|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 15 August 2007
doi: 10.1242/dev.005132
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
2 Hubrecht Laboratory, Netherlands Institute for Developmental Biology,
Uppsalalaan 8, 3584 CT Utrecht, The Netherlands.
3 Howard Hughes Medical Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305,
USA.
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: jhelms{at}stanford.edu)
Accepted 27 June 2007
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Key words: Wnt, Craniofacial, Patterning, Axes formation, Maxilla, Frontonasal prominence, Species-specific facial features
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
It is the anterior portion of the embryo that gives rise to the face. How the face achieves its own distinctive pattern is obviously a complex problem and has puzzled a great number of scientists. In general, the problem can be stated as one of regional specification: what are the distinguishing characteristics that allow us to readily discriminate an embryonic mouse face from a chick face? And when does this regional specification occur?
One could consider that as soon as the anterior end of an embryo is
patterned then craniofacial morphogenesis is under species-specific control
(Schneider and Helms, 2003
)
(reviewed by Helms and Schneider,
2003; Le Douarin et al.,
2004). On the other hand, numerous experiments point to the
plasticity inherent in the head region (Hu
et al., 2003; Hunt et al.,
1998; Trainor et al.,
2002; Trainor et al.,
1994). A multifarious hierarchy of signaling and responses between
epithelium and mesenchyme gradually build up a complex pattern that culminates
in species-specific facial features (e.g.
Noden, 1988), but how does it
all begin? Preeminent in understanding what molecular signals control regional
specification within the craniofacial complex is first appreciating just how
similar embryonic faces start out and how, within a relatively short time
span, they become so different. This query is not without precedence:
scientists have been investigating the mechanisms of craniofacial regional
specification for centuries. Initially, such inquiries were dependent upon
embryological manipulations, but more recently molecular biology and
developmental genetics have also been used to shed light on the process of
craniofacial morphogenesis.
The concept of a `zootype' was proposed to describe a stage of embryonic
development in which a particular spatial pattern of gene expression was
responsible for establishing regional specification
(Slack et al., 1993). In its
original form, the zootype was defined by a spatially restricted class of
homeobox genes, but the concept can easily be applied to other genes whose
regional expression is conserved among and between species. The function of
many of these genes is to provide positional information and this method of
regional specification is highly conserved among different animal taxa
(reviewed by Deschamps and van Nes,
2005) and is therefore probably very ancient.
Wnt proteins represent one of the most highly conserved molecular pathways
known to man. From hydra to humans, Wnts play indisputably important roles in
patterning and morphogenesis (Cadigan and
Nusse, 1997) and there is an abundance of molecular tools
available with which to investigate Wnt signaling. Here, we exploited some of
these tools to gain insights into the role of Wnts in controlling regional
specification in the craniofacial complex. We used transgenic Wnt reporter
mice to map the patterns of Wnt responsiveness in the developing face and then
undertook both a genetic approach and a biochemical strategy to explore the
craniofacial consequences of Wnt perturbation. Finally, we experimentally
tested our proposed model of Wnt signaling in a different animal model, the
chick, and in doing so found clues as to the conserved nature of Wnt function
in regional specification of the face.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
) and the disruption of Tcf4
(Korinek et al., 1998b) were
generated as previously described. Genotyping was performed by PCR of genomic
DNA isolated from tail biopsies. The primers for the wild-type Tcf4
allele were 5'-CAGCTCAAAGCATCAGGACTC-3' and
5'-GCGCCCGAGAATCTGGTTGATGG-3'; the null allele was amplified with
primers specific for hygromycin: 5'-ACCTGCCTGAAACCGAACTGC-3' and
GCGTCTGCTGCTCCATACAAG-3'. For Lef1, three primers detected the
100 bp wild-type and 300 bp mutant amplicons:
5'-CCGTTTCAGTGGCACGCCCTCTCC-3',
5'-ATGGCGATGCCTGCTTGCCGAATA-3' and
5'-TGTCTCTCTTTCCGTGCTAGTTC-3'. Lef1-/-;
Tcf4-/- embryos were bred by mating Lef1+/-;
Tcf4+/- animals.
TOPgal and BATgal embryos
TOPgal and BATgal mice were generated as previously reported
(DasGupta and Fuchs, 1999;
Maretto et al., 2003).
Detection of lacZ expression
ß-galactosidase (ß-gal) hydrolyzes the non-inducing chromogenic
substrate 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-beta-D-galactopyranoside (X-Gal;
Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) to form a blue precipitate. To visualize the
enzyme's expression, freshly collected tissues were rinsed in PBS, fixed with
0.2% glutaraldehyde for 15 minutes, and stained with X-Gal overnight in
whole-mount at 37°C (Maretto et al.,
2003). For tissue sections, freshly collected embryos were fixed
in 0.4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) for 2 hours and infused with 30% sucrose for 24
hours. Samples were then embedded in OCT medium, frozen with dry ice in
isopentane, and stored at -80°C before cryosectioning. X-Gal staining for
cryosections followed the whole-mount protocol.
Adenovirus production and in utero injection
Adenovirus containing the Wnt inhibitor Dkk1 was generated as previously
reported (Kuhnert et al.,
2004). 293T cells were transfected with Ad-Dkk1 construct
following standardized purification, concentration and titering steps. In
brief, pregnant TOPgal females were anesthetized and a laparotomy was
performed to expose the uterine horns. One horn was deflected onto the ventral
abdominal surface and alternate embryos of the uterine horn were injected to
avoid excessive loss of amniotic fluid. Approximately 4x109
virions (2 µL) were injected into individual uteri according to previously
reported protocols (Itah et al.,
2004). Embryos were harvested 4 days post-injection.
Lentivirus production and in ovo injection
A DNA fragment containing seven Tcf/Lef-binding sites, the minimal promoter
and the 5'UTR of the pSuperTOPflash reporter plasmid
(Veeman et al., 2003) was
amplified by PCR and inserted upstream of the eGFP gene in the
self-inactivating lentivirus TOP-eGFP
(Reya et al., 2003). Vectors
were produced by transient transfection in 293T cells. Briefly, ten 10-cm
dishes were seeded with 5x106 cells each, the day before
transfection. For each dish, 10 µg of the virus construct were mixed with
3.5 µg of the VSV-G envelope plasmid and 6.5 µg of the packaging plasmid
(pMD2.VSVG and pCMV
R8.74, respectively)
(Dull et al., 1998). The
solution was adjusted to 250 µL with water and mixed with 250 µL 0.5 M
CaCl2. The precipitate was formed by adding drop-wise while
vortexing 500 µL of 2xHEPES-buffered saline (280 mM NaCl, 10 mM KCl,
1.5 mM Na2HPO4, 12 mM dextrose, 50 mM HEPES, pH7.2) and
was added directly to the cells. The medium was replaced after 16 hours and
conditioned twice for 24 hours. The conditioned media were pooled, filtered
through a 0.45 µm PES filter, and centrifuged at 50,000g
for 2 hours 20 minutes. The viral pellet was resuspended in 400 µL 0.1% BSA
in PBS. In ovo injections of Ad-Dkk1 and pLenti 7xTcf-eGFP were performed at
stages 10 and 13, respectively. Approximately 2 µL of virus
(4x109 virions for Ad-Dkk1 and 1x104 virions
for pLenti 7xTcf-eGFP) was applied to the surface ectoderm anterior region of
the embryo and injected into developing facial prominences.
