spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online February 24, 2006
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/dev.02259

Development 133, 1165-1173 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harvey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Logan, M. P. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Harvey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Logan, M. P. O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

sall4 acts downstream of tbx5 and is required for pectoral fin outgrowth

Steven A. Harvey and Malcolm P. O. Logan*

Division of Developmental Biology, MRC-National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA, UK.

* Author for correspondence (e-mail: mlogan{at}nimr.mrc.ac.uk)

Accepted 20 December 2005


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Okihiro syndrome (OS) is defined by forelimb defects associated with the eye disorder Duane anomaly and results from mutations in the gene SALL4. Forelimb defects in individuals with OS range from subtle thumb abnormalities to truncated limbs. Mutations in the T-box transcription factor TBX5 cause Holt-Oram syndrome (HOS), which results in forelimb and heart defects. Although mutations in TBX5 result in HOS, it has been predicted that these mutations account for only ~30% of all individuals with HOS. Individuals with OS and HOS limb defects are very similar, in fact, individuals with mutations in SALL4 have in some cases previously been diagnosed with HOS. Using zebrafish as a model, we have investigated the function of sall4 and the relationship between sall4 and tbx5, during forelimb development. We demonstrate that sall4 and a related gene sall1 act downstream of tbx5 and are required for pectoral fin development. Our studies of Sall gene family redundancy and tbx5 offer explanations for the similarity of individuals with OS and HOS limb defects.

Key words: sall4, sall1, spalt, tbx5, Pectoral fins, Zebrafish, Okihiro syndrome, Holt-Oram syndrome


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Mutations in the gene SALL4 result in Okihiro syndrome [OS, also called Duane radial ray syndrome (DRRS), OMIM number 607323] (Al-Baradie et al., 2002Go; Kohlhase et al., 2002Go). OS is caused by SALL4 haploinsufficiency (Borozdin et al., 2004Go) and is characterised by forelimb defects associated with the eye defect, Duane anomaly. The forelimb defects of individuals with OS range from subtle thumb abnormalities to severely truncated limbs (phocomelia) (Al-Baradie et al., 2002Go; Kohlhase et al., 2002Go). The thumb, which is the most anterior digit, is most commonly affected in OS (Borozdin et al., 2004Go). In addition to these defining features of OS, a range of less common abnormalities has been reported, including atrial septal defects (hole in the heart), ear problems, Hirschsprung's disease and pigmentation defects (Al-Baradie et al., 2002Go; Kohlhase et al., 2002Go). Another Sall gene family member associated with developmental defects in humans is SALL1, which when mutated results in Townes-Brocks syndrome (TBS, OMIM number 107480) (Kohlhase et al., 1998Go). Individuals with TBS have limb defects, abnormal ears, imperforate anus and kidney abnormalities (Kohlhase et al., 1998Go). The limb defects of individuals with TBS include preaxial polydactyly and triphalangeal thumb in the forelimbs, and syndactyly and club foot in the hindlimbs (Kohlhase et al., 1999Go). Sall1-null mice do not phenocopy TBS (Nishinakamura et al., 2001Go); however, mice expressing a truncated form of Sall1 do have TBS-like defects (Kiefer et al., 2003Go). This suggests TBS results from mutations that produce a truncated, dominant-negative form of SALL1 and is not due to SALL1 haploinsufficiency. Consistent with such a model, mutations in SALL1 associated with TBS are predicted to form truncated SALL1 protein products.

Sall1 and Sall4 belong to a family of zinc finger transcription factors that share homology to the founding member of the gene family, the Drosophila spalt gene (Reuter et al., 1989Go). There are four known Sal-like (Sall) members in vertebrates (Sall1-4) that are defined by the presence of an N-terminal Cys2-His-Cys zinc finger. Sall4 has a further seven zinc fingers of the Cys2-His2 type that are arranged into three double zinc-finger domains. An additional zinc finger is found in close proximity to the second double zinc finger (Al-Baradie et al., 2002Go; Kohlhase et al., 2002Go). The double zinc finger domains are characteristic of Sall gene family members. In Drosophila, spalt acts downstream of the T-box gene optomotor-blind (omb) and is required for correct patterning of the wing imaginal discs (de Celis et al., 1996Go; Del Alamo Rodriguez et al., 2004Go).

Members of the T-box transcription factor gene family are characterised by the presence of a conserved DNA-binding motif known as the T-domain. Mutations in several different T-box genes are associated with developmental disorders (for a review, see Packham and Brook, 2003Go), including TBX5, which, when mutated in humans, results in Holt-Oram syndrome (HOS, OMIM number 142900) (Basson et al., 1997Go; Li et al., 1997Go). HOS, which is caused by TBX5 haploinsufficiency, is defined by heart and forelimb abnormalities (Packham and Brook, 2003Go). The limb deformities seen in individuals with HOS range from thumb defects to phocomelia (Basson et al., 1997Go; Li et al., 1997Go). There is an anterior bias to the limb defects of individuals with HOS such that the thumb and radius bones are predominantly affected (Packham and Brook, 2003Go). Less common defects reported in individuals with HOS include absent pectoral muscles and eye problems, such as Duane anomaly (Newbury-Ecob et al., 1996Go). Although TBX5 mutations are associated with HOS it has been predicted that these mutations only account for ~30% of individuals with HOS (Cross et al., 2000Go).

Previous loss-of-function experiments in zebrafish and mouse, and misexpression of dominant-negative Tbx5 constructs in chick, have demonstrated that Tbx5 is required for the initiation and outgrowth of the forelimb (for a review, see Logan, 2003Go). Identifying genes that genetically interact with Tbx5 could uncover genes with essential roles in normal limb development and which, when mutated in humans, may result in HOS-like phenotypes. The forelimb defects in individuals with OS and HOS are very similar. In both conditions there is an anterior bias to the limb defects and the left limb is more severely affected than the right. In addition to this phenotypic similarity, several individuals previously diagnosed with HOS, but lacking TBX5 mutations, have subsequently been shown to have mutations in SALL4 (Brassington et al., 2003Go). Zebrafish are a useful model species with which to study forelimb/pectoral fin development (Fischer et al., 2003Go; Garrity et al., 2002Go; van Eeden et al., 1996Go). We have used zebrafish to investigate the function of sall4 during limb development and to explore the relationship between sall4 and tbx5. We demonstrate an essential role for sall4 during pectoral fin development and show redundant functions between sall gene family members. Our results offer explanations for the similar limb phenotypes of individuals with OS and HOS.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Embryo staining
Whole-mount RNA in situ hybridisation was performed essentially as described (Thisse et al., 1993Go). The following probes have been described previously: dlx2, fgf8, fgf10, fgf24, erm (Fischer et al., 2003Go), fgfr2 (Poss et al., 2000Go), sp9 (Norton et al., 2005Go), tbx5 (Begemann and Ingham, 2000Go) and sall1a (IMAGE consortium–accession number BI880033). A 1.6 kb fragment of sall4 was isolated, with the primers 5'-CTACTAGTGTCTTACTATTCGCCCCTGAT-3' and 5'-CAGAAGAAATCGATGCACCAT-3' using RT-PCR on 24 hpf whole embryo RNA, and used as an in situ probe template. Section in situ analysis was performed by wax embedding and sectioning whole-mount preparations. Skeletal preparations were performed as previously described (Grandel and Schulte-Merker, 1998Go).

Morpholinos
To overcome problems with morpholino (MO) design, we cloned a fragment of sall4 pre-mRNA that spans the boundary between exon 1 and intron 1, using RT-PCR with RNA from zebrafish lines that we intended to inject. Using the sequence of this clone and zebrafish genomic sequence, we designed a MO that is antisense to the boundary between exon 1 and intron 1 of sall4 pre-mRNA: 5'-CGCTCCAAACTCACCATTTTCTGTC-3'. We used a 5 bp mismatch of this MO as a control: 5'-CGgTCgAAACTgACgATTTTCTgTC-3' (lower case letters indicate altered bases).

