Suppression of polydactyly of the Gli3 mutant (extra toes) by deltaEF1 homozygous mutation

Digit patterning is established through multiple genetic interactions. Delta-crystallin enhancer/E2-box factor (deltaEF1) is a zinc finger and homeodomain containing repressor protein, and is expressed in the posterior half of the forelimb bud and in the entire hindlimb bud during the early stage of limb development. The 6EF1-deficient mutant mice display various skeletal abnormalities, among which inferior ossification and abnormal patterning of autopodial bones are similar to those observed in Hox and Gli gene mutants. Gli3 mutant mice, extra toes (Xt), exhibit pre-axial polydactyly losing the identity of digit I. It is demonstrated here that deltaEF1null(lacZ) homozygosity suppressed formation of the extra digit, uniquely of the hindlimb, in both Gli3XtJ heterozygous and homozygous mutants, but with no restoration of digit I identity. In Gli3XtJ mutants, the Hoxd13 expression domain was expanded more dramatically in homozygotes. In Gli3XtJ;deltaEF1null(lacZ) double homozygous mutants, Hoxd13 expression once expanded in Gli3XtJ homozygous mutant was reduced, more conspicuously in the hindlimbs, which may account for hindlimb-restricted suppression of formation of the extra digit. The data suggest the possibility that the extent of Hoxd13 expression along the distal margin of the limb bud is determinative in defining the digit number.     

Bambi and Sp8 Expression Mark Digit Tips and Their Absence Shows That Chick Wing Digits 2 and 3 Are Truncated

An often overlooked aspect of digit development is the special nature of the terminal phalanx, a specialized structure with characteristics distinct from other phalanges, for example the presence of ectodermal derivatives such as nails and claws. Here, we describe the unique ossification pattern of distal phalanges and characteristic gene expression in the digit tips of chick and duck embryos. Our results show that the distal phalanx of chick wing digit 1 is a genuine tip with a characteristic ossification pattern and expression of Bambi and Sp8; however, the terminal phalanx of digits 2* and 3 is not a genuine tip, and these are therefore truncated digits. Bambi and Sp8 expression in the chick wing provides a direct molecular assessment of digit identity changes after experimental manipulations of digit primordia. In contrast, digits 1 and 2 of the duck wing both possess true tips. Although chick wing-tip development was not rescued by application of Fgf8, this treatment induced the development of extra phalanges. Grafting experiments show that competence for tip formation, including nails, is latent in the interdigital tissue. Our results deepen understanding of the mechanisms of digit tip formation, highlighting its developmental autonomy and modular nature, with implications for digit reduction or loss during evolution. * Numbering of wing digits is 1, 2, 3 from anterior to posterior.     

Hox genes, digit identities and the theropod/bird transition

Vargas and Fallon (2005. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 304B:86-90) propose that Hox gene expression patterns indicate that the most anterior digit in bird wings is homologous to digit 1 rather than to digit 2 in other amniotes. This interpretation is based on the presence of Hoxd13 expression in combination with the absence of Hoxd12 expression in the second digit condensation from which this digit develops (the first condensation is transiently present). This is a pattern that is similar to that in the developing digit 1 of the chicken foot and the mouse hand and foot. They have tested this new hypothesis by analysing Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 expression patterns in two polydactylous chicken mutants, Silkie and talpid2. They conclude that the data support the notion that the most anterior remaining digit of the bird wing is homologous to digit 1 in other amniotes either in a standard phylogenetic sense, or alternatively in a (limited) developmental sense in agreement with the Frameshift Hypothesis of Wagner and Gautier (1999, i.e., that the developmental pathway is homologous to the one that leads to a digit 1 identity in other amniotes, although it occurs in the second instead of the first digit condensation). We argue that the Hoxd12 and Hoxd13 expression patterns found for these and other limb mutants do not allow distinguishing between the hypothesis of Vargas and Fallon (2005. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 304B:86-90) and the alternative one, i.e., the most anterior digit in bird wings is homologous to digit 2 in other amniotes, in a phylogenetic or developmental sense. Therefore, at the moment the data on limb mutants does not present a challenge to the hypothesis, based on other developmental data (Holmgren, 1955. Acta Zool 36:243-328; Hinchliffe, 1984. In: Hecht M, Ostrom JH, Viohl G, Wellnhofer P, editors. The beginnings of birds. Eichst?tt: Freunde des Jura-Museum. p 141-147; Burke and Feduccia, 1997. Science 278:666-668; Kundrát et al., 2002. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 294B:151-159; Larsson and Wagner, 2002. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 294B:146-151; Feduccia and Nowicki, 2002. Naturwissenschaften 89:391-393), that the digits of bird wings are homologous to digits 2,3,4 in amniotes. We recommend further testing of the hypothesis by comparing Hoxd expression patterns in different taxa.     