In situ hybridization
Embryos were fixed in 4% PFA overnight at 4°C, dehydrated serially to
100% methanol, and for whole-mounts, rehydrated in PBS at room temperature.
For tissue sections, dehydrated embryos were embedded in paraffin and
sectioned at 8 µm. Templates for the relevant mRNAs for in situ
hybridization were amplified from embryonic mouse cDNA by PCR using
sequence-specific primers that included the promoter sites for T3 or T7 RNA
polymerase. Antisense riboprobe for each gene was transcribed with either T3
or T7 RNA polymerase in the presence of Dig-11-UTP (Roche, Indianapolis, IN).
Whole-mount and section in situ hybridizations
(Albrecht et al., 1997) were
performed as described previously. Briefly, tissue sections or whole-mount
embryos were incubated at 70°C for 12 hours in hybridization buffer
(Ambion Corporation, Austin, TX) containing riboprobe at 
0.2-0.3 µg/mL
probe per kb of probe complexity. Non-specifically bound probe was hydrolyzed
with RNase A, and final washes were carried out at high stringency
(0.1xSSC, 65°C). For color detection, embryos or slides were blocked
with 10% sheep serum, 1% Boehringer-Mannheim Blocking Reagent (Roche) and
levamisole, and developed using nitro blue tetrazolium chloride (NBT; Roche)
and 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate (BCIP; Roche). After developing, the
slides were cover-slipped with aqueous mounting medium.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
;
Maretto et al., 2003;
Moriyama et al., 2007;
Reya et al., 2003). In BATgal
and TOPgal embryos, the ß-gal reporter gene is under the control of
Lef/Tcf-binding sites. The primary differences between the two strains are the
type of promoter used, and the number of Lef/Tcf-binding sites
(DasGupta and Fuchs, 1999;
Maretto et al., 2003). When we
examined BATgal and TOPgal embryos for the pattern of ß-gal activity in
the head, we found a general conservation in the location of staining, but
there were notable differences as well
(Fig. 1). For example, at E9.5,
both transgenic embryos showed strong reporter activity in the midbrain and
anterior neural folds, and lesser amounts of staining in the anterior surface
ectoderm (Fig. 1A,D, dotted
white lines). In addition, there were differences in the intensity of staining
in the head (Fig. 1, compare B with
C). There were, however, areas where the staining pattern was
conserved: the first pharyngeal arch was ß-gal-positive and, in general,
the most anterior region of the face had little X-Gal staining
(Fig. 1B,C). At later stages of
development, we once again noted similarities and differences in the pattern
of reporter activity in TOPgal and BATgal embryos. For example, at E14.5 there
was a discernable variation in the forebrain pattern of X-Gal staining,
although both embryos showed reporter activity in the dorsal-most region
(Fig. 1E,H), but along with
this variation was an equally notable conservation in the pattern of reporter
activity within the developing craniofacial complex. Specifically, both
transgenes were expressed in the maxillary prominences, a stripe along the
lateral nasal prominences, and within a small patch in the median nasal
prominence (Fig. 1F,G).
Likewise, both embryos showed reporter activity in discrete domains such as
the junction between the maxillary and mandibular prominences
(Fig. 1F,G, arrowheads), in the
otic placode (Fig. 1F,G,
asterisk), and in the aboral surface of the mandible
(Fig. 1F,G, arrows). This
striking similarity in Wnt reporter activity was observed again, at E14.5, in
the face and in specialized epithelial structures in the face such as the
whisker primordia (Fig. 1I-L),
taste buds and tooth buds. As before, subtle differences in X-Gal staining
could be detected between TOPgal and BATgal embryos, but despite these
differences there was one common feature: the facial midline was devoid of Wnt
reporter activity, whereas the lateral regions exhibited exuberant Wnt
reporter activity (Fig. 1J,K).
It was this aspect of the X-Gal staining that became the focus of our next
experiments, as we sought to understand how the pattern becomes established in
the face.
|
E8.5). At this time, the anterior neural plate showed
evidence of strong X-Gal staining in the lateral regions
(Fig. 2A,B) and tissue sections
revealed that X-Gal staining was limited to the ectoderm of the neural folds
(Fig. 2C). This ectoderm later
becomes subdivided into both neuroectoderm and surface ectoderm
(Brugmann et al., 2006). At
E9.5, X-Gal staining was detectable in the surface ectoderm and the
delaminating cranial neural crest cells
(Fig. 2D-F). By E10.5, these
cranial neural crest cells have completed their migration into the facial
prominences. X-Gal staining was evident in all of the prominences with the
singular exception of the frontonasal (Fig.
2G,H). Tissue sections showed ß-gal-positive cells in both
surface ectoderm and mesenchyme of the maxillae, but, in accordance with the
whole-mount staining, reporter activity was undetectable in the frontonasal
(Fig. 2I). At E11.5, the median
nasal prominence fuses with the lateral nasal and maxillary prominences
(Fig. 2J,K). We carefully
mapped Wnt reporter activity at this point and noted the presence of
ß-gal-positive cells in maxillary ectoderm and mesenchyme, and the
absence of ß-gal-positive cells in the median nasal prominence
(Fig. 2L). Even after the
prominences had fused, X-Gal staining remained in the mesenchyme of the
maxillary prominence, but we found no staining in the frontonasal
(Fig. 2L). By E12.0, the facial
prominences have coalesced (Fig.
2M) and, as before, reporter activity was conspicuously lacking in
the frontonasal prominence (Fig.
2N). The same pattern was readily discernable at E12.5
(Fig. 2O,P). At this
developmental stage there is no morphological structure that corresponds to
this boundary between reporter-positive and reporter-negative regions in the
face.
With advancing embryonic age, we found that the molecular demarcation
between ß-gal-positive and ß-gal-negative cells precisely correlated
with derivatives of the frontonasal and maxillary prominences
(Fig. 2Q). The frontonasal
prominence remained free of X-Gal staining, in contrast to the strong staining
in the lateral regions of the face (Fig.
