|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online December 22, 2008
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/dev.024158
Review |
Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: cat24{at}bath.ac.uk)
SUMMARY
The developing limb has been a very influential system for studying pattern formation in vertebrates. In the past, classical embryological models have explained how patterned structures are generated along the two principal axes of the limb: the proximodistal (shoulder to finger) and anteroposterior (thumb to little finger) axes. Over time, the genetic and molecular attributes of these patterning models have been discovered, while the role of growth in the patterning process has been only recently highlighted. In this review, we discuss these recent findings and propose how the various models of limb patterning can be reconciled.
Introduction
The developing limb has long been a pioneering model for understanding pattern formation: the process in which the spatial organisation of differentiated cells and tissues is generated in the embryo. One aspect of limb development that has perplexed several generations of researchers is the importance of growth. This might appear to be a trivial problem because growth occurs throughout the period when pattern is laid down and so, in the broadest sense, it is obviously required for development. However, controversy surrounds whether growth is required for the actual specification of pattern.
Pattern formation can be considered as a two-step process; first cells are
informed of their position and, thus, acquire a positional value
(specification); cells then remember and interpret this value to form the
appropriate structures (differentiation)
(Wolpert, 1969
). In the
developing chick leg, specification cues can be experimentally overridden
until quite a late stage, leading to altered differentiation and
morphogenesis, thus revealing remarkable developmental plasticity
(Dahn and Fallon, 2000). Three
main scenarios for the role of growth in pattern formation have been suggested
and can be illustrated by the classical French flag model
(Wolpert, 1969;
Wolpert, 1989). In one
scenario, growth itself is proposed to specify positional values directly
(Fig. 1A). In another, local
growth generates positional values by intercalating existing disparate
positional values, as seen in regenerating amphibian limbs
(French et al., 1976)
(Fig. 1B). In the third
scenario, growth is proposed to play no direct patterning role, but simply to
expand positional values that have already been specified by a different
mechanism, such as a concentration gradient of a long-range morphogen
(Fig. 1C).
Studies of the genetic basis of some human congenital limb defects, such as
Apert syndrome (Wilkie et al.,
1995) and preaxial polydactyly (PPD)
(Lettice et al., 2002) have
complemented experimental findings in the main model organisms, the chick and
the mouse. However, in order to understand the relationship between genotype
and phenotype, we need to have a better grasp of the basic patterning
mechanisms that operate during limb development, knowledge that could be
incorporated into our current models of embryonic pattern formation. Thus, it
is encouraging that several recent papers on limb development propose
patterning models in which growth features as an integral component
(Towers et al., 2008;
Zhu et al., 2008;
Mariani et al., 2008). These
findings will be the focus of this review.
An overview of chick and mouse limb development
The three main axes of the vertebrate limb are: the proximodistal (PD),
running in the human arm from shoulder to digits; the anteroposterior (AP),
from thumb to the little finger; and dorsoventral (DV), from the back of the
hand to the palm. Much of the classical work on vertebrate limb development
has been carried out in chicken embryos because the developing wing and leg
are easy to access. More recently, mice have emerged as powerful models in
which to study limb patterning, owing to the ability to manipulate gene
function in a spatially and temporally regulated manner in the limb
(Logan et al., 2002). The main
stages of chick wing and mouse forelimb development are similar, and it has
been usual to extrapolate findings between these models
(Martin, 1990;
Fernandez-Teran et al., 2006);
however, there are some differences, which are highlighted in
Fig. 2.
The chick wing and the mouse forelimb skeleton have the typical vertebrate plan with three main regions along the PD axis, humerus, radius/ulna and digits together with a variable number of wrist elements (not shown). In the chick wing, there are only three digits across the AP axis, rather than five digits, as in the mouse forelimb (Fig. 2A).
The first visible signs of limb development are small bulges, called limb buds, which grow out of either side of the body wall at appropriate levels (Fig. 2B). The early bud consists of a meshwork of apparently homogeneous undifferentiated mesenchymal cells covered with ectoderm. Chick wing buds have a translucent rim due to the thickened ectoderm known as the apical ectodermal ridge (AER). This thickened AER is required for bud outgrowth, and develops about a day later in the mouse forelimb. As the bud elongates, the mouse limb forms a relatively broader hand plate than the chick wing, and cells near the body wall begin to differentiate into various specialised tissues, while cells at the bud tip remain undifferentiated. It takes 7 days after wing buds first appear (about 5 days in the mouse forelimb) for the complete skeleton to been laid down, with the humerus forming first and the digits last.
Detailed cell-marking experiments in chick wing buds have shown that, in
addition to the pronounced outgrowth that occurs along the PD axis, there is
also considerable expansion of the posterior region of the bud across the AP
axis (Vargesson et al., 1997).
Thus, the posterior-distal region of the early wing bud forms the digits,
whereas the anterior-distal half contributes to more proximal structures. In
the chick wing, there is also non-uniform expansion of the AER, with the
posterior part expanding more than the anterior part
(Vargesson et al., 1997).
Fate-mapping of the mouse forelimb bud also shows that the posterior part
contributes more to digit development than does the anterior part
(Muneoka et al., 1989). These
localised differences in chick and mouse limb bud expansion cannot readily be
related to cellular behaviour because most cells are proliferating
(Fernandez-Teran et al.,
2006). There are, however, indications that cell cycle times may
be slower in the anterior region of the chick wing than in the posterior
region (Cairns, 1977), thus
potentially contributing to differential expansion. Apoptosis is not thought
to influence overall limb bud growth in either mouse or chick, to any large
extent, and, where present, is concentrated in restricted areas. In the early
chick wing bud, cell death occurs in the anterior and posterior necrotic zones
(Saunders and Gasseling,
1962), and might be associated with the relatively narrow hand
plate of the chick wing compared with the mouse forelimb
(Fernandez-Teran et al.,
2006). In mouse forelimb buds, there is also a region of cell
death at the anterior margin but no posterior necrotic zone
(Fernandez-Teran et al.,
2006).
|
In the 1970s, experiments on chick wing buds produced two classical models
of limb development (see Boxes
1 and
2). In the progress zone model,
growth was suggested to have a direct role in progressively specifying PD
positional values (Summerbell et al.,
1973) (see Fig. 1A;
Box 1), whereas in the
morphogen gradient model, a morphogen gradient was proposed to specify AP
values in the early bud, which are then `remembered' throughout subsequent
growth (Tickle et al., 1975)
(see Fig. 1C;
Box 2). DV patterning involves
signals from both dorsal and ventral ectoderm
(MacCabe et al., 1974), but as
there appears to be relatively little growth along this axis, it will not be
considered further here [for recent insights into DV patterning see Arques et
al. (Arques et al., 2007),
which reports an unexpected cell lineage-restricted compartment boundary that
separates dorsal and ventral mesenchyme in the mouse limb bud].
Even in simple models of limb development, the relationship between
patterning and growth can be complex. Thus, it will take time for a diffusible
morphogen to set up a gradient, and cells will have to adjust constantly to
changing morphogen concentrations. Furthermore, the fact that the limb bud is
continuously growing complicates the specification of positional values, and
growth may actually play a key role in determining the size of the field over
which a morphogen operates (see later). Additionally, another way of setting
up a morphogen concentration gradient is by RNA or protein decay over time in
a growing tissue, thus leading to short-range signals with long-range effects
(Dubrulle and Pourquie, 2004).
In the following sections, we consider the involvement of growth in PD and AP
patterning of the developing limb.
| Box 1. The development of the classical progress zone model
The classical progress zone model proposes that, as the limb bud grows out
under the influence of signalling from the apical ectodermal ridge (AER),
proximodistal (PD) positional values are specified progressively by the length
of time cells spend in an undifferentiated region at the bud tip called the
progress zone (Summerbell et al.,
1973
In 1973, Dennis Summerbell and colleagues reported that transplanting the
undifferentiated tip of an early chick wing bud to the stump of a late wing
bud, or transplanting a late bud tip to an early stump, resulted in
duplications or deletions, respectively, thus showing that the limb bud tip
behaves autonomously, a key finding for the progress zone model
(Summerbell et al., 1973
|
Proximodistal patterning
The progress zone model of chick wing PD patterning
The progress zone model for patterning the PD axis emerged as a result of
many embryological experiments on chick wing buds in the 1970s
(Box 1;
Fig. 3A). It had been known for
a long time that the AER is required for limb bud outgrowth and for the
accompanying sequential proximal-to-distal differentiation of skeletal
elements (Fig. 3A)
(Saunders, 1948). It was also
known that the removal of the AER at different stages of wing development
causes truncations that progressively become more distally restricted the
later the operation is performed (Fig.
