![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright : © 2004 Kuroda et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use of, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited Neural Induction in Xenopus: Requirement for Ectodermal and Endomesodermal Signals via Chordin, Noggin, β-Catenin, and Cerberus 1Department of Biological Chemistry, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America Corresponding author.E. M. De Robertis: derobert/at/hhmi.ucla.edu Received November 28, 2003; Accepted January 29, 2004. See "Neural Induction without Mesoderm in Xenopus" , e149. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract The origin of the signals that induce the differentiation of the central nervous system (CNS) is a long-standing question in vertebrate embryology. Here we show that Xenopus neural induction starts earlier than previously thought, at the blastula stage, and requires the combined activity of two distinct signaling centers. One is the well-known Nieuwkoop center, located in dorsal-vegetal cells, which expresses Nodal-related endomesodermal inducers. The other is a blastula Chordin- and Noggin-expressing (BCNE) center located in dorsal animal cells that contains both prospective neuroectoderm and Spemann organizer precursor cells. Both centers are downstream of the early β-Catenin signal. Molecular analyses demonstrated that the BCNE center was distinct from the Nieuwkoop center, and that the Nieuwkoop center expressed the secreted protein Cerberus (Cer). We found that explanted blastula dorsal animal cap cells that have not yet contacted a mesodermal substratum can, when cultured in saline solution, express definitive neural markers and differentiate histologically into CNS tissue. Transplantation experiments showed that the BCNE region was required for brain formation, even though it lacked CNS-inducing activity when transplanted ventrally. Cell-lineage studies demonstrated that BCNE cells give rise to a large part of the brain and retina and, in more posterior regions of the embryo, to floor plate and notochord. Loss-of-function experiments with antisense morpholino oligos (MO) showed that the CNS that forms in mesoderm-less Xenopus embryos (generated by injection with Cerberus-Short [CerS] mRNA) required Chordin (Chd), Noggin (Nog), and their upstream regulator β-Catenin. When mesoderm involution was prevented in dorsal marginal-zone explants, the anterior neural tissue formed in ectoderm was derived from BCNE cells and had a complete requirement for Chd. By injecting Chd morpholino oligos (Chd-MO) into prospective neuroectoderm and Cerberus morpholino oligos (Cer-MO) into prospective endomesoderm at the 8-cell stage, we showed that both layers cooperate in CNS formation. The results suggest a model for neural induction in Xenopus in which an early blastula β-Catenin signal predisposes the prospective neuroectoderm to neural induction by endomesodermal signals emanating from Spemann's organizer. Introduction Vertebrate development results from a series of cell–cell interactions in which groups of cells induce their neighbors to acquire new cell differentiation fates. This process, known as embryonic induction, was first reported for the induction of the lens in surface ectoderm by the optic vesicles originating from the brain (Spemann 1901; Lewis 1904). Subsequent work showed that the surface ectoderm itself also plays an important role (reviewed by Grainger 1992). From the analysis of lens induction, Spemann (1938) proposed that a double assurance mechanism (doppelte Sicherung) could provide a way of explaining the robustness of vertebrate development via reciprocal interactions between two layers of cells. Lens induction is an example of a secondary embryonic induction. Most experimental embryologists concentrated their research on the induction of the neural plate, which is considered the primary embryonic induction (Spemann 1938; Saxén and Toivonen 1962; Harland 2000; Gilbert 2001; Stern 2002). In the classical organizer transplantation experiment, Spemann and Mangold (1924) demonstrated that dorsal lip mesoderm is sufficient to induce the differentiation of a complete central nervous system (CNS) in responding ectoderm. Spemann devoted an entire chapter of his