2R,S). The size of the prominences, however, changes dramatically
at this stage: in animals with muzzles or snouts, the rapid expansion of the
maxillary and lateral nasal prominences relative to the slower growth of the
frontonasal prominence results in compression of the frontonasal and in doing
so, creates a furrow in the midline of the mouse face called the infranasal
depression (Young et al.,
2007). The infranasal depression remained conspicuously clear of
reporter activity.
|
A Wnt-responsive boundary delineates the facial prominences
The patterns of ß-gal reporter activity shown in Figs
1 and
2 suggest locations of Wnt
responsiveness in the developing face. To verify that these were sites of Wnt
signaling, we compared the X-Gal staining patterns with expression domains of
genes that have been identified as Wnt targets in other tissues. For example,
Msx1 and Msx2 are direct targets of Wnt signaling in
embryonic carcinoma cells (Willert et al.,
2002) and both transcription factors are involved in craniofacial
patterning events (Foerst-Potts and
Sadler, 1997; Levi et al.,
2006; Satokata et al.,
2000). Although their pattern of expression was not identical to
that of reporter activity in TOPgal embryos, we found that at E11.5-12.5,
the expression domains of Msx transcription factors mirrored the X-Gal
staining patterns in two respects. First, neither gene was expressed in the
frontonasal midline (Fig. 3A,
arrows). Second, both genes were strongly expressed in the maxillary and
lateral nasal prominences (Fig.
3A,B). At E15.5, we also noted that Msx1 and
Msx2 were both excluded from derivatives of the frontonasal
prominence (Fig. 3E,F), similar
to the pattern of X-Gal staining we had observed in E15.5 TOPgal embryos
(Fig. 2V).
|
Nmyc (also known as Mycn - Mouse Genome Informatics) has
been identified as a direct Wnt target by microarray screening
(Nusse, 1999) and at early
stages of development when the entire craniofacial complex is rapidly
expanding, Nmyc is expressed throughout the craniofacial complex
(data not shown). But as the facial prominences become progressively defined
with age, we found that Nmyc expression was generally stronger in
more lateral regions of the face and weaker in the frontonasal midline
(Fig. 3I-K). In many tissues,
Nmyc regulates cell proliferation
(Hatton et al., 1996;
Hirvonen et al., 1990;
Mugrauer et al., 1988;
Oliver et al., 2003;
Zimmerman et al., 1986), so we
next compared this pattern of cell proliferation with the pattern of
Nmyc expression and Wnt reporter activity.
We found fewer PCNA-labeled cells in the E10.5 frontonasal prominence than in the adjacent maxillary prominences (Fig. 3L), which coincided with the compressed frontonasal midline and rapidly expanding lateral regions of the face. BrdU labeling experiments also showed generally greater labeling in the maxillary prominences compared with the frontonasal (Fig. 3M). The colocalization of Wnt reporter activity, Wnt target gene expression and cell proliferation was transient however; after E15.5, we could not detect similar relationships between X-Gal staining, gene expression and cell proliferation (data not shown). This suggested that the molecular boundary of Wnt responsiveness had transient significance for facial development. We set out to uncover what its possible function might be in regulating craniofacial morphogenesis.
A Wnt boundary in the face has functional significance
Thus far, our data indicated that beginning at E10.5 and continuing
until E15.0, the frontonasal midline was a region of diminished Wnt
responsiveness, and lateral regions of the face were sites of heightened Wnt
responsiveness. To gain some insights into the possible function of Wnt
signaling during this period of facial development, we initially pursued a
genetic strategy. Disruptions in Lef1 and Tcf4 reduce the
responsiveness of cells to Wnt signaling
(DasGupta and Fuchs, 1999;
DasGupta et al., 2002;
Eastman and Grosschedl, 1999;
Hussein et al., 2003;
Reya et al., 2003) and yet,
because of apparent redundancy in their function, embryos survive to birth
(van Genderen et al., 1994).
Thus, we could examine various combinations of Tcf4 and Lef1
heterozygous and homozygous embryos for changes in their facial appearances,
all the while recognizing that these embryos are likely to represent a
reduction rather than an elimination of Wnt signaling.
|
;
Liu et al., 2003;
Okubo et al., 2006;
Ridanpaa et al., 2001;
van Genderen et al., 1994) and
the details of some of these aberrant epithelial-mesenchymal interactions have
been reported by other groups (Sasaki et
al., 2005; van Genderen et
al., 1994) and us (Cadigan and
Nusse, 1997; Korinek et al.,
1998a; Korinek et al.,
1998b) (D.t.B., J.A.H. and R.N., unpublished). Here, our focus was
on how Wnt signaling regulated facial morphology, so we turned to the compound
null homozygotes and examined their faces in more detail.
In sharp contrast to the single or compound heterozygotes, we found that
Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- embryos exhibited radically
altered faces (Fig. 4D). Upon
careful comparison with their heterozygote and wild-type littermates, it
became obvious that E17.0 Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/-
mutants had wide-set eyes and wide-set nostrils, i.e. a hyperteloric phenotype
(Fig. 4D). Hypertelorism can
result from an underlying brain abnormality, or from a disruption in facial
patterning that is independent of a brain defect
(Cordero et al., 2004;
Cordero et al., 2005). We found
no evidence of forebrain anomalies in the Tcf4-/-;
Lef1-/- mutants, so we concentrated on understanding the
facial phenotype and determining when during development the malformation was
first evident.
We found that at E16.0 the widened midface distinguished Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- mutants from their wild-type littermates (Fig. 4E,F compared with G,H; arrows and dotted lines). At still earlier stages (E15.0 and E15.5), wild-type embryos exhibited the characteristic infranasal depression and well-developed maxillae (Fig. 4I,J), whereas the Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- mutants had a flattened midline that blended into the poorly developed maxillae (Fig. 4K,L). At earlier stages (E14.0), the facial phenotype was no longer discernable. Therefore, our subsequent analyses concentrated on that developmental window when the Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- facial phenotype was first identifiable.
In E15.0 wild-type and heterozygous embryos, the nasal septum is an elongated, cartilaginous rod that extends into the muzzle of the mouse (Fig. 5A). The nasal septum is contiguous with the nasal capsule, which encompasses the nasal epithelium and forms within the frontonasal prominence (Fig. 5B). In Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- embryos, the nasal septum and capsule were severely truncated (Fig. 5C,D). The length of the Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- nasal septum was reduced by over 52%, and the mediolateral width of the frontonasal prominence was increased by over 25% (Fig. 5, compare A with D, and B with C). This malformation was largely confined to the frontonasal prominence; the position and orientation of the basisphenoid, the palatal process of the palatine and the palatal process of the maxilla, the basal plate, and the trabecular plate of the nasal septum were relatively unaffected by the loss of Lef1 and Tcf4 (Fig. 5E,F).
