inhibition and DNA damage induced by Cre recombinase in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jul 31;98(16):9209–14. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||
Nature. 1997 Aug 14; 388(6643):639-48.
[Nature. 1997]Development. 1991 Dec; 113(4):1281-91.
[Development. 1991]Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990 Aug; 65(3):277-373.
[Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990]Development. 1992 Jan; 114(1):1-15.
[Development. 1992]Dev Biol. 2002 Jan 1; 241(1):106-16.
[Dev Biol. 2002]Development. 1996 Oct; 122(10):3229-42.
[Development. 1996]Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000 Nov; 202(5):375-83.
[Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000]Dev Dyn. 1997 Sep; 210(1):33-40.
[Dev Dyn. 1997]J Exp Zool. 2001 Feb 15; 289(3):153-61.
[J Exp Zool. 2001]Curr Biol. 1998 Dec 3; 8(24):1323-6.
[Curr Biol. 1998]Development. 1996 Oct; 122(10):3229-42.
[Development. 1996]Development. 1992 Jan; 114(1):1-15.
[Development. 1992]Dev Dyn. 1997 Sep; 210(1):33-40.
[Dev Dyn. 1997]J Exp Zool. 2001 Feb 15; 289(3):153-61.
[J Exp Zool. 2001]Development. 1992 Jan; 114(1):1-15.
[Development. 1992]Development. 1996 Oct; 122(10):3229-42.
[Development. 1996]Development. 1992 Jan; 114(1):1-15.
[Development. 1992]Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000 Nov; 202(5):375-83.
[Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000]Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990 Aug; 65(3):277-373.
[Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990]Dev Dyn. 1997 Sep; 210(1):33-40.
[Dev Dyn. 1997]J Exp Zool. 2001 Feb 15; 289(3):153-61.
[J Exp Zool. 2001]Pediatr Radiol. 1998 Dec; 28(12):967-74.
[Pediatr Radiol. 1998]Cell. 1997 May 30; 89(5):765-71.
[Cell. 1997]Am J Med Genet. 1999 Jan 1; 82(1):6-14.
[Am J Med Genet. 1999]Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990 Aug; 65(3):277-373.
[Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1990]Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000 Nov; 202(5):375-83.
[Anat Embryol (Berl). 2000]Development. 2000 Sep; 127(17):3789-94.
[Development. 2000]Dev Cell. 2003 Sep; 5(3):379-90.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Development. 2001 Oct; 128(19):3855-66.
[Development. 2001]Cell. 1998 Jun 12; 93(6):921-7.
[Cell. 1998]J Morphol. 2005 Apr; 264(1):94-104.
[J Morphol. 2005]J Exp Zool. 2001 Feb 15; 289(3):153-61.
[J Exp Zool. 2001]Curr Biol. 1998 Dec 3; 8(24):1323-6.
[Curr Biol. 1998]Dev Biol. 2004 May 1; 269(1):70-80.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Nat Genet. 1999 Jan; 21(1):70-1.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Blood. 2001 Jan 1; 97(1):324-6.
[Blood. 2001]Nature. 1994 Jul 28; 370(6487):304-7.
[Nature. 1994]J Morphol. 2005 Apr; 264(1):94-104.
[J Morphol. 2005]Curr Biol. 1998 Dec 3; 8(24):1323-6.
[Curr Biol. 1998]Nat Genet. 1999 Jan; 21(1):70-1.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Blood. 2001 Jan 1; 97(1):324-6.
[Blood. 2001]Pediatr Radiol. 1998 Dec; 28(12):967-74.
[Pediatr Radiol. 1998]J Morphol. 2005 Apr; 264(1):94-104.
[J Morphol. 2005]