Birds have dinosaur wings: The molecular evidence

Within developmental biology, the digits of the wing of birds are considered on embryological grounds to be digits 2, 3 and 4. In contrast, within paleontology, wing digits are named 1, 2, 3 as a result of phylogenetic analysis of fossil taxa indicating that birds descended from theropod dinosaurs that had lost digits 4 and 5. It has been argued that the development of the wing does not support the conclusion that birds are theropods, and that birds must have descended from ancestors that had lost digits 1 and 5. Here we use highly conserved gene expression patterns in the developing limbs of mouse and chicken, including the chicken talpid(2)mutant and polydactylous Silkie breed (Silkie mutant), to aid the assessment of digital identity in the wing. Digit 1 in developing limbs does not express Hoxd12, but expresses Hoxd13. All other digits express both Hoxd12and Hoxd13. We found this signature expression pattern identifies the anteriormost digit of the wing as digit 1, in accordance with the hypothesis these digits are 1, 2 and 3, as in theropod dinosaurs. Our evidence contradicts the long-standing argument that the development of the wing does not support the hypothesis that birds are living dinosaurs.     

The chick oligozeugodactyly (ozd) mutant lacks sonic hedgehog function in the limb

We have analyzed a new limb mutant in the chicken that we name oligozeugodactyly (ozd). The limbs of this mutant have a longitudinal postaxial defect, lacking the posterior element in the zeugopod (ulna/fibula) and all digits except digit 1 in the leg. Classical recombination experiments show that the limb mesoderm is the defective tissue layer in ozd limb buds. Molecular analysis revealed that the ozd limbs develop in the absence of Shh expression, while all other organs express Shh and develop normally. Neither Ptc1 nor Gli1 are detectable in mutant limb buds. However, Bmp2 and dHAND are expressed in the posterior wing and leg bud mesoderm, although at lower levels than in normal embryos. Activation of Hoxd11-13 occurs normally in ozd limbs but progressively declines with time. Phase III of expression is more affected than phase II, and expression is more severely affected in the more 5' genes. Interestingly, re-expression of Hoxd13 occurs at late stages in the distal mesoderm of ozd leg buds, correlating with formation of digit 1. Fgf8 and Fgf4 expression are initiated normally in the mutant AER but their expression is progressively downregulated in the anterior AER. Recombinant Shh protein or ZPA grafts restore normal pattern to ozd limbs; however, retinoic acid fails to induce Shh in ozd limb mesoderm. We conclude that Shh function is required for limb development distal to the elbow/knee joints, similar to the Shh(-/-) mouse. Accordingly we classify the limb skeletal elements as Shh dependent or independent, with the ulna/fibula and digits other than digit 1 in the leg being Shh dependent. Finally we propose that the ozd mutation is most likely a defect in a regulatory element that controls limb-specific expression of Shh.     