3A). It was, however, experiments in which transplanted tips of
chick wing buds were shown to develop autonomously that led to the idea that
the length of time that undifferentiated mesenchymal cells spend proliferating
at the tip of the limb - in a region known as the progress zone - specifies PD
positional values (Summerbell et al.,
1973). It was suggested that these values are generated over time
by a `clock-like' mechanism and become fixed when cells are displaced from the
progress zone (Fig. 3A). It was
calculated using data from AER removal experiments that this timing mechanism
could be linked to the cell cycle because seven cell generations are required
to lay down a complete chick wing skeleton, about one cell generation for each
element, if one includes the two carpal bones in the wrist and the three
phalanges of digit 3 (Lewis,
1975). Thus, in the classical progress zone model, specification
of PD pattern depends on growth, timing and length of exposure of a population
of undifferentiated mesenchyme cells to a permissive AER signal
(Fig. 3A).
|
). The
recent data assembled in support of the early specification model can,
however, be accommodated by the progress zone model
(Tickle and Wolpert, 2002).
Thus, for example, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the cell
death that accompanies AER removal leads to the loss of cells that have
already been specified to form distal structures (indicated by crosses in
Fig. 3A) or to the loss of the
progress zone. Furthermore, the results of fate-mapping experiments that
suggest that cell lineage-restricted compartments might exist along the PD
axis, a finding used to support the early specification model, have not been
confirmed (Pearse et al.,
2007; Sato et al.,
2007). Therefore, it is not yet clear whether the progress zone
model of PD limb patterning should be abandoned for the early specification
model. Indeed, a progress zone model is currently favoured to explain how
somites are generated along the main body axis
(Dale and Pourquie, 2000). One
limitation of the early specification model is that it does not explain how
the pattern is set up in the early limb bud. | Box 2. Experimental evidence for the morphogen gradient model of
anteroposterior patterning
The morphogen gradient model proposes that the polarizing region, a group
of mesenchyme cells at the posterior limb bud margin (see
Fig. 2D), produces a diffusible
morphogen that establishes a concentration gradient across the anteroposterior
(AP) axis. According to this model, cells nearest the polarizing region will
be exposed to high morphogen concentrations and form posterior digits, whereas
cells further away, exposed to increasingly lower concentrations, form
progressively more anterior digits (Tickle
et al., 1975
Saunders and Gasseling discovered the polarizing region or zone of
polarizing activity (ZPA) (Saunders and
Gasseling, 1968
Grafts of X-irradiated polarizing regions
(Smith et al., 1978
In the 1980s, it was suggested that intercalation, involving local
cell-cell interactions, could explain digit duplications produced by
polarizing region grafts (Iten et al.,
1981
|
In summary, embryological approaches have yielded two strikingly different models of PD patterning. In the following sections, we discuss how these models stand up in light of recent genetic and molecular advances in our understanding of AER signalling.
The molecular/genetic basis of PD patterning
A simple experiment in chick wing buds, in which an FGF-soaked bead rescued
wing bud outgrowth and PD patterning in the absence of the AER, showed that
AER signalling is mediated by FGFs
(Niswander et al., 1993). It
was later found that an FGF-soaked bead applied to the inter-limb region of an
early chick embryo can induce the development of a complete limb
(Cohn et al., 1995).
|
)
(Fig. 2C,D). Fgf8 is
expressed throughout the entire AP extent of the AER, from the earliest bud
stages up until limb outgrowth is completed, whereas three other FGFs -
Fgf4, Fgf9, Fgf17 - are expressed for a shorter period of time and
are initially more posteriorly restricted. Mesenchymal signals control these
patterns of FGF gene expression in the AER
(Laufer et al., 1994;
Niswander et al., 1994), and
this could account for the fact that, in embryological experiments, old and
young AERs are interchangeable (Rubin and
Saunders, 1972) (Box
1).
According to both progress zone and early specification models, FGFs
secreted from the AER into the underlying mesenchyme mediate outgrowth along
the PD axis and maintain the region of undifferentiated cells at the tip of
the limb bud. The function of FGF signalling in mouse limb outgrowth has been
tested directly by conditionally inactivating each of the FGF genes that are
expressed in the AER. When Fgf8 is functionally inactivated
(Lewandoski et al., 2000;
Moon and Cappechi, 2000), bud
outgrowth is reduced and some digits are lost, whereas functional inactivation
of the other FGFs expressed in the AER has no affect on limb development
(Colvin et al., 2001;
Moon et al., 2000;
Sun et al., 2000;
Xu et al., 2000). However,
when both Fgf4 and Fgf8 are inactivated together at the
earliest stages of bud outgrowth, limb development fails, although, when
inactivated together slightly later, proximal apoptosis occurs, followed by
loss of proximal structures (Sun et al.,
2002). Taken together with the loss of proximal structures in mice
limbs following targeted disruption of Plzf (Promyelocytic zinc
finger) and Gli3 (Gli/kruppel family member 3) transcription factor
(Barna et al., 2005), these
findings were used as support for the early specification model
(Sun et al., 2002).
The range over which FGF signalling extends from the AER is unclear because
although FGF8 protein can be visualised in the AER, it has not yet been
detected in the mesenchyme. Mkp3 (Map kinase phosphatase 3), a gene
encoding a dual specificity phosphatase that is a transcriptional target of
FGF (and which negatively regulates FGF signalling), is expressed in a
gradient along the PD axis in early wing buds
(Eblaghie et al., 2003).
Although mRNA decay may contribute to the distribution of Mkp3
transcripts in the limb (Pascoal et al.,
2007a), the extent of Mkp3 expression nevertheless
suggests that FGF signalling from the AER can exert long-range effects on the
underlying limb mesenchyme. Other genes expressed at the tip of the limb bud
include the Msx1 (muscle segment homeobox1) gene, which encodes a
transcription factor that, in other contexts, including regenerating newt
limbs, keeps cells in an undifferentiated state
(Crews et al., 1995). It has
also recently been shown that the gene Hairy2, which encodes a
component of the somitogenesis clock, is expressed in an intriguing
oscillatory fashion in cells at the tip of the chick wing bud
(Pascoal et al., 2007b). The
identification of further molecular clock genes would clearly support the
progress zone model, although, as mentioned earlier, the periodicity of the
cell cycle still provides another plausible timing mechanism.
A major question in the field concerns the identities of genes that are
expressed in response to positional cues in different regions of the limb bud
and then govern the development of that particular part of the pattern. Meis
genes, which encode TALE-homeodomain proteins, are candidate factors for
proximal limb identity that might control subsequent humerus development
(Mercader et al., 2000),
whereas genes that occupy 5' positions in the Hoxa and
Hoxd clusters are candidate distal identity factors that govern
subsequent digit development (Zakany and
Duboule, 2007). The expression patterns of these genes are
established in early chick wing buds, with FGF signalling from the AER being
required to maintain Hoxa13 and Hoxd13 expression distally,
and retinoic acid (RA) signalling at the base of the bud maintaining Meis
expression proximally. The overexpression of Meis genes in distal areas of
chick limb buds inhibits the development of distal structures
(Mercader et al., 2000),
whereas knocking out Hoxd13 and Hoxa13 together in mice
leads to loss of digits (Fromental-Ramain
et al., 1996). Careful cell marking experiments in chick wing buds
have indicated, however, that, as the bud grows out, some cells that express
Hoxd13 early on become displaced from the tip and cease to express
Hoxd13 (Vargesson et al.,
1997). This behaviour is difficult to reconcile with the early
specification model, but also seems at odds with the idea that cells become
progressively more distal in character over time. One interpretation of these
data is that distal cells become progressively proximalised during limb bud
outgrowth.
In addition to the gene products mentioned above that are implicated as
determinants of proximal and distal limb differentiation, the product of the
Shox (short stature homeobox containing) gene might govern
intermediate limb differentiation. Mutations that affect Shox gene
function are responsible for short stature in individuals with Turner syndrome
and for the disproportionate shortening of the arm, particularly involving the
radius/ulna, in individuals with Leri-Weill and Langer syndromes
(Blaschke and Rappold, 2006).