To test the efficiency of the sall4 MO, RT-PCR was performed using whole-embryo RNA from ~20 embryos at 24 hpf, using the primers 5'-TACAAAACTTCTCGAATTCAC-3', 5'-GACATGCGCATTTCTACTCGAGGG-3' and 5'-AGAATTCCGCAAACCCTTGTCTCCTCCG-3' to detect spliced and un-spliced sall4 mRNA transcripts.

The sequence of the sall1a MO, which is antisense to the 5'UTR, is 5'-GGCTCACGCATCAGCCACGAAAGAA-3'. The tbx5 and fgf24 MOs 5'-GAAAGGTGTCTTCACTGTCCGCCAT-3' and 5'-GACGGCAGAACAGACATCTTGGTCA-3', respectively, have previously been described previously (Ahn et al., 2002Go; Garrity et al., 2002Go; Fischer et al., 2003Go). All MOs were obtained from Gene Tools.

Embryo staging
Embryos were laid at 10 am and this time was taken as 0 hpf. Embryos were incubated at 28°C and were further staged using criteria previously established (Grandel and Schulte-Merker, 1998Go; Kimmel et al., 1995Go).


   RESULTS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
sall4 is required for pectoral fin outgrowth
To understand the role of sall4 during limb development, we cloned the zebrafish sall4 homologue and studied its expression during pectoral fin development. Using in situ hybridisation, sall4 mRNA transcripts are first detectable in the mesenchyme and not the overlying ectoderm of the pectoral fin primordia at 22 hours post fertilisation (hpf, Fig. 1A). During early pectoral fin bud stages (32 hpf), sall4 is expressed throughout the fin bud mesenchyme (Fig. 1B). As the pectoral fins mature, transcripts remain detectable throughout the mesenchyme, with highest levels at the distal tip of the fin (Fig. 1C).


Figure 1
View larger version (81K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. sall4 is required for pectoral fin outgrowth. (A-C) sall4 expression during zebrafish pectoral fin development. (A) Section through the pectoral fins at 22 hpf. Lateral view of the fin buds at 32 hpf (B) and 48 hpf (C). (D) Schematic of the RT-PCR used to test the efficiency of a sall4 splice-blocking MO. Bands of 255 bp and 345 bp represent spliced and unspliced sall4 mRNA, respectively. Arrows represent primers used in the RT-PCR and the black box represents the sall4 MO. (E) The RT-PCR was performed on wild-type embryos and embryos injected with 5 ng of the sall4 MO. The sall4 MO efficiently blocks sall4 mRNA splicing. There was no inhibition of sall4 splicing in embryos injected with 5 ng of a 5 bp mismatch control sall4 MO (con. MO, control MO; M, DNA molecular weight marker). (F-K) Dorsal views of the pectoral fins of 3 dpf embryos. (F) Wild-type embryo. (G-J) Embryos injected with 5 ng of sall4 MO. The percentages of phenotypes observed at 3 dpf following injection of different concentrations of sall4 MO is listed below each picture. (K) Upturned pectoral fin phenotype produced following injection of 1 ng of tbx5 MO. Arrows highlight the pectoral fin defects in G-K. (L-O) Pectoral fins (5 dpf) stained with Alcian Blue. (L) Wild type. (M-O) The pectoral fins of embryos injected with 4 ng of sall4 MO. Scale bars: 75 µm. cl, cleithrum; sc, scapulocoracoid; pop, postcoracoid process; ed, endoskeletal disc; ac, actinotrichs.

 
To investigate the function of sall4 during pectoral fin development, we designed an antisense morpholino oligonucleotide (MO) that inhibits splicing of sall4 pre-mRNA and subsequently leads to knockdown of sall4 function. Using such a splice-blocking MO is advantageous as the efficiency of gene knockdown can be tested using RT-PCR (Draper et al., 2001Go). In wild-type embryos, we detect spliced and unspliced sall4 mRNA, using RT-PCR (Fig. 1D,E). Only unspliced sall4 transcripts are detectable in embryos injected with 5 ng of the sall4 MO, whereas there is no effect on splicing in embryos injected with 5 ng of a 5 bp mismatch control MO (Fig. 1E). This demonstrates the sall4 MO can efficiently block production of the mature sall4 spliced transcript.

We allowed sall4 morphant embryos to develop until 3 days post fertilisation (dpf) and compared their pectoral fins with those of wild-type embryos. sall4 morphants have a range of pectoral fin defects, from a complete absence of both pectoral fins to those that develop to approximately wild-type size but are positioned perpendicular to the body (Fig. 1G-J). Injection of higher concentrations of sall4 MO results in an increase in the severity of pectoral fin defects (Fig. 1). All embryos injected with 5 ng of the control MO are apparently wild type at 3 dpf (n=64, data not shown). Some sall4 morphant embryos have pectoral fins that turn rostrally, towards the head of the embryo (Fig. 1I). We, and others (Garrity et al., 2002Go), have observed a similar pectoral fin phenotype when embryos are injected with low concentrations of a tbx5 MO (Fig. 1K).

We stained 5 dpf sall4 morphant embryos with Alcian Blue to study the individual elements that comprise their pectoral fin defects. At 5 dpf, wild-type zebrafish pectoral fins consists of a scapulocoracoid, postcoracoid process, endoskeletal disc and actinotrichs (Fig. 1L) (Grandel and Schulte-Merker, 1998Go). During the third week in development, these larval pectoral fins begin to be remodelled to form the adult pectoral fin. The scapulocoracoid and postcoracoid process will form the scapula, while the endoskeletal disc will form the proximal radials which articulate the lepidotrichia (fin rays), which form from the actinotrichs (Grandel and Schulte-Merker, 1998Go; Sordino et al., 1995Go). The most severely affected sall4 morphant pectoral fins only possess proximal elements, the scapulocoracoid and postcoracoid process (Fig. 1M). Other sall4 morphant pectoral fins retain a severely truncated endoskeletal disc (Fig. 1N). We also observe sall4 morphant pectoral fins that have an endoskeletal disc that is decreased in size and truncated distally (Fig. 1O). Any actinotrichs that form in sall4 morphant pectoral fins are truncated and scattered compared with wild-type embryos (Fig. 1O). These loss-of-function experiments demonstrate that although sall4 is not required for the initiation of pectoral fin development, it is essential for outgrowth of the pectoral fins. These results also show that proximal pectoral fin elements, the scapulocoracoid and postcoracoid process, form independently of sall4 function.

sall4 is downstream of tbx5, but not fgf24, in the pectoral fin primordia
Owing to the similar limb phenotypes of individuals with OS and HOS, and because tbx5 expression precedes sall4 in the pectoral fin primordia (Fig. 2A) (Begemann and Ingham, 2000Go; Ruvinsky et al., 2000Go), we investigated if tbx5 is required for sall4 expression during pectoral fin development. We used a tbx5 MO of identical sequence to one previously demonstrated to phenocopy the ENU-induced tbx5 mutation heartstrings (Ahn et al., 2002Go; Garrity et al., 2002Go). We observe, as previously described, that embryos injected with 4 ng of tbx5 MO have no pectoral fins at 3 dpf (data not shown). In tbx5 morphant embryos, sall4 expression is never detectable in the pectoral fin primordia (red arrows, compare Fig. 2B with 2C), although expression in other regions of the embryo is normal (black arrowheads, compare Fig. 2B and 2C). At the same stages, the pectoral fin primordia continues to express tbx5 mRNA transcripts (Fig. 2D), demonstrating that the cells of the fin primordia are still present and that the loss of sall4 expression is not simply due to apoptosis of these cells following MO knockdown of tbx5.


