Mechanisms of early neurogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster

The neuroectoderm of insects contains an initially indifferent population of cells which during later development will give rise to the progenitor cells of the neural and epidermal lineages. Experimental evidence indicates that cellular interactions determine which cells will adopt each one of these fates. Transplantation experiments suggest that a signal with neuralising character is required to stabilize the primary neural fate in 25% of all the neuroectodermal cells, which will develop as neuroblasts, and that an epidermalising signal contributes to suppress the neural fate in the remaining 75% of the cells, allowing in this way their development as epidermal progenitor cells. The invoked cell interactions are assumed to be mediated by the products of several genes forming a complex, not yet well understood network of interrelationships. Elements of this network are the proteins encoded by Delta and Notch, which appear to convey the regulatory signals between the cells; the proteins encoded by the achaete-scute gene complex, which regulate neural development; and the proteins encoded by the Enhancer of split gene complex, which give neuroectodermal cells access to epidermal development. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Genetic mechanisms of early neurogenesis inDrosophila melanogaster

The neurogenic ectoderm ofDrosophila melanogaster consists of the ventral neuroectoderm and the procephalic neuroectoderm. It is hypothesized that epidermal and central neural progenitor cells separate from each other in three steps: conference on the neuroectodermal cells the capability of producing neural or epidermal progenies, separation of the two classes of progenitor cells, and specification of particular types of neuroblasts and epidermoblasts. Separation of neuroblasts and epidermoblasts in controlled by proneural and neurogenic genes.Delta andNotch serve as mediators of direct protein-protein interactions. E(spl)-C inhibits neurogenesis, creating epidermal cells. The achaete-scute complex (AS-C) controls the commitment of nonoverlapping populations of neuroblasts and leads the development of neuroectodermal cells as neuroblasts.     

Regulation of proneural gene expression and cell fate during neuroblast segregation in the Drosophila embryo.

The Drosophila embryonic central nervous system develops from sets of progenitor neuroblasts which segregate from the neuroectoderm during early embryogenesis. Cells within this region can follow either the neural or epidermal developmental pathway, a decision guided by two opposing classes of genes. The proneural genes, including the members of the achaete-scute complex (AS-C), promote neurogenesis, while the neurogenic genes prevent neurogenesis and facilitate epidermal development. To understand the role that proneural gene expression and regulation play in the choice between neurogenesis and epidermogenesis, we examined the temporal and spatial expression pattern of the achaete (ac) regulatory protein in normal and neurogenic mutant embryos. The ac protein is first expressed in a repeating pattern of four ectodermal cell clusters per hemisegment. Even though 5-7 cells initially express ac in each cluster, only one, the neuroblast, continues to express ac. The repression of ac in the remaining cells of the cluster requires zygotic neurogenic gene function. In embryos lacking any one of five genes, the restriction of ac expression to single cells does not occur; instead, all cells of each cluster continue to express ac, enlarge, delaminate and become neuroblasts. It appears that one key function of the neurogenic genes is to silence proneural gene expression within the nonsegregating cells of the initial ectodermal clusters, thereby permitting epidermal development.     

Defective neuroblast commitment in mutants of the achaete-scute complex and adjacent genes of D. melanogaster

Loss of function mutations in genes of the achaete-scute complex (ASC) or in the gene vnd of D. melanogaster result in neural hypoplasia. Two types of defects contribute to the development of the neural hypoplasic phenotype: a lower than normal proportion of neuroblasts delaminate from the neuroectoderm, and there is abundant cell death in the neural primordium during later stages. In addition, we found that increasing the copy number of ASC wild-type alleles leads to effects opposite to those caused by their deletion. All of these results indicate that the function of these genes is required for the commitment of neuroectodermal cells as neuroblasts and that the loss of these genetic functions causes the cells either to take on an epidermal fate or to die.     

