Comparative morphology of central neuropils in the brain of arthropods and its evolutionary and functional implications

Most insects and decapod crustaceans possess an assemblage of midline neuropils, the central complex. Recent phylogenetic studies show a sister-group relationship between hexapods and decapods, suggesting that central complexes in both groups are homologous structures derived from a basal ancestral neuropil. This ancestral archetype of the central complex (lacking the protocerebral bridge) might be represented in the chilopods. Until recently, diplopods were regarded as closely related to chilopods and united within the taxon "Myriapoda". The entire lack of a midline neuropil in diplopods, however, renders the monophyletic origin of the class Myriapoda unlikely. In this study we used a palette of immunocytochemical and neuroanatomical methods to investigate mid-line neuropils in hitherto poorly examined arthropod groups. Of special interest for resolving arthropod phylogeny are onychophorans, who are believed to be an evolutionary ancient group that resembles the ancestors of modern arthropods. Striking similarities in central brain neuroarchitecture of the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowellii and of a chelicerate species, however, suggest a close phylogenetic relationship between these two groups. Our findings imply that onychophorans either represent the oldest form of the chelicerates or that extant onychophorans have developed from chelicerate-like ancestors by neoteny.     

Comparative analysis of neurogenesis in the myriapod Glomeris marginata (Diplopoda) suggests more similarities to chelicerates than to insects

Molecular data suggest that myriapods are a basal arthropod group and may even be the sister group of chelicerates. To find morphological indications for this relationship we have analysed neurogenesis in the myriapod Glomeris marginata (Diplopoda). We show here that groups of neural precursors, rather than single cells as in insects, invaginate from the ventral neuroectoderm in a manner similar to that in the spider: invaginating cell groups arise sequentially and at stereotyped positions in the ventral neuroectoderm of Glomeris, and all cells of the neurogenic region seem to enter the neural pathway. Furthermore, we have identified an achaete-scute, a Delta and a Notch homologue in GLOMERIS: The genes are expressed in a pattern similar to the spider homologues and show more sequence similarity to the chelicerates than to the insects. We conclude that the myriapod pattern of neural precursor formation is compatible with the possibility of a chelicerate-myriapod sister group relationship.     

Gene expression patterns in an onychophoran reveal that regionalization predates limb segmentation in pan‐arthropods

SUMMARY In arthropods, such as Drosophila melanogaster, the leg gap genes homothorax (hth), extradenticle (exd), dachshund (dac), and Distal‐less (Dll) regionalize the legs in order to facilitate the subsequent segmentation of the legs. We have isolated homologs of all four leg gap genes from the onychophoran Euperipatoides kanangrensis and have studied their expression. We show that leg regionalization takes place in the legs of onychophorans even though they represent simple and nonsegmented appendages. This implies that leg regionalization evolved for a different function and was only later co‐opted for a role in leg segmentation. We also show that the leg gap gene patterns in onychophorans (especially of hth and exd) are similar to the patterns in crustaceans and insects, suggesting that this is the plesiomorphic state in arthropods. The reversed hth and exd patterns in chelicerates and myriapods are therefore an apomorphy for this group, the Myriochelata, lending support to the Myriochelata and Tetraconata clades in arthropod phylogeny.     

Expression of the decapentaplegic ortholog in embryos of the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli

The gene decapentaplegic (dpp) and its homologs are essential for establishing the dorsoventral body axis in arthropods and vertebrates. However, the expression of dpp is not uniform among different arthropod groups. While this gene is expressed along the dorsal body region in insects, its expression occurs in a mesenchymal group of cells called cumulus in the early spider embryo. A cumulus-like structure has also been reported from centipedes, suggesting that it might be either an ancestral feature of arthropods or a derived feature (=synapomorphy) uniting the chelicerates and myriapods. To decide between these two alternatives, we analysed the expression patterns of a dpp ortholog in a representative of one of the closest arthropod relatives, the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli. Our data revealed unique expression patterns in the early mesoderm anlagen of the antennal segment and in the dorsal and ventral extra-embryonic tissue, suggesting a divergent role of dpp in these tissues in Onychophora. In contrast, the expression of dpp in the dorsal limb portions resembles that in arthropods, except that it occurs in the mesoderm rather than in the ectoderm of the onychophoran limbs. A careful inspection of embryos of E. rowelli revealed no cumulus-like accumulation of dpp expressing cells at any developmental stage, suggesting that this feature is either a derived feature of chelicerates or a synapomorphy uniting the chelicerates and myriapods.     