In keeping with the well-known function of Wnt signaling in tooth morphogenesis, we found evidence of odontogenic defects in Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- embryos. Specifically, the dental epithelium showed evidence of thickening and invagination, and the underlying dental mesenchyme had undergone condensation, but further development of the tooth primordia beyond the cap stage was arrested (Fig. 5G,H). Details of this odontogenic defect will be described elsewhere.
|
; Hu et al.,
2005; Kolpakova and Olsen,
2005) (reviewed by Hartmann,
2006). We returned to study in more detail the morphology of the Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- frontonasal prominence, which exhibited the most obvious defect. In wild-type embryos, the distal-most tip the nasal septum branches into a `Y' shape to accommodate the maxillary-derived portion of the muzzle (Fig. 5I). In the Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- mutants, the nasal septum adopted a `T' shape (Fig. 5L). At E15.0, the palatal shelves had fused and the intervening epithelium was in the process of being removed (Fig. 5K). In Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- mutants, the shorter palatal shelves also fused, but we routinely detected residual epithelial rests remaining in the seam area (n=3; Fig. 5L). The skeletal abnormalities we found in the frontonasal prominence-derived structures were not associated with a disruption in chondrogenesis, as shown by the persistence of collagen type II (Fig. 5, compare M with P), but they were accompanied by the selective loss of Msx1 expression in surface ectoderm (Fig. 5, compare N with O; dotted red lines). Msx1 continued to be expressed in nasal epithelium and in the undifferentiated mesenchyme.
These molecular and cellular analyses indicated that the combined loss of
Tcf4 and Lef1, which results in a loss of Wnt signaling
(Reya et al., 2003) (4948),
dramatically altered facial morphology. This dysmorphology was not the result
of perturbed differentiation of skeletal tissues. Rather, the defect stemmed
from a disruption in localized, Wnt-mediated expansion of the maxillary
prominences and a concomitant contraction in the frontonasal prominence
(Fig. 4). Together, these
morphogenetic forces adversely affected the shape and relative positions of
frontonasal and maxillary-derived skeletal elements
(Fig. 5).
|
). We
used this alternative strategy because we wanted to exclude the possibility
that the Lef1-/-; Tcf4-/- facial
phenotype was attributable to a disruption in cranial neural crest cell
generation and/or migration. Since both of these processes are affected by Wnt
signaling (Burstyn-Cohen et al.,
2004; De Calisto et al.,
2005; Garcia-Castro et al.,
2002) we opted to block Wnt signaling after cranial neural crest
cells had migrated into the facial prominences, at E9.5
(Osumi-Yamashita et al., 1994;
Osumi-Yamashita et al., 1997).
We injected adenovirus expressing Dkk1 (Ad-Dkk1) into individual uteri of
TOPgal dams at E9.5 and harvested the embryos at E13.5 for analysis. As a
control, we injected Ad-lacZ to ascertain the approximate level of
expression that was achieved within 24 hours of viral delivery. Control
Ad-lacZ embryos showed abundant, widespread staining throughout the
surface ectoderm in a roughly uniform pattern
(Fig. 6A). Of particular
interest was the pattern of reporter activity in the facial prominences: all
facial ectoderm appeared to be similarly affected by the adenoviral infection
(Fig. 6B,C). Therefore, this
delivery method could serve as a reasonable proxy for inhibiting Wnt signaling
from facial ectoderm, and we could be fairly certain of widespread infection
within 24 hours of injection.
In our next experiments, E9.5 embryos were infected with Ad-Dkk1 and then
harvested 96 hours later. First, we found no differences in the size of
control and Ad-Dkk1-treated embryos (Fig.
6, compare D with F), which indicated that Ad-Dkk1 infection did
not cause a generalized growth arrest. Second, because we used TOPgal embryos
for this experiment we could gauge the level of Wnt inhibition by assessing
the extent of X-Gal staining. For example, we found that some regions, such as
the limb bud, were particularly sensitive to Wnt inhibition. Wnt signaling
from the apical ectodermal ridge regulates limb outgrowth
(Kengaku et al., 1998) and we
found that Ad-Dkk1 completely disrupted this event
(Fig. 6, compare E with G). In
addition, Wnt signaling influences the growth of chondrogenic condensations in
the E12.0 limb (Hartmann and Tabin,
2000) and this process was also perturbed by Ad-Dkk1 infection
(Fig. 6E,G). These results
confirmed that Ad-Dkk1 infection selectively blocked Wnt-mediated
developmental events that were initiated sometime after the stage of
infection, E9.5. They also demonstrated that X-Gal staining in TOPgal
embryos was a reliable readout of endogenous Wnt signaling, and that a
reduction in X-Gal staining was an accurate demonstration of reduced Wnt
signaling. Regarding this latter point, we found that Ad-Dkk1 treatment
routinely led to a reduction in X-Gal staining, which was especially notable
in the whisker primordia (compare control,
Fig. 6H' with
6I'-K').
|
4%), the facial malformation was accompanied by a cleft
between the frontonasal and maxillary prominences
(Fig. 6, compare L with M).
This was a rare occurrence, however, because facial fusions begin around the
time we delivered the adenovirus. When considered along with the Lef1;
Tcf4-null phenotype, we conclude that two complementary methods, both of
which disrupted Wnt signaling, produced the same facial phenotype: a flattened
mouse midface that lacked its characteristic infranasal depression.
Wnt signaling regulates differential growth of the facial prominences
Thus far our data demonstrate that Wnt signaling appears to support cell
proliferation and, as a consequence, Wnt-responsive maxillary-derived regions
of the mouse face expand. The frontonasal ectoderm lacks Wnt responsiveness
and thus this region of the face does not show the same degree of cell
proliferation. When maxillary expansion of the prominences is coupled to
reduced frontonasal growth, the resulting face has a midline furrow and
enlarged maxillae that form the snout, or muzzle. Our analyses of
Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- and Ad-Dkk1 embryos indicate
that Wnt signaling is a mediator of differential growth in the face. We sought
to validate this conclusion in other animal taxa and therefore turned to an
animal whose facial morphology is the antithesis of the mouse.
In birds, the frontonasal prominence forms a protrusion rather than a furrow (Fig. 7, compare A with B). The maxillary prominences, on the other hand, do not expand to nearly the same degree as they do in the mouse, the net result being an elongated beak. If Wnt signaling is a conserved mechanism whereby facial diversity is created, we hypothesized that Wnt signaling in the bird face would be the reverse of what we observed in mice: namely, the frontonasal midline would show an increase in Wnt signaling, whereas the maxillary prominences would be sites of diminished Wnt signaling.
In order to examine Wnt responsiveness in an avian model we generated a
viral Wnt reporter construct. In our avian reporter construct, GFP is
expressed under the control of seven Tcf-binding sites (pLenti 7xTcf-eGFP).
This construct is similar to the reporter construct in TOPgal mice used in our
initial experiments (Fig. 2)
(DasGupta and Fuchs, 1999), the
exception being the number of Tcf-binding sites (seven in our GFP virus versus
three in TOPgal embryos). Although this difference in the number of binding
sites might affect the sensitivity of one construct in comparison to another
(Barolo, 2006), both reporters
are activated only when cells are presented with a Wnt ligand, which we
demonstrated by testing the activity of the 7xTcf-eGFP construct in vitro. We
infected murine adipose-derived mesenchymal cells and then exposed them 48
hours later to either vehicle or purified Wnt3a protein. GFP activity was only
detectable when cells were treated with Wnt3a
(Fig. 7C,D). These data
demonstrate that canonical Wnt signaling specifically activated GFP expression
in cells infected with the 7xTcf-eGFP lentivirus.
