|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online February 6, 2009
doi: 10.1242/10.1242/dev.017178
Review |
1 Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children and Departments of
Molecular Genetics, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Toronto, 555
University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada.
2 Embryology Unit, Children's Medical Research Institute and Faculty of
Medicine, University of Sydney, Locked Bag 23, Wentworthville, NSW 2145,
Australia.
E-mails: janet.rossant{at}sickkids.ca; ptam{at}cmri.usyd.edu.au
SUMMARY
The investigation into lineage allocation and early asymmetries in the pre- and peri-implantation mouse embryo is gaining momentum. As we review here, new insights have been gained into the cellular and molecular events that lead to the establishment of the three lineages of the blastocyst, to the determination of the origin and the fates of the visceral endoderm in the peri-implantation mouse embryo, and to the generation of cellular and molecular activities that accompany the emergence of asymmetries in the pre-gastrulation embryo. We also discuss the continuing debate that surrounds the relative impacts of early lineage bias versus the stochastic allocation of cells with respect to the events that pattern the blastocyst and initiate its later asymmetries.
Introduction
The progression of the mammalian embryo from fertilization to gastrulation involves an ordered series of lineage specifications and axial asymmetries (Fig. 1) that result, first, in the development of the blastocyst (see Glossary, Box 1), with its embryonic-abembryonic axis (Fig. 1; Box 2), and, later, in the formation of the embryo itself, with its anterior-posterior (AP), dorsal-ventral (DV) and left-right (LR) axes. In many invertebrates and vertebrates, asymmetries that are established in the egg correlate with the segregation of determinants that influence later lineage formation and axis development. However, in the mouse egg, the morphological asymmetries that exist, such as the position of the second polar body (see Glossary, Box 1) and the sperm entry point, do not clearly demarcate an asymmetric domain of, for example, signaling activity or of cell fate determinants in the fertilized mouse egg. Whether there is any instructive relationship between the asymmetry of the egg and the later asymmetry of the blastocyst and lineage allocation remains a controversial issue. It is well known that the pre-implantation mammalian embryo is highly regulative and resistant to the loss or addition of cells brought about by experimental manipulations. However, this does not preclude the existence of an, as yet, uncharacterized property that could bias developmental outcomes in the intact embryo.
Whether any early asymmetries in the mouse egg and/or blastocyst relate to the orientation of the definitive body axes is even less certain. It is now clear that the AP patterning of the gastrulating embryo is initiated prior to gastrulation by spatially localized signals that emanate from regionally patterned extra-embryonic tissues. Some of these asymmetries may be set up as early as the blastocyst stage, linking pre-implantation patterning to post-implantation morphogenesis.
Here, we review recent experiments that define the molecular components of lineage specification in the mouse blastocyst. We also review the ongoing uncertainty and debate that surrounds the relative importance of early cleavage patterns at the two- to four-cell stage and of symmetric versus asymmetric divisions at the eight- to 16- and 16- to 32-cell stage, and the importance of final cell position in the late morula/early blastocyst for blastocyst lineage specification for the positioning of the blastocyst cavity (the blastocoel) and for the establishment of the embryonic-abembryonic axis of the blastocyst. Our critical review of the current data supports a stochastic model of lineage specification, in which cell-cell interactions and position effects reinforce and can override any underlying cell fate bias.
The asymmetries that are observed in the post-implantation development of the visceral endoderm (see Glossary, Box 1) that lead up to gastrulation are now well defined and strongly hint at the emergence of the prospective AP body axis prior to the onset of gastrulation. However, a definitive link between the asymmetries in the pre-gastrula embryo and the morphological and tissue asymmetries displayed earlier in the blastocyst has still not been established. Here, we also review the findings of recent experimental studies that help to define the events that initiate early axial patterning in the post-implantation mouse embryo.
Lineage allocation in the blastocyst
The mouse blastocyst, immediately before implantation, consists of three distinct cell groups: the trophectoderm (TE); the epiblast, which is derived from the earlier inner cell mass (ICM); and the primitive endoderm. Only the epiblast gives rise to the embryo itself, whereas the other two cell types give rise to extra-embryonic structures that support the intra-uterine development of the embryo and act as signaling sources to pattern the embryonic tissues prior to gastrulation.
Although pluripotent embryonic stem cells (ES cells) can be obtained from
the epiblast of the blastocyst, other progenitor cells lines that self-renew
in culture can also be derived from the blastocyst, such as trophoblast stem
(TS) cells, which retain properties of the trophectoderm (see Glossary,
Box 1)
(Tanaka et al., 1998
), and the
XEN cells, which retain properties of the primitive endoderm
(Kunath et al., 2005). ES
cells can be converted to TS or XEN-like cells by altering the expression of
appropriate transcription factors, providing a good assay for the
identification of key lineage-specific factors. As we discuss below, recent
progress has been made in identifying the transcription factors that specify
the blastocyst lineages and their derived stem cells.
Lineage-specific transcription factors and trophectoderm specification
Cdx2, a caudal-related homeodomain protein, is a key regulator of the
trophectoderm lineage. The expression of Cdx2 in ES cells induces
them to differentiate into trophoblast, and to acquire the properties of TS
cells (Niwa et al., 2005). In
the embryo itself, Cdx2 begins to be expressed around the eight-cell
stage and gradually becomes restricted and upregulated in the outside cells of
the morula ahead of blastocyst formation
(Dietrich and Hiiragi, 2007;
Ralston and Rossant, 2008). A
loss-of-function Cdx2 mutation has no impact on the initiation of
blastocyst formation (Strumpf et al.,
2005), and Cdx2 mutant cells are not excluded from the TE
layer in chimeric blastocysts (Ralston and
Rossant, 2008), but in embryos carrying this mutation, the outer
epithelium of the blastocyst loses morphological integrity and the cells do
not undergo further trophoblast differentiation
(Strumpf et al., 2005). A
mutation in Eomes, a T-box transcription factor, also arrests
blastocyst development but at a slightly later stage than is found in
Cdx2 mutants (Russ et al.,
2000; Strumpf et al.,
2005). Eomes expression is reduced in Cdx2
mutants but Cdx2 is still expressed in Eomes mutants,
placing the Eomes transcription factor downstream of Cdx2
(Ralston and Rossant, 2008;
Strumpf et al., 2005).
|
; Yagi et al.,
2007). Tead4 mutants show a slightly more severe
phenotype than do Cdx2 mutants and fail to maintain Cdx2
expression, placing TEAD4 currently at the top of the TE genetic hierarchy.
However, unlike Cdx2, Tead4 expression is not restricted to the TE
lineage during pre-implantation development, making it difficult to reconcile
this observation with the notion of TEAD4 having an instructive role in TE
lineage specification. In Drosophila and mammalian cells, TEAD
factors can only activate transcription in combination with a co-activator,
Yorkie (Yki) in Drosophila or Yap (Yes-associated protein) in mammals
(Vassilev et al., 2001;
Zhao et al., 2008). The
availability of nuclear-localized Yap could be the limiting factor in
activating TEAD-dependent TE lineage specification. As such, an analysis of
YAP protein localization during cleavage could be informative. As
Tead4 mutants have a more severe phenotype than do Cdx2 and
Eomes mutants, TEAD may activate parallel downstream pathways that
are independent of Cdx2/Eomes to specify TE fate. Clearly, the transcription
factor networks that drive TE formation are still not fully understood.
Prior to blastocyst formation, TE-specific factors such as Cdx2 and Eomes
become restricted to the outside cells of the morula. However, the genes known
to be required for specifying the pluripotent cells of the ICM, namely
Oct4 (Nichols et al.,
1998), Sox2 (Avilion
et al., 2003; Nichols et al.,
1998) and Nanog
(Chambers et al., 2003;
Mitsui et al., 2003), are
expressed in every cell during cleavage, and are restricted to the ICM only
after blastocyst formation (Fig.
2A-D). This restriction depends on Cdx2. In Cdx2 mutants,
Oct4 and Nanog remain expressed in the TE
(Ralston and Rossant, 2008).
Thus blastocyst lineage specification begins with the activation of TE targets
and repression of ICM identity in outside cells. Later, the reciprocal
repression of TE targets by Oct4/Sox2/Nanog in the pluripotent lineages
(Loh et al., 2006;
Boyer et al., 2005), combined
with the known autoregulatory properties of the Oct4
(Chew et al., 2005) and Cdx
genes (Xu et al., 1999;
Beland et al., 2004), ensures
the maintenance of lineage identity. In order to understand the initiation of
lineage segregation at the blastocyst stage, we need to understand how factors
like Cdx2 become localized to the outside cells of the morula.
Polarity and position drive trophectoderm formation
It has long been proposed that the position of cells in the developing
embryo somehow influences their choice to become either ICM or TE. Initially
during cleavage, all blastomeres appear to be identical in their morphology
and potential, but at the eight-cell stage, the events of compaction and
polarization begin (Fig. 1; see
Glossary, Box 1)
(Fleming and Johnson, 1988;
Johnson and McConnell, 2004).