book to the discussion of whether a double assurance mechanism existed in the case of neural plate induction (Chapter 8 in Spemann 1938) and concluded that the evidence supported a role for the underlying mesoderm, but not for the prospective neuroectoderm. A role for the gastrula ectoderm in neural plate formation had been proposed on the basis of experiments in which the mesoderm or the ectoderm had been damaged (Goerttler 1925) and received some subsequent support (Lehmann 1928). However, further consideration of the possible role of ectoderm in neural plate formation was hampered by a highly influential exogastrulation experiment performed in axolotl embryos (Holtfreter 1933), in which endomesoderm involution was prevented and the entire ectoderm differentiated into epidermis. Since there was no trace of CNS tissue in these embryos, this experiment was interpreted as a demonstration that the underlying endomesoderm had the essential role in neural plate induction and that the prospective neuroectoderm had none (Holtfreter 1933; Spemann 1938). The debate concerning whether the ectoderm itself has a role in neural plate formation has continued to this day. In dorsal marginal zone explants (Keller and Danilchik 1988; Keller 1991), CNS differentiation can take place in the absence of underlying mesoderm. It has been proposed that in these Keller explants neural tissue induction results from a “planar” signal that diffuses in the plane of the ectoderm from the mesodermal organizer at gastrula (Ruiz i Altaba 1992, 1993; Doniach et al. 1992; Poznanski and Keller 1997) (see Figure 6
Two recent technical advances led us to reinvestigate neural induction in Xenopus. First, it is now possible to completely inhibit mesoderm formation by microinjecting Cerberus-short (CerS) mRNA, a secreted antagonist specific for Nodal-related mesoderm inducers (Agius et al. 2000). Interestingly, Xenopus embryos lacking mesoderm still developed a CNS, including a cyclopic eye (Wessely et al. 2001). This was surprising, because such mesoderm-less embryos did not express multiple Spemann organizer markers such as Chordin (Chd), Noggin (Nog), and Goosecoid in dorsal endomesoderm at the gastrula stage. Second, a technical revolution has taken place with the availability of antisense morpholino oligos (MO) that permit loss-of-function studies in Xenopus (Heasman et al. 2000). It is now possible to combine the tools of amphibian experimental embryology with investigations on the role of individual genes, such as the secreted bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) antagonist Chd (Oelgeschläger et al. 2003) or its upstream regulator β-Catenin (Heasman et al. 2000), in experimentally manipulated embryos. In whole embryos injected with Chd-MO, a CNS, although of reduced size, still develops. However, Spemann organizers depleted for Chd lose all neural-inducing activity when grafted to the ventral side of a host embryo (Oelgeschläger et al. 2003). Surprisingly, when similar Chd-depleted grafts are placed on the dorsal side, ectodermal cells lose the ability to contribute to neural plate (Oelgeschläger et al. 2003). This suggested that a cell-autonomous requirement of Chd for neural plate formation might exist in the ectoderm itself. At the blastula stage, the BMP antagonists Chd and Nog are expressed in the dorsal animal cap and marginal zone, in a region we had originally designated as the “preorganizer center” (Wessely et al. 2001). This group of cells constitutes a blastula Chordin- and Noggin-expressing (BCNE) region that contains both prospective neuroectoderm cells and Spemann organizer precursors. The BCNE region also expresses Xenopus Nodal-related 3(Xnr3), a secreted factor with neural-inducing properties that is expressed at high levels in early Xenopus embryos (Haramoto et al. 2004; Wessely et al. 2004). The early phase of expression of Chd and Nog in BCNE cells is regulated by the dorsal accumulation of β-Catenin, whereas later expression of the same genes in Spemann organizer endomesoderm requires in addition Nodal-related signals that can be blocked by CerS (Wessely et al. 2001). In this study we analyze the mechanism of neural induction in Xenopus by means of embryological cut-and-paste and molecular loss-of-function