Investigating divergent mechanisms of mesoderm development in arthropods: the expression of Ph-twist and Ph-mef2 in Parhyale hawaiensis

The evolution of mesoderm was important for the development of complex body plans as well as key organ systems. Genetic and molecular studies in the fruitfly, Drosophila melanogaster, have provided the majority of information concerning mesoderm development in arthropods. In Drosophila, twist is necessary for the specification and correct morphogenesis of mesoderm and myocyte enhancing factor 2 (mef2) is involved downstream of twist to activate muscle differentiation. In Drosophila, mesoderm is defined by positional cues in the blastoderm embryo, while in another arthropod group, the amphipod crustaceans, cell lineage plays a greater role in defining the mesoderm. It is not known how different mechanistic strategies such as positional information vs. cell-lineage-dependent development affect the timing and use of gene networks. Here we describe the development of the mesoderm in a malacostracan crustacean, Parhyale hawaiensis, and characterize the expression of Parhyale twist and mef2 orthologues. In Parhyale, the mesoderm of the post-mandibular segments arises mainly through the asymmetric division of mesoteloblasts as the germband elongates. Ph-twist expression is seen in a subset of segmental mesoderm during germband development, but not during early cleavages when the specific mesodermal cell lineages first arise. ph-mef2 expression starts after the segmental mesoderm begins to proliferate and persists in developing musculature. While the association of these genes with mesoderm differentiation appears to be conserved across the animal kingdom, the timing of expression and relationship with different mechanisms of mesoderm development may give us greater insight into the ancestral use of these genes during mesoderm differentiation.     

Expression of 'segmentation' genes during larval and juvenile development in the polychaetes Capitella sp. I and H. elegans

Polychaete annelids and arthropods are both segmented protostome invertebrates. To investigate whether the segmented body plan of these two phyla share a common molecular ground pattern, we report the developmental expression of orthologues of the arthropod segment polarity genes engrailed (en), hedgehog (hh), and wingless (wg/Wnt1) in larval and juvenile stages of the polychaete annelid Capitella sp. I and en in a second polychaete, Hydroides elegans. Temporally, neither Wnt1 nor hh are detected in the segmented region of the larval body until after morphological segmentation is apparent. Expression of CapI-Wnt1 is limited to a ring of ectoderm marking the future anus during larval segmentation. CapI-hh is expressed in a ring of the hindgut internal to that of CapI-Wnt1, as well as in a subset of ventral nerve cord neurons, anterior gut tissue, and mesoderm. In both H. elegans and Capitella sp. I, en is expressed in a spatially and temporally dynamic manner in segmentally iterated structures as well as a population of cells that migrate internally from ectoderm to mesoderm, possibly representing a population of ecto-mesodermal precursors. Significantly, the expression patterns we report for wg, en, and hh orthologues in Capitella sp. I and for en in larval development of H. elegans are not comparable to the highly conserved ectodermal segment polarity pattern observed in arthropods at any life history stage, consistent with distinct origins of segmentation between annelids and arthropods.     

Expression of hunchback during trunk segmentation in the branchiopod crustacean Artemia franciscana

Comparative studies have shown that some aspects of segmentation are widely conserved among arthropods. Yet, it is still unclear whether the molecular prepatterns that are required for segmentation in Drosophila are likely to be similarly conserved in other arthropod groups. Homologues of the Drosophila gap genes, like hunchback, show regionally restricted expression patterns during the early phases of segmentation in diverse insects, but their expression patterns in other arthropod groups are not yet known. Here, we report the cloning of a hunchback orthologue from the crustacean Artemia franciscana and its expression during the formation of trunk segments. Artemia hunchback is expressed in a series of segmental stripes that correspond to individual thoracic/trunk, genital, and postgenital segments. However, this expression is not associated with the segmenting ectoderm but is restricted to mesodermal cells that associate with the ectoderm in a regular metameric pattern. All cells in the early segmental mesoderm appear to express hunchback. Later, mesodermal expression fades, and a complex expression pattern appears in the central nervous system (CNS), which is comparable to hunchback expression in the CNS of insects. No regionally restricted expression, reminiscent of gap gene expression, is observed during trunk segmentation. These patterns suggest that the expression patterns of hunchback in the mesoderm and in the CNS are likely to be ancient and conserved among crustaceans and insects. In contrast, we find no evidence for a conserved role of hunchback in axial patterning in the trunk ectoderm.     

Playing by pair‐rules?

Although in Drosophila pair-rule genes play crucial roles in the genetic hierarchy that subdivides the embryo into segments, the extent to which pair-rule patterning is utilized by different arthropods and other segmented phyla is unknown. Recent data of Dearden et al.1 and Henry et al.,2 however, hint that a pair-rule mechanism might play a role in the segmentation process of basal arthropods and vertebrates.     