Genetic control of dorsoventral patterning and neuroblast specification in the Drosophila Central Nervous System

The Drosophila embryonic Central Nervous System (CNS) develops from the ventrolateral region of the embryo, the neuroectoderm. Neuroblasts arise from the neuroectoderm and acquire unique fates based on the positions in which they are formed. Previous work has identified six genes that pattern the dorsoventral axis of the neuroectoderm: Drosophila epidermal growth factor receptor (Egfr), ventral nerve cord defective (vnd), intermediate neuroblast defective (ind), muscle segment homeobox (msh), Dichaete and Sox-Neuro (SoxN). The activities of these genes partition the early neuroectoderm into three parallel longitudinal columns (medial, intermediate, lateral) from which three distinct columns of neural stem cells arise. Most of our knowledge of the regulatory relationships among these genes derives from classical loss of function analyses. To gain a more in depth understanding of Egfr-mediated regulation of vnd, ind and msh and investigate potential cross-regulatory interactions among these genes, we combined loss of function with ectopic activation of Egfr activity. We observe that ubiquitous activation of Egfr expands the expression of vnd and ind into the lateral column and reduces that of msh in the lateral column. Through this work, we identified the genetic criteria required for the development of the medial and intermediate column cell fates. We also show that ind appears to repress vnd, adding an additional layer of complexity to the genetic regulatory hierarchy that patterns the dorsoventral axis of the CNS. Finally, we demonstrate that Egfr and the genes of the achaete-scute complex act in parallel to regulate the individual fate of neural stem cells.     

Genetic control of Drosophila nerve cord development

The Drosophila ventral nerve cord has been a central model system for studying the molecular genetic mechanisms that control CNS development. Studies show that the generation of neural diversity is a multistep process initiated by the patterning and segmentation of the neuroectoderm. These events act together with the process of lateral inhibition to generate precursor cells (neuroblasts) with specific identities, distinguished by the expression of unique combinations of regulatory genes. The expression of these genes in a given neuroblast restricts the fate of its progeny, by activating specific combinations of downstream genes. These genes in turn specify the identity of any given postmitotic cell, which is evident by its cellular morphology and choice of neurotransmitter.     

Stage-specific inductive signals in the Drosophila neuroectoderm control the temporal sequence of neuroblast specification

One of the initial steps of neurogenesis in the Drosophila embryo is the delamination of a stereotype set of neural progenitor cells (neuroblasts) from the neuroectoderm. The time window of neuroblast segregation has been divided into five successive waves (S1-S5) in which subsets of neuroblasts with specific identities are formed. To test when identity specification of the various neuroblasts takes place and whether extrinsic signals are involved, we have performed heterochronic transplantation experiments. Single neuroectodermal cells from stage 10 donor embryos (after S2) were transplanted into the neuroectoderm of host embryos at stage 7 (before S1) and vice versa. The fate of these cells was uncovered by their lineages at stage 16/17. Transplanted cells adjusted their fate to the new temporal situation. Late neuroectodermal cells were able to take over the fate of early (S1/S2) neuroblasts. The early neuroectodermal cells preferentially generated late (S4/S5) neuroblasts, despite their reduced time of exposure to the neuroectoderm. Furthermore, neuroblast fates are independent from divisions of neuroectodermal progenitor cells. We conclude from these experiments that neuroblast specification occurs sequentially under the control of non-cell-autonomous and stage-specific inductive signals that act in the neuroectoderm.     

Embryonic development of the pars intercerebralis/central complex of the grasshopper

 We have studied the embryonic development of the pars intercerebralis/central complex in the brain of the grasshopper using immunocytochemical and histochemical techniques. Expression of the cell-surface antigen lachesin reveals that the neuroblasts of the pars intercerebralis first differentiate from the neuroectoderm at around 26% of embryogenesis. Differentiation of medial and lateral neuroblasts occurs first. By the 28% stage a more or less uniform sheet of 20 neuroblasts has formed. As a result of both cell proliferation and cell translocation, the pars intercerebralis proliferative cluster in each hemisphere expands so that at 30% the most medial neuroblasts lie apposed at the midline. We followed the further development of the pars intercerebralis of each brain hemisphere using bromo-deoxy-uridine incorporation and osmium-ethyl-gallate staining. Within the pars intercerebralis itself, the neuroblasts redistribute into discrete subsets. The neuroblasts of each subset generate clusters of progeny which extend in a stereotypic, subset-specific direction in the brain. We have used this feature to identify one subset of four neuroblasts as being the likely progenitor cells for four clusters of embryonic neurons (W, X, Y, Z) which develop at around 55% of embryogenesis. We show that these progeny project axons via four discrete fascicles (w, x, y, z) into the embryonic central complex. At the single cell level, Golgi impregnation reveals that the axons from these neighbouring cell clusters remain discrete, and those from the same cluster tightly fasciculated, as they project into the central complex, consistent with a modular organization for this brain region. Received: 16 June 1997 / Accepted: 25 June 1997     

Lateral neural borders as precursors of peripheral nervous systems: A comparative view across bilaterians