Figure 2
View larger version (80K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. The expression of sall4 in the pectoral fins is regulated by tbx5 but not fgf24. (A) Schematic representation of tbx5, fgf24, sall4 and fgf10 expression during early stages of pectoral fin development. Expression of tbx5 initiates at 17 hpf, fgf24 at 18 hpf, sall4 at 22 hpf and fgf10 at 24 hpf. The genes are all initially expressed throughout the mesenchyme of the pectoral fin primordia. At the time fin bud outgrowth is initiated, fgf24 expression becomes downregulated in the mesenchyme and simultaneously upregulated in the overlying ectoderm. Dorsal (B-D) and dorsolateral (E,F) views of embryos, with red arrows and brackets highlighting the pectoral fin primordia. sall4 is expressed in wild-type pectoral fin primordia at 26 hpf (B), but it is absent in the primordia of embryos injected with 4 ng of tbx5 MO (C). Although sall4 expression is absent in the pectoral fin primordia, it continues to be expressed normally in other regions of tbx5 morphant embryos (black arrowheads in B,C). (D) tbx5 expression in an embryo injected with 4 ng of tbx5 MO at 26 hpf. (E) sall4 is still expressed in the pectoral fin primordia of embryos injected with 9 ng of fgf24 MO, although the domain of expression is more dispersed, consistent with a loss of fgf24 function. This expression pattern is similar to that of tbx5 in embryos injected with 9 ng of fgf24 MO (F).

 
In the mesenchyme of the pectoral fin primordia, tbx5 is required for fgf24 expression (Fischer et al., 2003Go). The pectoral fins fail to form in fgf24 mutant embryos, although the expression of tbx5 is initiated normally (Fischer et al., 2003Go). fgf24 is initially expressed in the fin bud mesenchyme and is required for the induction of fgf10 expression at 24 hpf, also within the mesenchyme (Fischer et al., 2003Go). As sall4 expression begins after fgf24 (Fig. 1A, Fig. 2A) (Fischer et al., 2003Go), we tested the possibility that fgf24 acts downstream of tbx5 to initiate sall4 expression in a linear fashion, using an fgf24 MO demonstrated to phenocopy the fgf24 mutant ikarus (Fischer et al., 2003Go). Embryos injected with 6-9ng of fgf24 MO have no pectoral fins at 3 dpf (data not shown), consistent with previously published results (Fischer et al., 2003Go). When fgf24 morphant embryos were analysed at earlier stages (26hpf), sall4 expression is maintained in the pectoral fin primordia but in a diffuse pattern (Fig. 2E). This expression pattern is similar to tbx5 in fgf24 morphant pectoral fin primordia (Fig. 2F), and is consistent with the reported disruption of cell migration following loss of fgf24 function (Fischer et al., 2003Go). These results demonstrate that, although induction of sall4 expression requires tbx5, it is independent of fgf24.

sall4 is required for FGF signalling during pectoral fin development
Zebrafish with mutations in fgf10 lack pectoral fins, demonstrating that, like sall4, fgf10 is required for pectoral fin development (Norton et al., 2005Go). As fgf10 expression is first detected 2 hours after sall4 in the pectoral fin primordia (Ng et al., 2002Go), we addressed the possibility that sall4 is required for fgf10 expression in the developing pectoral fins. For simplicity, we will now refer to embryos injected with 10 ng of sall4 MO as sall4 morphants. In sall4 morphant pectoral fins, fgf10 expression initiates but is reduced when compared with wild-type pectoral fins (compare Fig. 3A with 3B, reduced in 51% at 30 hpf, n=35). At later fin bud stages, fgf10 expression is downregulated in anterior regions of sall4 morphant pectoral fins (compare Fig. 3C with 3D, downregulated in 83%, n=29), demonstrating that sall4 is required for correct fgf10 expression during pectoral fin development.

During mouse and chick limb development, Fgf10, which is expressed in the mesenchyme, signals to the overlying ectoderm to activate the expression of Fgf8 in cells that will form the apical ectodermal ridge (AER). In turn, FGF8 positively regulates the expression of Fgf10 in the mesenchyme, thereby establishing a positive feedback loop in which ectodermal and mesenchymal FGFs maintain the expression of one another. This feedback loop is essential for limb outgrowth (for a review, see Martin, 1998Go). We therefore predicted that the downregulation of fgf10 in the mesenchyme of sall4 morphant pectoral fin buds would lead to the downregulation of ectodermal FGFs and a breakdown in FGF signalling in the fin bud. During normal pectoral fin development, fgf24 is expressed in the mesenchyme from 18 hpf until ~28 hpf when it then becomes downregulated in the mesenchyme and begins to be expressed in the overlying ectoderm (Fig. 2A) (Fischer et al., 2003Go). In sall4 morphant embryos, expression of ectodermal fgf24 and fgf8 are downregulated (fgf24: 36%, n=28; fgf8: 22%, n=58) or absent (fgf24: 36%; fgf8: 74%) from the fin ectoderm at 40 hpf but remains normal in other regions of the embryo (Fig. 3E,F; data not shown). dlx2 and sp9 are also expressed in the fin bud ectoderm and their expression is positively regulated by FGF signalling from the fin bud mesenchyme (Fischer et al., 2003Go; Norton et al., 2005Go). At early time points in pectoral fin development (32 hpf) dlx2 and sp9 expression is present in the ectoderm of all sall4 morphant fin buds (dlx2 n=24; sp9 n=10). However, in more mature sall4 morphant fin buds (40 hpf), dlx2 and sp9 expression is downregulated (dlx2: 75% n=16; sp9: 58% n=12) or absent (dlx2 25%; sp9 25%) (Fig. 3G-J). In those sall4 morphant fin buds in which dlx2 and sp9 expression is downregulated, we observed that although transcripts remain detectable in the posterior fin bud ectoderm (Fig. 3H,J, red arrowheads) they are absent from the anterior ectoderm (black arrowheads), consistent with the loss of fgf10 expression in the anterior of sall4 morphant fin buds. The transcription factor erm is expressed throughout the fin bud mesenchyme and its expression is positively regulated by FGF signalling (Fischer et al., 2003Go; Roehl and Nusslein-Volhard, 2001Go). In sall4 morphant pectoral fins, erm expression is initially unaffected but is downregulated at 40 hpf (compare Fig. 3K and 3L), while remaining normal in other regions of the embryo. These results show that sall4 is required for fgf10 expression in the developing pectoral fins and the downregulation of fgf10 expression in sall4 morphant pectoral fins results in a breakdown in FGF signalling in the fin bud.