We next examined Wnt responsiveness in chick in ovo by infecting embryos at stage (St.) 13 with pLenti 7xTcf-eGFP. We chose this time point because it is analogous to E9.5 in mice in that the majority of cranial neural crest cells destined for the frontonasal prominence are already in place but differential outgrowth of the prominences has yet to ensue. We performed one additional control experiment: to prove that lentiviral injection was a plausible mechanism to broadly infect the avian face, we injected a control lenti-eGFP virus at St. 13 and harvested embryos at St. 28. Injection of the control GFP virus resulted in a broad and extensive infection of the facial prominences (Fig. 7E,F), demonstrating that our injection technique was suitable for labeling the majority of cells in the facial prominences.
We then undertook our experiment to map reporter activity in the avian face. We injected pLenti 7xTcf-eGFP at St. 13 and then collected embryos 48 and 72 hours later. Contrary to the mouse, where Wnt reporter activity was robust in the maxillary and lateral nasal prominences and absent in the frontonasal prominence, the St. 25 chick exhibited a robust region of reporter activity in a midline stripe down the frontonasal prominence (Fig. 7G). By contrast, the maxillary and lateral nasal prominences showed no evidence of reporter activity (Fig. 7G). At St. 28, the pattern of reporter activity was the same: robust signal in the frontonasal midline and no discernable activity in the maxillary prominences (Fig. 7H). These results indicated that in avians, the midline of the frontonasal prominence is a region of Wnt reporter activity, whereas the lateral nasal and maxillary prominences are devoid of Wnt reporter activity. These findings are in keeping with the dramatically elongated frontonasal prominence in avians.
We also tested the consequences of reducing Wnt signaling during chick
craniofacial morphogenesis. The previous results indicated that Ad-Dkk1 virus
inhibited the growth of Wnt-responsive facial prominences. Here, we found that
Ad-Dkk1 treatment resulted in embryonic death in 45% of treated embryos,
but of those that survived, 11% showed a dramatic and specific arrest in
frontonasal outgrowth (n=68; Fig.
7I,J). We saw little to no change in outgrowth of the lateral
nasal or maxillary prominences (Fig.
7I,J) which, as our reporter results indicated, were not sites of
abundant Wnt signaling. When considered together, these avian data confirm
that sites of endogenous Wnt signaling in the face show abundant growth,
whereas sites lacking endogenous Wnt signaling show much less expansion.
Consequently, the regional pattern of Wnt signaling influences the pattern of
growth within the facial prominences by a mechanism that appears to be
conserved between species.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
We found that the facial prominences could be divided into domains of Wnt-responsive and non-responsive cells, and that these molecular boundaries later corresponded to discrete morphological structures. For example, in two strains of transgenic Wnt reporter embryos the frontonasal prominence was a reporter-negative domain and both the maxillary and lateral nasal prominences were reporter-positive regions. Later, the reporter-negative region precisely corresponded to derivatives of the frontonasal prominence, and the reporter-positive regions arose from the lateral nasal and maxillary prominences (Figs 1 and 2).
We also found that the territories of Wnt-responsive cells tended to show evidence of more cell proliferation, at least at the developmental stages we examined (Fig. 3). When Wnt signaling was perturbed, either through genetic activation of the Tcf4/Lef1 nuclear mediators, or by overexpression of a soluble Wnt antagonist, then the distinctive facial features of the mouse were lost. The effect was primarily limited to the neural crest-derived facial skeleton and could most accurately be described as a transformation of sorts: the typical infranasal depression that is a characteristic of the muzzle-faced mouse was transformed into a flattened, smooth midface, reminiscent of the human midface.
Craniofacial growth is influenced by Wnt signaling
Wnt signaling has been implicated in a wide variety of developmental
processes from cell proliferation to cell fate determination and
differentiation, to cell survival (Cadigan
and Nusse, 1997; Wodarz and
Nusse, 1998). In craniofacial development, Wnt signaling has been
most commonly linked to the generation and migration of neural crest cells.
Many Wnt ligands and receptors continue to be expressed in the craniofacial
complex well after the neural crest cells have completed their migration
(Gavin et al., 1990;
Oosterwegel et al., 1993;
Wang and Shackleford, 1996),
which begs the question: is there an additional role for Wnt signaling in the
facial prominences after the birth and migration of neural crest cells?
Recent studies lend convincing evidence that this is the case. In humans,
mutations in the WNT3 gene are associated with tetra-amelia and cleft
lip and palate (Niemann et al.,
2004). The A/WySn strain of mice exhibits an increased incidence
of cleft lip and palate, and recent data indicate that this increased
incidence can be exacerbated still further by deleting Wnt9b
(Juriloff et al., 2006). Here,
our data indicate a novel role for Wnt signaling in regulating
species-specific craniofacial morphogenesis.
Our data indicate that prior to outgrowth, Wnt responsiveness is
conspicuously absent from the facial midline and is restricted to the lateral
portions of the facial prominences. This boundary between Wnt-responsive and
non-responsive regions is maintained as the individual prominences grow. We
examined two of the five available transgenic reporter mice
(DasGupta and Fuchs, 1999;
Maretto et al., 2003;
Moriyama et al., 2007;
Yu et al., 2005) and found the
same general pattern of reporter activity in this region of the head.
Although by no means exclusive, regions of strong Wnt responsiveness
coincided with elevated cell proliferation. At some embryonic stages, Wnt
responsiveness also coincided with the domains of Nmyc and
Msx1 expression. Both genes have been identified through microarray
screens as Wnt targets in other cell types, but whether they represent Wnt
targets in the face still remains to be determined. In the case of the Msx
genes, some data suggest that they are targets of BMP signaling during
odontogenesis (Tucker et al.,
1998; Vainio et al.,
1993), and there is a recognized interaction between BMP and Wnt
signaling during neural crest induction
(Garcia-Castro et al., 2002;
Monsoro-Burq et al., 2005).
Precisely how Wnt and BMP signaling are coordinated during facial
morphogenesis is, however, still not known.
Wnt signaling is essential for regional specification of the face
We postulated that Wnt signaling is a crucial regulator of facial
morphogenesis, and to test this hypothesis we used two complementary
approaches to mitigate Wnt signaling. Two intracellular enhancers of Wnt
signaling, Lef1 and Tcf4, were deleted by homologous
recombination and the result of this mutation was a reduction in Wnt signaling
in the face. Although single heterozygotes had tooth, whisker and taste bud
defects, they exhibited normal facial appearance. In sharp contrast,
Lef1-/-; Tcf4-/- mutants exhibited a
foreshortened midface. Skeletal elements all formed but those derived from the
frontonasal prominence were truncated and the midface was dramatically wider.