In chick wing buds, Shox is expressed in an intermediate region where
it overlaps Meis expression proximally. This expression pattern could
be explained by the fact that Shox is inhibited by distal FGF and by
proximal RA signals (Tiecke et al.,
2006).
In summary, significant progress has been made in identifying the molecules involved in PD limb patterning but this has not clarified whether this process is best explained in terms of the progress zone or early specification model. In fact, in the next section we describe how the dissection of FGF genetics in the mouse limb has led to an alternative model that, again, has classical roots.
The intercalation model of mouse PD patterning
The classical model for PD patterning in regenerating limbs involves
intercalary growth (Maden,
1980) (Fig. 1B). In
a recent paper, it has been suggested that intercalation might be involved in
establishing PD positional values in the early mouse limb bud
(Mariani et al., 2008)
(Fig. 3B). Gail Martin and
colleagues have used conditional gene targeting in mice to delete
painstakingly FGF-encoding genes (Fgf4, Fgf8, Fgf9, Fgf17)
specifically in the AER, singly and also in double and triple combinations
(Mariani et al., 2008). This
analysis shows that Fgf8 can support normal forelimb development in
the absence of Fgf4, Fgf9 and Fgf17. When FGF signalling was
then titrated genetically, by knocking out Fgf8 function together
with, in turn, that of Fgf17, Fgf9 or Fgf4, and by making
Fgf4/Fgf8 conditional knockouts that were heterozygous for
Fgf9 function, mouse embryos were produced that had progressively
smaller limb buds, which developed into forelimbs with correspondingly fewer
skeletal elements (Mariani et al.,
2008). First, digits were lost, and, in some cases, forearm
elements too, although all elements of PD pattern were still represented. With
further reduction in FGF function in
Fgf4-/-/Fgf8-/-/Fgf9+/- conditional
knockouts, forelimbs developed that had a reduced humerus and lacked a radius
and ulna, but still had a digit-like structure at the distal tip. In
Fgf4-/-/Fgf8-/-/Fgf9-/- conditional
knockouts, no limb structures formed. This series of limb morphologies
contrasts with the progressively more proximal truncations that are predicted
by both early specification and progress zone models
(Fig. 3A). A similar phenotype
in which distal structures form in the absence of proximal structures was
obtained when cell death was induced throughout chick wing buds by X
irradiation (Wolpert et al.,
1979). This was interpreted in terms of the progress-zone model
because surviving cells would spend longer in the progress zone in order to
repopulate it and thus become distalized. However, in FGF-deficient mouse
limbs, this phenotype is not easy to correlate with the distribution and
timing of cell death (Mariani et al.,
2008). Instead, it is proposed that loss of forearm structures in
Fgf4-/-/Fgf8-/-/Fgf9+/- conditional
knockouts is due to loss of intermediate positional values that are normally
intercalated by local growth, between proximal positional values specified by
RA and distal positional values specified by FGFs. Because the role of FGFs in
this model is to specify just the distal structures, the authors propose that
AER signalling should be considered to be instructive rather than
permissive.
As mentioned above, in the intercalation model for amphibian limb
regeneration, it is the juxtaposition of cells with disparate positional
values that generates local growth to restore the missing intermediate
positional values (Maden,
1980). However, an intercalation model does not appear to apply to
the chick limb because there is little regulation along the PD axis. Thus, for
example, when the distal tip of an early wing bud is grafted to a proximal
stump of an older wing bud, the intermediate part of the pattern is not
produced (Summerbell et al.,
1973) [but see also Kieny
(Kieny, 1977)]. Some
regulation can occur at very early stages of wing development when slices are
cut out of the PD axis, but this regulative ability rapidly declines as the
bud develops (Summerbell,
1977). The intercalation model for the mouse forelimb, however,
predicts that the intermediate pattern is specified at a later stage of limb
development than are the distal and proximal patterns.
In summary, there is still uncertainty as to how the PD limb pattern is specified. There could be differences in patterning mechanisms between different species that could reflect, for example, their regulative capacities, as well as overlap between seemingly opposing models. However, in the next section, we describe how such considerations based on seemingly conflicting data might yield a unified model of AP limb patterning.
Anteroposterior patterning
Classical morphogen model of chick wing AP patterning
A landmark discovery by Saunders and Gasseling was the discovery of the
polarizing region, a classical organiser located at the posterior margin of a
chick wing bud, which induces a new pattern of digits in mirror-image symmetry
to the normal pattern when grafted to the anterior margin of another wing bud
(Saunders and Gasseling, 1968)
(see Box 2). The discovery of
the polarizing region paved the way for a series of embryological experiments,
which, over the next decade, yielded results consistent with a model in which
AP positional values are specified by a gradient of a long-range morphogen
(Box 2). The number and
identity of the induced digits was shown to depend on both the strength
(Smith et al., 1978;
Tickle, 1981) and duration
(Smith, 1980) of the
polarizing signal (Box 2).
These studies showed that only an additional digit 2 forms when the number of
polarizing region cells is reduced or if the polarizing region is removed
early. It should be noted that it was proposed that a morphogen gradient might
act on a digit pre-pattern, which is specified by a wave-like distribution of
a morphogen generated by a reaction-diffusion mechanism
(Turing, 1952). One of the
pieces of evidence favouring this is the formation of digits in chick limb
reaggregates in which the mesenchymal cells from the limb buds were
disaggregated into single cells and then placed inside a normal ectodermal
jacket (Pautou, 1973)
(reviewed by Wolpert, 1989).
The morphogen gradient model was briefly challenged in the 1980s by the
suggestion that local cell-cell interactions and intercalation might account
for the digit duplications produced by polarizing region grafts
(Iten et al., 1981)
(Box 2).
The width of the bud and the length of the AER is a good indicator of the
number of digits that form. Several experiments on the chick wing in the 1970s
and 1980s indicated that the polarizing region might directly control
mesenchymal cell proliferation while the digits are being specified
(Cooke and Summerbell, 1980;
Smith and Wolpert, 1981)
(Box 2). Enhanced mesenchymal
proliferation was detected prior to the extension of the overlying AER
following a polarizing graft to the anterior margin
(Cooke and Summerbell, 1980).
Thus, growth and specification were considered to be controlled by the same or
by different signals emanating from the polarizing region
(Summerbell, 1981). This
proposal gained support when it was found that instead of a fully duplicated
digit pattern (432234), anterior digits were lost (4334 or 434) when AP
expansion was inhibited following a polarizing region graft to the anterior
margin, although the mechanism by which this occurred was unclear
(Smith and Wolpert, 1981).
Thus, a direct role for growth in specification of AP positional values
remained speculative until the molecular basis of AP patterning began to be
revealed.
|
). RA,
however, was the first defined chemical found to have polarizing activity
(Tickle et al., 1982);
RA-soaked beads implanted at the anterior margins of chick wings induce
full-digit duplications with the same characteristics as polarizing region
grafts (Tickle et al., 1985).
RA is proposed to be involved in proximal limb formation through the
regulation of Meis gene expression
(Mercader et al., 2000), and
its effects on AP pattern are possibly mediated via the transcriptional
activation of Shh (Riddle et al.,
1993). Consistent with the classical morphogen model of AP
patterning, Shh protein can be directly detected away from the polarizing
region in mouse limb buds (Gritli-Linde et
al., 2001) and is indirectly detected via patched 1
(Ptch1) transcripts (Ptch1 encodes the Shh receptor), which
are expressed very rapidly in response to Shh signalling in the chick wing
(Marigo and Tabin, 1996). Shh
signalling has been shown to specify AP positional values with the time and
dose dependency of polarizing region grafts
(Yang et al., 1997).
Fate-mapping experiments in chick wing buds have demonstrated that the
prospective digit progenitor cells can be `promoted' to more-posterior digit
fates following a longer exposure to Shh signalling
(Yang et al., 1997). Bone
morphogenetic protein (BMP) signalling is implicated in this promotion of AP
positional values downstream of Shh signalling in the chick wing bud
(Drossopoulou et al.,
2000).
Again, as for the PD axis, the identity of genes that determine the
development of the different digits remains a major question. Evidence
suggests that 5' Hoxd genes might play a role in patterning this axis,
especially at hand plate stages (Zakany
and Duboule, 2007). Other candidates include members of the Tbox
(Tbx) family and the vertebrate Sall orthologues of the
Drosophila Spalt genes. The overexpression of either Tbx2 or
Tbx3, which are expressed in stripes both anteriorly and posteriorly
in chick and mouse limb buds, posteriorizes toes in chick legs
(Suzuki et al., 2004).