Expression of the decapentaplegic ortholog in embryos of the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli

The gene decapentaplegic (dpp) and its homologs are essential for establishing the dorsoventral body axis in arthropods and vertebrates. However, the expression of dpp is not uniform among different arthropod groups. While this gene is expressed along the dorsal body region in insects, its expression occurs in a mesenchymal group of cells called cumulus in the early spider embryo. A cumulus-like structure has also been reported from centipedes, suggesting that it might be either an ancestral feature of arthropods or a derived feature (=synapomorphy) uniting the chelicerates and myriapods. To decide between these two alternatives, we analysed the expression patterns of a dpp ortholog in a representative of one of the closest arthropod relatives, the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli. Our data revealed unique expression patterns in the early mesoderm anlagen of the antennal segment and in the dorsal and ventral extra-embryonic tissue, suggesting a divergent role of dpp in these tissues in Onychophora. In contrast, the expression of dpp in the dorsal limb portions resembles that in arthropods, except that it occurs in the mesoderm rather than in the ectoderm of the onychophoran limbs. A careful inspection of embryos of E. rowelli revealed no cumulus-like accumulation of dpp expressing cells at any developmental stage, suggesting that this feature is either a derived feature of chelicerates or a synapomorphy uniting the chelicerates and myriapods.     

Neural Markers Reveal a One-Segmented Head in Tardigrades (Water Bears)

Background

While recent neuroanatomical and gene expression studies have clarified the alignment of cephalic segments in arthropods and onychophorans, the identity of head segments in tardigrades remains controversial. In particular, it is unclear whether the tardigrade head and its enclosed brain comprises one, or several segments, or a non-segmental structure. To clarify this, we applied a variety of histochemical and immunocytochemical markers to specimens of the tardigrade Macrobiotus cf. harmsworthi and the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Our immunolabelling against serotonin, FMRFamide and α-tubulin reveals that the tardigrade brain is a dorsal, bilaterally symmetric structure that resembles the brain of onychophorans and arthropods rather than a circumoesophageal ring typical of cycloneuralians (nematodes and allies). A suboesophageal ganglion is clearly lacking. Our data further reveal a hitherto unknown, unpaired stomatogastric ganglion in Macrobiotus cf. harmsworthi, which innervates the ectodermal oesophagus and the endodermal midgut and is associated with the second leg-bearing segment. In contrast, the oesophagus of the onychophoran E. rowelli possesses no immunoreactive neurons, whereas scattered bipolar, serotonin-like immunoreactive cell bodies are found in the midgut wall. Furthermore, our results show that the onychophoran pharynx is innervated by a medullary loop nerve accompanied by monopolar, serotonin-like immunoreactive cell bodies.

Conclusions/Significance

A comparison of the nervous system innervating the foregut and midgut structures in tardigrades and onychophorans to that of arthropods indicates that the stomatogastric ganglion is a potential synapomorphy of Tardigrada and Arthropoda. Its association with the second leg-bearing segment in tardigrades suggests that the second trunk ganglion is a homologue of the arthropod tritocerebrum, whereas the first ganglion corresponds to the deutocerebrum. We therefore conclude that the tardigrade brain consists of a single segmental region corresponding to the arthropod protocerebrum and, accordingly, that the tardigrade head is a non-composite, one-segmented structure.     