Concurrent with an increase in E-cadherin-dependent intercellular adhesion
(Johnson et al., 1986), cells
acquire an apical domain that is rich in proteins, such as the atypical
protein kinase C (aPKC) (Pauken and Capco,
2000), the polarity protein Par3
(Plusa et al., 2005a) and the
apical membrane protein ezrin (Louvet et
al., 1996). However, molecules such as Lgl (lethal giant larva
homolog) and the PAR polarity protein Par1 are localized exclusively in the
basolateral regions of each blastomere
(Vinot et al., 2005)
(Fig. 2D). Adherens junctions
and, later, tight junctions between cells
(Fleming et al., 1989)
separate the apical and basolateral domains of the blastomeres, resulting in
the formation of a polarized epithelium. As cells divide from the eight- to
16-cell stage and from the 16- to 32-cell stage, the outer cells retain this
polarized phenotype, whereas cells in the core of the cluster lose apical
features and become morphologically apolar
(Johnson and Ziomek, 1983).
The outside polarized epithelium goes on to form the TE, while the enclosed
apolar cells go on to form the ICM
(Johnson and Ziomek,
1983).
Apolar cells have been proposed to arise by asymmetric cell divisions, in
which some outer polarized cells divide such that only one daughter inherits
the apical pole, whereas the remaining cell will be apolar and take up an
internal position (Johnson and Ziomek,
1981). Symmetric divisions will generate two polar cells, which
will stay on the outside and end up in the outer TE epithelium. A recent study
that traced the complete cell lineages from the two-cell to the 32-cell stage
mouse embryo has confirmed that inside apolar cells and outside polar cells
can be generated from outside cells through two rounds of polarized cell
divisions, and that the final cell number of the ICM versus the TE is
determined by the proportion of inside to outside cells generated at each
round of division (Bischoff et al.,
2008). What is less clear at this time is whether the polarized
cell divisions that occur lead to the differential inheritance of lineage
determinants by daughters, which dictate their future fate. The specialized
apical polar region could control the orientation of the mitotic spindle, and
ensure the inheritance of localized determinants through asymmetric divisions,
in a manner analogous to the Drosophila neuroblast lineage
(Wodarz, 2005;
Yu et al., 2006). The lineage
tracing experiments just described identified a division as asymmetric or
symmetric based on the location of the daughter cells after mitosis, not based
on whether the anaphase plate was oriented perpendicularly or parallel to the
apical domain, or according to the differential inheritance of
fate-determining factors.
Could there be localized TE or ICM determinants that are segregated through
polarized cell divisions? There is a close association between the acquisition
of a polar phenotype and the upregulation of Cdx2 in outer cells
(Dietrich and Hiiragi, 2007;
Ralston and Rossant, 2008;
Suwinska et al., 2008).
However, there is no evidence that Cdx2 protein or any other TE lineage
transcription factor is subcellularly localized to the apical domain of the
polarized blastomere (Dietrich and
Hiiragi, 2007; Ralston and
Rossant, 2008). Nor is anything known about the basal localization
of known negative regulators of TE fate. A recent report that Cdx2
mRNA might be distributed asymmetrically to the polar regions in eight- and
16-cell blastomeres is intriguing
(Jedrusik et al., 2008) and
could provide a possible mechanism for the later rise in Cdx2 protein levels
in outside cells. However, it will be necessary to monitor carefully the
association of spindle plane orientation, inheritance of the polar region, the
inheritance of Cdx2 mRNA by inside/outside daughters and, most
crucially, the resultant protein distribution, before concluding that this is
the mechanism that initiates lineage specification.
|
It is worth remembering that Cdx2 is not at the top of the TE transcription
factor hierarchy and that its expression is not initially localized to outside
cells. Levels of Cdx2 and its local upregulation may depend on
post-translational events that regulate TEAD/Yap complex activity
(Reddy and Irvine, 2008). This
concept takes us back to the first hypothesis regarding ICM/TE
differentiation: the inside-outside hypothesis
(Tarkowski and Wroblewska,
1967). This hypothesis is founded on the idea that inside and
outside cells are in different micro-environments and could receive different
levels and/or types of signaling input, depending on their degree of contact
with other cells. Inside cells, by virtue of being surrounded by other cells,
might perceive signaling activity differently from the outside cells,
potentially leading to the post-translational modification of one or more key
regulator(s), such as Yap. According to this hypothesis, the generation of the
inside environment is the key factor to ensuring lineage segregation, rather
than the segregation of determinants through asymmetric cell divisions. The
formation of a polarized outer epithelium would still be important for
ensuring the integrity of such an internal niche.
Despite recent advances, the exact mechanisms that link cell polarity, cell position, the effects of the local micro-environment, signaling activity and cell fate in blastocyst formation remain to be determined.
Primitive endoderm formation: influence of position versus gene activity
Recently, there have been new insights into how cells within the ICM of the
blastocyst become segregated into the progenitors of the epiblast and
primitive endoderm. Whereas cell position drives cell fate in ICM and TE
formation, the converse appears to be true in epiblast versus primitive
endoderm specification in the ICM: cell fate precedes and helps drives cell
position. Until recently, it was thought that, at E3.5, all ICM cells were of
equivalent lineage potency, with the primitive endoderm layer then forming on
the surface of the ICM (Fig.
1G) by some ill-defined position-dependent mechanism. However,
individual E3.5 ICM cells show the exclusive expression of either
epiblast-specific genes (e.g. the transcription factor Nanog) or
primitive endoderm-specific genes (e.g. the transcription factors
Gata4 and Gata6) in a `salt and pepper' mosaic pattern prior
to the appearance of the primitive endoderm layer
(Chazaud et al., 2006;
Gerbe et al., 2008)
(Fig. 2C,D). Lineage tracing
and chimera analysis has shown that the descendants of individual E3.5 ICM
cells are primarily restricted in fate to one lineage or the other
(Chazaud et al., 2006). These
findings have led to a new model of epiblast/primitive endoderm formation that
is based on an initial mosaic of two lineage progenitors at E3.5, followed by
their sorting and relocation to the appropriate positions in the ICM by E4.5
(Fig. 1G)
(Rossant et al., 2003).
Evidence in support of this hypothesis also comes from a genome-wide
expression analysis that shows that individual E3.5 ICM cells fall into two
cohorts, one that is enriched for the expression of epiblast genes and the
other enriched for primitive endoderm-specific genes
(Kurimoto et al., 2006). One
of the genes identified as being upregulated in the primitive endoderm cohort
is Pdgfra, which encodes the platelet-derived growth factor receptor
. Plusa et al. (Plusa et al.,
2008) followed the expression of Pdgfra-histone 2B
(H2B)-green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion protein to visualize the
allocation of the primitive endoderm in live embryos. They found that
Pdgfra-H2B was initially co-expressed in some ICM cells with epiblast
factors such as Nanog. However, by E3.5, the expression of epiblast and
endoderm genes became non-overlapping among the ICM cells. Videomicroscopy
showed that Pdgfra-positive cells on the luminal surface of the ICM
remained in place, whereas Pdgfra-positive cells that were embedded
within the ICM relocated to the superficial position, or were eliminated by
apoptosis, culminating in a sharp separation of epiblast and primitive
endoderm by E4.5 (Plusa et al.,
2008).
|
)
(Fig. 2D). Grb2 is an adaptor
protein that links receptor tyrosine kinase activation to the downstream
Ras-MAP kinase signaling pathway in a number of different contexts. In the
absence of Grb2, no primitive endoderm forms and all cells of the ICM
express Nanog (Fig.
2C) and are epiblast in character. It is likely that fibroblast
growth factor (FGF) signaling is involved in primitive endoderm development
upstream of Grb2, based on known defects in primitive endoderm development in
FGF4 mutants (Feldman et al.,
1995) and on the expression patterns of FGF pathway components in
the early embryo (Arman et al.,
1998; Chai et al.,
1998). However, the exact timing and location of FGF action and
its relation to early lineage mosaicism is unclear. Although recent
experiments have suggested new ways of viewing the process of
epiblast/primitive endoderm formation, we still lack a coherent understanding
of: (1) the upstream mechanisms that lead to the initial mosaic pattern of
epiblast/primitive endoderm gene expression; (2) the exact relationship
between lineage restriction and gene expression; and (3) the pathways required
for cells to segregate correctly to their respective positions in the ICM. Mechanism of blastocyst axis formation
The formation of the blastocyst cell lineages essentially involves
transforming an indeterminate expression pattern of key lineage regulators
into a spatially restricted and regulated pattern, concomitant with the
evolving cellular properties of the blastomeres. It is not clear whether there
is a need for any kind of prepattern or lineage bias in early blastomeres to
achieve this end result. However, besides the divergence of cell lineages, the
blastocyst has other emergent properties. It has a clear embryonic-abembryonic
axis, which is defined by the position of the ICM on one side of the
blastocyst (Fig. 1F;
Box 2). The second polar body,
which takes up a position between the two blastomeres of the two-cell embryo
(Fig. 1B), remains associated
with the equator of the blastocyst (see
Fig. 4A). These observations
led to the suggestion that there might be some prepattern in early mouse
development that determines the embryonic-abembryonic axis of the blastocyst
(Gardner, 1997). Two studies
that used exogenous cell lineage tracers subsequently showed that the progeny
of one of the two-cell blastomeres have a strong tendency to contribute either
to the embryonic half or to the abembryonic half of the blastocyst
(Fujimori et al., 2003;
Piotrowska et al., 2001;
Plusa et al., 2005b).