Amphioxus and the evolution of head segmentation

Whether or not the vertebrate head is fundamentally segmented has been controversial for over 150 years. Beginning in the late 19th century, segmentalist theories proposed that the vertebrate head evolved from an amphioxus-like ancestor in which mesodermal somites extended the full length of the body with remnants of segmentation persisting as the mesodermal head cavities of sharks and lampreys. Antisegmentalists generally argued either that the vertebrate ancestors never had any mesodermal segmentation anteriorly or that they lost it before the origin of the vertebrates; in either case, the earliest vertebrates had an unsegmented head and the embryonic cranial mesoderm of vertebrates is at best pseudo-segmented, evolving independently of any pre-vertebrate segmental pattern. Recent morphologic studies have generally confirmed the accuracy of the major classical studies of head development in lampreys and sharks, yet disagree with their theoretical conclusions regarding the evolution of head segmentation. Studies of developmental genes in amphioxus and vertebrates, which have demonstrated conservation of the mechanisms of anterior-posterior patterning in the two groups, have shed new light on this controversy. Most pertinently, some homologs of genes expressed in the anterior amphioxus somites, which form as outpocketings of the gut, are also expressed in the walls of the head cavities of lampreys, which form similarly, and in their major derivatives (the velar muscles) as well as in the eye and jaw muscles of bony gnathostomes, which derive from unsegmented head mesoderm. These muscles share gene expression with the corresponding muscles of the shark, which derive from the walls of head cavities that form, not as outpocketings of the gut, but as secondary cavities within solid blocks of tissue. While molecular data that can be compared across all the relevant taxa remain limited, they are consistent with an evolutionary scenario in which the cranial paraxial mesoderm of the lamprey and shark evolved from the anterior somites of an amphioxus-like ancestor. Although, bony vertebrates have lost the mesodermal head segments present in the shark and lamprey, their remnants persist in the muscles of the eye and jaw.     

The problem of periodic patterns in embryos

A segmented body-plan has developed at least twice during metazoan evolution: in the lineage including annelids and arthropods, where the segment is the unit of body structure, and in the ancestors of vertebrates, where a primary segmentation of the middle, mesodermal cell layer of the embryo imposes a spatially periodic character upon derivatives of other layers. The mechanism controlling the development of these periodic patterns has the property that the number of the serially homologous structures formed within each species is largely independent of the linear dimension, or scale, at which pattern formation occurs in individual cases. In this they contrast with other patterns of dispersed, homologous structures occurring in animal epidermis and dermis. The performance of various classes of model for the control of number in vertebrates somite formation are compared, in the light of experimentally and naturally observable properties of this aspect of pattern.     

Suppressor of Hairless and Presenilin phenotypes imply involvement of canonical Notch-signalling in segmentation of the spider Cupiennius salei

Arthropods, vertebrates, and annelids all have a segmented body. Our recent discovery of involvement of Notch-signalling in spider segmentation revived the discussion on the origin of segmented body plans and suggests the sharing of a common genetic program in a common ancestor. Here, we analysed the spider homologues of the Suppressor of Hairless and Presenilin genes, which encode components of the canonical Notch-pathway, to further explore the role of Notch-signalling in spider segmentation. RNAi silencing of two spider Suppressor of Hairless homologues and the spider Presenilin homologue causes severe segmentation phenotypes. The most prominent defect is the consistent breakdown of segmentation after the formation of three (Suppressor of Hairless) or five (Presenilin) opisthosomal segments. These phenotypes indicate that Notch-signalling during spider segmentation likely involves the canonical pathway via Presenilin and Suppressor of Hairless. Furthermore, it implies that Notch-signalling influences both the formation and patterning of the spider segments: it is required for the specification of the posterior segments and for proper specification of the segment boundaries. We argue that alternative, partly redundant, pathways might act in the formation of the anterior segments that are not active in the posterior segments. This suggests that at least some differences exist in the specification of anterior and posterior segments of the spider, a finding that may be valid for most short germ arthropods. Our data provide additional evidence for the similarities of Notch-signalling in spider segmentation and vertebrate somitogenesis and strengthen our previous notion that the formation of the segments in arthropods and vertebrates might have shared a genetic program in a common ancestor.     