Figure 3
View larger version (100K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. sall4 is required for FGF signalling in the developing pectoral fins. Comparison of gene expression patterns in wild-type (A,C,E,G,I,K) and sall4 morphant pectoral fins (B,D,F,H,J,L). fgf10 expression in the pectoral fins at 30 hpf (A) is reduced in sall4 morphant embryos (B), as highlighted by the red arrows. fgf10 expression at 40 hpf (C) is reduced in sall4 morphant pectoral fins (D). This reduction is most pronounced in the anterior fin bud. At 40 hpf, fgf24 is detected only in the ectoderm (E) but is absent in sall4 morphant fin buds (F). dlx2 is expressed in the fin bud ectoderm at 40 hpf (G). In sall4 morphant embryos, dlx2 expression is absent in the anterior fin bud ectoderm (H, black arrowhead) but retained in the posterior (red arrowhead). sp9 is also expressed in the fin bud ectoderm at 40 hpf (I) but is downregulated in the anterior ectoderm of sall4 morphant fin buds (J, black arrowhead) and retained in the posterior (red arrowhead). erm is expressed in wild-type pectoral fins (K) but is reduced in sall4 morphant pectoral fins (L).

 
sall1a is expressed in the developing pectoral fins
During mouse limb development, Sall1 and Sall3 are expressed in overlapping domains and deletion of either gene individually does not produce a limb phenotype (Nishinakamura et al., 2001Go; Parrish et al., 2004Go). This suggests Sall genes have redundant functions during mouse limb development. In sall4 morphant embryos, fgf10 expression is downregulated only in the anterior fin bud (Fig. 3D), suggesting that another Sall gene family member may perform a similar function to sall4 in the posterior fin bud. The expression patterns of sall1a, sall1b and sall3 during zebrafish embryonic development have previously been described (Camp et al., 2003Go). Of these three genes, only sall1a is expressed during pectoral fin development (Camp et al., 2003Go). sall1a is weakly expressed in the pectoral fin primordia at 24 hpf and becomes more visible at 26 hpf (Fig. 4A). At later fin bud stages, sall1a expression is seen in both the mesenchyme and ectoderm, and at greatest levels in the distal fin bud (Fig. 4B). This expression pattern is comparable with that of mouse and chick Sall1 during limb development (Buck et al., 2001Go; Farrell and Munsterberg, 2000Go).

sall1a is required for pectoral fin development
To address whether sall1a plays a role in pectoral fin development, we used a MO to knockdown sall1a mRNA translation and compared the pectoral fins of 3dpf sall1a morphants with those of wild-type embryos. Embryos injected with the sall1a MO have truncated and often absent pectoral fins, demonstrating sall1a is required for pectoral fin outgrowth (Fig. 4C). sall1a morphant pectoral fin defects differ from those of sall4 morphants, as we never observe upturned pectoral fins in sall1a morphants (see table in Fig. 4). We stained 5 dpf embryos injected with 2 ng of sall1a MO with Alcian Blue to study the skeletal defects. Proximal skeletal elements such as the postcoracoid process always form in sall1a morphant embryos (Fig. 4D). We also observed sall1a morphant pectoral fins in which the endoskeletal disc and actinotrichs are severely abnormal (Fig. 4E). The sall1a morphant pectoral fin defects observed are comparable with those seen in embryos injected with the sall4 MO. To understand the regulation of sall1a during pectoral fin development, we studied sall1a expression in tbx5 and fgf24 morphant embryos. sall1a is not expressed in tbx5 morphant pectoral fin primordia (Fig. 4G), but is expressed in the pectoral fins of fgf24 morphant embryos (Fig. 4H). sall1a is expressed in a diffuse pattern in fgf24 morphant pectoral fin primordia when compared with sall1a expression in wild-type pectoral fins (Fig. 4I). This expression pattern is consistent with a disruption in cell migration following loss of fgf24 function (Fischer et al., 2003Go) and is comparable with sall4 and tbx5 expression in fgf24 morphant embryos (Fig. 2E,F). These results demonstrate that like sall4, sall1a expression in the developing pectoral fins is dependant on tbx5 but independent of fgf24.


Figure 4
View larger version (92K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. sall1a is essential for pectoral fin development. (A,B) sall1a expression during wild type pectoral fin development. (A) Dorsal view of a 26 hpf embryo with red arrows indicating the pectoral fin primordia. (B) Lateral view of a 40 hpf pectoral fin showing sall1a expression in the fin bud. (C) Dorsal view of a 3 dpf embryo injected with 5 ng of sall1a MO. The pectoral fins are truncated as highlighted by red arrows (compare with wild type in Fig. 1F). The percentages of phenotypes observed at 3 dpf following injection of 5 ng and 10 ng of sall1a MO are shown in the table. (D,E) Alcian Blue stained pectoral fins of 5 dpf embryos injected with 2 ng of sall1a MO show that pectoral fin development is disrupted in sall1a morphant embryos (compare with wild-type pectoral fin in Fig. 1L). (F) A lateral view of fgf10 expression at 40 hpf in an embryo injected with 5 ng of sall1a MO. The expression of fgf10 is most profoundly affected in the posterior fin bud (compare with Fig. 3C). (G) sall1a is not expressed in the pectoral fin primordia (red arrows) of embryos injected with 4 ng of tbx5 MO. (H,I) Dorsolateral views show that sall1a (red brackets) continues to be expressed in the pectoral fin primordia of embryos injected 9 ng of fgf24 MO (H), but is in a diffuse pattern when compared with the expression of sall1a in wild-type primordia (I). (J,K) Dorsal views of fgf10 expression at 26 hpf in the fin primordia (as indicated with red arrows) of a wild-type embryo (J) and an embryo injected with 5 ng of sall1a MO (K). (L,M) Expression of the ectodermal fin bud markers sp9 (L) and dlx2 (M) are downregulated in the posterior fin bud ectoderm of embryos injected with 5 ng of sall1a MO (black arrowheads) but continue to be expressed in the anterior fin bud (red arrowheads; compare L with wild-type expression in Fig. 5C, and M with Fig. 3G).

 
Sall gene family members have redundant functions during pectoral fin development
As sall1a could be responsible for the maintenance of the posterior domain of fgf10 expression in the pectoral fin bud of sall4 morphants, we studied fgf10 expression in sall1a morphant embryos (embryos injected with 5 ng of sall1a MO). fgf10 expression initiates in sall1a morphant pectoral fin primordia but at reduced levels compared with wild-type embryos (Fig. 4J,K). At later fin bud stages, fgf10 expression is downregulated but most profoundly in the posterior of sall1a morphant fin buds (Fig. 4F, compare with Fig. 3C). We also studied the expression of the ectodermal fin bud markers dlx2 and sp9 in sall1a morphant embryos. At 32 hpf sp9 expression is downregulated in the posterior of sall1a morphant fin buds (Fig. 4L, black arrowhead, 13% n=24), but continues to be expressed in the anterior (red arrowhead). dlx2 is also expressed in all sall1a morphant fin buds at 32 hpf (n=25), but at 40 hpf becomes downregulated (37%, n=16) or is absent (63%). In those embryos displaying a downregulation of dlx2 expression, transcripts are detectable in the anterior fin bud ectoderm but are absent in the posterior (Fig. 4M). The preferential downregulation of dlx2 and sp9 expression in the posterior fin bud ectoderm is consistent with the downregulation of fgf10 in the posterior mesenchyme of sall1a morphant pectoral fins.

As sall1a and sall4 appear to perform similar roles in positively regulating the expression of fgf10 during pectoral fin development, we studied the phenotype of sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos. The pectoral fins fail to form in the majority of embryos injected with 4 ng of sall1a and 4 ng of sall4 MO (Fig. 5, table). Methylene Blue stained sections of 48 hpf sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos shows that, similar to fgf10–/– zebrafish (Norton et al., 2005Go), a fin bud initially forms in these embryos (Fig. 5A-B). At 26 hpf, fgf10 expression is lost in sall1a/sall4 double morphant pectoral fin primordia, although it is expressed normally in other regions of the embryo (Fig. 5G). At 32 hpf expression domains of both dlx2 and sp9 are absent in the fin bud ectoderm of sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos (Fig. 5C-F; dlx2 90% n=52; sp9 81% n=27). These results demonstrate that sall1a and sall4 perform common, semi-redundant roles in initiating the expression of fgf10 in the pectoral fin primordia. Furthermore, in the absence of sall4 function, sall1a is able to maintain the posterior domain of fgf10 expression, while following knockdown of sall1a function, sall4 can maintain the anterior domain of fgf10 expression.