The nervous systems in most bilaterians are centralized, composed of central nervous systems (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems (PNS). Common molecular and cellular patterns of medial nerve cords have been observed in various distantly related bilaterians, suggesting deep homology of CNS. The development patterns of PNS, however, are more diverse than CNS across different phylogenetic lineages and the evolution of PNS so far has been thought to be polygenic. The molecular and cellular programs during the development of PNS among different bilaterian branches are drastically different. For example, vertebrate PNS is essentially derived from neural crest cells and placodes, which are largely vertebrate innovations and do not exist in invertebrates. On the other hand, the lack of common precursor cell types does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of different evolutionary origins. Homology needs to be examined with a deeper and broader scope. In this review, we examined the molecular, cellular and developmental characteristics of PNS in a broad range of bilaterians to summarize our current understanding of variation and potentially conserved themes. These comparisons demonstrate that there exist both migratory and non-migratory neuroblasts in the lateral border of CNS precursors in most model bilaterian animals. These lateral border neuroblasts are specified by conserved gene regulatory network and give rise to sensory neurons, suggesting that lateral border neuroblasts represent the progenitor of PNS and share deep homology among different branches of Bilateria. Future studies are needed to elucidate the evo-devo mechanisms of the lateral neural borders as PNS progenitors.     

Neurogenesis in the spider: new insights from comparative analysis of morphological processes and gene expression patterns

While there is a detailed understanding of neurogenesis in insects and partially also in crustaceans, little is known about neurogenesis in chelicerates. In the spider Cupiennius salei Keyserling, 1877 (Chelicerata, Arachnida, Araneae) invaginating cell groups arise sequentially and in a stereotyped pattern comparable to the formation of neuroblasts in Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera, Cyclorrhapha, Drosophilidae). In addition, functional analysis revealed that in the spider homologues of the D. melanogaster proneural and neurogenic genes control the recruitment and singling out of neural precursors like in D. melanogaster. Although groups of cells, rather than individual cells, are singled out from the spider neuroectoderm which can thus not be homologized with the insect neuroblasts, similar genes seem to confer neural identity to the neural precursor cells of the spider. We show here that the pan-neural genes snail and the neural identity gene Krüppel are expressed in neural precursors in a heterogenous spatio-temporal pattern that is comparable to the pattern in D. melanogaster. Our data suggest that the early genetic network involved in recruitment and specification of neural precursors is conserved among insects and chelicerates.     

Forward genetics identifies Kdf1/1810019J16Rik as an essential regulator of the proliferation–differentiation decision in epidermal progenitor cells

Cell fate decisions during embryogenesis and adult life govern tissue formation, homeostasis and repair. Two key decisions that must be tightly coordinated are proliferation and differentiation. Overproliferation can lead to hyperplasia or tumor formation while premature differentiation can result in a depletion of proliferating cells and organ failure. Maintaining this balance is especially important in tissues that undergo rapid turnover like skin however, despite recent advances, the genetic mechanisms that balance cell differentiation and proliferation are still unclear. In an unbiased genetic screen to identify genes affecting early development, we identified an essential regulator of the proliferation–differentiation balance in epidermal progenitor cells, the Keratinocyte differentiation factor 1 (Kdf1; 1810019J16Rik) gene. Kdf1 is expressed in epidermal cells from early stages of epidermis formation through adulthood. Specifically, Kdf1 is expressed both in epidermal progenitor cells where it acts to curb the rate of proliferation as well as in their progeny where it is required to block proliferation and promote differentiation. Consequently, Kdf1 mutants display both uncontrolled cell proliferation in the epidermis and failure to develop terminal fates. Our findings reveal a dual role for the novel gene Kdf1 both as a repressive signal for progenitor cell proliferation through its inhibition of p63 and a strong inductive signal for terminal differentiation through its interaction with the cell cycle regulator Stratifin.     

Segment-specific requirements for dorsoventral patterning genes during early brain development in Drosophila.