The involvement of <Emphasis Type="Italic">engrailed</Emphasis> and <Emphasis Type="Italic">wingless</Emphasis> during segmentation in the onychophoran <Emphasis Type="Italic">Euperipatoides kanangrensis</Emphasis> (Peripatopsidae: Onychophora) (Reid 1996)

As the putative sister group to the arthropods, onychophorans can provide insight into ancestral developmental mechanisms in the panarthropod clade. Here, we examine the expression during segmentation of orthologues of wingless (Wnt1) and engrailed, two genes that play a key role in defining segment boundaries in Drosophila and that appear to play a role in segmentation in many other arthropods. Both are expressed in segmentally reiterated stripes in all forming segments except the first (brain) segment, which only shows an engrailed stripe. Engrailed is expressed before segments are morphologically visible and is expressed in both mesoderm and ectoderm. Segmental wingless expression is not detectable until after mesodermal somites are clearly distinct. Early engrailed expression lies in and extends to both sides of the furrow that first demarcates segments in the ectoderm, but is largely restricted to the posterior part of somites. Wingless expression lies immediately anterior to engrailed expression, as it does in many arthropods, but there is no precise cellular boundary between the two expression domains analogous to the overt parasegment boundary seen in Drosophila. Engrailed stripes extend along the posterior part of each limb bud, including the antenna, while wingless is restricted to the distal tip of the limbs and the neurectoderm basal to the limbs. Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Developmental Morphology of the Head Mesoderm and Reevaluation of Segmental Theories of the Vertebrate Head: Evidence from Embryos of an Agnathan Vertebrate, Lampetra japonica

Due to the peculiar morphology of its preotic head, lampreys have long been treated as an intermediate animal which links amphioxus and gnathostomes. To reevaluate the segmental theory of classical comparative embryology, mesodermal development was observed in embryos of a lamprey, Lampetra japonica, by scanning electron microscopy and immunohistochemistry. Signs of segmentation are visible in future postotic somites at an early neurula stage, whereas the rostral mesoderm is unsegmented and rostromedially confluent with the prechordal plate. The premandibular and mandibular mesoderm develop from the prechordal plate in a caudal to rostral direction and can be called the preaxial mesoderm as opposed to the caudally developing gastral mesoderm. With the exception of the premandibular mesoderm, the head mesodermal sheet is secondarily regionalized by the otocyst and pharyngeal pouches into the mandibular mesoderm, hyoid mesoderm, and somite 0. The head mesodermal components never develop into cephalic myotomes, but the latter develop only from postotic somites. These results show that the lamprey embryo shows a typical vertebrate phylotype and that the basic mesodermal configuration of vertebrates already existed prior to the split of agnatha-gnathostomata; lamprey does not represent an intermediate state between amphioxus and gnathostomes. Unlike interpretations of theories of head segmentation that the mesodermal segments are primarily equivalent along the axis, there is no evidence in vertebrate embryos for the presence of preotic myotomes. We conclude that mesomere-based theories of head metamerism are inappropriate and that the formulated vertebrate head should possess the distinction between primarily unsegmented head mesoderm which includes preaxial components at least in part and somites in the trunk which are shared in all the known vertebrate embryos as the vertebrate phylotype.     

A role for the Drosophila neurogenic genes in mesoderm differentiation

The neurogenic genes of Drosophila have long been known to regulate cell fate decisions in the developing ectoderm. In this paper we show that these genes also control mesoderm development. Embryonic cells that express the muscle-specific gene nautilus are overproduced in each of seven neurogenic mutants (Notch, Delta, Enhancer of split, big brain, mastermind, neuralized, and almondex), at the apparent expense of neighboring, nonexpressing mesodermal cells. The mesodermal defect does not appear to be a simple consequence of associated neural hypertrophy, suggesting that the neurogenic genes may function similarly and independently in establishing cell fates in both ectoderm and mesoderm. Altered patterns of beta 3-tubulin and myosin heavy chain gene expression in the mutants indicate a role for the neurogenic genes in development of most visceral and somatic muscles. We propose that the signal produced by the neurogenic genes is a general one, effective in both ectoderm and mesoderm.     

The RhoGEF Pebble is required for cell shape changes during cell migration triggered by the Drosophila FGF receptor Heartless