experiments. We find that the BCNE center contains much of the presumptive anterior CNS. Loss-of-function studies show that gene products expressed at blastula—such as Chd, Nog, and β-Catenin—are required for neural induction in the absence of underlying endomesoderm. Cell-lineage studies show that the BCNE center itself gives rise to brain, notochord, and floor plate. Transplantation experiments show that the BCNE center is required for brain formation in Xenopus embryos. Microinjection experiments at the 8-cell stage, in which Chd-MO was injected into dorsal-animal and Cer-MO into dorsal-vegetal blastomeres, confirmed that secreted signals from both prospective neuroectoderm and underlying endomesoderm are required for anterior CNS development. The results support a double assurance mechanism for brain formation of the type proposed by Spemann (1938) for lens induction. Results The BCNE Center Is Distinct from the Nieuwkoop Center The initial asymmetry in Xenopus development is caused by a cortical rotation triggered by sperm entry, thought to redistribute “dorsal determinants” that in turn stabilize β-Catenin protein on the dorsal side of the embryo (Figure 1
The question arises as to whether two distinct signaling centers coexist in the Xenopus blastula. To address this, early blastulae with strong dorsoventral polarity (Klein 1987) were dissected into six fragments, as shown in Figure 1 Cell Lineage of the BCNE Region To map the fate of the blastula Chd- and Nog-expressing cells during normal development, we transplanted lineage-labeled BCNE regions isotopically into host blastulae at early stage 9 (Figure 2 The Dorsal Animal Cap Is Specified to Form CNS In embryology, the test of whether cells are specified to form a particular tissue is to culture them in isolation from the rest of the embryo. Dorsal animal cap explants from embryos injected with CerS mRNA expressed multiple neural molecular markers at stage 26, whereas animal or ventral explants did not (Figure 3
BCNE Tissue Is Required for Brain Formation To test whether the BCNE center is required for brain formation, we first deleted ventral or dorsal regions of the animal cap. Deletion of the dorsal region, but not of the ventral animal cap, resulted in headless embryos (Figure 4
Despite this requirement for brain development, blastula dorsal animal caps grafted into the ventral side of a host blastula were only able to form weak secondary axes (Figure 4 Anterior CNS Formation in the Absence of Mesoderm Requires Chd and Nog We next investigated whether BCNE center signals are required for the anterior CNS that forms in embryos lacking mesoderm and Spemann organizer. CerS mRNA was injected at the 4-cell stage and the BCNE region marked with BDA at the 64-cell stage (Figure 5
Molecular analyses confirmed that mesoderm-less embryos injected with Chd-MO did not express anterior neural tissue markers such as Otx2, Rx2a, En2, and Krox20 (Figure 5 Neural Induction by β-Catenin Requires Chd It has recently been discovered that microinjection of β-catenin mRNA is able to induce neural tissue in Xenopus animal caps (Baker et al. 1999). Stabilization of β-Catenin has a dual effect, inhibiting the transcription of BMPs (Baker et al. 1999; Leung et al. 2003) and increasing expression of the BMP antagonists Chd and Nog in the blastula animal cap (Wessely et al. 2001). We next tested the effect of β-Catenin knockdown on CNS differentiation. As shown in Figure 5 To investigate whether neural induction by β-Catenin in animal cap explants required Chd, the β-Catenin pathway was activated by β-catenin mRNA, dominant negative glycogen synthase kinase-3 (dnGSK3) mRNA, or LiCl. These treatments induced multiple neural markers in animal caps (Figure 5 Anterior Neural Induction in Keller Explants Requires Chd Is the expression of Chd in prospective neuroectoderm at blastula responsible for the “planar” neural induction signals (Figure 6 Molecular analyses of Keller explants confirmed that brain markers were inhibited by Chd-MO, while pan-neural and spinal cord markers were less affected (Figure 6 Chordin and Cerberus Cooperate in Brain Induction Do vertical signals from endomesoderm cooperate with the BCNE center in brain differentiation? The endomesoderm secretes growth-factor