Deciphering the onychophoran ‘segmentation gene cascade’: Gene expression reveals limited involvement of pair rule gene orthologs in segmentation,but a highly conserved segment polarity gene network

The hallmark of the arthropods is their segmented body, although origin of segmentation, however, is unresolved. In order to shed light on the origin of segmentation we investigated orthologs of pair rule genes (PRGs) and segment polarity genes (SPGs) in a member of the closest related sister-group to the arthropods, the onychophorans. Our gene expression data analysis suggests that most of the onychophoran PRGs do not play a role in segmentation. One possible exception is the even-skipped (eve) gene that is expressed in the posterior end of the onychophoran where new segments are likely patterned, and is also expressed in segmentation-gene typical transverse stripes in at least a number of newly formed segments. Other onychophoran PRGs such as runt (run), hairy/Hes (h/Hes) and odd-skipped (odd) do not appear to have a function in segmentation at all. Onychophoran PRGs that act low in the segmentation gene cascade in insects, however, are potentially involved in segment-patterning. Most obvious is that from the expression of the pairberry (pby) gene ortholog that is expressed in a typical SPG-pattern. Since this result suggested possible conservation of the SPG-network we further investigated SPGs (and associated factors) such as Notum in the onychophoran. We find that the expression patterns of SPGs in arthropods and the onychophoran are highly conserved, suggesting a conserved SPG-network in these two clades, and indeed also in an annelid. This may suggest that the common ancestor of lophotrochozoans and ecdysozoans was already segmented utilising the same SPG-network, or that the SPG-network was recruited independently in annelids and onychophorans/arthropods.     

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.     

A congruent solution to arthropod phylogeny: phylogenomics,microRNAs and morphology support monophyletic Mandibulata

While a unique origin of the euarthropods is well established, relationships between the four euarthropod classes—chelicerates, myriapods, crustaceans and hexapods—are less clear. Unsolved questions include the position of myriapods, the monophyletic origin of chelicerates, and the validity of the close relationship of euarthropods to tardigrades and onychophorans. Morphology predicts that myriapods, insects and crustaceans form a monophyletic group, the Mandibulata, which has been contradicted by many molecular studies that support an alternative Myriochelata hypothesis (Myriapoda plus Chelicerata). Because of the conflicting insights from published molecular datasets, evidence from nuclear-coding genes needs corroboration from independent data to define the relationships among major nodes in the euarthropod tree. Here, we address this issue by analysing two independent molecular datasets: a phylogenomic dataset of 198 protein-coding genes including new sequences for myriapods, and novel microRNA complements sampled from all major arthropod lineages. Our phylogenomic analyses strongly support Mandibulata, and show that Myriochelata is a tree-reconstruction artefact caused by saturation and long-branch attraction. The analysis of the microRNA dataset corroborates the Mandibulata, showing that the microRNAs miR-965 and miR-282 are present and expressed in all mandibulate species sampled, but not in the chelicerates. Mandibulata is further supported by the phylogenetic analysis of a comprehensive morphological dataset covering living and fossil arthropods, and including recently proposed, putative apomorphies of Myriochelata. Our phylogenomic analyses also provide strong support for the inclusion of pycnogonids in a monophyletic Chelicerata, a paraphyletic Cycloneuralia, and a common origin of Arthropoda (tardigrades, onychophorans and arthropods), suggesting that previous phylogenies grouping tardigrades and nematodes may also have been subject to tree-reconstruction artefacts.     

Head patterning and Hox gene expression in an onychophoran and its implications for the arthropod head problem

The arthropod head problem has puzzled zoologists for more than a century. The head of adult arthropods is a complex structure resulting from the modification, fusion and migration of an uncertain number of segments. In contrast, onychophorans, which are the probable sister group to the arthropods, have a rather simple head comprising three segments that are well defined during development, and give rise to the adult head with three pairs of appendages specialised for sensory and food capture/manipulative purposes. Based on the expression pattern of the anterior Hox genes labial, proboscipedia, Hox3 and Deformed, we show that the third of these onychophoran segments, bearing the slime papillae, can be correlated to the tritocerebrum, the most anterior Hox-expressing arthropod segment. This implies that both the onychophoran antennae and jaws are derived from a more anterior, Hox-free region corresponding to the proto and deutocerebrum of arthropods. Our data provide molecular support for the proposal that the onychophoran head possesses a well-developed appendage that corresponds to the anterior, apparently appendage-less region of the arthropod head.     