Furthermore, mutations that affect the function of TBX3 and
SALL1 and SALL4 genes underlie congenital digital
abnormalities in humans (Sweetman and
Munsterberg, 2006).
Integrated growth and specification model of chick wing AP patterning
A recent growth/morphogen model of chick wing patterning suggests that
growth plays an essential role in the specification of positional values in
the early bud and that both processes are controlled and integrated by Shh
signalling (Towers et al.,
2008) (Fig. 4A).
This study showed that Shh regulates the high-level expression of several
genes that encode regulators of S-phase entry, including N-myc and cyclins
D1/2 in the digit-forming region of the early wing bud, both in polarizing
region cells, which give rise to digit 4, and in adjacent posterior cells,
which give rise to digits 2 and 3. It was already known that posterior digits
are lost when Shh signalling is inhibited by cyclopamine (an inhibitor of
smoothened, which activates the Shh signalling pathway)
(Scherz et al., 2007), but
this more recent study showed that loss of posterior digits was caused by a
combination of reduced AP growth and specification
(Fig. 4B)
(Towers et al., 2008).
Importantly, fate maps of cyclopamine-treated chick limbs revealed that all
prospective digit progenitors contributed to the anterior elements that
formed. By contrast, transient inhibition of AP growth, either by
overexpressing the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor
p21cip1, or by applying mitotic inhibitors, including
trichostatin A (TSA), resulted in loss of anterior digits
(Towers et al., 2008)
(Fig. 4C). In such wings,
posterior specification was inhibited during growth arrest but continued for
the normal duration after outgrowth recovered. However, AP expansion of the
digit-forming field failed to recover following growth arrest, and
fate-mapping showed this entire cell population contributed to the remaining
posterior structures, often a single digit 4. These findings demonstrate that
Shh normally promotes AP expansion and specification of the digit-forming
field, which together determine digit number and identity in the chick wing
(Fig. 4A).
In the next sections, we discuss how models of AP patterning derived in the chick wing stand up in the light of results derived from genetic studies in the mouse.
Genetics of mouse limb AP patterning
Many of the fundamental concepts of mouse digit AP patterning originate in
embryological studies undertaken in the chick wing. For example, grafts of
tissue from the posterior of the mouse limb to the anterior of chick wing buds
can induce a full set of chick wing digits
(Tickle et al., 1976). The
simplest model that accounts for these results is that a gradient of
polarizing activity patterns mouse digits, as it does in the chick wing.
However, it is becoming evident that mouse AP limb patterning is much more
complicated than chick AP wing patterning, not least because the mouse has
five digits rather than three. The complete inactivation of Shh in
the mouse results in the loss of all digits in the forelimb and of all but the
most anterior digit (digit 1) in the hindlimb, which is therefore considered
to be independent of Shh (Chiang et al.,
1996). The same pattern of digit loss is also seen in the chick
mutant, oligozeugodactyly, which lacks Shh function in the wing and
leg (Ros et al., 2003). The
inactivation of Gli3 alone and of Shh and Gli3
together causes many unpatterned digits to form
(Litingtung et al., 2002;
te Welscher et al., 2002).
Gli3 is one of the transcriptional effectors of Shh signalling, and Shh
signalling prevents its activator form (Gli3A) from being processed into its
repressor form (Gli3R). This shows that the function of Shh in controlling
digit number and identity is achieved principally by repressing Gli3R activity
in the posterior part of the limb bud that forms the digits. The precise
balance of Gli3A and Gli3R may provide the basis for the graded response to
Shh signalling. The generation of many unpatterned digits is also consistent
with the proposed digit pre-pattern (see earlier).
The above findings, although contributing highly important molecular insights, have not revealed the mechanism by which the AP axis of the mouse limb is patterned. However, recent conditional gene-targeting approaches have yielded two strikingly different models of AP patterning of the mouse digits, which we discuss below.
Temporal expansion model of mouse limb AP patterning
Recent conditional gene-targeting approaches in mice have been designed to
follow the descendants of polarizing region cells and to manipulate the
duration, dose and range of Shh signalling in the mouse limb. In one study
(Harfe et al., 2004), which
invokes a new timing mechanism for the patterning of the most posterior mouse
digits (Fig. 5A), the lineages
of Shh-expressing cells were traced using an inducible lacZ
reporter line (ShhGFPCre/+,R26R/+), revealing that these cells
progressively contribute to part of digit 3 and to the two most-posterior
digits (4 and 5). This contrasts with the chick wing, in which polarizing
region descendants contribute only to digit 4
(Towers et al., 2008).
Furthermore, the formation of posterior mouse digits does not appear to depend
on Shh diffusion because only digit 2 was lost when long-range Shh signalling
was severely reduced following the inactivation of the dispatched 1
(Disp1) gene (Disp1 is responsible for transporting
cholesterol-modified Shh) (Harfe et al.,
2004) (Fig. 5B).
This suggests that the development of the three most-posterior digits in the
mouse limb occurs by a mechanism that is related to the proliferation of the
polarizing region cell lineage, rather than being specified by the highest
levels of Shh signalling. Thus, proliferation could provide a timing mechanism
by which polarizing cells become committed to different posterior digit fates.
Although these fate-mapping studies do not actually reveal when digit
identities are specified, the fact that three digits derive from the same
population of cells suggests a requirement for an extended period of
proliferation (Fig. 5A).
Shh is expressed for around 60 h in the mouse limb and could underpin
such a mechanism (Fig. 2C).
This is considerably longer than the 24 h exposure to Shh signalling required
to specify the full set of AP values in the chick wing
(Yang et al., 1997)
(Fig. 4A). It has also recently
been shown that posterior digits still form in limbs of
Shhgfpcre/Shhc mice, in which levels of long-range Shh
signalling are reduced but in which Shh is expressed for the normal
length of time, although in such limbs, digit 2 is absent
(Scherz et al., 2007).
Together, these data strongly suggest that, in the mouse limb, a specification gradient of Shh patterns anterior digits and that the length of time that proliferating polarizing region cells are exposed to direct Shh signalling patterns the posterior digits. It remains to be seen whether Shh signalling from the polarizing region also controls the growth of the adjacent digit-forming field in the mouse limb as in the chick wing (see earlier) and thus whether the growth-morphogen model outlined above for the chick wing applies to mouse anterior digits.
Biphasic model of mouse AP limb patterning
The temporal requirements of Shh signalling for mouse digit patterning have
now been tested in further careful experiments in which Shh function has been
rapidly inactivated at different stages using an inducible Hoxb6CreER
line (Zhu et al., 2008). The
outcome of these experiments forms the basis of a new biphasic model, in which
Shh specifies digits at the very earliest stages of limb development (possibly
by a concentration gradient) and then is required as a mitogen for the
progressive formation of individual digits
(Fig. 5C). This study reported
that only two digits form following a 3-hour pulse of Shh
transcription in the hindlimb (which provides 9 hours of Shh activity, as
assessed by Ptch1 expression) and following 9 hours in the forelimb
(15 hours Shh activity). In such limbs, the digits that formed were digit 1
and, unexpectedly, digit 4. A longer period of Shh signalling permitted other
digits to form in the alternating sequence, digit 2, digit 5 and then digit 3
(Fig. 5C). Strikingly, using
Sox9 and Noggin knock-in alleles to drive lacZ
expression, the authors observed that the cartilage condensation of each digit
differentiates in the same order, i.e., digit 4, digit 2, digit 5 and finally
digit 3. The exception is the condensation of digit 1, which appears last, but
forms after a short pulse of Shh expression in the forelimb. It
should be noted, however, that other accounts of mouse limb development
suggest that digit 5 forms after digit 3
(Martin, 1990).
This interdigitating pattern of digit condensation does not fit with the expected anterior-to-posterior sequence of specification, which is pivotal to all other models of AP patterning. Instead, the authors suggest that digit morphogenesis relies on Shh-dependent proliferation allowing sufficient numbers of specified cells to survive to form a condensation. This could explain why cells that require the shortest duration of Shh-dependent proliferation form the cartilage condensation of digit 4, the digit that differentiates first (Fig. 5C). Thus, in this biphasic model, the authors suggest that the control of digit identity and number are temporally uncoupled and that Shh signalling acts first as a morphogen and then second as a growth-promoting factor.
Early or late specification of posterior digits in the mouse limb?