An initial step in the development of the Drosophila central nervous system is the delamination of a stereotype population of neural stem cells (neuroblasts, NBs) from the neuroectoderm. Expression of the columnar genes ventral nervous system defective (vnd), intermediate neuroblasts defective (ind) and muscle segment homeobox (msh) subdivides the truncal neuroectoderm (primordium of the ventral nerve cord) into a ventral, intermediate and dorsal longitudinal domain, and has been shown to play a key role in the formation and/or specification of corresponding NBs. In the procephalic neuroectoderm (pNE, primordium of the brain), expression of columnar genes is highly complex and dynamic, and their functions during brain development are still unknown. We have investigated the role of these genes (with special emphasis on the Nkx2-type homeobox gene vnd) in early embryonic development of the brain. We show at the level of individually identified cells that vnd controls the formation of ventral brain NBs and is required, and to some extent sufficient, for the specification of ventral and intermediate pNE and deriving NBs. However, we uncovered significant differences in the expression of and regulatory interactions between vnd, ind and msh among brain segments, and in comparison to the ventral nerve cord. Whereas in the trunk Vnd negatively regulates ind, Vnd does not repress ind (but does repress msh) in the ventral pNE and NBs. Instead, in the deutocerebral region, Vnd is required for the expression of ind. We also show that, in the anterior brain (protocerebrum), normal production of early glial cells is independent from msh and vnd, in contrast to the posterior brain (deuto- and tritocerebrum) and to the ventral nerve cord.     

Functions of the segment polarity genes midline and H15 in Drosophila melanogaster neurogenesis

The Drosophila melanogaster ventral nerve cord derives from neural progenitor cells called neuroblasts. Individual neuroblasts have unique gene expression profiles and give rise to distinct clones of neurons and glia. The specification of neuroblast identity provides a cell intrinsic mechanism which ultimately results in the generation of progeny which are different from each other. Segment polarity genes have a dual function in early neurogenesis: within distinct regions of the neuroectoderm, they are required both for neuroblast formation and for the specification of neuroblast identity. Previous studies of segment polarity gene function largely focused on neuroblasts that arise within the posterior part of the segment. Here we show that the segment polarity gene midline is required for neuroblast formation in the anterior-most part of the segment. Moreover, midline contributes to the specification of anterior neuroblast identity by negatively regulating the expression of Wingless and positively regulating the expression of Mirror. In the posterior-most part of the segment, midline and its paralog, H15, have partially redundant functions in the regulation of the NB marker Eagle. Hence, the segment polarity genes midline and H15 play an important role in the development of the ventral nerve cord in the anterior- and posterior-most part of the segment.     

Cell lineage and cell fate specification in the embryonic CNS of Drosophila

The Drosophila CNS derives from a population of neural stem cells, called neuroblasts (NBs), which delaminate individually from the neurogenic region of the ectoderm. In the embryonic ventral nerve cord each NB can be uniquely identified and gives rise to a specific lineage consisting of neurons and/or glial cells. This 'NB identity' is dependent on the position of the progenitor cells in the neuroectoderm before delamination. The positional information is provided by the products of segment polarity and dorsoventral (D/V) patterning genes. Subsequently, 'cell fate genes' like huckebein (hkb) and eagle (eg) contribute to the generation of specific NB lineages. These genes act downstream of segment polarity and D/V patterning genes and regulate different processes such as the generation of glial cells and the determination of serotonergic neurons.     

Extrinsic cues orient the cell division axis in Drosophila embryonic neuroblasts

Cell polarity must be integrated with tissue polarity for proper development. The Drosophila embryonic central nervous system (CNS) is a highly polarized tissue; neuroblasts occupy the most apical layer of cells within the CNS, and lie just basal to the neural epithelium. Neuroblasts are the CNS progenitor cells and undergo multiple rounds of asymmetric cell division, ;budding off' smaller daughter cells (GMCs) from the side opposite the epithelium, thereby positioning neuronal/glial progeny towards the embryo interior. It is unknown whether this highly stereotypical orientation of neuroblast divisions is controlled by an intrinsic cue (e.g. cortical mark) or an extrinsic cue (e.g. cell-cell signal). Using live imaging and in vitro culture, we find that neuroblasts in contact with epithelial cells always ;bud off' GMCs in the same direction, opposite from the epithelia-neuroblast contact site, identical to what is observed in vivo. By contrast, isolated neuroblasts 'bud off' GMCs at random positions. Imaging of centrosome/spindle dynamics and cortical polarity shows that in neuroblasts contacting epithelial cells, centrosomes remained anchored and cortical polarity proteins localize at the same epithelia-neuroblast contact site over subsequent cell cycles. In isolated neuroblasts, centrosomes drifted between cell cycles and cortical polarity proteins showed a delay in polarization and random positioning. We conclude that embryonic neuroblasts require an extrinsic signal from the overlying epithelium to anchor the centrosome/centrosome pair at the site of epithelial-neuroblast contact and for proper temporal and spatial localization of cortical Par proteins. This ensures the proper coordination between neuroblast cell polarity and CNS tissue polarity.