There have been many studies that both support and refute that a
relationship exists between the cleavage pattern (and subsequent lineage) of
the first two blastomeres and the axis of the blastocyst (the so-called
lineage model), with a lively debate conducted in the literature and at
conferences on the relative technical merits of each successive study. Several
groups, using different strains of mice and different lineage-tracing
techniques, have not found any significant evidence that a relationship exists
between the position of the progeny of the individual two-cell blastomeres and
the embryonic-abembryonic axis (Alarcon and
Marikawa, 2003; Chroscicka et
al., 2004; Motosugi et al.,
2005). Time-lapse movies of mouse embryos developing within the
zona pellucida (see Glossary, Box
1) often show that they do not remain stationary but display
considerable movement during pre-blastocyst development
(Kurotaki et al., 2007;
Motosugi et al., 2005).
Because of this, time lapse lineage tracing has been used to observe the
preferential contribution of cells to the embryonic-abembryonic axis among a
fraction of embryos (Bischoff et al.,
2008). Indeed, the clearest indication that a relationship might
exist between the two-cell blastomere lineages and the embryonic-abembryonic
axis came from studies in which mouse embryos were embedded in alginate, which
inhibited the movement of blastomeres within the zona
(Gardner, 2001;
Fujimori et al., 2003). More
recent work by the Fujimori laboratory, in which the two-cell blastomeres and
their descendants were tracked over time in the living unconstrained embryo by
a UV-activated fluorescent protein marker, failed to replicate any
preferential contribution of the progeny of the two blastomeres to the
embryonic versus abembryonic regions of the blastocyst
(Kurotaki et al., 2007).
| Box 2. The embryonic-abembryonic axis of the blastocyst At the conclusion of pre-implantation development, the fully expanded mouse blastocyst is distinctively partitioned into two domains: one with the inner cell mass (ICM) and polar trophectoderm; and the other with the blastocoel enclosed by the mural trophectoderm. This configuration allows the delineation of the embryonic (where the ICM is located)-abembryonic axis of the blastocyst. Following implantation, growth of the polar trophectoderm and the ICM into the blastocoel leads to the formation of an elongated structure (the `egg cylinder', an archaic but still used term) comprising the epiblast, the visceral endoderm and the extra-embryonic ectoderm. The egg cylinder is connected via the ectoplacental cone to the uterine tissue. The embryonic-abembryonic axis of the blastocyst therefore becomes the proximal (the ectoplacental cone side)-distal (the epiblast side) axis of the post-implantation embryo. Within the ICM, an embryonic-abembryonic division of tissue compartments emerges when a layer of primitive endoderm forms on the luminal surface of the ICM, which now becomes the epiblast. The epiblast-primitive endoderm configuration heralds the arrangement of ectoderm-mesoderm-endoderm germ layers in the gastrula-stage embryo, and, by extrapolation to the early organogenesis-stage embryo, the prospective dorsal-ventral body axis of the embryo.
|
If no relationship exists between the lineage of the first two blastomeres
and the later blastocyst axis in the intact undisturbed embryo, how can the
observation that the second polar body adopts a consistent position from the
two-cell embryo to the blastocyst be explained? And why is the location of the
blastocoel restricted primarily to the progeny of one of the two-cell
blastomeres when embryonic cell movement is curtailed or reduced? A mechanism,
based on the mechanical constraint imposed by the zona pellucida has been
proposed to explain these apparently contradictory findings
(Fig. 3)
(Alarcon and Marikawa, 2003;
Motosugi et al., 2005;
Kurotaki et al., 2007). The
zona pellucida of the egg, rather than being spherical, often appears
ellipsoidal (Fig. 3A), with a
longer and shorter diameter (Gray et al.,
2004). This shape would place physical constraints on the embryo,
resulting in the blastomeres of the two-cell embryo lining up along the long
axis of the zona (Fig. 3A).
During successive stages of cleavages, as blastomeres get smaller, the embryo
as a whole is able to adjust its position constantly within the zona, and the
packing of cells becomes less constrained by the shape of the zona.
Subsequently, the cavity of the blastocyst begins to form, first as secretion
of intracellular vacuoles, which, when externalized, coalesce to form the
expanding blastocoel. As the blastocoel expands, the zona pellucida would
again impose a physical constraint on the embryo, and the ellipsoidal shape of
the zona cavity would topologically favor the location of the blastocoel at
one end of the long, rather than the short, axis of the zona
(Fig. 3B). When embryos are
deliberately compressed into an elongated shape from the two-cell to the
blastocyst stage, the blastocoel is consistently positioned at one end of the
elongated blastocyst, regardless of the relationship to the original position
of the first cleavage plane (Fig.
3B-D) (Motosugi et al.,
2005). A computer simulation of blastocoel formation has also
shown that a constraining ellipsoidal capsule could help fixing the axis of
the blastocyst (Honda et al.,
2008).
|
), whereas in
another study this association was lost
(Kurotaki et al., 2007).
Zona-free embryos develop perfectly normally, which suggests that any
constraint imposed by the zona, while imposing morphological constraint on
embryo development, is not relevant for the specification of cell fates or
axis formation.
Although the weight of evidence suggests that any apparent difference in
the lineage contribution of the two-cell blastomeres could be due to
topological constraints, results from the Zernicka-Goetz laboratory have
revealed some potential differences in the lineage potential of individual
four-cell blastomeres. An analysis of the timing and orientation of the two-
to four-cell cleavage (Piotrowska-Nitsche
and Zernicka-Goetz, 2005) showed that about 80% of embryos adopt a
tetrahedral four-cell arrangement. This is achieved by either the
earlier-dividing two-cell blastomere dividing meridionally (M, plane of cell
division parallel to that of the first cleavage), with the later division
occurring equatorially (E, plane of cell division perpendicular or oblique to
that of the first cleavage), in the so-called ME pattern, which is found in
42% of embryos. The other pattern of division may occur first equatorially
then meridionally - the EM pattern - which is found in 39% of embryos. The
later-dividing equatorial pair in the ME pattern is likely to contribute to
the abembryonic region of the blastocyst in the intact embryo, whereas the
earlier-dividing equatorial pair in the EM arrangement show no such bias
(Piotrowska-Nitsche and Zernicka-Goetz,
2005). Embryos generated by the re-aggregation of the daughter
cells that are located furthest away from the second polar body after the
equatorial division of one of the two-cell blastomeres show reduced viability
later in development (Piotrowska-Nitsche
et al., 2005). This indicated that these so-called `vegetal'
blastomeres might have an inherently deficient potential. In the ME embryo,
this `vegetal' blastomere shows lower levels of arginine methylation of
histone H3 (H3R26me) than do other blastomeres
(Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007a). The importance of this specific histone mark, which is
associated with gene activation in lineage specification, is unclear. Ectopic
expression of an arginine methyltransferase CARM1, which enhances H3R26me
methylation, in a two-cell blastomere can bias the distribution of its progeny
within the blastocyst, but it is not clear how this would affect cell lineage.
Although expression of CARMI might have an impact on ICM fate
(Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007a), the endogenous level of histone methylation has yet to be
correlated with lineage specification in a meaningful way. Although the
vegetal blastomere of the EM embryo, like that of the ME embryo, is also less
efficient in contributing to embryogenesis
(Piotrowska-Nitsche et al.,
2005), it displays H3R26me levels that are similar to the other
three blastomeres, unlike its counterpart in the ME embryo, which is lower
than its sister blastomeres
(Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007a). Overall, these findings suggest that this specific histone
modification may not correlate consistently with cell fate or potency.
What of the possible importance of the inheritance of a specific region of
the egg cytoplasm in driving trophectoderm fate, as proposed from the study of
the subset of embryos that have undergone the ME pattern of cleavage up to the
four-cell stage (Piotrowska-Nitsche et
al., 2005)? It was proposed that the `vegetal' blastomere of the
ME embryo is biased to acquire an abembryonic TE fate
(Piotrowska-Nitsche et al.,
2005), although a recent study which attempted to mark the same
cell, found no such bias (Alarcon and
Marikawa, 2008). To support the case that, in this particular
subset of embryos, this vegetal blastomere has a biased lineage fate, Jedrusik
et al. (Jedrusik et al., 2008)
have recently reported that its progeny shows an elevated expression of
Cdx2 at the eight-cell stage.