sall1a and sall4 are required for the expression of fgfr2 in the developing pectoral fins
Our results, together with those of others, have demonstrated that fgf10 expression in the developing pectoral fins is dependant on sall1a, sall4 and fgf24 (Fig. 5G) (Fischer et al., 2003Go), although sall1a and sall4 expression is not dependant on fgf24. For fgf24 to activate the expression of fgf10 it must signal via an FGF receptor. We therefore investigated if the expression of an FGF receptor is regulated by sall1a and sall4. As fgf10 expression initiates in the pectoral fins of both sall1a (Fig. 4K) and sall4 (Fig. 3B) morphant embryos, but is not expressed in embryos injected with both sall1 and sall4 MO (Fig. 5G), we predicted that expression of this receptor will not initiate in embryos injected with both sall1a and sall4 MO. Limb outgrowth fails to occur in mice lacking Fgfr2 (De Moerlooze et al., 2000Go; Xu et al., 1998Go) and therefore we studied the expression of fgfr2 during zebrafish embryonic development. fgfr2 expression is first detectable in the pectoral fin primordia mesenchyme at 23 hpf and is not expressed in the overlying ectoderm (Fig. 6A). fgfr2 expression therefore initiates after sall1a and sall4 transcripts are first detected in the fin bud mesenchyme. At 24 hpf, fgfr2 is expressed in the pectoral fin primordia of wild-type (Fig. 6B) and fgf24 morphant (Fig. 6D) embryos, but is absent from the pectoral fins of embryos injected with 4 ng of sall1a and 4 ng of sall4 MO (Fig. 6C). This demonstrates that fgfr2 expression in the pectoral fin primordia is dependant on sall1a/sall4, but not on fgf24.


Figure 5
View larger version (81K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Pectoral fin development is severely disrupted in embryos injected with both sall1a and sall4 MO. As shown in the table, coinjection of sall1a and sall4 MOs leads to a significant increase in the most severe phenotype (no fins). Methylene Blue stained sections of the pectoral fin forming region in a wild-type embryo (A) and an embryo injected with 4 ng sall1a + 4 ng sall4 MO (B) at 48 hpf shows that a fin bud initially forms in sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos. (C-F) Lateral views of 32 hpf pectoral fin buds in wild-type embryos (C,E) and embryos injected with 4 ng of sall1a + 4 ng of sall4 MO (D,F). At this time point, sp9 is expressed in the ectoderm of wild-type fin buds (C) but is absent in sall1a/sall4 double morphant fin buds (D). Likewise, dlx2 is present in wild-type fin bud ectoderm (E) but is absent in sall1a/sall4 double morphant fins (F). At 26 hpf (G), fgf10 expression fails to initiate in the pectoral fin primordia of sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos (compare G with Fig. 4J).

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Pectoral fin development is disrupted in sall4 morphant embryos
During vertebrate limb development, a cascade of signals are required to initiate and maintain limb outgrowth (for a review, see Logan, 2003Go). Our studies of sall4, the gene mutated in Okihiro syndrome, add another factor to the series of events that control limb outgrowth. Expression of Sall4 in the developing limb has been conserved in several species (Barembaum and Bronner-Fraser, 2004Go; Neff et al., 2005Go; Kohlhase et al., 2002Go) (S.A.H. and M.P.O.L., this study and unpublished). We have shown that sall4 is required for outgrowth of the pectoral fins, but not the initiation of pectoral fin development, as tbx5 and fgf24 are induced normally and proximal skeletal elements form in sall4 morphants. The upturned fin phenotype found in some sall4 morphant embryos (Fig. 1I) and those injected with low concentrations of tbx5 MO (Fig. 1K) demonstrate that reduction of sall4 and tbx5 function produces similar fin defects in zebrafish. This is consistent with the similarity of limb phenotypes seen in individuals with OS and HOS, which are caused by haploinsufficiency of SALL4 and TBX5, respectively. From fish to mammals, Fgf10 has an evolutionary conserved function that is essential for limb outgrowth (Min et al., 1998Go; Sekine et al., 1999Go; Norton et al., 2005Go). Disruption of Fgf10 signalling is the common cause of the similar abnormalities that arise from fish to humans, following perturbation of either Tbx5 or Sall4 function.

tbx5 regulates the expression of fgf10 in the developing pectoral fins using a feed-forward method of gene regulation
In the pectoral fin primordia, sall1a, sall4 and fgf24 expression is dependant on tbx5 (Fig. 2) (Fischer et al., 2003Go); however, expression of either sall1a/sall4 or fgf24 can occur independently of one another (Figs 2 and 4). Therefore, tbx5 activates the expression of two different sets of target genes, both of which are required for pectoral fin outgrowth (Fig. 6E) (Fischer et al., 2003Go). sall1a/sall4 and fgf24 are required for the initiation of fgf10 expression and we have addressed how this interaction occurs. fgf24 must signal via a receptor to activate the expression of fgf10 in the pectoral fin primordia. In zebrafish, fgfr2 is first expressed in the pectoral fin primordia at 23 hpf, just after sall1a/sall4 expression is first detected and just prior to the initiation fgf10. The temporal and spatial expression pattern of fgfr2 therefore makes it a good candidate receptor to mediate the activation of fgf10 expression by fgf24. As sall1a and sall4 are zinc-finger transcription factors they are good candidates to directly positively regulate the expression of fgfr2, although conflicting data exists regarding whether Sall genes act as transcriptional activators or repressors (Kiefer et al., 2002Go; Li et al., 2004Go; Netzer et al., 2001Go; Onai et al., 2004Go). Our results support a model (Fig. 6E) in which sall1a/sall4 act as transcriptional activators to positively regulate fgfr2 transcription, and that fgf24 signals via fgfr2 to initiate fgf10 expression in the fin bud mesenchyme.

Collectively, these results show that tbx5 regulates the expression of fgf10 in the pectoral fin primordia using a feed-forward model of transcriptional regulation (Fig. 6E). Feedforward transcriptional motifs have been most comprehensively characterised in studies in E. coli (Shen-Orr et al., 2002Go) and S. cerevisiae (Lee et al., 2002Go). In one branch of the pathway tbx5 activates the expression of sall1a/sall4, which in turn induce fgfr2 expression, and in the other branch tbx5 activates the expression of fgf24 (Fig. 6E). The delay between the initiation of tbx5 and sall1a/sall4 expression suggests that this regulation may be indirect or that tbx5 requires a co-factor to activate sall1a/sall4 expression. A third possibility is that higher threshold levels of tbx5 protein are required to activate different target genes. tbx5 is likely to directly activate the expression of fgf24 as expression of fgf24 is detected only 1 hour after tbx5 (Begemann and Ingham, 2000Go; Fischer et al., 2003Go). In the mouse, Tbx5 has been shown to regulate the expression of FGFs directly (Agarwal et al., 2003Go). The expression of fgf24 in the pectoral fin primordia begins at 18 hpf, ~6 hours before fgf10 expression commences at 24 hpf. fgfr2 expression is detected at 23 hpf (Fig. 6E). During the interval between the initiation of fgf24 and fgfr2 expression, we predict that fgf24 protein levels accumulate in the absence of receptor. Presumably when fgfr2 expression initiates, fgfr2 proteins are rapidly occupied by ligand, owing to the presence of a reservoir of fgf24. Although our results do not provide an explanation for the apparent `priming' of FGF signalling, we predict that in the pectoral fin mesenchyme the dynamics of this regulation would favour a paracrine rather than an autocrine mode of signalling, and would produce rapid, robust and uniform signalling via the FGF receptor.