Comparative analysis of 3D expression patterns of transcription factor genes and digit fate maps in the developing chick wing

Hoxd13, Tbx2, Tbx3, Sall1 and Sall3 genes are candidates for encoding antero-posterior positional values in the developing chick wing and specifying digit identity. In order to build up a detailed profile of gene expression patterns in cell lineages that give rise to each of the digits over time, we compared 3 dimensional (3D) expression patterns of these genes during wing development and related them to digit fate maps. 3D gene expression data at stages 21, 24 and 27 spanning early bud to digital plate formation, captured from in situ hybridisation whole mounts using Optical Projection Tomography (OPT) were mapped to reference wing bud models. Grafts of wing bud tissue from GFP chicken embryos were used to fate map regions of the wing bud giving rise to each digit; 3D images of the grafts were captured using OPT and mapped on to the same models. Computational analysis of the combined computerised data revealed that Tbx2 and Tbx3 are expressed in digit 3 and 4 progenitors at all stages, consistent with encoding stable antero-posterior positional values established in the early bud; Hoxd13 and Sall1 expression is more dynamic, being associated with posterior digit 3 and 4 progenitors in the early bud but later becoming associated with anterior digit 2 progenitors in the digital plate. Sox9 expression in digit condensations lies within domains of digit progenitors defined by fate mapping; digit 3 condensations express Hoxd13 and Sall1, digit 4 condensations Hoxd13, Tbx3 and to a lesser extent Tbx2. Sall3 is only transiently expressed in digit 3 progenitors at stage 24 together with Sall1 and Hoxd13; then becomes excluded from the digital plate. These dynamic patterns of expression suggest that these genes may play different roles in digit identity either together or in combination at different stages including the digit condensation stage.     

Genomic regulation of Hox collinearity

During vertebrate limb development, Hoxd genes are transcribed in two temporal phases; an early wave controls growth and polarity up to the forearm and a late wave patterns the digits. In this issue of Developmental Cell, Tarchini and Duboule (2006) report that two opposite regulatory modules direct early collinear expression of Hoxd genes.     

The morphological basis of hallucal orientation in extant birds

The perching foot of living birds is commonly characterized by a reversed or opposable digit I (hallux). Primitively, the hallux of nonavian theropod dinosaurs was unreversed and lay parallel to digits II-IV. Among basal birds, a unique digital innovation evolved in which the hallux opposes digits II-IV. This digital configuration is critical for grasping and perching. I studied skeletons of modern birds with a range of hallucal designs, from unreversed (anteromedially directed) to fully reversed (posteriorly directed). Two primary correlates of hallucal orientation were revealed. First, the fossa into which metatarsal I articulates is oriented slightly more posteriorly on the tarsometatarsus, rotating the digit as a unit. Second, metatarsal I exhibits a distinctive torsion of its distal shaft relative to its proximal articulation with the tarsometatarsus, reorienting the distal condyles and phalanges of digit I. Herein, I present a method that facilitates the re-evaluation of hallucal orientation in fossil avians based on morphology alone. This method also avoids potential misinterpretations of hallucal orientation in fossil birds that could result from preserved appearance alone.     

Primate origins: evolutionary change in digital ray patterning and segmentation

This study presents evidence that the first primates share with extant lemurs, tarsiers, and anthropoids hand proportions unlike those of their close relatives, the tree shrews (Scandentia), colugos (Dermoptera), and plesiadapiforms. Specifically, early primates as well as modern strepsirhines and haplorhines have relatively short metacarpals and long proximal phalanges giving them a grasping, prehensile hand. Limb development was studied in the primate Microcebus murinus and a comparative sample of rodents, artiodactyls, and marsupials to investigate the role of embryonic patterning in the morphogenesis and evolution of primate hand proportions. Comparative analysis shows that the derived finger proportions of primates are generated during the early phases of digital ray patterning and segmentation, when the interzone cells marking the presumptive metacarpo- and interphalangeal joints first appear. Interspecific variation in relative digit and metapodial proportions therefore has high developmental penetrance; that is, adult differences are observed at early ontogenetic stages. The paleontological, comparative, and developmental data are therefore consistent with the hypothesis that the early Cenozoic origin of primates involved an evolutionary change in digital ray pattern formation ultimately yielding a grasping, prehensile hand.     

Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb

Among the primary contributions of phylogenetic systematicsto the synthesis of developmental biology and evolution arephylogenetic hypotheses. Phylogenetic hypotheses are criticalin interpreting the patterns of evolution of developmental genesand processes, as are morphological data. Using a robust phylogeny,the evolutionary history of individual morphological or developmentalfeatures can be traced and ancestral conditions inferred. Multiplecharacters (e.g., morphological and developmental) can be mappedtogether on the phylogeny, and patterns of character associationcan be quantified and tested for correlation. Using the vertebrate forelimb as an example, I show that bymapping accurate morphological data (homologous skeletal elementsof the vertebrate forelimb) onto a phylogeny, an alternativeinterpretation of Hox gene expression emerges. Teleost fishesand tetrapods may share no homologous skeletal elements in theirforelimbs, and thus similarities and differences in Hox patternsduring limb development must be reinterpreted. Specifically,the presence of the phase III Hox pattern in tetrapods may notbe correlated with digits but rather may simply be the normalexpression pattern of a metapterygium in fishes. This exampleillustrates the rigorous hypotheses that can be developed usingmorphological data and phylogenetic methods. "Creating a general reference system and investigating the relationsthat extend from it to all other possible and necessary systemsin biology is the task of systematics." (Hennig, 1966, p.7)     

Manifestation of the limb prepattern: limb development in the absence of sonic hedgehog function

The secreted protein encoded by the Sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene is localized to the posterior margin of vertebrate limb buds and is thought to be a key signal in establishing anterior-posterior limb polarity. In the Shh(-/-) mutant mouse, the development of many embryonic structures, including the limb, is severely compromised. In this study, we report the analysis of Shh(-/-) mutant limbs in detail. Each mutant embryo has four limbs with recognizable humerus/femur bones that have anterior-posterior polarity. Distal to the elbow/knee joints, skeletal elements representing the zeugopod form but lack identifiable anterior-posterior polarity. Therefore, Shh specifically becomes necessary for normal limb development at or just distal to the stylopod/zeugopod junction (elbow/knee joints) during mouse limb development. The forelimb autopod is represented by a single distal cartilage element, while the hindlimb autopod is invariably composed of a single digit with well-formed interphalangeal joints and a dorsal nail bed at the terminal phalanx. Analysis of GDF5 and Hoxd11-13 expression in the hindlimb autopod suggests that the forming digit has a digit-one identity. This finding is corroborated by the formation of only two phalangeal elements which are unique to digit one on the foot. The apical ectodermal ridge (AER) is induced in the Shh(-/-) mutant buds with relatively normal morphology. We report that the architecture of the Shh(-/-) AER is gradually disrupted over developmental time in parallel with a reduction of Fgf8 expression in the ridge. Concomitantly, abnormal cell death in the Shh(-/-) limb bud occurs in the anterior mesenchyme of both fore- and hindlimb. It is notable that the AER changes and mesodermal cell death occur earlier in the Shh(-/-) forelimb than the hindlimb bud. This provides an explanation for the hindlimb-specific competence to form autopodial structures in the mutant. Finally, unlike the wild-type mouse limb bud, the Shh(-/-) mutant posterior limb bud mesoderm does not cause digit duplications when grafted to the anterior border of chick limb buds, and therefore lacks polarizing activity. We propose that a prepattern exists in the limb field for the three axes of the emerging limb bud as well as specific limb skeletal elements. According to this model, the limb bud signaling centers, including the zone of polarizing activity (ZPA) acting through Shh, are required to elaborate upon the axial information provided by the native limb field prepattern.