antagonists with head-patterning activity, such as Cer, Frzb-1, Crescent, Dickkopf-1, Chd, and Nog (Harland 2000; De Robertis et al. 2000). Several of these secreted antagonists are expressed in the anterior endoderm, which is homologous to the mouse anterior visceral endoderm (Beddington and Robertson 2000). We chose to study one of these antagonists, the head-inducer Cer, because it is expressed in the anterior endoderm of the Spemann organizer (Bouwmeester et al. 1996) and in the Nieuwkoop center, but not in the BCNE center (see Figure 1 Two recent studies have described morpholino antisense oligos targeting Cer. In both, Cer did not appear to be required for head development on its own, but cooperated when coinjected with other factors (Hino et al. 2003; Silva et al. 2003). Xenopus laevis genes frequently have pseudoalleles thought to have originated from hybridization between two different Xenopus species in the course of evolution (Kobel and Du Pasquier 1986). Examination of the EST database showed that a second Cer allele existed, and that the published morpholinos had three and four mismatches with it, respectively (Figure 7
To test whether Cer and Chd cooperated, we targeted Cer-MO to dorsal endomesoderm and Chd-MO to dorsal neuroectoderm at the 8-cell stage (Figure 7
Discussion The results presented here are consistent with the following sequence of events during CNS development in Xenopus. A dorsal β-Catenin signal triggered by the early cortical rotation of the egg (Gerhart et al. 1991; De Robertis et al. 2000) induces the expression of anti-BMP molecules such as Chd and Nog in a group of cells located in the dorsal animal region at the blastula stage (see Figure 8 The Nieuwkoop center arises at the same stage as the BCNE center, but in more vegetal cells (see Figure 8 Neural Induction Starts at Blastula At the blastula stage, gene expression in the BCNE region causes a neural predisposition in the prospective brain tissue itself. When prospective neuroectoderm is explanted at blastula and cultured in the absence of mesoderm, it can develop into histotypic neural tissue (see Figure 3 Redundant Signals in Neural Induction Multiple secreted growth factors antagonists participate in CNS induction (Harland 2000; De Robertis et al. 2000), and their activities can be redundant. In the mouse, Chd and Nog mutants have normal neural plates, but in Chd-/-;Nog-/- embryos, development of the forebrain fails (Bachiller et al. 2000). In Xenopus and zebrafish, loss of Chd in the whole embryo results in animals that still are able to form anterior CNS, although its size is reduced (Schulte-Merker et al. 1997; Oelgeschläger et al. 2003). This contrasts with the strong requirement for Chd revealed here when neural induction is driven by a single signaling center in Xenopus. In mesoderm-less embryos, (CerS-injected) blastula dorsal animal cells are the sole source of Chd, and anterior CNS differentiation can be completely inhibited by Chd-MO (see Figure 5 Could redundant signals from prospective neuroectoderm and endomesoderm also function in neural induction in other vertebrates? This seems possible in the case of the chick embryo. Chick Chd is initially expressed in the unincubated egg in epiblast central cells just anterior to Koller's sickle (Streit et al. 1998), a region that may correspond to the Xenopus blastula Chd-expressing region. The progeny of this region of the chick epiblast contributes to the prospective forebrain and moves anteriorly during development. The descendants of the chick early Chd-expressing brain progenitors migrate at all times in front of the organizer, which is located at the tip of the primitive streak and has a caudalizing influence (Foley et al. 2000). In zebrafish, mutant embryos lacking Nodal signaling still form brain tissue in the absence of a mesodermal organizer and express Chd (Gritsman et al. 1999). In the mouse embryo, transplantation experiments at the gastrula stage support a role for different germ layers in brain induction (Tam and Steiner 1999). However, expression of mouse Chd and Nog has only been analyzed from early primitive streak stage on (Bachiller et al. 2000). Studies on the expression of these BMP antagonists in prestreak or peri-implantation mouse embryos, or