Neurogenesis in the chilopod <Emphasis Type="Italic">Lithobius forficatus</Emphasis> suggests more similarities to chelicerates than to insects

In a recent comparative study on neurogenesis in the diplopod Glomeris marginata we have shown that the millipede and the spider share several features that cannot be found in homologous form in insects and crustaceans. The most distinctive difference is that groups of neural precursors are singled out from the neuroectoderm of the spider and the diplopod, rather than individual cells (i.e. neuroblasts) as in insects or crustacean. This observation constitutes the first morphological indication for a close myriapod/chelicerate relationship that has otherwise only been suggested by molecular phylogenetic analysis. To see whether the pattern of neurogenesis described for the diplopod is representative for myriapods, we analysed neurogenesis in the basal chilopod Lithobius forficatus. We show here that groups of cells invaginate from the chilopod neuroectoderm at strikingly similar positions as the invaginating cell groups of the diplopod and the spider. Furthermore, the expression patterns of the proneural and neurogenic genes reveal more similarities to the chelicerate and the diplopod than to insects. Thus, chelicerates and myriapods share the developmental mechanism for neurogenesis, either because they are true sister groups, or because this reflects the ancestral state of neurogenesis in arthropods.Edited by P. Simpson     

Arthropod phylogeny: onychophoran brain organization suggests an archaic relationship with a chelicerate stem lineage

Neuroanatomical studies have demonstrated that the architecture and organization among neuropils are highly conserved within any order of arthropods. The shapes of nerve cells and their neuropilar arrangements provide robust characters for phylogenetic analyses. Such analyses so far have agreed with molecular phylogenies in demonstrating that entomostracans+malacostracans belong to a clade (Tetraconata) that includes the hexapods. However, relationships among what are considered to be paraphyletic groups or among the stem arthropods have not yet been satisfactorily resolved. The present parsimony analyses of independent neuroarchitectural characters from 27 arthropods and lobopods demonstrate relationships that are congruent with phylogenies derived from molecular studies, except for the status of the Onychophora. The present account describes the brain of the onychophoran Euperipatoides rowelli, demonstrating that the structure and arrangements of its neurons, cerebral neuropils and sensory centres are distinct from arrangements in the brains of mandibulates. Neuroanatomical evidence suggests that the organization of the onychophoran brain is similar to that of the brains of chelicerates.     

Neurogenesis in myriapods and chelicerates and its importance for understanding arthropod relationships

Several alternative hypotheses on the relationships betweenthe major arthropod groups are still being discussed. We reexaminehere the chelicerate/myriapod relationship by comparing previouslypublished morphological data on neurogenesis in the euarthropodgroups and presenting data on an additional myriapod (Strigamiamaritima). Although there are differences in the formation ofneural precursors, most euarthropod species analyzed generateabout 30 single neural precursors (insects/crustaceans) or precursorgroups (chelicerates/myriapods) per hemisegment that are arrangedin a regular pattern. The genetic network involved in recruitmentand specification of neural precursors seems to be conservedamong euarthropods. Furthermore, we show here that neural precursoridentity seems to be achieved in a similar way. Besides theseconserved features we found 2 characters that distinguish insects/crustaceansfrom myriapods/chelicerates. First, in insects and crustaceansthe neuroectoderm gives rise to epidermal and neural cells,whereas in chelicerates and myriapods the central area of theneuroectoderm exclusively generates neural cells. Second, neuralcells arise by stem-cell-like divisions of neuroblasts in insectsand crustaceans, whereas groups of mainly postmitotic neuralprecursors are recruited for the neural fate in cheliceratesand myriapods. We discuss whether these characteristics representa sympleisiomorphy of myriapods and chelicerates that has beenlost in the more derived Pancrustacea or whether these characteristicsare a synapomorphy of myriapods and chelicerates, providingthe first morphological support for the Myriochelata group.     

Mixed cholinergic/glutamatergic neuromuscular innervation of Onychophora: a combined histochemical/electrophysiological study

Morphological and molecular phylogenetic data show that the Onychophora are close relatives of the Arthropoda. However, onychophoran neuromuscular junctions have been reported to employ acetylcholine, as in annelids, nematodes, and other bilaterians, rather than glutamate, as in arthropods. Here, we show that the large longitudinal muscles of Peripatoides respond indeed only to acetylcholine, whereas the oblique and ring muscles of the body wall are sensitive both to acetylcholine and to L-glutamate. Moreover, cytochemical staining reveals both acetylcholinesterase- and glutamate-positive synaptic boutons on oblique and ring muscles. These novel findings agree with a phylogenetic position of onychophorans basal to that of the arthropods. Although the glutamatergic phenotype of excitatory neuromuscular transmission may be a characteristic feature of arthropods and present even in a subset of onychophoran motor neurons, the motor neurons of the longitudinal muscles still retain the cholinergic phenotype typical for annelids and other taxa.     