The FGF receptor Heartless (HTL) is required for mesodermal cell migration in the Drosophila gastrula. We show that mesoderm cells undergo different phases of specific cell shape changes during mesoderm migration. During the migratory phase, the cells adhere to the basal surface of the ectoderm and exhibit extensive protrusive activity. HTL is required for the protrusive activity of the mesoderm cells. Moreover, the early phenotype of htl mutants suggests that HTL is required for the adhesion of mesoderm cells to the ectoderm. In a genetic screen we identified pebble (pbl) as a novel gene required for mesoderm migration. pbl encodes a guanyl nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for RHO1 and is known as an essential regulator of cytokinesis. We show that the function of PBL in cell migration is independent of the function of PBL in cytokinesis. Although RHO1 acts as a substrate for PBL in cytokinesis, compromising RHO1 function in the mesoderm does not block cell migration. These data suggest that the function of PBL in cell migration might be mediated through a pathway distinct from RHO1. This idea is supported by allele-specific differences in the expressivity of the cytokinesis and cell migration phenotypes of different pbl mutants. We show that PBL is autonomously required in the mesoderm for cell migration. Like HTL, PBL is required for early cell shape changes during mesoderm migration. Expression of a constitutively active form of HTL is unable to rescue the early cellular defects in pbl mutants, suggesting that PBL is required for the ability of HTL to trigger these cell shape changes. These results provide evidence for a novel function of the Rho-GEF PBL in HTL-dependent mesodermal cell migration.     

An analysis of segmentation dynamics throughout embryogenesis in the centipede <Emphasis Type="Italic">Strigamia maritima</Emphasis>

Background

Most segmented animals add segments sequentially as the animal grows. In vertebrates, segment patterning depends on oscillations of gene expression coordinated as travelling waves in the posterior, unsegmented mesoderm. Recently, waves of segmentation gene expression have been clearly documented in insects. However, it remains unclear whether cyclic gene activity is widespread across arthropods, and possibly ancestral among segmented animals. Previous studies have suggested that a segmentation oscillator may exist in Strigamia, an arthropod only distantly related to insects, but further evidence is needed to document this.

Results

Using the genes even skipped and Delta as representative of genes involved in segment patterning in insects and in vertebrates, respectively, we have carried out a detailed analysis of the spatio-temporal dynamics of gene expression throughout the process of segment patterning in Strigamia. We show that a segmentation clock is involved in segment formation: most segments are generated by cycles of dynamic gene activity that generate a pattern of double segment periodicity, which is only later resolved to the definitive single segment pattern. However, not all segments are generated by this process. The most posterior segments are added individually from a localized sub-terminal area of the embryo, without prior pair-rule patterning.

Conclusions

Our data suggest that dynamic patterning of gene expression may be widespread among the arthropods, but that a single network of segmentation genes can generate either oscillatory behavior at pair-rule periodicity or direct single segment patterning, at different stages of embryogenesis.

     

The evolution of chordate neural segmentation

Amphioxus is the closest relative to vertebrates but lacks key vertebrate characters, like rhombomeres, neural crest cells, and the cartilaginous endoskeleton. This reflects major differences in the developmental patterning of neural and mesodermal structures between basal chordates and vertebrates. Here, we analyse the expression pattern of an amphioxus FoxB ortholog and an amphioxus single-minded ortholog to gain insight into the evolution of vertebrate neural segmentation. AmphiFoxB expression shows cryptic segmentation of the cerebral vesicle and hindbrain, suggesting that neuromeric segmentation of the chordate neural tube arose before the origin of the vertebrates. In the forebrain, AmphiFoxB expression combined with AmphiSim and other amphioxus gene expression patterns shows that the cerebral vesicle is divided into several distinct domains: we propose homology between these domains and the subdivided diencephalon and midbrain of vertebrates. In the Hox-expressing region of the amphioxus neural tube that is homologous to the vertebrate hindbrain, AmphiFoxB shows the presence of repeated blocks of cells along the anterior-posterior axis, each aligned with a somite. This and other data lead us to propose a model for the evolution of vertebrate rhombomeric segmentation, in which rhombomere evolution involved the transfer of mechanisms regulating neural segmentation from vertical induction by underlying segmented mesoderm to horizontal induction by graded retinoic acid signalling. A consequence of this would have been that segmentation of vertebrate head mesoderm would no longer have been required, paving the way for the evolution of the unsegmented head mesoderm seen in living vertebrates.     

Functional subdivision of trunk visceral mesoderm parasegments in Drosophila is required for gut and trachea development

In Drosophila, trunk visceral mesoderm, a derivative of dorsal mesoderm, gives rise to circular visceral muscles. It has been demonstrated that the trunk visceral mesoderm parasegment is subdivided into at least two domains by connectin expression, which is regulated by Hedgehog and Wingless emanating from the ectoderm. We now extend these findings by examining a greater number of visceral mesodermal genes, including hedgehog and branchless. Each visceral mesodermal parasegment appears to be divided into five or six regions, based on differences in expression patterns of these genes. Ectodermal Hedgehog and Wingless differentially regulate the expression of these metameric targets in trunk visceral mesoderm. hedgehog expression in trunk visceral mesoderm is responsible for maintaining its own expression and con expression. hedgehog expressed in visceral mesoderm parasegment 3 may also be required for normal decapentaplegic expression in this region and normal gastric caecum development. branchless expressed in each trunk visceral mesodermal parasegment serves as a guide for the initial budding of tracheal visceral branches. The metameric pattern of trunk visceral mesoderm, organized in response to ectodermal instructive signals, is thus maintained at a later time via autoregulation, is required for midgut morphogenesis and exerts feedback effect on trachea, ectodermal derivatives.     