The temporal and biphasic models of AP mouse limb patterning are clearly at
odds with each other; the major issue concerns the duration of Shh
expression required to specify the posterior digits. The identification of
digit 4, which underpins the biphasic model, and the use of Tbx3
expression to identify posterior digits have been recently challenged
(Tabin and McMahon, 2008),
highlighting the problems of not being able to identify unequivocally mouse
digits. There is clearly an urgent need to identify molecular markers for
individual digits (if they exist) to aid the interpretation of patterning
defects, and to provide insights into digit evolution.
|
), but as
the loss of digits 3 and 5 by others (Zhu
et al., 2008). The first interpretation fits with the temporal
model because a much longer time would be required to specify digit 4; the
second with the biphasic model, because digit 4 would have been specified
earlier.
The temporal and biphasic models of mouse digit patterning are not readily
reconciled with the growth-morphogen model of chick wing digit patterning. For
example, there is no evidence that the posterior digits of the chick wing are
specified by a temporal expansion mechanism controlled only by the duration of
polarizing region signalling because a morphogen gradient still best explains
the specification of digit 4, the posterior-most digit (see
Box 2). Additionally, there
appears to be no evidence that a correlation exists between the duration of
Shh signalling required to specify a digit and the order in which cartilage
condensations appear, as predicted by the biphasic model. For example, in
chick limbs, digit 4 requires the longest exposure to Shh signalling to be
specified (Yang et al., 1997;
Scherz et al., 2007), and yet
its cartilage condensations appear first
(Hinchliffe, 1977).
Furthermore, in lizards such as Ambystoma mexicanum, digit 4 requires
the longest exposure to Shh to be specified, and yet its cartilage
condensations appear last (Stopper and
Wagner, 2007).
Alternating specification model of mouse limb AP patterning
One common theme underpinning the biphasic and temporal models of mouse
digit patterning is the fundamental concept of the anterior-to-posterior
sequence of digit specification that is inherited from chick limb studies. For
the biphasic model, it is assumed that because a digit 4 can form after only
2-3 hours of Shh transcription, more-anterior positional values have
already been specified, but are not then realised. Likewise, in the temporal
model, as digit 4 is derived from Shh-expressing cells, it is also
assumed that more anterior digits have been specified much earlier. It is
possible, however, that two separate processes - a growth-morphogen mechanism
for digits 2-3, like that proposed for the chick wing, and a temporal
expansion mechanism for digits 4-5 - occur simultaneously, leading to an
alternating sequence of mouse digit specification
(Fig. 5D). Thus, in the mouse
hindlimb, early descendants of Shh-expressing cells might be
specified as a digit 4 at around the same time that the Shh morphogen
concentration specifies a positional value for digit 2. Later descendants of
Shh-expressing cells might be specified as a digit 5 at around the
same time that the Shh morphogen concentration specifies a positional value of
digit 3 (Fig. 5D). This
interpretation fits with the results that led to the biphasic model, while
avoiding the assumption that all the digits are specified very early. In
addition, the alternating specification model agrees well with the suggestion
that the two digits that are missing in forelimbs of the
Prx1Cre;Shhc/c mice are digits 3 and 5 (see earlier).
One test of the idea that two separate interdigitating processes, both
involving growth, specify AP pattern would be to challenge developing mouse
limbs with cell cycle inhibitors, such as TSA. In fact, the anticonvulsant
drug, valproic acid (valproate), which is a deacetylase inhibitor like TSA
(Phiel et al., 2001) and which
causes the loss of anterior digits in the chick wing
(Whitsel et al., 2002), can
cause the loss of an anterior digit, that could either be digit 2 or 3, but
also the loss of a posterior digit, digit 4 in the mouse forelimb
(Faiella et al., 2000). The
reduced AP expansion of both the digit field and the polarizing region at an
early stage could result in these two unexpanded cell populations giving rise
to the highest possible posterior values if the normal duration of
specification is maintained (digit 3 and digit 5, respectively) (compare
Fig. 5E with TSA chick wing
model in Fig. 4C).
Interestingly, inactivation of the N-myc gene (Mycn) in
mouse limbs reduces AP expansion and leads to digit fusions
(Ota et al., 2007). It is
possible that, in such limbs, cell proliferation was not reduced sufficiently
to cause loss of digits. Additionally, the most common clinical affect on the
limb following loss of N-myc function in individuals with Feingolds's syndrome
(van Bokhoven et al., 2005) is
fusion of the second and third, and also fourth and fifth toes
(Brunner and Winter, 1991).
This again suggests that two independent growth processes are affected: one
operating in the anterior part of the limb bud, the other in the posterior
part. Individuals with Feingolds's syndrome sometimes also lose the thumb
(Alessandri et al., 2000),
consistent with the effects of valproate on the hands of babies whose mothers
were exposed to this drug during pregnancy and also with the effects of
valproate and TSA on chick wings (as discussed earlier).
Integrating patterning along the proximodistal and anteroposterior axes
Although we have considered the specification and growth of each axis as
independent processes, it has long been known that they are integrated, and
the molecular basis of this integration has recently been identified. Early
evidence that specification along the AP and PD axes is integrated came from
the finding that the duplicating effects that polarizing region grafts have on
AP patterning become more distally restricted the later the operation is
performed (Summerbell, 1974).
The finding that the polarizing region has to be grafted in contact with the
AER to induce the formation of additional digits provided further evidence
that the patterning of the AP and PD axes is integrated. In turn, the
polarizing region maintains the AER, via the production of a maintenance
factor (Zwilling and Hansborough,
1956). It is now known that FGF signalling in the posterior AER,
in particular by FGF4, transcriptionally regulates Shh expression in
the polarizing region and that Shh signalling maintains Fgf4
expression in the AER, thus forming a positive-feedback loop
(Niswander et al., 1994;
Laufer et al., 1994). However,
it should be noted that genetic experiments in mice show that Shh is
still expressed in the absence of Fgf4, Fgf9 and Fgf17 when
Fgf8 is present. A landmark finding was that the AER maintenance
factor is a BMP antagonist, encoded by the Gremlin gene
(Zuniga et al., 1999). Shh
signalling by the polarizing region maintains mesenchymal Gremlin
expression and activity, which in turn prevents BMPs from repressing
Fgf4 expression in the posterior AER.
It remains unclear how the AER is involved in promoting the AP expansion of
the posterior part of the bud. In the chick wing, recent experiments show that
Shh can induce the expression of cell cycle genes in the anterior mesenchyme
in the absence of the AER (Towers et al.,
2008). Indeed, recent work in the mouse limb shows that loss of
individual digits results when the function of posteriorly expressed FGFs is
progressively deleted in combination with Fgf8 function before any PD
structures are completely lost (Mariani et
al., 2008). Previous cell labelling experiments in the chick wing
have shown that groups of proliferating mesenchymal cells extend towards an
FGF4-soaked bead (Li and Muneoka,
1999). Therefore, one possibility is that FGF4 signalling (and
that of other FGFs) in the posterior AER, as well as being involved in limb
outgrowth and maintaining the progress zone, also acts an external cue that
informs mesenchymal cells about the direction in which they should
proliferate. The ability of cells to proliferate towards sources of signals
might be under the control of the planar cell polarity (PCP) pathway, which
has not been investigated in limb development. Interestingly, Wnt5a
and genes that encode other components of the PCP pathway are expressed in
mesenchyme cells at the tip of the limb bud
(Yamaguchi et al., 1999).
A recent focus of attention has been how Shh expression is
terminated in the developing limb. This is particularly important in light of
recent models of AP digit patterning in the mouse, which suggest that
posterior digits are specified by the length of time that cells express
Shh. The first hint that growth itself may fulfil an important role
in regulating the duration of Shh transcription came from the
observation that considerable tissue expansion occurs in the posterior region
of chick wing buds where the FGF4-Shh feedback loop operates. It was suggested
that descendants of the polarizing region are unable to express
Gremlin in response to Shh signalling
(Scherz et al., 2004). Thus,
it was proposed that expansion of the posterior part of the chick wing bud
displaces the Gremlin-expressing domain too far away from the
polarizing region to be maintained by Shh signalling, thus leading to the
de-repression of BMP signalling (Scherz et
al., 2004). As a result, Fgf4 expression would not be
maintained in the posterior AER, and this, in turn, would switch off
Shh transcription, thus terminating the feedback loop. It is not
clear, however, whether descendants of the polarizing region in the chick wing
make a sufficiently significant contribution to AP expansion for this
mechanism to operate, because the polarizing region only contributes to digit
4 (Towers et al., 2008). In
Fgf4 overexpressing mouse limbs, the duration of Shh
expression is extended and the limbs exhibit postaxial polydactyly (extra
posterior digits) (Lu et al.,
2006). This finding can be explained in terms of the alternating
specification model of mouse AP patterning, because if posterior proliferation
is extended, extra digits would be predicted to develop. Another parallel
extrinsic mechanism has recently been proposed to account for the termination
of the Shh expression loop in both chick and mice limbs, in which
Gremlin transcription is repressed by the progressive accumulation of
FGF signalling during development
(Verheyden and Sun, 2008).