Figure 6
View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 6. sall1a and sall4 are required for fgfr2 expression in the pectoral fin primordia. A section of a 23 hpf embryo shows that fgfr2 is expressed in the pectoral fin primordia mesenchyme but is excluded from the ectoderm (A). Dorsal views highlight fgfr2 expression in a wild-type embryo at 24 hpf (B). At the same time point, fgfr2 expression is absent in the pectoral fin primordia of embryos injected with 4 ng sall1a MO + 4 ng sall4 MO (C), but continues to be expressed in the primordia of embryos injected with 9 ng of fgf24 MO (D). At this time point, fgfr2 is also downregulated in the trunk of sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos (C and data not shown). The red arrows indicate the pectoral fin primordia in B-D. (E) A schematic representation of the regulatory relationships between genes required for pectoral fin development. Green arrows signify relationships between FGF receptors and ligands, while black arrows represent transcriptional regulatory relationships.

 
Mesenchymal FGFs are required to induce the expression of FGFs in the pectoral fin ectoderm
Studies in mouse and chick have shown that Fgf10, which is expressed in the mesenchyme of the developing limb buds, signals to the overlying ectoderm to induce Fgf8 expression. These ectodermal and mesenchymal FGFs form a positive-feedback loop that is essential for outgrowth of the developing limbs (for a review, see Martin, 1998Go). Although this positive-feedback loop has been described in mouse and chick limb buds, it has been studied less in zebrafish pectoral fins. In zebrafish, the situation is different from chick and mouse, owing to the presence of fgf24. In chick, mouse and humans, no fgf24 gene has been found, and it appears fgf24 has been lost in the terrestrial vertebrate lineage (Draper et al., 2003Go). In zebrafish pectoral fin primordia mesenchyme, fgf24 is required for the expression of fgf10 (Fischer et al., 2003Go). Ectodermal FGFs fail to be expressed in fgf24 mutant fin buds (Fischer et al., 2003Go), demonstrating that, similar to limb development in higher vertebrates, mesenchymal FGFs are required for the induction of ectodermal FGF gene expression. However, previously it has been unclear whether fgf24 or fgf10 were required for induction of ectodermal FGFs. The downregulation of fgf10 in sall4 morphant fin buds, and the subsequent loss of ectodermal FGF expression, suggests that it is fgf10, rather than fgf24, that is required for the induction of FGF expression in the overlying ectoderm (Fig. 3). These results are also supported by observations of zebrafish fgf10 mutants (Norton et al., 2005Go). The induction of ectodermal FGFs only after the time point at which fgf10 is first expressed, and long after the induction of fgf24 expression (Fig. 6E), also supports a model in which fgf10 is the crucial mesenchymal signal.

Specification of proximal limb skeletal elements is tbx5 dependant, but sall4 independent
The scapulocoracoid, a proximal pectoral fin skeletal element that is equivalent to the scapula in higher vertebrates, is always present in sall4 morphant embryos (Fig. 1M) and therefore forms independently of sall4 function. This differs from tbx5 and fgf24 mutant embryos, which lack all pectoral fin structures, including the scapulocoracoid (Ahn et al., 2002Go; Garrity et al., 2002Go). These experiments suggest that specification of proximal pectoral fin structures is dependant on tbx5 and fgf24 function and may occur at stages prior to the initiation of sall4 expression. A parallel situation occurs during mouse limb development as Tbx5 conditional knockouts lack all forelimb structures including the scapula and clavicle (Rallis et al., 2003Go), while Fgf10-null mice possess a scapula rudiment (Min et al., 1998Go; Sekine et al., 1999Go). The formation of these proximal skeletal elements also suggest that fgf24 performs functions other than just the induction of fgf10 expression. Although the limb defects of individuals with OS and HOS are very similar, there are some clear differences. Defects affecting the proximal forelimb, such as hypoplastic clavicles, have been reported in individuals with HOS (Newbury-Ecob et al., 1996Go) but never in individuals with OS. Our data suggest that these proximal forelimb defects are not observed in individuals with OS, as these structures are specified independently of SALL4 function. Defects affecting proximal limbs elements such as the clavicle should therefore be specific to HOS and not OS.

sall1a and sall4 perform similar roles during pectoral fin development
The preferential downregulation of fgf10 in the anterior of sall4 morphant fin buds (Fig. 3) led us to investigate whether a sall4-related gene is required to maintain the posterior domain of fgf10 expression. Although the expression of sall2 is yet to be described during zebrafish development, it appears that the only other Sall gene expressed in the developing pectoral fins is sall1a (Fig. 4A,B). Interestingly, although sall4 is required for the anterior domain of fgf10 expression in the fin bud (Fig. 3D), sall1a is required for the posterior domain (Fig. 4F). In sall1a (Fig. 4K) or sall4 (Fig. 3B) morphant pectoral fin primordia, fgf10 expression initiates; however, it fails to commence in sall1a/sall4 double morphant embryos (Fig. 5G). This suggests that the functions of sall1a and sall4 are partially redundant, such that fgf10 expression initiates in the primordia in the absence of either gene individually, but at later stages is absent in either the anterior or posterior fin bud.

The pectoral fin defects observed following loss of sall1a function are different from other vertebrates, as Sall1-null mouse embryos do not have a limb phenotype (Nishinakamura et al., 2001Go). This difference in phenotype can be explained by the variation in expression of a related gene, Sall3, that is expressed in an almost identical pattern to Sall1 during mouse limb development (Nishinakamura et al., 2001Go; Ott et al., 2001Go) but is not expressed in the developing zebrafish pectoral fins (Camp et al., 2003Go). Sall1 is most closely related to Sall3, suggesting that Sall1-null mice do not have a limb phenotype because Sall3 can compensate for the loss of Sall1. As sall3 is not expressed during zebrafish pectoral fin development, it cannot substitute for sall1a and as a result sall1a morphant embryos have truncated pectoral fins.

Individuals with Holt-Oram and Okihiro syndromes have similar limb phenotypes
Our studies of tbx5 and sall4 function during zebrafish pectoral fin development offer explanations to the similar limb defects seen in individuals with HOS and OS. We have shown that sall4 is a target of tbx5 and that tbx5 and sall4 act in a pathway required to establish an FGF signalling loop that signals between the mesenchyme and ectoderm of the fin bud. During normal limb development, FGFs expressed in the AER are an essential component of a feedback loop between the ectoderm and underlying distal mesenchyme that is required to maintain FGF signalling (for a review, see Martin, 1998Go). The result of disrupting this positive feedback loop is demonstrated in classical embryological experiments in the chick in which the AER is surgically removed. When anterior regions of the AER are removed, limbs develop that lack anterior skeletal elements (Saunders, 1948Go). Similarly, alteration of either Tbx5 or Sall4 function preferentially leads to a disruption of Fgf10 in the anterior of the limb bud (Rallis et al., 2003Go) (this study) and it is loss of FGF signalling in this region that ultimately causes the anterior bias of the deletion deformities characteristic of both HOS and OS. An unresolved issue that remains is why the anterior fin bud is sensitive to the loss of sall4 function and tbx5 haploinsufficiency, as both genes are expressed uniformly throughout the early fin bud. A contributing factor could be that partial redundancy of Sall-related genes leads to the maintenance of fgf10 expression in the posterior limb. Another, not mutually exclusive, explanation is that sall4 is more susceptible to tbx5 levels than other Sall-related genes expressed in the limbs.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Sebastian Gerety and David Wilkinson for the sall1a MO and sall1a in situ probes, and Wendy Hatton of histology (NIMR) for sectioning. We are grateful to Carl Neumann, Philip Ingham and Elke Ober for providing in situ probes, and to Will Norton and Carl Neumann for very generously sharing unpublished data. We also thank past and present laboratory members for their critical input and support. S.A.H. and M.P.O.L. are funded by the Medical Research Council; M.P.O.L. has received funding from the EMBO young investigators program.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 