Structure and development of onychophoran eyes: what is the ancestral visual organ in arthropods?

Scarce and controversial information on visual organs and their innervation in Onychophora currently do not allow a thorough comparison with Euarthropoda. Therefore, this study sets out to provide additional data on the architecture and morphogenesis of the onychophoran visual system and to explore similarities and differences between the visual organs of onychophorans and other arthropods. Based on the new data for Epiperipatus biolleyi (Peripatidae) and Metaperipatus blainvillei (Peripatopsidae), it is suggested that the compound eyes represent an autapomorphy of Euarthropoda since similarities with the onychophoran eyes are weak or absent. Instead, the innervation from a central rather than lateral part of the brain, the presence of only one (paired or unpaired) visual center, and a similar ontogenetic origin from an ectodermal groove rather than a proliferation zone suggest homology between the onychophoran eyes and the median ocelli of euarthropods. In conclusion, I suggest that the last common ancestor of arthropods bore only one pair of ocellus-like visual organs that were modified in several arthropod lineages. This hypothesis is supported by recent paleontological data.     

Neurogenesis in the water flea Daphnia magna (Crustacea, Branchiopoda) suggests different mechanisms of neuroblast formation in insects and crustaceans

Within euarthropods, the morphological and molecular mechanisms of early nervous system development have been analysed in insects and several representatives of chelicerates and myriapods, while data on crustaceans are fragmentary. Neural stem cells (neuroblasts) generate the nervous system in insects and in higher crustaceans (malacostracans); in the remaining euarthropod groups, the chelicerates (e.g. spiders) and myriapods (e.g. millipedes), neuroblasts are missing. In the latter taxa, groups of neural precursors segregate from the neuroectoderm and directly differentiate into neurons and glial cells. In all euarthropod groups, achaete–scute homologues are required for neuroblast/neural precursor group formation. In the insects Drosophila melanogaster and Tribolium castaneum achaete–scute homologues are initially expressed in clusters of cells (proneural clusters) in the neuroepithelium but expression becomes restricted to the future neuroblast. Subsequently genes such as snail and prospero are expressed in the neuroblasts which are required for asymmetric division and differentiation. In contrast to insects, malacostracan neuroblasts do not segregate into the embryo but remain in the outer neuroepithelium, similar to vertebrate neural stem cells. It has been suggested that neuroblasts are present in another crustacean group, the branchiopods, and that they also remain in the neuroepithelium. This raises the questions how the molecular mechanisms of neuroblast selection have been modified during crustacean and insect evolution and if the segregation or the maintenance of neuroblasts in the neuroepithelium represents the ancestral state. Here we take advantage of the recently published Daphnia pulex (branchiopod) genome and identify genes in Daphnia magna that are known to be required for the selection and asymmetric division of neuroblasts in the fruit fly D. melanogaster. We unambiguously identify neuroblasts in D. magna by molecular marker gene expression and division pattern. We show for the first time that branchiopod neuroblasts divide in the same pattern as insect and malacostracan neuroblasts. Furthermore, in contrast to D. melanogaster, neuroblasts are not selected from proneural clusters in the branchiopod. Snail rather than ASH is the first gene to be expressed in the nascent neuroblasts suggesting that ASH is not required for the selection of neuroblasts as in D. melanogaster. The prolonged expression of ASH in D. magna furthermore suggests that it is involved in the maintenance of the neuroblasts in the neuroepithelium. Based on these and additional data from various representatives of arthropods we conclude that the selection of neural precursors from proneural clusters as well as the segregation of neural precursors represents the ancestral state of neurogenesis in arthropods. We discuss that the derived characters of malacostracans and branchiopods – the absence of neuroblast segregation and proneural clusters – might be used to support or reject the possible groupings of paraphyletic crustaceans.