Recent work in the chick wing suggests that intrinsic mechanisms might
control the duration of Shh signalling in the polarizing region
(Towers et al., 2008) because
in TSA-treated wings, which fail to expand significantly across the AP axis,
Shh transcription was terminated after the normal duration of about
38 hours in proliferating cells (Towers et
al., 2008). This strongly suggests that in the absence of AP
growth, an intrinsic mechanism operates that counts elapsed polarizing region
cell generations, as outgrowth continues proximodistally. It should be noted
that the termination of Shh expression occurs at the early hand plate
stage and that Fgf8 expression throughout the AER continues and is
responsible for the outgrowth of digits. Therefore, termination of
Fgf8 transcription, and thus termination of limb outgrowth, occurs
independently of FGF4-Shh signalling
(Sanz-Ezquerro and Tickle,
2003).
Conclusions
In this review, we have outlined how models of limb patterning have grown over time. It is important that the results of older embryological investigations and of newer molecular studies are unified. Towards this aim, we have highlighted the pivotal role of growth, a component of many classical models that is being re-evaluated in the light of recent molecular advances and models of limb development. However, although many inroads have been made towards understanding how the limb is patterned, our knowledge of this process is still quite fragmentary, and many of the proposed models remain controversial. It is likely that the principles that govern the patterning of the limb axes are shared among species, but that subtle differences also exist, reflecting evolutionary changes in skeletal organisation, particularly in digit number and identity.
Footnotes
The authors are supported by the Royal Society (C.T.) and the Medical Research Council (C.T. and M.T.).
REFERENCES
Alessandri, J. L., Graber, D., Tiran-Rajaofera, I., Montbrun,
A., Pilorget, H., Samperiz, S., Attali, T. and de Napoli-Cocci, S.
(2000). Feingold syndrome. Arch. Pediatr.
7, 637-640.[CrossRef][Medline]
Arques, C. G., Doohan, R., Sharpe, J. and Torres, M.
(2007). Cell tracing reveals a dorsoventral lineage restriction
plane in the mouse limb bud mesenchyme. Development
134,3713
-3722.
Barna, M., Pandolfi, P. P. and Niswander, L.
(2005). Gli3 and Plzf cooperate in proximal limb patterning at
early stages of limb development. Nature
436,277
-281.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blaschke, R. J. and Rappold, G. (2006). The
pseudoautosomal regions, SHOX and disease. Curr. Opin. Genet.
Dev. 16,233
-239.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brunner, H. G. and Winter, R. M. (1991).
Autosomal dominant inheritance of abnormalities of the hands and feet with
short palpebral fissures, variable microcephaly with learning disability, and
oesophageal/duodenal atresia. J. Med. Genet.
28,389
-394.
Cairns, J. M. (1977). Growth of normal and
talpid wing buds an experimental analysis. In Vertebrate Limb and
Somite Morphogenesis (ed. D. A. Ede, R. Hinchliffe and M. J.
Balls), pp. 123-127. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Chiang, C., Litingtung, Y., Lee, E., Young, K. E., Corden, J.
L., Westphal, H. and Beachy, P. A. (1996). Cyclopia and
defective axial patterning in mice lacking Sonic hedgehog gene function.
Nature 383,407
-413.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cohn, M. J., Izpisua-Belmonte, J. C., Abud, H., Heath, J. K. and
Tickle, C. (1995). Fibroblast growth factors induce
additional limb development from the flank of chick embryos.
Cell 80,739
-746.[CrossRef][Medline]
Colvin, J. S., White, A. C., Pratt, S. J. and Ornitz, D. M.
(2001). Lung hypoplasia and neonatal death in Fgf9-null mice
identify this gene as an essential regulator of lung mesenchyme.
Development 128,2095
-2106.
Cooke, J. and Summerbell, D. (1980). Cell cycle
and experimental pattern duplication in the chick wing during embryonic
development. Nature 287,697
-701.[CrossRef][Medline]
Crews, L., Gates, P. B., Brown, R., Joliot, A., Foley, C.,
Brockes, J. P. and Gann, A. A. (1995). Expression and
activity of the newt Msx-1 gene in relation to limb regeneration.
Proc. Biol. Sci. 259,161
-171.
Dahn, R. D. and Fallon, J. F. (2000).
Interdigital regulation of digit identity and homeotic transformation by
modulated BMP signaling. Science
289,438
-441.
Dale, K. J. and Pourquie, O. (2000). A
clock-work somite. BioEssays
22, 72-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
Drossopoulou, G., Lewis, K. E., Sanz-Ezquerro, J. J., Nikbakht,
N., McMahon, A. P., Hofmann, C. and Tickle, C. (2000). A
model for anteroposterior patterning of the vertebrate limb based on
sequential long- and short-range Shh signalling and Bmp signalling.
Development 127,1337
-1348.[Abstract]
Dubrulle, J. and Pourquie, O. (2004). fgf8 mRNA
decay establishes a gradient that couples axial elongation to patterning in
the vertebrate embryo. Nature
427,419
-422.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dudley, A. T., Ros, M. A. and Tabin, C. J.
(2002). A re-examination of proximodistal patterning during
vertebrate limb development. Nature
418,539
-544.[CrossRef][Medline]
Eblaghie, M. C., Lunn, J. S., Dickinson, R. J., Munsterberg, A.
E., Sanz-Ezquerro, J. J., Farrell, E. R., Mathers, J., Keyse, S. M., Storey,
K. and Tickle, C. (2003). Negative feedback regulation of FGF
signaling levels by Pyst1/MKP3 in chick embryos. Curr.
Biol. 13,1009
-1018.[CrossRef][Medline]
Faiella, A., Wernig, M., Consalez, G. G., Hostick, U., Hofmann,
C., Hustert, E., Boncinelli, E., Balling, R. and Nadeau, J. H.
(2000). A mouse model for valproate teratogenicity: parental
effects, homeotic transformations, and altered HOX expression. Hum.
Mol. Genet. 9,227
-236.
Fernandez-Teran, M. A., Hinchliffe, J. R. and Ros, M. A.
(2006). Birth and death of cells in limb development: a mapping
study. Dev. Dyn. 235,2521
-2537.[CrossRef][Medline]
French, V., Bryant, P. J. and Bryant, S. V.
(1976). Pattern regulation in epimorphic fields.
Science 193,969
-981.
Fromental-Ramain, C., Warot, X., Messadecq, N., LeMeur, M.,
Dolle, P. and Chambon, P. (1996). Hoxa-13 and Hoxd-13 play a
crucial role in the patterning of the limb autopod.
Development 122,2997
-3011.[Abstract]
Gritli-Linde, A., Lewis, P., McMahon, A. P. and Linde, A.
(2001). The whereabouts of a morphogen: direct evidence for
short- and graded long-range activity of hedgehog signaling peptides.
Dev. Biol. 236,364
-386.[CrossRef][Medline]
Harfe, B. D., Scherz, P. J., Nissim, S., Tian, H., McMahon, A.
P. and Tabin, C. J. (2004). Evidence for an expansion-based
temporal Shh gradient in specifying vertebrate digit identities.
Cell 118,517
-528.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hinchliffe, J. R. (1977). The chondrogenic
pattern in chick limb morphogenesis: a problem of development and evolution.
In Vertebrate Limb and Somite Morphogenesis (ed. D. A.
Ede, J. R. Hinchliffe and M. Balls), pp. 293-309.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Honig, L. S. (1981). Positional signal
transmission in the developing chick limb. Nature
291, 72-73.[CrossRef][Medline]
Iten, L. E., Murphy, D. J. and Javois, L. C.
(1981). Wing buds with three ZPAs. J. Exp.