A priori, no pre-patterning of the egg or of the two-cell embryo is required to explain the formation of the cell lineages, the shape and the axes of the mouse blastocyst. A combination of ad hoc topological constraints and cell polarity and signaling processes that lead to the segregation of inner and outer cell populations can explain normal development. And yet, persistent clues indicate the possibility that asymmetries in the mammalian egg may have the potential to bias cell fate and morphogenesis under special conditions. Why should this be so? In many invertebrate and lower vertebrate species, it is clear that asymmetries in the distribution of cytoplasmic determinants in the egg play major roles in establishing early embryonic patterning. The early development of all of these species depends on maternally inherited factors, with zygotic transcription occurring as a later event. In mammals, by contrast, although maternal mRNAs and proteins are active in early development, maternal RNA is rapidly degraded and zygotic gene activation occurs during early cleavage and is required for blastocyst development. This switch away from the dependence on maternal inheritance was presumably accompanied by a move away from early patterning being driven by asymmetrically distributed maternal determinants to being driven by zygotic transcription. Nonetheless, the systems that allow asymmetries in the egg might persist as `evolutionary relics' in mouse eggs, leading to the appearance of asymmetries in some embryos. These asymmetries may bias developmental pathways but can be readily overridden by processes of lineage development and blastocyst morphogenesis.
Peri-implantation asymmetry and axis specification
In addition to the embryonic-abembryonic axis and the ellipsoidal shape of
the ICM (Fig. 1), other
morphological features also reveal the asymmetry of the blastocyst. In the
implanted blastocyst recovered from the mouse uterus, the ICM is often
oriented in a tilted position so that the ICM has an upper and a lower side
(Fig. 4A). Accompanying this
tilted orientation of the ICM, the initial thickening of the polar
trophectoderm also appears asymmetrical. A tilting of the ectoplacental cone
away from the proximal-distal axis (Box
2) is seen in embryos at subsequent stages of post-implantation
development (Fig. 4B-D). By the
pre-primitive streak (E6.0) stage, the direction in which the cone tilts is
aligned consistently with the orientation, but not with the polarity, of the
prospective AP axis of the body, which coincides with the longer transverse
diameter of the cylindrical embryo
(Gardner et al., 1992)
(Fig. 4D). Quite unexpectedly,
the orientation of the AP axis does not always align with the longer diameter
of the early embryo (Mesnard et al.,
2004; Perea-Gomez et al.,
2004). In the younger (E.5.5-5.75) embryo, the AP axis aligns
initially with the shorter diameter (Fig.
4C), which lengthens as the embryo re-models its shape, such that
the AP axis later becomes aligned with longer diameter
(Fig. 4D). This re-shaping of
the embryo, but not the specification of the AP axis, requires Fgf8b
and Wnt3 function in the epiblast
(Barrow et al., 2007;
Guo and Li, 2007). It would be
interesting to find out whether the tilting of the ICM or the ectoplacental
cone has any specific orientation with respect to the short or long transverse
diameter of the cylindrical embryo during embryogenesis.
Overall, these intriguing findings beg the question of whether the long
axis of the ICM, the angle of tilt of the ICM and the asymmetric position of
the ectoplacental cone have any developmental relationship with each other and
with any of the three primary body axes of the post-implantation embryo. The
answer to this question requires lineages across the peri-implantation to
gastrulation period to be traced directly. In earlier studies, single ICM
cells at either end of the long axis of the ICM were marked by injection and
their descendants followed in the visceral endoderm (see Glossary,
Box 1) of post-implantation
embryos (Weber et al., 1999).
Intriguingly, clones were found to spread proximodistally in an oblique
manner, suggesting that the horizontal axis of the ICM may be converted into
the proximodistal axis (Box 2)
of the post-implantation embryo. A similar tracking study, performed by
marking cells presumably at random positions near the surface of the ICM,
showed that clones span the extra-embryonic and embryonic regions of the
visceral endoderm, and has revealed more diverse patterns of clonal
distribution in both the proximal-distal and transverse dimensions of the
cylindrical embryo (Perea-Gomez et al.,
2007). It is imperative, in view of the now available tissue- and
site-specific molecular markers of embryonic asymmetry in pre-gastrulation
mouse embryos (Fig. 4D), to
re-examine the distribution of these ICM-derived clones in the visceral
endoderm to see whether there is any consistent spatial relationship between
the site of origin of their precursors in the ICM and their contribution to
the prospective AP body axis. It would be particularly informative to track
the distribution of these cell clones throughout development from blastocyst
to gastrula when it becomes possible to grow the peri-implantation embryo
successfully in vitro.
|
The primitive endoderm, which is formed as an epithelium initially on the
luminal surface of the ICM (Fig.
1G), expands during peri-implantation development to form the
parietal endoderm (which lines the luminal surface of the mural trophectoderm)
and the visceral endoderm (which envelops the extra-embryonic ectoderm and the
epiblast) (Fig. 1H;
Fig. 4B-D). The visceral
endoderm is a tissue of significant interest because of its crucial function
in mediating the activity of transforming growth factor β (TGFβ)
(bone morphogenetic protein and Nodal) and WNT signaling pathways, which
sustain the differentiation and patterning of the epiblast
(Tam et al., 2006;
Tam and Loebel, 2007).
Furthermore, the changes in the epithelial architecture of the endoderm, the
regionalized gene expression domains (Kemp
et al., 2005; Kemp et al.,
2007; Kimura-Yoshida et al.,
2007; Yamamoto et al.,
2004; Pfister et al.,
2007) and the pattern of morphogenetic movement of cells reflect a
dynamic process during which structural and molecular asymmetries are
translated into the AP patterning of the body axis (reviewed by
Lu et al., 2001;
Zernicka-Goetz, 2002;
Srinivas, 2006;
Tam and Loebel, 2007).
Contrary to the idea that the visceral endoderm is entirely restricted to
extra-embryonic fates, a small number of its descendants do contribute to the
endoderm of the embryonic gut (Kwon et
al., 2008).
Local visceral endoderm thickening marks emerging asymmetry
Changes in epithelial morphology, revealed as a local thickening of the
visceral endoderm, first in the distal region and then later on one side of
the pre-gastrulation embryo (Fig.
4C,D) (Kimura-Yoshida et al.,
2005; Rivera-Perez et al.,
2003; Yamamoto et al.,
2004), are telltale signs of the acquisition of asymmetry in the
proximodistal axis and the prospective AP body axis, respectively. By tracking
the position of the thickened population of embryonic visceral endoderm cells,
in conjunction with gene expression patterns, a picture has emerged in which
the visceral endoderm cells in the distal region of the E5.0-5.25 embryo (also
called the distal visceral endoderm, DVE) contribute to the visceral endoderm
cells that localize to one side of the E5.5-E6.0 embryo. The cells of the DVE
then later come to reside in the prospective anterior region of the embryo,
where they become known as the anterior visceral endoderm (AVE) of the early
primitive streak-stage (E6.5) embryo
(Rivera-Perez et al., 2003;
Thomas and Beddington, 1996;
Torres-Padilla et al., 2007b;
Srinivas et al., 2004). At
gastrulation, the primitive streak forms on the side of the embryo opposite to
the AVE, thus identifying the AVE as a reliable landmark of the anterior pole
of the body axis. The asymmetric localization of the visceral endoderm to one
side of the embryo therefore demarcates the polarity and the orientation of
the prospective AP axis (Torres-Padilla et
al., 2007b). Although it has been shown that visceral endoderm are
descendants of the ICM and the primitive endoderm of the blastocyst
(Weber et al., 1999;
Chazaud et al., 2006;
Perea-Gomez et al., 2007), it
remains unknown whether they derive from specific progenitor cells that are
set aside early in the ICM or form de novo by an inductive/inhibitory activity
of the epiblast and the extra-embryonic ectoderm.
|
;
Torres-Padilla et al., 2007b;
Chazaud et al., 2006;
Kurimoto et al., 2006;
Thomas et al., 1998;
Torres-Padilla et al., 2007b;
Yamamoto et al., 2004;
Plusa et al., 2008). Although
Hhex-GFP-, Lefty1-lacZ- and Cer1-GFP-expressing
cells are present successively in the ICM, primitive endoderm, DVE and AVE
during development, it is not known whether the lineages of these cells are
related. Clonal descendants of single ICM cells contribute only a fraction of
the Cer1-GFP-expressing population that is found in the visceral
endoderm, suggesting that the AVE is likely to be of polyclonal origin
(Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007b).
Signaling pathways establishing the DVE/AVE
The signaling activity of the Nodal-related ligands of the TGFβ
superfamily is vital for embryonic patterning, especially in the AP and the
left-right body axes, and for the regulation of the potency and mesendoderm
differentiation of the epiblast. Nodal signaling is mediated by serine
threonine kinase receptors and epidermal growth factor-CFC (crypto, FRL1,
cryptic) co-receptor (crypto and cryptic), and is transduced by intracellular
Smad2/3/4 pathways in conjunction with Foxh1 to activate target genes. Nodal
signaling is modulated by the antagonistic activity of Lefty proteins and
interacts with growth differentiation factors (GDFs) (reviewed by
Shen, 2007). Mutant studies
have shown that Nodal signaling and Eomes function are involved in AVE
formation (Fig. 5A)
(Brennan et al., 2001;
Norris et al., 2002;
Ding et al., 1998;
Chen et al., 2006;
Levine and Brivanlou, 2006;
Arnold et al., 2008). Nodal
induction of the AVE is mediated through the Bmp4-Wnt3-Nodal
signaling cascade, which involves feedback activity between the
extra-embryonic ectoderm and the epiblast
(Fig. 5A)
(Ben-Haim et al., 2006;
Liu et al., 1999).