Agarwal, P., Wylie, J. N., Galceran, J., Arkhitko, O., Li, C., Deng, C., Grosschedl, R. and Bruneau, B. G. (2003). Tbx5 is essential for forelimb bud initiation following patterning of the limb field in the mouse embryo. Development 130,623 -633.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Ahn, D. G., Kourakis, M. J., Rohde, L. A., Silver, L. M. and Ho, R. K. (2002). T-box gene tbx5 is essential for formation of the pectoral limb bud. Nature 417,754 -758.[CrossRef][Medline]
Al-Baradie, R., Yamada, K., St Hilaire, C., Chan, W. M., Andrews, C., McIntosh, N., Nakano, M., Martonyi, E. J., Raymond, W. R., Okumura, S. et al. (2002). Duane radial ray syndrome (Okihiro syndrome) maps to 20q13 and results from mutations in SALL4, a new member of the SAL family. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71,1195 -1199.[CrossRef][Medline]
Barembaum, M. and Bronner-Fraser, M. (2004). A novel spalt gene expressed in branchial arches affects the ability of cranial neural crest cells to populate sensory ganglia. Neuron Glia Biol. 1,57 -63.
Basson, C. T., Bachinsky, D. R., Lin, R. C., Levi, T., Elkins, J. A., Soults, J., Grayzel, D., Kroumpouzou, E., Traill, T. A., Leblanc-Straceski, J. et al. (1997). Mutations in human TBX5 [corrected] cause limb and cardiac malformation in Holt-Oram syndrome. Nat. Genet. 15,30 -35.[CrossRef][Medline]
Begemann, G. and Ingham, P. W. (2000). Developmental regulation of Tbx5 in zebrafish embryogenesis. Mech. Dev. 90,299 -304.[CrossRef][Medline]
Borozdin, W., Boehm, D., Leipoldt, M., Wilhelm, C., Reardon, W., Clayton-Smith, J., Becker, K., Muhlendyck, H., Winter, R., Giray, O. et al. (2004). SALL4 deletions are a common cause of Okihiro and acro-renal-ocular syndromes and confirm haploinsufficiency as the pathogenic mechanism. J. Med. Genet. 41, E113.
Brassington, A. M., Sung, S. S., Toydemir, R. M., Le, T., Roeder, A. D., Rutherford, A. E., Whitby, F. G., Jorde, L. B. and Bamshad, M. J. (2003). Expressivity of Holt-Oram syndrome is not predicted by TBX5 genotype. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 74-85.[CrossRef][Medline]
Buck, A., Kispert, A. and Kohlhase, J. (2001). Embryonic expression of the murine homologue of SALL1, the gene mutated in Townes–Brocks syndrome. Mech. Dev. 104,143 -146.[CrossRef][Medline]
Camp, E., Hope, R., Kortschak, R. D., Cox, T. C. and Lardelli, M. (2003). Expression of three spalt (sal) gene homologues in zebrafish embryos. Dev. Genes Evol. 213, 35-43.[Medline]
Cross, S. J., Ching, Y. H., Li, Q. Y., Armstrong-Buisseret, L., Spranger, S., Lyonnet, S., Bonnet, D., Penttinen, M., Jonveaux, P., Leheup, B. et al. (2000). The mutation spectrum in Holt-Oram syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 37,785 -787.[Free Full Text]
de Celis, J. F., Barrio, R. and Kafatos, F. C. (1996). A gene complex acting downstream of dpp in Drosophila wing morphogenesis. Nature 381,421 -424.[CrossRef][Medline]
De Moerlooze, L., Spencer-Dene, B., Revest, J., Hajihosseini, M., Rosewell, I. and Dickson, C. (2000). An important role for the IIIb isoform of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) in mesenchymal-epithelial signalling during mouse organogenesis. Development 127,483 -492.[Abstract]
Del Alamo Rodriguez, D., Terriente Felix, J. and Diaz-Benjumea, F. J. (2004). The role of the T-box gene optomotor-blind in patterning the Drosophila wing. Dev. Biol. 268,481 -492.[CrossRef][Medline]
Draper, B. W., Morcos, P. A. and Kimmel, C. B. (2001). Inhibition of zebrafish fgf8 pre-mRNA splicing with morpholino oligos: a quantifiable method for gene knockdown. Genesis 30,154 -156.[CrossRef][Medline]
Draper, B. W., Stock, D. W. and Kimmel, C. B. (2003). Zebrafish fgf24 functions with fgf8 to promote posterior mesodermal development. Development 130,4639 -4654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Farrell, E. R. and Munsterberg, A. E. (2000). csal1 is controlled by a combination of FGF and Wnt signals in developing limb buds. Dev. Biol. 225,447 -458.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fischer, S., Draper, B. W. and Neumann, C. J. (2003). The zebrafish fgf24 mutant identifies an additional level of Fgf signaling involved in vertebrate forelimb initiation. Development 130,3515 -3524.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Garrity, D. M., Childs, S. and Fishman, M. C. (2002). The heartstrings mutation in zebrafish causes heart/fin Tbx5 deficiency syndrome. Development 129,4635 -4645.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Grandel, H. and Schulte-Merker, S. (1998). The development of the paired fins in the zebrafish (Danio rerio). Mech. Dev. 79,99 -120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kiefer, S. M., McDill, B. W., Yang, J. and Rauchman, M. (2002). Murine Sall1 represses transcription by recruiting a histone deacetylase complex. J. Biol. Chem. 277,14869 -14876.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kiefer, S. M., Ohlemiller, K. K., Yang, J., McDill, B. W., Kohlhase, J. and Rauchman, M. (2003). Expression of a truncated Sall1 transcriptional repressor is responsible for Townes-Brocks syndrome birth defects. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12,2221 -2227.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kimmel, C. B., Ballard, W. W., Kimmel, S. R., Ullmann, B. and Schilling, T. F. (1995). Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev. Dyn. 203,253 -310.[Medline]
Kohlhase, J., Wischermann, A., Reichenbach, H., Froster, U. and Engel, W. (1998). Mutations in the SALL1 putative transcription factor gene cause Townes-Brocks syndrome. Nat. Genet. 18,81 -83.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kohlhase, J., Taschner, P. E., Burfeind, P., Pasche, B., Newman, B., Blanck, C., Breuning, M. H., ten Kate, L. P., Maaswinkel-Mooy, P., Mitulla, B. et al. (1999). Molecular analysis of SALL1 mutations in Townes-Brocks syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 64,435 -445.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kohlhase, J., Heinrich, M., Schubert, L., Liebers, M., Kispert, A., Laccone, F., Turnpenny, P., Winter, R. M. and Reardon, W. (2002). Okihiro syndrome is caused by SALL4 mutations. Hum. Mol. Genet. 11,2979 -2987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Lee, T. I., Rinaldi, N. J., Robert, F., Odom, D. T., Bar-Joseph, Z., Gerber, G. K., Hannett, N. M., Harbison, C. T., Thompson, C. M., Simon, I. et al. (2002). Transcriptional regulatory networks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Science 298,799 -804.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Li, D., Tian, Y., Ma, Y. and Benjamin, T. (2004). p150(Sal2) is a p53-independent regulator of p21(WAF1/CIP). Mol. Cell. Biol. 24,3885 -3893.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Li, Q. Y., Newbury-Ecob, R. A., Terrett, J. A., Wilson, D. I., Curtis, A. R., Yi, C. H., Gebuhr, T., Bullen, P. J., Robson, S. C., Strachan, T. et al. (1997). Holt-Oram syndrome is caused by mutations in TBX5, a member of the Brachyury (T) gene family. Nat. Genet. 15,21 -29.[CrossRef][Medline]
Logan, M. (2003). Finger or toe: the molecular basis of limb identity. Development 130,6401 -6410.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Martin, G. R. (1998). The roles of FGFs in the early development of vertebrate limbs. Genes Dev. 12,1571 -1586.[Free Full Text]