on the earliest nuclear localization of β-Catenin protein, will be required to determine whether a region homologous to that of the Xenopus blastula Chd-expressing region exists in mammalian embryos. Neural-Inducing Signals in Chordates In amphibians the default model of neural induction proposes that BMPs expressed in ectoderm cause epidermal induction. When animal cap cells are dissociated, they become neuralized (reviewed by Weinstein and Hemmati-Brivanlou 1999). When exogenous BMP is added to dissociated animal cap cells, epidermal differentiation is restored. The present work with morpholinos that inhibit Chd, Nog, and Cer highlights the importance of BMP signaling regulation in Xenopus. The BCNE center appears shortly after midblastula and is required for anterior CNS formation when endomesodermal signals are inhibited. Induction of posterior neural tissue can still take in the absence of Chd and Nog (e.g., Figure 5 In chick and ascidian embryos, current models of neural induction highlight the role of FGF and Wnt in neural induction and de-emphasize a role for BMP regulation (Wilson and Edlund 2001; Stern 2002; Bertrand et al. 2003). We are unable to discuss in depth here the relative importance of the different signaling pathways in various organisms (reviewed in Wilson and Edlund 2001). It is clear, however, that multiple pathways cooperate in neural development. For example, in the chick embryo, Wnt or BMP antagonists applied to cells at the border region between epidermis and CNS expand the neural plate, and FGF signaling represses BMP4 expression in the neuroectoderm. In addition, the anti-neural effects of intermediate levels of an FGF antagonist can be reversed by the addition of chick Chd (Wilson and Edlund 2001). One of the difficulties in comparing neural induction between Xenopus and other chordates concerned the different timing of events. We now find a requirement for critical signals triggered by β-Catenin in the prospective neuroectoderm just after midblastula. Thus, the neural induction process seems to start at blastula in all chordates (Wessely et al. 2001; Wilson and Edlund 2001; Stern 2002; Bertrand et al. 2003). In addition, new molecular mechanisms are being discovered that help explain how disparate signaling pathways—such as those of FGF, IGF, and anti-BMPs—can be integrated during development. Tyrosine kinase receptors such as those for FGF and IGF have recently been found to inhibit the BMP pathway effector protein Smad1 by phosphorylation via mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) (Pera et al. 2003; Sater et al. 2003). Neural induction by the BMP antagonist Chd requires the extra boost in Smad1 inhibition provided by FGF and IGF signaling (Pera et al. 2003). This molecular mechanism exemplifies one way in which signaling pathways hitherto considered entirely independent might be integrated in embryonic cells (Massagué 2003). Primary neural induction in the chordate embryo has been an area of active investigation for many years and we can expect this to continue for the foreseeable future. A Role for Ectoderm in Amphibian Neural Induction The role of the ectoderm in amphibian neural induction has been the subject of much debate (Spemann 1938; Holtfreter and Hamburger 1955; Nieuwkoop and Koster 1995). Gene marker studies in Xenopus had noticed a predisposition of dorsal ectoderm for neural induction by mesoderm (Sharpe et al. 1987; London et al. 1988), but a requirement for any specific genes had not been addressed. In addition, it was known that the dorsal animal cap responds much better to the mesoderm-inducer Activin (Sokol and Melton 1991). These earlier findings can now be reinterpreted as reflecting the effects of the early β-Catenin signal that induces expression of genes such as Chd, Nog, Xnr3, and Siamois. Chd is not only expressed in the organizer region during gastrulation, but also in the dorsal animal cap region during blastula, and this is required for neural specification. In this study we have provided evidence that presumptive neural plate material can differentiate into CNS in the absence of a mesodermal substratum. The BCNE center is required for brain formation in the embryo, but requires the cooperation of endomesodermal signals such as