We observed a very similar facial phenotype in mouse embryos exposed in utero
to the Wnt inhibitor Dkk1 on E9.5. When considered together, these data
indicate that Wnts act as molecular mediators of regional specification within
the craniofacial prominences.
|
), which
results in a characteristic furrow called the infranasal depression. In
humans, the infranasal depression corresponds to a vestigial philtrum, which
is the small depression located between the base of the nostrils and the upper
lip.
A critical reader might question why this region of facial anatomy garners
such close consideration. As it turns out, differences in the organization of
this region of the face are the distinguishing characteristic among a host of
animals, most notably primates (Martin et
al., 1996). The most prominent feature distinguishing two
primates, stepsirhines and haplorhines, is their midface and nose
(Hershkovitz, 1977).
Stepsirhines have snouts, similar to mice, complete with an infranasal
depression that separates the narrow nostrils. In haplorhines (monkeys, apes
and humans), the midface lacks an infranasal depression and instead exhibits a
vestigial philtrum. A similar distinction could be made between wild-type and
Tcf4-/-; Lef1-/- or Ad-Dkk1 embryos. In both of
these mutants, the midface loses its characteristic snout-like appearance
because of a lack of maxillary growth and a concomitant expansion in the
frontonasal prominence. Consequently, the midface is flattened and smooth,
without its infranasal depression, and instead adopts a philtrum-like
anatomy.
The role of Wnts in differential growth is conserved across species
Our analysis of Wnt responsiveness in mice suggests that Wnts create
molecular demarcations that predate changes in morphology of the facial
prominences. Even before species-specific facial features are evident in
murine embryos (E9.5), the patterns of Wnt reporter activity suggest a
regional specification within the facial prominences. We found this regional
specification by Wnt signaling is conserved in at least two model organisms.
By creating an avian reporter virus we were able to assay Wnt responsiveness
in a species that had a complementary pattern of facial outgrowth to the
mouse. Whereas the frontonasal prominence of the mouse forms the infranasal
depression and lacks any Wnt-responsive cells, the frontonasal prominence of
the chick forms a prominent, protruding beak and, correspondingly, has a
conspicuous streak of Wnt-responsive cells in its midline
(Fig. 8). Contrary to the
situation in mouse, the lateral nasal and maxillary prominences of chick do
not display any evidence of reporter activity and, coincidentally, these
prominences expand far less than the avian frontonasal prominence.
The results of this cross-species comparison of Wnt signaling in the face might carry profound evolutionary significance. A conserved mechanism of variations in Wnt signaling could account for the different facial appearance of all animals ranging from hammerhead sharks to anteaters. Detailing the extent of Wnt signaling in the developing facial primordia will be an important next step in our research.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Albrecht, U. E. G., Helms, J. A. and Lin, H.
(1997). Visualization of gene expression patterns by in situ
hybridization. In Molecular and Cellular Methods in Developmental
Toxicology (ed. G. P. Daston), pp.23
-48. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Barolo, S. (2006). Transgenic Wnt/TCF pathway
reporters: all you need is Lef? Oncogene
25,7505
-7511.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brugmann, S. A., Kim, J. and Helms, J. A.
(2006). Looking different: understanding diversity in facial
form. Am. J. Med. Genet. A
140,2521
-2529.[Medline]
Burstyn-Cohen, T., Stanleigh, J., Sela-Donenfeld, D. and
Kalcheim, C. (2004). Canonical Wnt activity regulates trunk
neural crest delamination linking BMP/noggin signaling with G1/S transition.
Development 131,5327
-5339.
Cadigan, K. M. and Nusse, R. (1997). Wnt
signaling: a common theme in animal development. Genes
Dev. 11,3286
-3305.
Cordero, D., Marcucio, R., Hu, D., Gaffield, W., Tapadia, M. and
Helms, J. A. (2004). Temporal perturbations in sonic hedgehog
signaling elicit the spectrum of holoprosencephaly phenotypes. J.
Clin. Invest. 114,485
-494.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cordero, D., Tapadia, M. and Helms, J. A.
(2005). Sonic Hedgehog Signaling in Craniofacial
Development. Georgetown, TX: Eureka Biosciences.
DasGupta, R. and Fuchs, E. (1999). Multiple
roles for activated LEF/TCF transcription complexes during hair follicle
development and differentiation. Development
126,4557
-4568.[Abstract]
DasGupta, R., Rhee, H. and Fuchs, E. (2002). A
developmental conundrum: a stabilized form of beta-catenin lacking the
transcriptional activation domain triggers features of hair cell fate in
epidermal cells and epidermal cell fate in hair follicle cells. J.
Cell Biol. 158,331
-344.
Dassule, H. R. and McMahon, A. P. (1998).
Analysis of epithelial-mesenchymal interactions in the initial morphogenesis
of the mammalian tooth. Dev. Biol.
202,215
-227.[CrossRef][Medline]
Day, T. F., Guo, X., Garrett-Beal, L. and Yang, Y.
(2005). Wnt/beta-catenin signaling in mesenchymal progenitors
controls osteoblast and chondrocyte differentiation during vertebrate
skeletogenesis. Dev. Cell
8, 739-750.[CrossRef][Medline]
De Calisto, J., Araya, C., Marchant, L., Riaz, C. F. and Mayor,
R. (2005). Essential role of non-canonical Wnt signalling in
neural crest migration. Development
132,2587
-2597.
Deschamps, J. and van Nes, J. (2005).
Developmental regulation of the Hox genes during axial morphogenesis in the
mouse. Development 132,2931
-2942.
Dull, T., Zufferey, R., Kelly, M., Mandel, R. J., Nguyen, M.,
Trono, D. and Naldini, L. (1998). A third-generation
lentivirus vector with a conditional packaging system. J.
Virol. 72,8463
-8471.
Eastman, Q. and Grosschedl, R. (1999).
Regulation of LEF-1/TCF transcription factors by Wnt and other signals.
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
11,233
-240.[CrossRef][Medline]
Foerst-Potts, L. and Sadler, T. W. (1997).
Disruption of Msx-1 and Msx-2 reveals roles for these genes in craniofacial,
eye, and axial development. Dev. Dyn.
209, 70-84.[CrossRef][Medline]
Garcia-Castro, M. I., Marcelle, C. and Bronner-Fraser, M.
(2002). Ectodermal Wnt function as a neural crest inducer.
Science 13,13
.
Gavin, B. J., McMahon, J. A. and McMahon, A. P.
(1990). Expression of multiple novel Wnt-1/int-1-related genes
during fetal and adult mouse development. Genes Dev.
4,2319
-2332.
Hartmann, C. (2006). A Wnt canon orchestrating
osteoblastogenesis. Trends Cell Biol.
16,151
-158.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hartmann, C. and Tabin, C. J. (2000). Dual
roles of Wnt signaling during chondrogenesis in the chicken limb.
