|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
Development, Vol 122, Issue 4 1059-1067, Copyright © 1996 by Company of Biologists
JOURNAL ARTICLES |
N Fuse, S Hirose and S Hayashi
Genetic Stock Research Center, National Institute of Genetics, Shizuoka-ken, Japan.
Inset appendages such as the wing and the leg are formed in response to inductive signals in the embryonic field. In Drosophila, cells receiving such signals initiate developmental programs which allow them to become imaginal discs. Subsequently, these discs autonomously organize patterns specific for each appendage. We here report that two related transcription factors, Escargot and Snail that are expressed in the embryonic wing disc, function as intrinsic determinants of the wing cell fate. In escargot or snail mutant embryos, wing-specific expression of Snail, Vestigial and beta-galactosidase regulated by escargot enhancer were found as well as in wild-type embryos. However, in escargot snail double mutant embryos, wing development proceeded until stage 13, but the marker expression was not maintained in later stages, and the invagination of the primordium was absent. From such analyses, it was concluded that Escargot and Snail expression in the wing disc are maintained by their auto- and crossactivation. Ubiquitous escargot or snail expression induced from the hsp70 promoter rescued the escargot snail double mutant phenotype with the effects confined to the prospective wing cells. Similar DNA binding specificities of Escargot and Snail suggest that they control the same set of genes required for wing development. We thus propose the following scenario for early wing disc development. Prospective wing cells respond to the induction by turning on escargot and snail transcription, and become competent for regulation by Escargot and Snail. Such cells initiate auto- and crossregulatory circuits of escargot and snail. The sustained Escargot and Snail expression then activates vestigial and other target genes that are essential for wing development. This maintains the commitment to the wing cell fate and induces wing-specific cell shape change.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Weaver and M. A. Krasnow Dual Origin of Tissue-Specific Progenitor Cells in Drosophila Tracheal Remodeling Science, September 12, 2008; 321(5895): 1496 - 1499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Nair, V. Bilanchone, K. Ortt, S. Sinha, and X. Dai Ovol1 represses its own transcription by competing with transcription activator c-Myb and by recruiting histone deacetylase activity Nucleic Acids Res., March 12, 2007; 35(5): 1687 - 1697. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H.-Y. Lim and A. Tomlinson Organization of the peripheral fly eye: the roles of Snail family transcription factors in peripheral retinal apoptosis Development, September 15, 2006; 133(18): 3529 - 3537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Foronda, B. Estrada, L. de Navas, and E. Sanchez-Herrero Requirement of abdominal-A and Abdominal-B in the developing genitalia of Drosophila breaks the posterior downregulation rule Development, January 1, 2006; 133(1): 117 - 127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Hekmat-Scafe, K. N. Dang, and M. A. Tanouye Seizure Suppression by Gain-of-Function escargot Mutations Genetics, March 1, 2005; 169(3): 1477 - 1493. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. L. Jockusch and K. A. Ober Hypothesis Testing in Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Case Study from Insect Wings J. Hered., September 1, 2004; 95(5): 382 - 396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Seki, T. Fujimori, P. Savagner, A. Hata, T. Aikawa, N. Ogata, Y. Nabeshima, and L. Kaechoong Mouse Snail Family Transcription Repressors Regulate Chondrocyte, Extracellular Matrix, Type II Collagen, and Aggrecan J. Biol. Chem., October 24, 2003; 278(43): 41862 - 41870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. I. Ashraf and Y. T. Ip The Snail protein family regulates neuroblast expression of inscuteable and string, genes involved in asymmetry and cell division in Drosophila Development, December 1, 2001; 128(23): 4757 - 4767. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Okubo, T. K. Truong, B. Yu, T. Itoh, J. Zhao, B. Grube, D. Zhou, and S. Chen Down-Regulation of Promoter I.3 Activity of the Human Aromatase Gene in Breast Tissue by Zinc-finger Protein, Snail (SnaH) Cancer Res., February 1, 2001; 61(4): 1338 - 1346. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Hemavathy, S. C. Guru, J. Harris, J. D. Chen, and Y. T. Ip Human Slug Is a Repressor That Localizes to Sites of Active Transcription Mol. Cell. Biol., July 15, 2000; 20(14): 5087 - 5095. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Kataoka, T. Murayama, M. Yokode, S. Mori, H. Sano, H. Ozaki, Y. Yokota, S.-I. Nishikawa, and T. Kita A novel Snail-related transcription factor Smuc regulates basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor activities via specific E-box motifs Nucleic Acids Res., January 15, 2000; 28(2): 626 - 633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Kubota, S Goto, K Eto, and S Hayashi EGF receptor attenuates Dpp signaling and helps to distinguish the wing and leg cell fates in Drosophila Development, January 9, 2000; 127(17): 3769 - 3776. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. Postigo, E. Ward, J. B. Skeath, and D. C. Dean zfh-1, the Drosophila Homologue of ZEB, Is a Transcriptional Repressor That Regulates Somatic Myogenesis Mol. Cell. Biol., October 1, 1999; 19(10): 7255 - 7263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Ashburner, S. Misra, J. Roote, S. E. Lewis, R. Blazej, T. Davis, C. Doyle, R. Galle, R. George, N. Harris, et al. An Exploration of the Sequence of a 2.9-Mb Region of the Genome of Drosophila melanogaster: The Adh Region Genetics, September 1, 1999; 153(1): 179 - 219. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A. Postigo and D. C. Dean ZEB represses transcription through interaction with the corepressor CtBP PNAS, June 8, 1999; 96(12): 6683 - 6688. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Goto and S Hayashi Proximal to distal cell communication in the Drosophila leg provides a basis for an intercalary mechanism of limb patterning Development, January 8, 1999; 126(15): 3407 - 3413. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L Maves and G Schubiger A molecular basis for transdetermination in Drosophila imaginal discs: interactions between wingless and decapentaplegic signaling Development, January 1, 1998; 125(1): 115 - 124. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S Goto and S Hayashi Specification of the embryonic limb primordium by graded activity of Decapentaplegic Development, January 1, 1997; 124(1): 125 - 132. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M Tanaka-Matakatsu, T Uemura, H Oda, M Takeichi, and S Hayashi Cadherin-mediated cell adhesion and cell motility in Drosophila trachea regulated by the transcription factor Escargot Development, January 12, 1996; 122(12): 3697 - 3705. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