Cerberus. A requirement of gastrula prospective neuroectoderm for neural plate formation had been proposed by earlier workers on the basis of defect experiments (Goerttler 1925; Lehmann 1928). However, these results were disputed (Holtfreter 1933; Spemann 1938; Holtfreter and Hamburger 1955; Hamburger 1988; Nieuwkoop and Koster 1995), and vertical induction by the endomesodermal Spemann organizer was attributed the preeminent role in amphibian neural induction. A possible explanation for why the role of the prospective neuroectoderm remained unrecognized for so many years of research on the experimental embryology of neural induction is that, unlike Spemann's organizer, the BCNE center lacks inducing activity when transplanted to ectopic sites. The availability of new tools to investigate the function of individual genes—such as β-catenin, Chd, and Cer—has now provided evidence that both ectodermal and endomesodermal signals are required for primary embryonic induction in Xenopus. Materials and Methods Embryo manipulations Xenopus embryos obtained by in vitro fertilization were cultured in 0.1× modified Barth's medium (Sive et al. 2000). For BCNE transplantation and deletion experiments, dissections were performed in 1× Steinberg's solution (Sive et al. 2000). BCNE grafts were 0.3 mm squares isolated from the dorsal animal cap just above the floor of the blastocoel. They were excised at early stage 9 (6.75–7.25 h after fertilization at room temperature), before extensive epiboly movements begin, just one division after the large-cell blastula stage (stage 8), and could be monitored by the thickness of the animal cap and cell size. Embryos were cultured in 1× Steinberg's solution until healing (0.5–1 h) and then changed into 0.1× Barth's solution. Embryo stages were according to Nieuwkoop and Faber (1994). Keller sandwiches were prepared at early stage 10. The dorsal sector of the gastrula was excised at an angle of 30° from the dorsal midline, from the dorsal lip up to the animal pole, using stainless steel forceps. Two explants were sandwiched and cultured in 1 x Steinberg solution for 12 h for in situ hybridization, 1 d for RT-PCR analysis, and 2 d for morphological analysis. For RT-PCR analyses, RNA was pooled from five Keller explants, five animal caps, or single embryos. The RT-PCR conditions and primers, as well the protocol for whole-mount in situ hybridization, are described in http://www.hhmi.ucla.edu/derobertis/index.html. Lineage tracing To fate map BCNE descendants, an improved lineage tracing method was developed. Embryos were injected with 1–4 nl of 1% BDA (Molecular Probes, Eugene, Oregon, United States) in H2O and cultured explants or embryos were fixed for at least 1 h in MEMFA (Sive et al. 2000). Subsequently, embryos were placed for 24 h in 70% ethanol, 1 h in 100% ethanol, 1 h in 100% isopropanol, 12–16 h in 100% xylene, and 1 h in paraffin at 65°C before embedding. We found that overnight incubation in xylene improved sectioning of early embryos, which are rich in yolk. Sections were cut at 8–10 μm and dewaxed in 100% xylene, 100% ethanol, and 70% ethanol for 2 min each. Next, sections were washed twice in binding buffer (100 mM Tris–HCl, 150 mM NaCl [pH 7.5]) for 5 min and incubated in binding buffer containing streptavidin-coupled alkaline phospatase (Roche, Basel, Switzerland) at a dilution of 1:5,000 overnight at room temperature. Afterwards, slides were washed twice with binding buffer, once with reaction buffer (100 mM Tris–HCl, 100 mM NaCl, 50 mM MgCl2, pH 9.5) for 5 min and incubated overnight with reaction buffer containing 10% BM purple solution (Roche) in a Coplin jar in the dark at 4°C. Staining was stopped by incubation in Stop solution (100 mM Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA, pH 7.4), and sections dehydrated in 100% methanol and completely air-dried before mounting in Vectashield medium (Vector Laboratories Inc., Burlingame, California, United States). In some experiments nuclear lacZ mRNA (kind gift of R. Harland), fluorescein dextran amine or Texas red dextran amine were used as lineage tracers. RNA injections To generate synthetic mRNAs, the plasmids pCS2-CerS, pCS2-Chd, pCS2-β-catenin, and pCS2-dnGSK3 were linearized with NotI and transcribed with SP6 RNA