The formation of the DVE, marked by the expression of Cer1-GFP or
Hhex-GFP in the visceral endoderm, is subject to a putative
inhibitory activity from the extra-embryonic ectoderm. Explants of epiblast
and embryonic visceral endoderm cultured without the extra-embryonic ectoderm
show an expanded domain of Cer1-GFP and Hhex-GFP expression.
This is in contrast with explants that are recombined in culture with the
extra-embryonic ectoderm, in which GFP expression is restricted to the region
furthest away from the extra-embryonic tissue
(Rodriguez et al., 2005;
Richardson et al., 2006). The
inhibitory activity appears to come from the prospective posterior part of
extra-embryonic ectoderm, which is on the same side as the
Wnt3-expressing visceral endoderm
(Rivera-Perez and Magnuson,
2005) but opposite to the lopsided Cer1 and
Lefty1 expression domain in the DVE
(Yamamoto et al., 2004)
(Fig. 4C;
Fig. 5A). The ablation of the
posterior extra-embryonic ectoderm from the embryo leads to an expansion of
the Cer1-GFP expression to the posterior visceral endoderm
(Richardson et al., 2006).
Cer1-GFP expression becomes localized to the visceral endoderm, when
the embryonic fragment (epiblast + visceral endoderm) is co-cultured with the
posterior extra-embryonic ectoderm, but not with anterior extra-embryonic
ectoderm (Richardson et al.,
2006). The inhibitory activity of the extra-embryonic ectoderm is
diminished by the knockdown of Bmp4
(Soares et al., 2008),
indicating that BMP signaling and/or downstream gene activity have a role in
this inhibition, which underpins the downregulation of Cer1-GFP in
the visceral endoderm outside of the DVE and AVE
(Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007b). The inhibitory activity of the extra-embryonic ectoderm is
expected to diminish with the increase in distance between it and the DVE.
Thus, a likely cause of failed AVE formation in Nodal mutants is a
lack of sufficient epiblast growth that enables the DVE to stay outside of the
range of this inhibition (Mesnard et al.,
2006). This inhibitory function of the extra-embryonic ectoderm
could be related to WNT signaling, because embryos with a gain of WNT function
mutation of the adenomatous polyposis coli (Apc) gene fail to form
the AVE (Chazaud and Rossant,
2006).
Cellular and molecular mechanisms of DVE translocation
Results of embryological studies and mutant analysis have pointed to
several mechanisms that might act synergistically to translocate the DVE to
the AVE (Fig. 5B). A
time-course study that tracked the movement of Hhex-GFP expressing
visceral endoderm cells has provided compelling evidence that DVE cells are
actively moving (Srinivas et al.,
2004) (Fig. 5Ba).
The visceral endoderm cells adopt the morphological features of migratory
cells and display a concerted pattern of locomotion towards the region of the
prospective AVE. The displacement of DVE cells could also be driven by
regional differences in the rate of accretion of cells
(Fig. 5Bb). The proliferation
and accumulation of cells in a local region of the epithelium with a high
level of Nodal signaling (Yamamoto et
al., 2004) may generate the propulsive force required to displace
cells in the adjacent region to other parts of the epithelium. It has been
estimated that, within 10-15 hours, the number of Cer1-GFP-expressing
visceral endoderm cells nearly doubles. This is thought not to be brought
about solely by cell multiplication but also by de novo activation of
Cer1 (Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007b). Whether an overall doubling of the cell population in a
localized region of the embryo is sufficient to drive the rapid displacement
of cells from the distal to the anterior visceral endoderm is, however,
questionable. Experimentally, cells in the visceral endoderm may be directed
to move from regions of high (where there is elevated cell proliferation) to
low Nodal activity (Fig. 5B)
(Yamamoto et al., 2004) and,
consistent with Nodal having such a role, DVE cells do not move when Cripto
activity is lost (Ding et al.,
1998). Interestingly, restoring an effective level of Nodal
activity, by raising the Cripto activity partially above the null level (as in
Cripto-hypomorphic mutants) or by reducing the activity of Nodal
antagonist in embryos that totally lack Cripto (i.e.
Cer1+/-;Cripto-null), allows the formation and
translocation of the DVE to become the AVE
(Liguori et al., 2008;
D'Andrea et al., 2008). AVE
formation may therefore be accomplished, at least in part, by a
Cripto-independent Nodal pathway that is sensitive to Cer1 inhibition.
WNT signaling activity is also implicated in driving the translocation of
the visceral endoderm (Fig.
5Bc), although the molecular details remain vague. The DVE is
displaced away from region of high WNT activity towards a region where WNT
signaling is lowered by dickkopf 1 (DKK1, a secreted factor that blocks the
function of the WNT co-receptor LRP6)
(Kimura-Yoshida et al., 2005).
In Otx2 mutants, DVE translocation is impaired, but can be rescued by
the expression of Dkk1 from the Otx2 locus or by the
lowering of WNT signaling through a reduction of β-catenin gene dose
(Kimura-Yoshida et al., 2005).
High up in this genetic cascade of the WNT-mediated morphogenetic activity is
likely to be Foxa2, which, in addition to being essential for AVE
formation, regulates genes such as Otx2 and those of WNT and
Nodal/BMP antagonists (Dkk1, Cer1) in the visceral endoderm
(Kimura-Yoshida et al., 2007).
In the Foxa2-null embryo, β-catenin expression is elevated in
the visceral endoderm, as it is in the Otx2-null embryo, suggesting
that excess WNT activity has an impact on the translocation of the visceral
endoderm. It has also been noted that, during DVE translocation, visceral
endoderm cells in the distal region flatten, whereas those in the anterior
region acquire a tall columnar morphology
(Srinivas, 2006). In this
regard, localized changes in cell shape and packing density in the visceral
endoderm in response to planar signaling activity may also lead to an apparent
translocation of the DVE (Fig.
5Bd).
Translocation of the DVE to the anterior region therefore involves active
cell migration (Srinivas et al.,
2004), which is brought about by concerted changes in cell shape
and local neighbor relationship (Srinivas,
2006; Rakman and Anderson, 2006), and by the displacement of cells
via extrinsic morphogenetic forces
(Yamamoto et al., 2004;
Kimura-Yoshida et al.,
2005).
A pre-set landscape for anterior-posterior axis specification?
With respect to the prevailing notion that the direction of DVE
displacement delineates the orientation of the AP body axis, it remains
unresolved whether this is determined by a stochastic mechanism or by pre-set
molecular or environmental parameters that specify this body axis. The
consensus is that at an early stage, when Lefty1 and Cer1
expression is detected in the DVE, the domain of both genes is already shifted
to one side (Fig. 4C). This
asymmetry is believed to herald the direction of visceral endoderm
translocation (Yamamoto et al.,
2004; Torres-Padilla et al.,
2007b). Wnt3 expression is localized to the posterior
visceral endoderm even before the asymmetric Lefty1 and Cer1
expression pattern is observed in the DVE
(Rivera-Perez and Magnuson,
2005). These observations imply that there has been an even
earlier developmental process that pre-sets this asymmetry for AP axis
specification.
In the blastocyst and peri-implantation embryo, Lefty1-lacZ
expressing cells localize asymmetrically: on one side of the blastocyst ICM,
in the primitive endoderm on the upper side of the tilted ICM and on one side
of the egg cylinder, all prior to their asymmetric expression in the DVE
(Takaoka et al., 2006)
(Fig. 4A,B). An asymmetric
distribution of β-catenin-expressing cells in the ICM is also observed
(Fig. 4A)
(Chazaud and Rossant, 2006).
It is not known how this asymmetric localization of Lefty1- or
β-catenin-positive cells is related to the long axis of the ICM or to the
initial tilting of the ICM prior to the formation of the primitive endoderm.
Cer1-expressing cells (as visualized by GFP reporter, mRNA and
protein expression) in the primitive endoderm do not localize to any specific
regions (Perea-Gomez et al.,
2007). However, Cer1 activity, as revealed by GFP
fluorescence, appears to be uneven in the primitive endoderm and tends to be
stronger in the visceral endoderm on one side of the tilted ICM
(Fig. 4A). Potentially, the
regionalization of the Lefty1- and Cer1-active cells in the
visceral endoderm prior to the formation and movement of the DVE might be a
manifestation of an underlying asymmetric pattern that foreshadows the
orientation and polarity of the AP body axis. As the current data are
primarily correlative, such inference is at best conjectural. In blastocysts
cultured in vitro over the period of implantation, Cer1-GFP and
Lefty1-lacZ positive cells localize unevenly in the primitive
endoderm. If this pattern reflects the acquisition of embryonic asymmetry and
the specification of the body axis, such developmental capacity would have to
be inherent to the embryo and not acquired by the act of implantation.