Development 127,3141
-3159.[Abstract]
Hatton, K. S., Mahon, K., Chin, L., Chiu, F. C., Lee, H. W.,
Peng, D., Morgenbesser, S. D., Horner, J. and DePinho, R. A.
(1996). Expression and activity of L-Myc in normal mouse
development. Mol. Cell. Biol.
16,1794
-1804.[Abstract]
Helms, J. A. and Schneider, R. A. (2003).
Cranial skeletal biology. Nature
423,326
-331.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hershkovitz, P. (1977). Living New
World Monkeys (Platyrrhini), Vol
1. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Hirvonen, H., Makela, T. P., Sandberg, M., Kalimo, H., Vuorio,
E. and Alitalo, K. (1990). Expression of the myc
proto-oncogenes in developing human fetal brain.
Oncogene 5,1787
-1797.[Medline]
Hoffman, J., Kuhnert, F., Davis, C. R. and Kuo, C. J.
(2004). Wnts as essential growth factors for the adult small
intestine and colon. Cell Cycle
3, 554-557.[Medline]
Hu, D., Marcucio, R. S. and Helms, J. A.
(2003). A zone of frontonasal ectoderm regulates patterning and
growth in the face. Development
130,1749
-1758.
Hu, H., Hilton, M. J., Tu, X., Yu, K., Ornitz, D. M. and Long,
F. (2005). Sequential roles of Hedgehog and Wnt signaling in
osteoblast development. Development
132, 49-60.
Hunt, P., Clarke, J. D., Buxton, P., Ferretti, P. and Thorogood,
P. (1998). Stability and plasticity of neural crest
patterning and branchial arch Hox code after extensive cephalic crest
rotation. Dev. Biol.
198,82
-104.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hussein, S. M., Duff, E. K. and Sirard, C.
(2003). Smad4 and beta-catenin co-activators functionally
interact with lymphoid-enhancing factor to regulate graded expression of Msx2.
J. Biol. Chem. 278,48805
-48814.
Itah, R., Gitelman, I., Tal, J. and Davis, C.
(2004). Viral inoculation of mouse embryos in utero.
J. Virol. Methods 120,1
-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
Juriloff, D. M., Harris, M. J., McMahon, A. P., Carroll, T. J.
and Lidral, A. C. (2006). Wnt9b is the mutated gene involved
in multifactorial nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate in
A/WySn mice, as confirmed by a genetic complementation test. Birth
Defects Res. A Clin. Mol. Teratol.
76,574
-579.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kengaku, M., Capdevila, J., Rodriguez-Esteban, C., De La Pena,
J., Johnson, R. L., Belmonte, J. C. and Tabin, C. J. (1998).
Distinct WNT pathways regulating AER formation and dorsoventral polarity in
the chick limb bud. Science
280,1274
-1277.
Kolpakova, E. and Olsen, B. R. (2005).
Wnt/beta-Catenin-A canonical tale of cell-fate choice in the vertebrate
skeleton. Dev. Cell 8,626
-627.[CrossRef][Medline]
Korinek, V., Barker, N., Moerer, P., van Donselaar, E., Huls,
G., Peters, P. J. and Clevers, H. (1998a). Depletion of
epithelial stem-cell compartments in the small intestine of mice lacking
Tcf-4. Nat. Genet. 19,379
-383.[CrossRef][Medline]
Korinek, V., Barker, N., Willert, K., Molenaar, M., Roose, J.,
Wagenaar, G., Markman, M., Lamers, W., Destree, O. and Clevers, H.
(1998b). Two members of the Tcf family implicated in
Wnt/beta-catenin signaling during embryogenesis in the mouse. Mol.
Cell. Biol. 18,1248
-1256.
Kuhnert, F., Davis, C. R., Wang, H. T., Chu, P., Lee, M., Yuan,
J., Nusse, R. and Kuo, C. J. (2004). Essential requirement
for Wnt signaling in proliferation of adult small intestine and colon revealed
by adenoviral expression of Dickkopf-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 101,266
-271.
Le Douarin, N. M., Creuzet, S., Couly, G. and Dupin, E.
(2004). Neural crest cell plasticity and its limits.
Development 131,4637
-4650.
Levi, G., Mantero, S., Barbieri, O., Cantatore, D., Paleari, L.,
Beverdam, A., Genova, F., Robert, B. and Merlo, G. R. (2006).
Msx1 and Dlx5 act independently in development of craniofacial skeleton, but
converge on the regulation of Bmp signaling in palate formation.
Mech. Dev. 123,3
-16.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, H., Mohamed, O., Dufort, D. and Wallace, V. A.
(2003). Characterization of Wnt signaling components and
activation of the Wnt canonical pathway in the murine retina. Dev.
Dyn. 227,323
-334.[CrossRef][Medline]
Maretto, S., Cordenonsi, M., Dupont, S., Braghetta, P.,
Broccoli, V., Hassan, A. B., Volpin, D., Bressan, G. M. and Piccolo, S.
(2003). Mapping Wnt/beta-catenin signaling during mouse
development and in colorectal tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 100,3299
-3304.
Martin, R. A., Jones, K. L. and Benirschke, K.
(1996). Absence of the lateral philtral ridges: a clue to the
structural basis of the philtrum. Am. J. Med. Genet.
65,117
-123.[CrossRef][Medline]
Monsoro-Burq, A. H., Wang, E. and Harland, R.
(2005). Msx1 and Pax3 cooperate to mediate FGF8 and WNT signals
during Xenopus neural crest induction. Dev. Cell
8, 167-178.[CrossRef][Medline]
Moriyama, A., Kii, I., Sunabori, T., Kurihara, S., Takayama, I.,
Shimazaki, M., Tanabe, H., Oginuma, M., Fukayama, M., Matsuzaki, Y. et al.
(2007). GFP transgenic mice reveal active canonical Wnt signal in
neonatal brain and in adult liver and spleen. Genesis
45, 90-100.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mugrauer, G., Alt, F. W. and Ekblom, P. (1988).
N-myc proto-oncogene expression during organogenesis in the developing mouse
as revealed by in situ hybridization. J. Cell Biol.
107,1325
-1335.
Niemann, S., Zhao, C., Pascu, F., Stahl, U., Aulepp, U.,
Niswander, L., Weber, J. L. and Muller, U. (2004). Homozygous
WNT3 mutation causes tetra-amelia in a large consanguineous family.
Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74,558
-563.[CrossRef][Medline]
Noden, D. M. (1988). Interactions and fates of
avian craniofacial mesenchyme. Development
103,121
-140.
Nusse, R. (1999). WNT targets. Repression and
activation. Trends Genet.
15, 1-3.[Medline]
Okubo, T., Pevny, L. H. and Hogan, B. L.
(2006). Sox2 is required for development of taste bud sensory
cells. Genes Dev. 20,2654
-2659.