polymerase as described previously (Piccolo et al. 1999). The following amounts of mRNA were used for microinjections: 600 pg (150 pg four times into the vegetal region at 4-cell stage) for CerS, 100 pg (50 pg twice into dorsal-animal region at 4-cell stage) for Chd, 800 pg (400 pg twice into the dorsal-animal region at 8-cell stage) for β-catenin, and 600 pg (300 pg twice into the dorsal-animal region at 8-cell stage) for dnGSK3 mRNA. Morpholino oligos Morpholino oligos were as follows: Chd-MO1 (5′-ACG TTC TGT CTC GTA TAG TGA GCG T-3′) and Chd-MO2 (5′-ACA GCA TTT TTG TGG TTG TCC CGA A-3′) (Oelgeschläger et al. 2003); Nog-MO (5′-TCA CAA GGC ACT GGG AAT GAT CCA T-3′) (this work); β-cat-MO (5′-TTT CAA CCG TTT CCA AAG AAC CAG G-3′) (Heasman et al. 2000); Cer-MO (5′-ACT TGC TGT TCC TGC ACT GTG C-3′) (this work); and a control-MO (5′-CCT CTT ACC TCA GTT ACA ATT TAT A-3′) (Oelgeschläger et al. 2003). The morpholino oligos were resuspended to prepare a 1 mM stock solution (SS) that was then further diluted in sterile water to give a working solution: Chd-MO solution (Chd-MO1-SS:Chd-MO2-SS:H2O = 1:1:6), β-cat-MO solution (β-cat-MO-SS:H2O = 1:4), Nog-MO solution (Nog-MO-SS:H2O = 1:1), Cer-MO solution (Cer-MO-SS:H2O =1:1), control-MO solution (control-MO-SS:H2O = 1:1), and Chd-MO/Nog-MO solution (Chd-MO1-SS:Chd-MO2-SS:Nog-MO-SS:H2O = 1:1:4:10). A total of 8 nl (two times 4 nl or four times 2 nl) morpholino solutions were injected at the 2-cell stage or 4 nl (two times 2 nl) of morpholino solution injected at the 8-cell stage. Figure S1: The BCNE Region Can Be Reliably Marked at the 64-Cell Stage Using an Improved BDA Lineage-Tracing Method (A–H) Microinjection of individual 32-cell blastomeres does not faithfully recapitulate the lineage of BCNE grafts at gastrula (compare with Figure 2 (I–L) Diagram indicating the injection of the lower daughter of B1 and the upper daughter of C1 at the 64-cell stage (I), which reliably identify BCNE descendants at stage 9 (J), stage 11 (K), and stage 36 (L). Arrowheads indicate the blastopore. Abbreviations: fp, floor plate; no, notochord. (4.39 MB TIF). Click here for additional data file.(4.2M, tif) Acknowledgments We thank Dr. D. D. Brown for transgenic X. laevis; Dr. H. Okamoto, Dr. D. Wilkinson, Dr. R. Harland, and Dr. D. Kimelman for DNA constructs; U. Tran and A. Cuellar for technical assistance; and E. Neufeld, L. Zipursky, S. Millard, E. Pera, and C. Coffinier for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (HD21502–18) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, of which EMDR is an investigator. Abbreviations
Footnotes Conflicts of interest. The authors have declared that no conflicts of interest exist. Author contributions. HK and EMDR conceived and designed the experiments. HK and EMDR performed the experiments: HK, OW, and EMDR analyzed the data. HK, OW, and EMDR contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools. HK and EMDR wrote the paper. All the authors collaborated on the work. Academic Editor: Christof Niehrs, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000 Aug; 10(4):357-62.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000]Int J Dev Biol. 2001; 45(1):155-64.
[Int J Dev Biol. 2001]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Aug; 12(4):447-51.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002]Development. 1988 May; 103(1):193-209.
[Development. 1988]Development. 1992 Sep; 116(1):67-80.
[Development. 1992]J Neurobiol. 1993 Oct; 24(10):1276-304.
[J Neurobiol. 1993]Science. 1992 Jul 24; 257(5069):542-5.
[Science. 1992]Dev Biol. 1997 Apr 15; 184(2):351-66.
[Dev Biol. 1997]Development. 2000 Mar; 127(6):1173-83.
[Development. 2000]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Dev Biol. 2000 Jun 1; 222(1):124-34.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):219-30.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):219-30.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Dev Biol. 2004 Jan 1; 265(1):155-68.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1997; 13():611-67.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1997]Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Dec; 1(3):171-81.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2000]Development. 2000 Mar; 127(6):1173-83.