Conclusions
Embryogenesis requires the generation of diverse cell types and the orderly assembly of these cells into an organized body plan. During this process, asymmetries of anatomical and/or molecular characteristics emerge within cells, tissues and the whole embryo. Some of these asymmetries are relevant to cell fate, such as the radial asymmetry that differentiates outer and inner cells of the morula. Some of them drive cell rearrangements, such as the morphogenetic processes that accompany the formation of the anterior visceral endoderm by the anterior migration of the distal visceral endoderm. Others may be incidental partners in influencing axis formation, such as the non-spherical shape of the zona pellucida. The challenge ahead is to determine whether developmentally relevant asymmetries influence lineage allocation and to translate our knowledge of morphological asymmetries into molecular mechanisms.
Footnotes
We thank Yojiro Yamanaka for useful discussions and assistance with the preparation of figures, Amy Ralston for comments on the manuscript, and Berenika Plusa and Kat Hadjantonakis for providing materials before publication. We are supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research, by the Canadian Stem Cell Network (J.R.) and by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (P.P.L.T.).
REFERENCES
Alarcon, V. B. and Marikawa, Y. (2003).
Deviation of the blastocyst axis from the first cleavage plane does not affect
the quality of mouse postimplantation development. Biol.
Reprod. 69,1208
-1212.
Alarcon, V. B. and Marikawa, Y. (2008). Spatial
alignment of the mouse blastocyst axis across the first cleavage plane is
caused by mechanical constraint rather than developmental bias among
blastomeres. Mol. Reprod. Dev.
75,1143
-1153.[CrossRef][Medline]
Arman, E., Haffner-Krausz, R., Chen, Y., Heath, J. K. and Lonai,
P. (1998). Targeted disruption of fibroblast growth factor
(FGF) receptor 2 suggests a role for FGF signaling in pregastrulation
mammalian development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
95,5082
-5087.
Arnold, S. J., Hofmann, U. K., Bikoff, E. K. and Robertson, E.
J. (2008). Pivotal roles for eomesodermin during axis
formation, epithelium-to-mesenchyme transition and endoderm specification in
the mouse. Development
135,501
-511.
Avilion, A. A., Nicolis, S. K., Pevny, L. H., Perez, L., Vivian,
N. and Lovell-Badge, R. (2003). Multipotent cell lineages in
early mouse development depend on SOX2 function. Genes
Dev. 17,126
-140.
Barrow, J. R., Howell, W. D., Rule, M., Hayashi, S., Thomas, K.
R., Capecchi, M. R. and McMahon, A. P. (2007). Wnt3 signaling
in the epiblast is required for proper orientation of the anteroposterior
axis. Dev. Biol. 312,312
-320.[CrossRef][Medline]
Beland, M., Pilon, N., Houle, M., Oh, K., Sylvestre, J. R.,
Prinos, P. and Lohnes, D. (2004). Cdx1 autoregulation is
governed by a novel Cdx1-LEF1 transcription complex. Mol. Cell.
Biol. 24,5028
-5038.
Ben-Haim, N., Lu, C., Guzman-Ayala, M., Pescatore, L., Mesnard,
D., Bischofberger, M., Naef, F., Robertson, E. J. and Constam, D. B.
(2006). The nodal precursor acting via activin receptors induces
mesoderm by maintaining a source of its convertases and BMP4. Dev.
Cell 11,313
-323.[CrossRef][Medline]
Bischoff, M., Parfitt, D. E. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2008). Formation of the embryonic-abembryonic axis of the mouse
blastocyst: relationships between orientation of early cleavage divisions and
pattern of symmetric/asymmetric divisions. Development
135,953
-962.
Boyer, L. A., Lee, T. I., Cole, M. F., Johnstone, S. E., Levine,
S. S., Zucker, J. P., Guenther, M. G., Kumar, R. M., Murray, H. L., Jenner, R.
G. et al. (2005). Core transcriptional regulatory circuitry
in human embryonic stem cells. Cell
122,947
-956.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brennan, J., Lu, C. C., Norris, D. P., Rodriguez, T. A.,
Beddington, R. S. and Robertson, E. J. (2001). Nodal
signalling in the epiblast patterns the early mouse embryo.
Nature 411,965
-969.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chai, N., Patel, Y., Jacobson, K., McMahon, J., McMahon, A. and
Rappolee, D. A. (1998). FGF is an essential regulator of the
fifth cell division in preimplantation mouse embryos. Dev.
Biol. 198,105
-115.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chambers, I., Colby, D., Robertson, M., Nichols, J., Lee, S.,
Tweedie, S. and Smith, A. (2003). Functional expression
cloning of Nanog, a pluripotency sustaining factor in embryonic stem cells.
Cell 113,643
-655.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chazaud, C. and Rossant, J. (2006). Disruption
of early proximodistal patterning and AVE formation in Apc mutants.
Development 133,3379
-3387.
Chazaud, C., Yamanaka, Y., Pawson, T. and Rossant, J.
(2006). Early lineage segregation between epiblast and primitive
endoderm in mouse blastocysts through the Grb2-MAPK pathway. Dev.
Cell 10,615
-624.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, C., Ware, S. M., Sato, A., Houston-Hawkins, D. E., Habas,
R., Matzuk, M. M., Shen, M. M. and Brown, C. W. (2006). The
Vg1-related protein Gdf3 acts in a Nodal signaling pathway in the
pre-gastrulation mouse embryo. Development
133,319
-329.
Chew, J. L., Loh, Y. H., Zhang, W., Chen, X., Tam, W. L., Yeap,
L. S., Li, P., Ang, Y. S., Lim, B., Robson, P. et al. (2005).
Reciprocal transcriptional regulation of Pou5f1 and Sox2 via the Oct4/Sox2
complex in embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell. Biol.
25,6031
-6046.
Chroscicka, A., Komorowski, S. and Maleszewski, M.
(2004). Both blastomeres of the mouse 2-cell embryo contribute to
the embryonic portion of the blastocyst. Mol. Reprod.
Dev. 68,308
-312.[CrossRef][Medline]
D'Andrea, D., Liguori, G. L., Le Good, J. A., Lonardo, E.,
Andersson, O., Constam, D. B., Persico, M. G. and Minchiotti, G.
(2008). Cripto promotes A-P axis specification independently of
its stimulatory effect on Nodal autoinduction. J. Cell
Biol. 180,597
-605.
Dietrich, J. E. and Hiiragi, T. (2007).
Stochastic patterning in the mouse pre-implantation embryo.
Development 134,4219
-4231.
Ding, J., Yang, L., Yan, Y. T., Chen, A., Desai, N.,
Wynshaw-Boris, A. and Shen, M. M. (1998). Cripto is required
for correct orientation of the anterior-posterior axis in the mouse embryo.
Nature 395,702
-707.[CrossRef][Medline]
Feldman, B., Poueymirou, W., Papaioannou, V. E., DeChiara, T. M.
and Goldfarb, M. (1995). Requirement of FGF-4 for
postimplantation mouse development. Science
267,246
-249.
Fleming, T. P. and Johnson, M. H. (1988). From
egg to epithelium. Annu. Rev. Cell Biol.
4, 459-485.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fleming, T. P., McConnell, J., Johnson, M. H. and Stevenson, B.
R. (1989). Development of tight junctions de novo in the
mouse early embryo: control of assembly of the tight-junction-specific
protein. J. Cell Biol.
108,1407
-1418.
Fujimori, T., Kurotaki, Y., Miyazaki, J. and Nabeshima, Y.
(2003). Analysis of cell lineage in two- and four-cell mouse
embryos. Development
130,5113
-5122.
Gardner, R. L. (1997). The early blastocyst is
bilaterally symmetrical and its axis of symmetry is aligned with the
animal-vegetal axis of the zygote in the mouse.
Development 124,289
-301.[Abstract]
Gardner, R. L. (2001). Specification of
embryonic axes begins before cleavage in normal mouse development.
Development 128,839
-847.[Abstract]
Gardner, R. L. (2007). The axis of polarity of
the mouse blastocyst is specified before blastulation and independently of the
zona pellucida. Hum. Reprod.
22,798
-806.
Gardner, R. L., Meredith, M. R. and Altman, D. G.
(1992). Is the anterior-posterior axis of the fetus specified
before implantation in the mouse? J. Exp. Zool.
264,437
-443.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gerbe, F., Cox, B., Rossant, J. and Chazaud, C.
(2008). Dynamic expression of Lrp2 pathway members reveals
progressive epithelial differentiation of primitive endoderm in mouse
blastocyst. Dev. Biol.
313,594
-602.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gray, D., Plusa, B., Piotrowska, K., Na, J., Tom, B., Glover, D.
M. and Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2004). First cleavage of the mouse
embryo responds to change in egg shape at fertilization. Curr.
Biol. 14,397
-405.[CrossRef][Medline]
Guo, Q. and Li, J. Y. (2007). Distinct
functions of the major Fgf8 spliceform, Fgf8b, before and during mouse
gastrulation. Development
134,2251
-2260.
Honda, H., Motosugi, N., Nagai, T., Tanemura, M. and Hiiragi,
T. (2008). Computer simulation of emerging asymmetry in the
mouse blastocyst. Development
135,1407
-1414.