Zool. 215,103
-106.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kieny, M. (1977). Proximo distal pattern
formation in avian limb development. In Vertebrate Limb and Somite
Morphogenesis (ed. D. A. Ede, R. Hinchliffe and M. J. Balls), pp.87
-103. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Laufer, E., Nelson, C. E., Johnson, R. L., Morgan, B. A. and
Tabin, C. (1994). Sonic hedgehog and Fgf-4 act through a
signaling cascade and feedback loop to integrate growth and patterning of the
developing limb bud. Cell
79,993
-1003.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lettice, L. A., Horikoshi, T., Heaney, S. J., van Baren, M. J.,
van der Linde, H. C., Breedveld, G. J., Joosse, M., Akarsu, N., Oostra, B. A.,
Endo, N. et al. (2002). Disruption of a long-range cis-acting
regulator for Shh causes preaxial polydactyly. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA 99,7548
-7553.
Lewandoski, M., Sun, X. and Martin, G. R.
(2000). Fgf8 signalling from the AER is essential for normal limb
development. Nat. Genet.
26,460
-463.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lewis, J. H. (1975). Fate maps and the pattern
of cell division: a calculation for the chick wing-bud. J. Embryol.
Exp. Morphol. 33,419
-434.[Medline]
Li, S. and Muneoka, K. (1999). Cell migration
and chick limb development: chemotactic action of FGF-4 and the AER.
Dev. Biol. 211,335
-347.[CrossRef][Medline]
Litingtung, Y., Dahn, R. D., Li, Y., Fallon, J. F. and Chiang,
C. (2002). Shh and Gli3 are dispensable for limb skeleton
formation but regulate digit number and identity.
Nature 418,979
-983.[CrossRef][Medline]
Logan, M., Martin, J. F., Nagy, A., Lobe, C., Olson, E. N. and
Tabin, C. J. (2002). Expression of Cre Recombinase in the
developing mouse limb bud driven by a Prxl enhancer.
Genesis 33,77
-80.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lu, P., Minowada, G. and Martin, G. R. (2006).
Increasing Fgf4 expression in the mouse limb bud causes polysyndactyly and
rescues the skeletal defects that result from loss of Fgf8 function.
Development 133,33
-42.
MacCabe, J. A., Errick, J. and Saunders, J. W., Jr
(1974). Ectodermal control of the dorsoventral axis in the leg
bud of the chick embryo. Dev. Biol.
39, 69-82.[Medline]
Maden, M. (1980). Intercalary regeneration in
the amphibian limb and the rule of distal transformation. J.
Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 56,201
-209.[Medline]
Mariani, F. V., Ahn, C. P. and Martin, G. R.
(2008). Genetic evidence that FGFs have an instructive role in
limb proximal-distal patterning. Nature
453,401
-405.[CrossRef][Medline]
Marigo, V. and Tabin, C. J. (1996).
Conservation in hedgehog signaling: induction of a chicken patched homolog by
Sonic hedgehog in the developing limb. Development
122,1225
-1233.[Abstract]
Martin, G. R. (1998). The roles of FGFs in the
early development of vertebrate limbs. Genes Dev.
12,1571
-1586.
Martin, P. (1990). Tissue patterning in the
developing mouse limb. Int. J. Dev. Biol.
34,323
-336.[Medline]
Mercader, N., Leonardo, E., Piedra, M. E., Martinez, A. C., Ros,
M. A. and Torres, M. (2000). Opposing RA and FGF signals
control proximodistal vertebrate limb development through regulation of Meis
genes. Development 127,3961
-3970.[Abstract]
Moon, A. M. and Capecchi, M. R. (2000). Fgf8 is
required for outgrowth and patterning of the limbs. Nat.
Genet. 26,455
-459.[CrossRef][Medline]
Moon, A. M., Boulet, A. M. and Capecchi, M. R.
(2000). Normal limb development in conditional mutants of Fgf4.
Development 127,989
-996.[Abstract]
Muneoka, K., Wanek, N. and Bryant, S. V.
(1989). Mammalian limb bud development: in situ fate maps of
early hindlimb buds. J. Exp. Zool.
249, 50-54.[CrossRef][Medline]
Niswander, L., Tickle, C., Vogel, A., Booth, I. and Martin, G.
R. (1993). FGF-4 replaces the apical ectodermal ridge and
directs outgrowth and patterning of the limb. Cell
75,579
-587.[CrossRef][Medline]
Niswander, L., Jeffrey, S., Martin, G. R. and Tickle, C.
(1994). A positive feedback loop coordinates growth and
patterning in the vertebrate limb. Nature
371,609
-612.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ota, S., Zhou, Z. Q., Keene, D. R., Knoepfler, P. and Hurlin, P.
J. (2007). Activities of N-Myc in the developing limb link
control of skeletal size with digit separation.
Development 134,1583
-1592.
Pascoal, S., Andrade, R. P., Bajanca, F. and Palmeirim, I.
(2007a). Progressive mRNA decay establishes an mkp3 expression
gradient in the chick limb bud. Biochem. Biophys. Res.
Commun. 352,153
-157.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pascoal, S., Carvalho, C. R., Rodriguez-Leon, J., Delfini, M.
C., Duprez, D., Thorsteinsdottir, S. and Palmeirim, I.
(2007b). A molecular clock operates during chick autopod
proximal-distal outgrowth. J. Mol. Biol.
368,303
-309.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pautou, M. P. (1973). Morphogenesis of the feet
of birds using interspecific cellular mixtures. I. Morphological study.
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
29,175
-196.[Medline]
Pearse, R. V., 2nd, Scherz, P. J., Campbell, J. K. and Tabin, C.
J. (2007). A cellular lineage analysis of the chick limb bud.
Dev. Biol. 310,388
-400.[CrossRef][Medline]
Phiel, C. J., Zhang, F., Huang, E. Y., Guenther, M. G., Lazar,
M. A. and Klein, P. S. (2001). Histone deacetylase is a
direct target of valproic acid, a potent anticonvulsant, mood stabilizer, and
teratogen. J. Biol. Chem.
276,36734
-36741.
Riddle, R. D., Johnson, R. L., Laufer, E. and Tabin, C.
(1993). Sonic hedgehog mediates the polarizing activity of the
ZPA. Cell 75,1401
-1416.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ros, M. A., Dahn, R. D., Fernandez-Teran, M., Rashka, K.,
Caruccio, N. C., Hasso, S. M., Bitgood, J. J., Lancman, J. J. and Fallon, J.
F. (2003). The chick oligozeugodactyly (ozd) mutant lacks
sonic hedgehog function in the limb. Development
130,527
-537.
Rubin, L. and Saunders, J. W., Jr (1972).
Ectodermal-mesodermal interactions in the growth of limb buds in the chick
embryo: constancy and temporal limits of the ectodermal induction.
Dev. Biol. 28,94
-112.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sanz-Ezquerro, J. J. and Tickle, C. (2003). Fgf
signaling controls the number of phalanges and tip formation in developing
digits. Curr. Biol. 13,1830
-1836.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sato, K., Koizumi, Y., Takahashi, M., Kuroiwa, A. and Tamura,
K. (2007). Specification of cell fate along the
proximal-distal axis in the developing chick limb bud.
Development 134,1397
-1406.
Saunders, J. W. and Gasseling, M. T. (1968).
Ectodermal-mesenchymal interactions in the origin of limb symmetry. In
Mesenchymal-Epithelial Interactions (ed. R.
Fleichmeyer and R. E. Billingham), pp. 78-97.
Baltimore: Williams and Wilkin.
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.
282,628
-668.[CrossRef]
Saunders, J. W., Jr and Gasseling, M. T.
(1959). Effects of reorienting the wing-bud apex in the chick
embryo. J. Exp. Zool.
142,553
-569.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saunders, J. W., Jr and Gasseling, M. T.
(1962). Cellular death in morphogenesis of the avian wing.
Dev. Biol. 5,147
-178.[CrossRef][Medline]
Scherz, P. J., Harfe, B. D., McMahon, A. P. and Tabin, C. J.
(2004). The limb bud Shh-Fgf feedback loop is terminated by
expansion of former ZPA cells. Science
305,396
-399.
Scherz, P. J., McGlinn, E., Nissim, S. and Tabin, C. J.
(2007). Extended exposure to Sonic hedgehog is required for
patterning the posterior digits of the vertebrate limb. Dev.
Biol. 308,343
-354.[CrossRef][Medline]
Smith, J. C. (1980). The time required for
positional signalling in the chick wing bud. J. Embryol. Exp.