Coelom formation: binary decision of the lateral plate mesoderm is controlled by the ectoderm.

Most triploblastic animals including vertebrates have a coelomic cavity that separates the outer and inner components of the body. The coelom is lined by two different tissue components, somatopleure and splanchnopleure, which are derived from the lateral plate region. Thus, the coelom is constructed as a result of a binary decision during early specification of the lateral plate. In this report we studied the molecular mechanisms of this binary decision. We first demonstrate that the splitting of the lateral plate into the two cell sheets progresses in an anteroposterior order and this progression is not coordinated with that of the somitic segmentation. By a series of embryological manipulations we found that young splanchnic mesoderm is still competent to be respecified as somatic mesoderm, and the ectoderm overlying the lateral plate is sufficient for this redirection. The lateral ectoderm is also required for maintenance of the somatic character of the mesoderm. Thus, the ectoderm plays at least two roles in the early subdivision of the lateral plate: specification and maintenance of the somatic mesoderm. We also show that the latter interactions are mediated by BMP molecules that are localized in the lateral ectoderm. Evolutionary aspects of the coelom formation are also considered.     

Vertebrate somitogenesis: a novel paradigm for animal segmentation?

In vertebrates, the primary segmented tissue of the body axis is the paraxial mesoderm, which lies bilaterally to the axial organs, neural tube and notochord. The segmental pattern of the paraxial mesoderm is established during embryogenesis through the production of the somites which are transient embryonic segments giving rise to the vertebrae, the skeletal muscles and the dorsal dermis. Somitogenesis can be subdivided into three major phases (see Fig. 1). First a growth phase during which new paraxial mesoderm cells are produced by a growth zone (epiblast and blastopore margin or primitive streak and later on tail bud) and become organized as two rods of mesenchymal tissue,forming the presomitic mesoderm. Second a patterning phase occuring in the PSM, during which the segmental pattern is established at the molecular level. Third, the somitic boundaries are formed during the morphological segmentation phase. In all vertebrates, all cells of the paraxial mesoderm, during their maturation in the PSM, go successively through these three phases, which are tightly regulated at the spatio-temporal level. The first phase of paraxial mesoderm production falls out of the scope of this review, as it essentially pertains to the gastrulation process. Here, I essentially discuss the segmental patterning phase in vertebrates. Recent data suggest that establishment of the segmental pattern relies on a clock and wavefront mechanism which has been conserved in vertebrates. Furthermore, conservation of this system could extend to invertebrates, suggesting that the clock and wavefront is an ancestral mechanism.     

Historical hypotheses regarding segmentation of the vertebrate head

The morphology of the vertebrate head is extremely complex and comprises numerous iterative structures that arise from each of the embryonic germ layers. The search for a fundamental plan uniting all of these serial structures spans ～200 years. The earliest attempt to identify a common plan was J. W. Goethe's vertebral theory of skull organization, in which the skull was interpreted as being formed by a series of trunk vertebrae. This theory was rejected by T. H. Huxley in the 1858 Croonian Lecture and was replaced by the segmented mesodermal model of Francis Balfour, which was elaborated subsequently by A. Marshall, Gavin de Beer, and Edwin Goodrich. This model assumes that the head of the earliest vertebrates consisted of eight segments. It further assumes that each segment contained dorsal muscles arising from the somitic mesoderm, and ventral muscles arising from lateral plate mesoderm, except for the first segment, which lacked ventral muscles derived from the lateral plate mesoderm. The muscles of each head segment were believed to be innervated by two pairs of cranial nerves, homologous to the dorsal and ventral spinal nerves of lampreys. The validity of this theory, known as the Goodrich model, came into question, however, after the discovery that the branchiomeric muscles associated with each pharyngeal arch do not arise from lateral plate mesoderm, as initially proposed by Marshall and subsequently accepted by Goodrich and de Beer, but, rather, arise from paraxial mesoderm. Furthermore, segmentation of the brain into some 14 neuromeres cannot be accommodated by any model involving eight segments. Finally, there is also clear evidence that at least one, if not two, additional series of placodally derived sensory nerves occurs in the head and has no counterpart in the trunk. At present, there is no theory of segmentation that can account for all cephalic iterative structures.