Jedrusik, A., Parfitt, D. E., Guo, G., Skamagki, M., Grabarek,
J. B., Johnson, M. H., Robson, P. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2008). Role of Cdx2 and cell polarity in cell allocation and
specification of trophectoderm and inner cell mass in the mouse embryo.
Genes Dev. 22,2692
-2706.
Johnson, M. H. and McConnell, J. M. (2004).
Lineage allocation and cell polarity during mouse embryogenesis.
Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.
15,583
-597.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson, M. H. and Ziomek, C. A. (1981). The
foundation of two distinct cell lineages within the mouse morula.
Cell 24,71
-80.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson, M. H. and Ziomek, C. A. (1983). Cell
interactions influence the fate of mouse blastomeres undergoing the transition
from the 16- to the 32-cell stage. Dev. Biol.
95,211
-218.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson, M. H., Maro, B. and Takeichi, M.
(1986). The role of cell adhesion in the synchronization and
orientation of polarization in 8-cell mouse blastomeres. J.
Embryol. Exp. Morph. 93,239
-255.[Medline]
Kemp, C., Willems, E., Abdo, S., Lambiv, L. and Leyns, L.
(2005). Expression of all Wnt genes and their secreted
antagonists during mouse blastocyst and postimplantation development.
Dev. Dyn. 233,1064
-1075.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kemp, C. R., Willems, E., Wawrzak, D., Hendrickx, M., Agbor
Agbor, T. and Leyns, L. (2007). Expression of Frizzled5,
Frizzled7, and Frizzled10 during early mouse development and interactions with
canonical Wnt signaling. Dev. Dyn.
236,2011
-2019.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kimura-Yoshida, C., Nakano, H., Okamura, D., Nakao, K.,
Yonemura, S., Belo, J. A., Aizawa, S., Matsui, Y. and Matsuo, I.
(2005). Canonical Wnt signaling and its antagonist regulate
anterior-posterior axis polarization by guiding cell migration in mouse
visceral endoderm. Dev. Cell
9, 639-650.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kimura-Yoshida, C., Tian, E., Nakano, H., Amazaki, S.,
Shimokawa, K., Rossant, J., Aizawa, S. and Matsuo, I. (2007).
Crucial roles of Foxa2 in mouse anterior-posterior axis polarization via
regulation of anterior visceral endoderm-specific genes. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104,5919
-5924.
Kunath, T., Arnaud, D., Uy, G. D., Okamoto, I., Chureau, C.,
Yamanaka, Y., Heard, E., Gardner, R. L., Avner, P. and Rossant, J.
(2005). Imprinted X-inactivation in extra-embryonic endoderm cell
lines from mouse blastocysts. Development
132,1649
-1661.
Kurimoto, K., Yabuta, Y., Ohinata, Y., Ono, Y., Uno, K. D.,
Yamada, R. G., Ueda, H. R. and Saitou, M. (2006). An improved
single-cell cDNA amplification method for efficient high-density
oligonucleotide microarray analysis. Nucleic Acids
Res. 34,e42
.
Kurotaki, Y., Hatta, K., Nakao, K., Nabeshima, Y. and Fujimori,
T. (2007). Blastocyst axis is specified independently of
early cell lineage but aligns with the ZP shape.
Science 316,719
-723.
Kwon, G. S., Viotti, M. and Hadjantonakis, A. K.
(2008). The endoderm of the mouse embryo arises by dynamic
widesapread intercalation of embryonic and extraembryonic lineages.
Dev. Cell 15,509
-520.[CrossRef][Medline]
Levine, A. J. and Brivanlou, A. H. (2006).
GDF3, a BMP inhibitor, regulates cell fate in stem cells and early embryos.
Development 133,209
-216.
Liguori, G. L., Borges, A. C., D'Andrea, D., Liguoro, A.,
Goncalves, L., Salgueiro, A. M., Persico, M. G. and Belo, J. A.
(2008). Cripto-independent Nodal signaling promotes positioning
of the A-P axis in the early mouse embryo. Dev. Biol.
315,280
-289.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, P., Wakamiya, M., Shea, M. J., Albrecht, U., Behringer, R.
R. and Bradley, A. (1999). Requirement for Wnt3 in vertebrate
axis formation. Nat. Genet.
22,361
-365.[CrossRef][Medline]
Loh, Y. H., Wu, Q., Chew, J. L., Vega, V. B., Zhang, W., Chen,
X., Bourque, G., George, J., Leong, B., Liu, J. et al.
(2006). The Oct4 and Nanog transcription network regulates
pluripotency in mouse embryonic stem cells. Nat.
Genet. 38,431
-440.[CrossRef][Medline]
Louvet, S., Aghion, J., Santa-Maria, A., Mangeat, P. and Maro,
B. (1996). Ezrin becomes restricted to outer cells following
asymmetrical division in the preimplantation mouse embryo. Dev.
Biol. 177,568
-579.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lu, C. C., Brennan, J. and Roberston, E. J.
(2001). From fertilization to gastrulation: axis formation in the
mouse embryo. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
11,384
-392.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mesnard, D., Filipe, M., Belo, J. A. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2004). The anterior-posterior axis emerges respecting the
morphology of the mouse embryo that changes and aligns with the uterus before
gastrulation. Curr. Biol.
14,184
-196.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mesnard, D., Guzman-Ayala, M. and Constam, D. B.
(2006). Nodal specifies embryonic visceral endoderm and sustains
pluripotent cells in the epiblast before overt axial patterning.
Development 133,2497
-2505.
Mitsui, K., Tokuzawa, Y., Itoh, H., Segawa, K., Murakami, M.,
Takahashi, K., Maruyama, M., Maeda, M. and Yamanaka, S.
(2003). The homeoprotein Nanog is required for maintenance of
pluripotency in mouse epiblast and ES cells. Cell
113,631
-642.[CrossRef][Medline]
Motosugi, N., Bauer, T., Polanski, Z., Solter, D. and Hiiragi,
T. (2005). Polarity of the mouse embryo is established at
blastocyst and is not prepatterned. Genes Dev.
19,1081
-1092.
Nichols, J., Zevnik, B., Anastassiadis, K., Niwa, H.,
Klewe-Nebenius, D., Chambers, I., Scholer, H. and Smith, A.
(1998). Formation of pluripotent stem cells in the mammalian
embryo depends on the POU transcription factor Oct4.
Cell 95,379
-391.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nishioka, N., Yamamoto, S., Kiyonari, H., Sato, H., Sawada, A.,
Ota, M., Nakao, K. and Sasaki, H. (2008). Tead4 is required
for specification of trophectoderm in pre-implantation mouse embryos.
Mech. Dev. 125,270
-283.[CrossRef][Medline]
Niwa, H., Toyooka, Y., Shimosato, D., Strumpf, D., Takahashi,
K., Yagi, R. and Rossant, J. (2005). Interaction between
Oct3/4 and Cdx2 determines trophectoderm differentiation.
Cell 123,917
-929.[CrossRef][Medline]
Norris, D. P., Brennan, J., Bikoff, E. K. and Robertson, E.
J. (2002). The Foxh1-dependent autoregulatory enhancer
controls the level of Nodal signals in the mouse embryo.
Development 129,3455
-3468.[Medline]
Pauken, C. M. and Capco, D. G. (2000). The
expression and stage-specific localization of protein kinase C isotypes during
mouse preimplantation development. Dev. Biol.
223,411
-421.[CrossRef][Medline]
Perea-Gomez, A., Camus, A., Moreau, A., Grieve, K., Moneron, G.,
Dubois, A., Cibert, C. and Collignon, J. (2004). Initiation
of gastrulation in the mouse embryo is preceded by an apparent shift in the
orientation of the anterior-posterior axis. Curr.
Biol. 14,197
-207.[CrossRef][Medline]
Perea-Gomez, A., Meilhac, S. M., Piotrowska-Nitsche, K., Gray,
D., Collignon, J. and Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2007).
Regionalization of the mouse visceral endoderm as the blastocyst transforms
into the egg cylinder. BMC Dev. Biol.
7, 96.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pfister, S., Steiner, K. A. and Tam, P. P.
(2007). Gene expression pattern and progression of embryogenesis
in the immediate post-implantation period of mouse development.
Gene Expr. Patterns 7,558
-573.[CrossRef][Medline]
Piotrowska-Nitsche, K. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2005). Spatial arrangement of individual 4-cell stage
blastomeres and the order in which they are generated correlate with
blastocyst pattern in the mouse embryo. Mech. Dev.
122,487
-500.[CrossRef][Medline]
Piotrowska, K., Wianny, F., Pedersen, R. A. and Zernicka-Goetz,
M. (2001). Blastomeres arising from the first cleavage
division have distinguishable fates in normal mouse development.
Development 128,3739
-3748.
Piotrowska-Nitsche, K., Perea-Gomez, A., Haraguchi, S. and
Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2005). Four-cell stage mouse blastomeres
have different developmental properties. Development
132,479
-490.