Morphol. 60,321
-328.[Medline]
Smith, J. C. and Wolpert, L. (1981). Pattern
formation along the anteroposterior axis of the chick wing: the increase in
width following a polarizing region graft and the effect of X-irradiation.
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
63,127
-144.[Medline]
Smith, J. C., Tickle, C. and Wolpert, L.
(1978). Attenuation of positional signalling in the chick limb by
high doses of gamma-radiation. Nature
272,612
-613.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stopper, G. F. and Wagner, G. P. (2007).
Inhibition of Sonic hedgehog signaling leads to posterior digit loss in
Ambystoma mexicanum: parallels to natural digit reduction in urodeles.
Dev. Dyn. 236,321
-331.[CrossRef][Medline]
Summerbell, D. (1974). Interaction between the
proximo-distal and anteroposterior co-ordinates of positional value during the
specification of positional information in the early development of the chick
limb-bud. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
32,227
-237.[Medline]
Summerbell, D. (1977). Regulation of the
deficiencies along the proximal distal axis of the chick wing-bud: a
quantitative analysis. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
41,137
-159.[Medline]
Summerbell, D. (1981). The control of growth
and the development of pattern across the anteroposterior axis of the chick
limb bud. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
63,161
-180.[Medline]
Summerbell, D., Lewis, J. H. and Wolpert, L.
(1973). Positional information in chick limb morphogenesis.
Nature 244,492
-496.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sun, X., Lewandoski, M., Meyers, E. N., Liu, Y. H., Maxson, R.
E., Jr and Martin, G. R. (2000). Conditional inactivation of
Fgf4 reveals complexity of signalling during limb bud development.
Nat. Genet. 25,83
-86.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sun, X., Mariani, F. V. and Martin, G. R.
(2002). Functions of FGF signalling from the apical ectodermal
ridge in limb development. Nature
418,501
-508.[CrossRef][Medline]
Suzuki, T., Takeuchi, J., Koshiba-Takeuchi, K. and Ogura, T.
(2004). Tbx genes specify posterior digit identity through Shh
and BMP signaling. Dev. Cell
6, 43-53.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sweetman, D. and Munsterberg, A. (2006). The
vertebrate spalt genes in development and disease. Dev.
Biol. 293,285
-293.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tabin, C. J. and McMahon, A. P. (2008).
Developmental biology. Grasping limb patterning.
Science 321,350
-352.
te Welscher, P., Zuniga, A., Kuijper, S., Drenth, T., Goedemans,
H. J., Meijlink, F. and Zeller, R. (2002). Progression of
vertebrate limb development through SHH-mediated counteraction of GLI3.
Science 298,827
-830.
Tickle, C. (1981). The number of polarizing
region cells required to specify additional digits in the developing chick
wing. Nature 289,295
-298.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tickle, C. and Wolpert, L. (2002). The progress
zone - alive or dead? Nat. Cell Biol.
4,E216
-E217.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tickle, C., Summerbell, D. and Wolpert, L.
(1975). Positional signalling and specification of digits in
chick limb morphogenesis. Nature
254,199
-202.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tickle, C., Shellswell, G., Crawley, A. and Wolpert, L.
(1976). Positional signalling by mouse limb polarising region in
the chick wing bud. Nature
259,396
-397.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tickle, C., Alberts, B., Wolpert, L. and Lee, J.
(1982). Local application of retinoic acid to the limb bud mimics
the action of the polarizing region. Nature
296,564
-566.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tickle, C., Lee, J. and Eichele, G. (1985). A
quantitative analysis of the effect of all-trans-retinoic acid on the pattern
of chick wing development. Dev. Biol.
109, 82-95.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tiecke, E., Bangs, F., Blaschke, R., Farrell, E. R., Rappold, G.
and Tickle, C. (2006). Expression of the short stature
homeobox gene Shox is restricted by proximal and distal signals in chick limb
buds and affects the length of skeletal elements. Dev.
Biol. 298,585
-596.[CrossRef][Medline]
Towers, M., Mahood, R., Yin, Y. and Tickle, C.
(2008). Integration of growth and specification in chick wing
digit-patterning. Nature
452,882
-886.[CrossRef][Medline]
Turing, A. M. (1952). The chemical basis of
morphogenesis. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol.
Sci. 237,37
-72.
van Bokhoven, H., Celli, J., van Reeuwijk, J., Rinne, T.,
Glaudemans, B., van Beusekom, E., Rieu, P., Newbury-Ecob, R. A., Chiang, C.
and Brunner, H. G. (2005). MYCN haploinsufficiency is
associated with reduced brain size and intestinal atresias in Feingold
syndrome. Nat. Genet.
37,465
-467.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vargesson, N., Clarke, J. D., Vincent, K., Coles, C., Wolpert,
L. and Tickle, C. (1997). Cell fate in the chick limb bud and
relationship to gene expression. Development
124,1909
-1918.[Abstract]
Verheyden, J. M. and Sun, X. (2008). An
Fgf/Gremlin inhibitory feedback loop triggers termination of limb bud
outgrowth. Nature 454,638
-641.[CrossRef][Medline]
Whitsel, A. I., Johnson, C. B. and Forehand, C. J.
(2002). An in ovo chicken model to study the systemic and
localized teratogenic effects of valproic acid.
Teratology 66,153
-163.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wilkie, A. O., Slaney, S. F., Oldridge, M., Poole, M. D.,
Ashworth, G. J., Hockley, A. D., Hayward, R. D., David, D. J., Pulleyn, L. J.,
Rutland, P. et al. (1995). Apert syndrome results from
localized mutations of FGFR2 and is allelic with Crouzon syndrome.
Nat. Genet. 9,165
-172.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wolpert, L. (1969). Positional information and
the spatial pattern of cellular formation. J. Theor.
Biol. 25,1
-47.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wolpert, L. (1989). Positional information
revisited. Development 107Suppl., 3-12.
Wolpert, L. and Hornbruch, A. (1987).
Positional signalling and the development of the humerus in the chick limb
bud. Development 100,333
-338.
Wolpert, L., Tickle, C. and Sampford, M.
(1979). The effect of cell killing by x-irradiation on pattern
formation in the chick limb. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
50,175
-193.[Medline]
Xu, J., Liu, Z. and Ornitz, D. M. (2000).
Temporal and spatial gradients of Fgf8 and Fgf17 regulate proliferation and
differentiation of midline cerebellar structures.
Development 127,1833
-1843.[Abstract]
Yamaguchi, T. P., Bradley, A., McMahon, A. P. and Jones, S.
(1999). A Wnt5a pathway underlies outgrowth of multiple
structures in the vertebrate embryo. Development
126,1211
-1223.[Abstract]
Yang, Y., Drossopoulou, G., Chuang, P. T., Duprez, D., Marti,
E., Bumcrot, D., Vargesson, N., Clarke, J., Niswander, L., McMahon, A. et
al. (1997). Relationship between dose, distance and time in
Sonic Hedgehog-mediated regulation of anteroposterior polarity in the chick
limb. Development 124,4393
-4404.[Abstract]
Zakany, J. and Duboule, D. (2007). The role of
Hox genes during vertebrate limb development. Curr. Opin. Genet.
Dev. 17,359
-366.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zhu, J., Nakamura, E., Nguyen, M. T., Bao, X., Akiyama, H. and
Mackem, S. (2008). Uncoupling Sonic hedgehog control of
pattern and expansion of the developing limb bud. Dev.
Cell 14,624
-632.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zuniga, A., Haramis, A. P., McMahon, A. P. and Zeller, R.
(1999). Signal relay by BMP antagonism controls the SHH/FGF4
feedback loop in vertebrate limb buds. Nature
401,598
-602.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zwilling, E. and Hansborough, L. (1956).
Interactions between limb bud ectoderm and mesoderm in the chick embryo. III.
Experiments with polydactylous limbs. J. Exp. Zool.
132,219
-239.[CrossRef]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. F. Bastida, R. Sheth, and M. A. Ros A BMP-Shh negative-feedback loop restricts Shh expression during limb development Development, November 15, 2009; 136(22): 3779 - 3789. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
60
hours) but does not require a concentration gradient of Shh protein. Digit 3
(dark blue) can be specified by a combination of the above processes, as
depicted. (B) Temporal expansion model in dispatched 1 (Disp1)
mutant limbs (Harfe et al.,
2004