Oliver, T. G., Grasfeder, L. L., Carroll, A. L., Kaiser, C.,
Gillingham, C. L., Lin, S. M., Wickramasinghe, R., Scott, M. P. and
Wechsler-Reya, R. J. (2003). Transcriptional profiling of the
Sonic hedgehog response: a critical role for N-myc in proliferation of
neuronal precursors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
100,7331
-7336.
Oosterwegel, M., van de Wetering, M., Timmerman, J., Kruisbeek,
A., Destree, O., Meijlink, F. and Clevers, H. (1993).
Differential expression of the HMG box factors TCF-1 and LEF-1 during murine
embryogenesis. Development
118,439
-448.[Abstract]
Osumi-Yamashita, N., Ninomiya, Y., Doi, H. and Eto, K.
(1994). The contribution of both forebrain and midbrain crest
cells to the mesenchyme in the frontonasal mass of mouse embryos.
Dev. Biol. 164,409
-419.[CrossRef][Medline]
Osumi-Yamashita, N., Ninomiya, Y. and Eto, K.
(1997). Mammalian craniofacial embryology in vitro.
Int. J. Dev. Biol. 41,187
-94.[Medline]
Reya, T., Duncan, A. W., Ailles, L., Domen, J., Scherer, D. C.,
Willert, K., Hintz, L., Nusse, R. and Weissman, I. L. (2003).
A role for Wnt signalling in self-renewal of haematopoietic stem cells.
Nature 423,409
-414.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ridanpaa, M., Fodde, R. and Kielman, M. (2001).
Dynamic expression and nuclear accumulation of beta-catenin during the
development of hair follicle-derived structures. Mech.
Dev. 109,173
-181.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sasaki, T., Ito, Y., Xu, X., Han, J., Bringas, P., Jr, Maeda,
T., Slavkin, H. C., Grosschedl, R. and Chai, Y. (2005). LEF1
is a critical epithelial survival factor during tooth morphogenesis.
Dev. Biol. 278,130
-143.[CrossRef][Medline]
Satokata, I., Ma, L., Ohshima, H., Bei, M., Woo, I., Nishizawa,
K., Maeda, T., Takano, Y., Uchiyama, M., Heaney, S. et al.
(2000). Msx2 deficiency in mice causes pleiotropic defects in
bone growth and ectodermal organ formation. Nat.
Genet. 24,391
-395.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schneider, R. A. and Helms, J. A. (2003). The
cellular and molecular origins of beak morphology.
Science 299,565
-568.
Slack, J. M., Holland, P. W. and Graham, C. F.
(1993). The zootype and the phylotypic stage.
Nature 361,490
-492.[CrossRef][Medline]
Trainor, P. A., Tan, S. S. and Tam, P. P.
(1994). Cranial paraxial mesoderm: regionalisation of cell fate
and impact on craniofacial development in mouse embryos.
Development 120,2397
-2408.
Trainor, P. A., Ariza-McNaughton, L. and Krumlauf, R.
(2002). Role of the isthmus and FGFs in resolving the paradox of
neural crest plasticity and prepatterning. Science
295,1288
-1291.
Tucker, A. S., Matthews, K. L. and Sharpe, P. T.
(1998). Transformation of tooth type induced by inhibition of BMP
signaling. Science 282,1136
-1138.
Vainio, S., Karavanova, I., Jowett, A. and Thesleff, I.
(1993). Identification of BMP-4 as a signal mediating secondary
induction between epithelial and mesenchymal tissues during early tooth
development. Cell 75,45
-58.[CrossRef][Medline]
van Genderen, C., Okamura, R. M., Farinas, I., Quo, R. G.,
Parslow, T. G., Bruhn, L. and Grosschedl, R. (1994).
Development of several organs that require inductive epithelial-mesenchymal
interactions is impaired in LEF-1-deficient mice. Genes
Dev. 8,2691
-2703.
Veeman, M. T., Slusarski, D. C., Kaykas, A., Louie, S. H. and
Moon, R. T. (2003). Zebrafish prickle, a modulator of
noncanonical Wnt/Fz signaling, regulates gastrulation movements.
Curr. Biol. 13,680
-685.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wang, J. and Shackleford, G. M. (1996). Murine
Wnt10a and Wnt10b: cloning and expression in developing limbs, face and skin
of embryos and in adults. Oncogene
13,1537
-1544.[Medline]
Willert, J., Epping, M., Pollack, J. R., Brown, P. O. and Nusse,
R. (2002). A transcriptional response to Wnt protein in human
embryonic carcinoma cells. BMC Dev. Biol.
2, 8.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wodarz, A. and Nusse, R. (1998). Mechanisms of
Wnt signaling in development. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev.
Biol. 14,59
-88.[CrossRef][Medline]
Young, N. M., Wat, S., Diewert, V. M., Browder, L. W. and
Hallgrímsson, B. (2007). Comparative morphometrics of
facial morphogenesis: implications for the aetiology of cleft lip.
Anat. Rec. 290,123
-139.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yu, H. M., Jerchow, B., Sheu, T. J., Liu, B., Costantini, F.,
Puzas, J. E., Birchmeier, W. and Hsu, W. (2005). The role of
Axin2 in calvarial morphogenesis and craniosynostosis.
Development 132,1995
-2005.
Zimmerman, K. A., Yancopoulos, G. D., Collum, R. G., Smith, R.
K., Kohl, N. E., Denis, K. A., Nau, M. M., Witte, O. N., Toran-Allerand, D.,
Gee, C. E. et al. (1986). Differential expression of myc
family genes during murine development. Nature
319,780
-783.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Related articles in Development:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Song, Y. Li, K. Wang, Y.-Z. Wang, A. Molotkov, L. Gao, T. Zhao, T. Yamagami, Y. Wang, Q. Gan, et al. Lrp6-mediated canonical Wnt signaling is required for lip formation and fusion Development, September 15, 2009; 136(18): 3161 - 3171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hu and R. S. Marcucio A SHH-responsive signaling center in the forebrain regulates craniofacial morphogenesis via the facial ectoderm Development, January 1, 2009; 136(1): 107 - 116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. He, W. Xiong, X. Yu, R. Espinoza-Lewis, C. Liu, S. Gu, M. Nishita, K. Suzuki, G. Yamada, Y. Minami, et al. Wnt5a regulates directional cell migration and cell proliferation via Ror2-mediated noncanonical pathway in mammalian palate development Development, December 1, 2008; 135(23): 3871 - 3879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. T. Chiquet, S. H. Blanton, A. Burt, D. Ma, S. Stal, J. B. Mulliken, and J. T. Hecht Variation in WNT genes is associated with non-syndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate Hum. Mol. Genet., July 15, 2008; 17(14): 2212 - 2218. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Pantalacci, A. Chaumot, G. Benoit, A. Sadier, F. Delsuc, E. J. P. Douzery, and V. Laudet Conserved Features and Evolutionary Shifts of the EDA Signaling Pathway Involved in Vertebrate Skin Appendage Development Mol. Biol. Evol., May 1, 2008; 25(5): 912 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