Plusa, B., Frankenberg, S., Chalmers, A., Hadjantonakis, A. K.,
Moore, C. A., Papalopulu, N., Papaioannou, V. E., Glover, D. M. and
Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2005a). Downregulation of Par3 and aPKC
function directs cells towards the ICM in the preimplantation mouse embryo.
J. Cell Sci. 118,505
-515.
Plusa, B., Hadjantonakis, A. K., Gray, D., Piotrowska-Nitsche,
K., Jedrusik, A., Papaioannou, V. E., Glover, D. M. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2005b). The first cleavage of the mouse zygote predicts the
blastocyst axis. Nature
434,391
-395.[CrossRef][Medline]
Plusa, B., Piliszek, A., Frankenberg, S., Artus, J. and
Hadjantonakis, A.-K. (2008). Distinct sequential cell
behaviours directing primitive endoderm formation in the mouse blastocyst
revealed by live imaging Development
135,3081
-3091.
Rakeman, A. S. and Anderson, K. V. (2006). Axis
specification and morphogenesis in the mouse embryo require Nap1, a regulator
of WAVE-mediated actin branching. Development
133,3075
-3083.
Ralston, A. and Rossant, J. (2008). Cdx2 acts
downstream of cell polarization to cell-autonomously promote trophectoderm
fate in the early mouse embryo. Dev. Biol.
313,614
-629.[CrossRef][Medline]
Reddy, B. V. and Irvine, K. D. (2008). The Fat
and Warts signaling pathways: new insights into their regulation, mechanism
and conservation. Development
135,2827
-2838.
Richardson, L., Torres-Padilla, M. E. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2006). Regionalised signalling within the extraembryonic
ectoderm regulates anterior visceral endoderm positioning in the mouse embryo.
Mech. Dev. 123,288
-296.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rivera-Perez, J. A. and Magnuson, T. (2005).
Primitive streak formation in mice is preceded by localized activation of
Brachyury and Wnt3. Dev. Biol.
288,363
-371.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rivera-Perez, J. A., Mager, J. and Magnuson, T.
(2003). Dynamic morphogenetic events characterize the mouse
visceral endoderm. Dev. Biol.
261,470
-487.[CrossRef][Medline]
Rodriguez, T. A., Srinivas, S., Clements, M. P., Smith, J. C.
and Beddington, R. S. (2005). Induction and migration of the
anterior visceral endoderm is regulated by the extra-embryonic ectoderm.
Development 132,2513
-2520.
Rossant, J., Chazaud, C. and Yamanaka, Y.
(2003). Lineage allocation and asymmetries in the early mouse
embryo. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
358, 1341-1348;
discussion 1349.
Russ, A. P., Wattler, S., Colledge, W. H., Aparicio, S. A.,
Carlton, M. B., Pearce, J. J., Barton, S. C., Surani, M. A., Ryan, K., Nehls,
M. C. et al. (2000). Eomesodermin is required for mouse
trophoblast development and mesoderm formation. Nature
404, 95-99.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shen, M. M. (2007). Nodal signaling:
developmental roles and regulation. Development
134,1023
-1034.
Soares, M. L., Torres-Padilla, M. E. and Zernicka-Goetz, M.
(2008). Bone morphogenetic protein 4 signaling regulates
development of the anterior visceral endoderm in the mouse embryo.
Dev. Growth Differ. 50,615
-621.[Medline]
Srinivas, S. (2006). The anterior visceral
endoderm-turning heads. Genesis
44,565
-572.[CrossRef][Medline]
Srinivas, S., Rodriguez, T., Clements, M., Smith, J. C. and
Beddington, R. S. (2004). Active cell migration drives the
unilateral movements of the anterior visceral endoderm.
Development 131,1157
-1164.
Strumpf, D., Mao, C. A., Yamanaka, Y., Ralston, A.,
Chawengsaksophak, K., Beck, F. and Rossant, J. (2005). Cdx2
is required for correct cell fate specification and differentiation of
trophectoderm in the mouse blastocyst. Development
132,2093
-2102.
Suwinska, A., Czolowska, R., Ozdzenski, W. and Tarkowski, A.
K. (2008). Blastomeres of the mouse embryo lose totipotency
after the fifth cleavage division: expression of Cdx2 and Oct4 and
developmental potential of inner and outer blastomeres of 16- and 32-cell
embryos. Dev. Biol. 322,133
-144.[CrossRef][Medline]
Takaoka, K., Yamamoto, M., Shiratori, H., Meno, C., Rossant, J.,
Saijoh, Y. and Hamada, H. (2006). The mouse embryo
autonomously acquires anterior-posterior polarity at implantation.
Dev. Cell 10,451
-459.[Medline]
Tam, P. P. and Loebel, D. A. (2007). Gene
function in mouse embryogenesis: get set for gastrulation. Nat.
Rev. Genet. 8,368
-381.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tam, P. P., Loebel, D. A. and Tanaka, S. S.
(2006). Building the mouse gastrula: signals, asymmetry and
lineages. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.
16,419
-425.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tanaka, S., Kunath, T., Hadjantonakis, A. K., Nagy, A. and
Rossant, J. (1998). Promotion of trophoblast stem cell
proliferation by FGF4. Science
282,2072
-2075.
Tarkowski, A. K. and Wroblewska, J. (1967).
Development of blastomeres of mouse eggs isolated at the 4- and 8-cell stage.
J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol.
18,155
-180.[Medline]
Thomas, P. and Beddington, R. (1996). Anterior
primitive endoderm may be responsible for patterning the anterior neural plate
in the mouse embryo. Curr. Biol.
6,1487
-1496.[CrossRef][Medline]
Thomas, P. Q., Brown, A. and Beddington, R. S.
(1998). Hex: a homeobox gene revealing peri-implantation
asymmetry in the mouse embryo and an early transient marker of endothelial
cell precursors. Development
125, 85-94.[Abstract]
Torres-Padilla, M. E., Parfitt, D. E., Kouzarides, T. and
Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2007a). Histone arginine methylation
regulates pluripotency in the early mouse embryo.
Nature 445,214
-218.[CrossRef][Medline]
Torres-Padilla, M. E., Richardson, L., Kolasinska, P., Meilhac,
S. M., Luetke-Eversloh, M. V. and Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2007b).
The anterior visceral endoderm of the mouse embryo is established from both
preimplantation precursor cells and by de novo gene expression after
implantation. Dev. Biol.
309,97
-112.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vassilev, A., Kaneko, K. J., Shu, H., Zhao, Y. and DePamphilis,
M. L. (2001). TEAD/TEF transcription factors utilize the
activation domain of YAP65, a Src/Yes-associated protein localized in the
cytoplasm. Genes Dev.
15,1229
-1241.
Vinot, S., Le T., Ohno, S., Pawson, T., Maro, B. and
Louvet-Vallee, S. (2005). Asymmetric distribution of PAR
proteins in the mouse embryo begins at the 8-cell stage during compaction.
Dev. Biol. 282,307
-319.[CrossRef][Medline]
Weber, R. J., Pedersen, R. A., Wianny, F., Evans, M. J. and
Zernicka-Goetz, M. (1999). Polarity of the mouse embryo is
anticipated before implantation. Development
126,5591
-5598.[Abstract]
Wodarz, A. (2005). Molecular control of cell
polarity and asymmetric cell division in Drosophila neuroblasts.
Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.
17,475
-481.[CrossRef][Medline]
Xu, F., Li, H. and Jin, T. (1999). Cell type
specific autoregulation of the caudal-related homeobox gene Cdx2/3.
J. Biol. Chem. 247,34310
-34316.
Yagi, R., Kohn, M. J., Karavanova, I., Kaneko, K. J., Vullhorst,
D., DePamphilis, M. L. and Buonanno, A. (2007). Transcription
factor TEAD4 specifies the trophectoderm lineage at the beginning of mammalian
development. Development
134,3827
-3836.
Yamamoto, M., Saijoh, Y., Perea-Gomez, A., Shawlot, W.,
Behringer, R. R., Ang, S. L., Hamada, H. and Meno, C. (2004).
Nodal antagonists regulate formation of the anteroposterior axis of the mouse
embryo. Nature 428,387
-392.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yu, F., Kuo, C. T. and Jan, Y. N. (2006).
Drosophila neuroblast asymmetric cell division: recent advances and
implications for stem cell biology. Neuron
51, 13-20.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zernicka-Goetz, M. (2002). Patterning of the
embroy: the first spatial decisions in the life of a mouse.
Development 219,815
-829.
Zhao, B., Ye, X., Yu, J., Li, L., Li, W., Li, S., Yu, J., Lin,
J. D., Wang, C. Y., Chinnaiyan, A. M. et al. (2008). TEAD
mediates YAP-dependent gene induction and growth control. Genes
Dev. 22,1962
-1971.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. J. Soares and K. Asanoma Trophoblast stem cells derived from nuclear transfer embryos: Phenotypically unique, bad neighbors, or poor communicators? PNAS, September 22, 2009; 106(38): 16014 - 16015. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Emb., abembryonic-embryonic axis of the blastocyst;
DVE, distal visceral endoderm.