[Development. 2000]Development. 2000 Dec; 127(24):5319-29.
[Development. 2000]Dev Biol. 1987 Mar; 120(1):299-304.
[Dev Biol. 1987]Cell. 1995 Apr 7; 81(1):85-94.
[Cell. 1995]Nature. 1996 Aug 15; 382(6592):595-601.
[Nature. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Dec 7; 96(25):14389-93.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):219-30.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Genes Dev. 1999 Dec 1; 13(23):3149-59.
[Genes Dev. 1999]Development. 2003 Aug; 130(16):3639-49.
[Development. 2003]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Dev Biol. 2000 Jun 1; 222(1):124-34.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Science. 1992 Jul 24; 257(5069):542-5.
[Science. 1992]Dev Biol. 1999 Dec 15; 216(2):561-81.
[Dev Biol. 1999]Genes Dev. 2003 Dec 15; 17(24):3023-8.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000 Aug; 10(4):357-62.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000]Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Dec; 1(3):171-81.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2000]Nature. 1996 Aug 15; 382(6592):595-601.
[Nature. 1996]Dev Biol. 2003 Aug 1; 260(1):138-57.
[Dev Biol. 2003]Development. 2003 Oct; 130(20):4943-53.
[Development. 2003]Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Dec; 1(3):171-81.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2000]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Development. 2000 Mar; 127(6):1173-83.
[Development. 2000]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Dec; 1(3):171-81.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2000]Genes Dev. 1999 Dec 1; 13(23):3149-59.
[Genes Dev. 1999]Mech Dev. 2001 Jun; 104(1-2):21-36.
[Mech Dev. 2001]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000 Aug; 10(4):357-62.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2000]Nat Rev Genet. 2000 Dec; 1(3):171-81.
[Nat Rev Genet. 2000]Nature. 2000 Feb 10; 403(6770):658-61.
[Nature. 2000]Nature. 1997 Jun 26; 387(6636):862-3.
[Nature. 1997]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):219-30.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Development. 1998 Feb; 125(3):507-19.
[Development. 1998]Development. 2000 Sep; 127(17):3839-54.
[Development. 2000]Cell. 1999 Apr 2; 97(1):121-32.
[Cell. 1999]Development. 1999 Nov; 126(22):5171-9.
[Development. 1999]Nature. 2000 Feb 10; 403(6770):658-61.
[Nature. 2000]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1999; 15():411-33.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1999]Dev Biol. 2002 Apr 15; 244(2):407-17.
[Dev Biol. 2002]Development. 2001 Nov; 128(21):4189-201.
[Development. 2001]Nat Neurosci. 2001 Nov; 4 Suppl():1161-8.
[Nat Neurosci. 2001]Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002 Aug; 12(4):447-51.
[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2002]Cell. 2003 Nov 26; 115(5):615-27.
[Cell. 2003]Dev Biol. 2001 Jun 1; 234(1):161-73.
[Dev Biol. 2001]Genes Dev. 2003 Dec 15; 17(24):3023-8.
[Genes Dev. 2003]Cell. 1987 Aug 28; 50(5):749-58.
[Cell. 1987]Dev Biol. 1988 Oct; 129(2):380-9.
[Dev Biol. 1988]Nature. 1991 May 30; 351(6325):409-11.
[Nature. 1991]Nature. 1999 Feb 25; 397(6721):707-10.
[Nature. 1999]Dev Cell. 2003 Feb; 4(2):219-30.
[Dev Cell. 2003]Dev Biol. 2000 Jun 1; 222(1):124-34.
[Dev Biol. 2000]Development. 1987 Jun; 100(2):279-95.
[Development. 1987]Development. 1994 May; 120(5):1179-89.
[Development. 1994]Dev Biol. 1987 Mar; 120(1):299-304.
[Dev Biol. 1987]Dev Biol. 2003 Aug 1; 260(1):138-57.
[Dev Biol. 2003]Development. 2003 Oct; 130(20):4943-53.
[Development. 2003]