Min, H., Danilenko, D. M., Scully, S. A., Bolon, B., Ring, B. D., Tarpley, J. E., DeRose, M. and Simonet, W. S. (1998). Fgf-10 is required for both limb and lung development and exhibits striking functional similarity to Drosophila branchless. Genes Dev. 12,3156 -3161.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Neff, A. W., King, M. W., Harty, M. W., Nguyen, T., Calley, J., Smith, R. C. and Mescher, A. L. (2005). Expression of Xenopus XlSALL4 during limb development and regeneration. Dev Dyn. 233,356 -367.[CrossRef][Medline]
Netzer, C., Rieger, L., Brero, A., Zhang, C. D., Hinzke, M., Kohlhase, J. and Bohlander, S. K. (2001). SALL1, the gene mutated in Townes-Brocks syndrome, encodes a transcriptional repressor which interacts with TRF1/PIN2 and localizes to pericentromeric heterochromatin. Hum. Mol. Genet. 10,3017 -3024.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Newbury-Ecob, R. A., Leanage, R., Raeburn, J. A. and Young, I. D. (1996). Holt-Oram syndrome: a clinical genetic study. J. Med. Genet. 33,300 -307.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Ng, J. K., Kawakami, Y., Buscher, D., Raya, A., Itoh, T., Koth, C. M., Rodriguez Esteban, C., Rodriguez-Leon, J., Garrity, D. M., Fishman, M. C. et al. (2002). The limb identity gene Tbx5 promotes limb initiation by interacting with Wnt2b and Fgf10. Development 129,5161 -5170.
Nishinakamura, R., Matsumoto, Y., Nakao, K., Nakamura, K., Sato, A., Copeland, N. G., Gilbert, D. J., Jenkins, N. A., Scully, S., Lacey, D. L. et al. (2001). Murine homolog of SALL1 is essential for ureteric bud invasion in kidney development. Development 128,3105 -3115.
Norton, W., Ledin, J., Grandel, H. and Neumann, C. J. (2005). HSPG synthesis by zebrafish Ext2 and Extl3 is required for Fgf10 signalling during limb development. Development 132,4963 -4973.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Onai, T., Sasai, N., Matsui, M. and Sasai, Y. (2004). Xenopus XsalF: anterior neuroectodermal specification by attenuating cellular responsiveness to Wnt signaling. Dev. Cell 7,95 -106.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ott, T., Parrish, M., Bond, K., Schwaeger-Nickolenko, A. and Monaghan, A. P. (2001). A new member of the spalt like zinc finger protein family, Msal-3, is expressed in the CNS and sites of epithelial/mesenchymal interaction. Mech. Dev. 101,203 -207.[CrossRef][Medline]
Packham, E. A. and Brook, J. D. (2003). T-box genes in human disorders. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12,R37 -R44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Parrish, M., Ott, T., Lance-Jones, C., Schuetz, G., Schwaeger-Nickolenko, A. and Monaghan, A. P. (2004). Loss of the Sall3 gene leads to palate deficiency, abnormalities in cranial nerves, and perinatal lethality. Mol. Cell. Biol. 24,7102 -7112.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Poss, K. D., Shen, J., Nechiporuk, A., McMahon, G., Thisse, B., Thisse, C. and Keating, M. T. (2000). Roles for Fgf signaling during zebrafish fin regeneration. Dev. Biol. 222,347 -358.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rallis, C., Bruneau, B. G., Del Buono, J., Seidman, C. E., Seidman, J. G., Nissim, S., Tabin, C. J. and Logan, M. P. (2003). Tbx5 is required for forelimb bud formation and continued outgrowth. Development 130,2741 -2751.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Reuter, D., Schuh, R. and Jackle, H. (1989). The homeotic gene spalt (sal) evolved during Drosophila speciation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86,5483 -5486.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Roehl, H. and Nusslein-Volhard, C. (2001). Zebrafish pea3 and erm are general targets of FGF8 signaling. Curr. Biol. 11,503 -507.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ruvinsky, I., Oates, A. C., Silver, L. M. and Ho, R. K. (2000). The evolution of paired appendages in vertebrates: T-box genes in the zebrafish. Dev. Genes Evol. 210, 82-91.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saunders, J. W., Jr (1948). The proximo-distal sequence of origin of the parts of the chick wing and the role of the ectoderm. J. Exp. Zool. 108,363 -403.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sekine, K., Ohuchi, H., Fujiwara, M., Yamasaki, M., Yoshizawa, T., Sato, T., Yagishita, N., Matsui, D., Koga, Y., Itoh, N. et al. (1999). Fgf10 is essential for limb and lung formation. Nat. Genet. 21,138 -141.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shen-Orr, S. S., Milo, R., Mangan, S. and Alon, U. (2002). Network motifs in the transcriptional regulation network of Escherichia coli. Nat. Genet. 31, 64-68.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sordino, P., van der Hoeven, F. and Duboule, D. (1995). Hox gene expression in teleost fins and the origin of vertebrate digits. Nature 375,678 -681.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thisse, C., Thisse, B., Schilling, T. F. and Postlethwait, J. H. (1993). Structure of the zebrafish snail1 gene and its expression in wild-type, spadetail and no tail mutant embryos. Development 119,1203 -1215.[Abstract]
van Eeden, F. J., Granato, M., Schach, U., Brand, M., Furutani-Seiki, M., Haffter, P., Hammerschmidt, M., Heisenberg, C. P., Jiang, Y. J., Kane, D. A. et al. (1996). Genetic analysis of fin formation in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Development 123,255 -262.[Abstract]
Xu, X., Weinstein, M., Li, C., Naski, M., Cohen, R. I., Ornitz, D. M., Leder, P. and Deng, C. (1998). Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2)-mediated reciprocal regulation loop between FGF8 and FGF10 is essential for limb induction. Development 125,753 -765.[Abstract]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 DevelopmentHome page
Y. Kawakami, Y. Uchiyama, C. Rodriguez Esteban, T. Inenaga, N. Koyano-Nakagawa, H. Kawakami, M. Marti, M. Kmita, P. Monaghan-Nichols, R. Nishinakamura, et al.
Sall genes regulate region-specific morphogenesis in the mouse limb by modulating Hox activities
Development, February 15, 2009; 136(4): 585 - 594.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Pathol.Home page
J. Bohm, A. Buck, W. Borozdin, A. U. Mannan, U. Matysiak-Scholze, I. Adham, W. Schulz-Schaeffer, T. Floss, W. Wurst, J. Kohlhase, et al.
Sall1, Sall2, and Sall4 Are Required for Neural Tube Closure in Mice
Am. J. Pathol., November 1, 2008; 173(5): 1455 - 1463.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 DevelopmentHome page
L. A. Naiche and V. E. Papaioannou
Tbx4 is not required for hindlimb identity or post-bud hindlimb outgrowth
Development, January 1, 2007; 134(1): 93 - 103.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 DevelopmentHome page
P. Hasson, J. Del Buono, and M. P. O. Logan
Tbx5 is dispensable for forelimb outgrowth
Development, January 1, 2007; 134(1): 85 - 92.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 DevelopmentHome page
N. Mercader, S. Fischer, and C. J. Neumann
Prdm1 acts downstream of a sequential RA, Wnt and Fgf signaling cascade during zebrafish forelimb induction
Development, August 1, 2006; 133(15): 2805 - 2815.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harvey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Logan, M. P. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Harvey, S. A.
Right arrow Articles by Logan, M. P. O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?