Molecular analysis of a cellular decision during embryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster: epidermogenesis or neurogenesis

In Drosophila melanogaster, the neuroblasts (neural progenitor cells) develop from a special region of the ectoderm, called the neuroectoderm. During early embryonic development, the neuroblasts separate from the remaining cells of the neuroectoderm, which develop as epidermoblasts (epidermal progenitor cells). The separation of these two cell types is the result of cellular interactions. The available data indicate that a signal chain formed by the products of several identified genes regulates the cell's decision to enter either neurogenesis or epidermogenesis. Various kinds of data, in particular from cell transplantation studies and from genetic and molecular analyses, suggest that the proteins encoded by the genes Notch and Delta interact at the membrane of the neuroectodermal cells to provide a regulatory signal. This signal is thought to lead, on the one hand, to epidermal development through the action of the genes of the Enhancer of split complex, a gene complex that encodes several functions related to the transduction and further processing of the signal, including the genetic regulation in the receiving cell; on the other hand, the signal is thought to lead to neural development through the participation of the genes of the achaete-scute complex and daughterless, which are members of a family of DNA-binding regulatory proteins and of the gene vnd whose molecular nature is still unknown.     

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.     

Reversible commitment of neural and epidermal progenitor cells during embryogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster

Summary Cell-cell interactions are involved in mediating developmental fate. An example is the decision of the neuroectodermal cells of Drosophila to develop as neural or epidermal progenitors, where cellular interactions participate in the process of acquisition of either cell fate. The results of heterochronic cell transplantations we describe here suggest that both neuroblasts and epidermoblasts are not irreversibly committed to a particular developmental fate. Rather, they retain the ability to interact with neighbouring cells and, under our experimental conditions, are capable of switching their fate during a relatively long period of time, i.e. until the end of embryonic stage 11.     

Regulatory signals and signal molecules in early neurogenesis of Drosophila melanogaster

Summary The ectodermal germ layer of Drosophila melanogaster gives rise to two major cell lineages, the neural and the epidermal. Progenitor cells for each of these lineages arise from groups of cells, whose elements must decide between taking on either fate. Commitment of the progenitor cells to one of the developmental fates implies two factors. One is intrinsic to the ectodermal cells and determines a propensity to take on neural fate; this factor is probably represented by the products of the so-called proneural genes, which are differentially distributed throughout the ectoderm. The other factor in the cells' decision to adopt one of the two alternative fates is intercellular communication, which is mediated by the products of the so-called neurogenic genes. Two types of interactions, one inhibiting and the other stimulating neural development, have been inferred. We discuss here the assumed role of various neurogenic genes, in particular Notch and Delta, in these processes. Offprint requests to: J.A. Campos-Ortega     

Positive and negative signals between interacting cells for establishing neural fate

Specifying multiple cell types from a population of initially equivalent cells is a fundamental process in the development of all multicellular organisms. Neural development in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster provides an excellent venue in which to examine mechanisms of cell fate specification. Inhibitory cell–cell interactions mediated by genes of the Notch-Delta signaling pathway govern the selection of neural and epidermal fates among cells with equivalent developmental potential in a process termed lateral inhibition. Recent data on the roles of genes such as Notch, Delta, and kuzbanian warrant a rethinking of the lateral inhibition model. Furthermore, evidence for a positive signaling pathway promoting the neural fate among equivalent cells suggests that this mechanism acts in addition to lateral inhibition to specify cell fate. A balance of opposing signals may be necessary to correctly partition cells of different types from an initially homogeneous population of cells. BioEssays 20 :209-214, 1998. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.     

Cell fate determination in embryonic ectoderm

During gastrulation in vertebrates the cells of the embryonic ectoderm give rise to epidermal progenitors in the ventral side and neural progenitors in the dorsal side. Despite many years of scrutiny, the molecular basis of these important embryonic cell fate decisions have not been solved. Only recently have we witnessed swift progress in the quest for factors involved in neural and epidermal induction. Several of what seem to be bona fide in vivo neural and epidermal inducers have been cloned, and the mechanism of their functions in embryos is also beginning to be understood. These new molecular results have revolutionized our view on the patterning of embryonic ectoderm and suggest that while the induction of epidermis requires instructive inductive signals, the establishment of neural fate occurs by default when epidermal inducers are inhibited. In this review, we discuss recent advances of our knowledge on epidermal and neural induction in the context of the “default model”. We will then address the process of neurogenesis as well as recent findings on neural patterning. Emphasis is placed on, but not limited to, discoveries made in Xenopus, as most of our progress in understanding the ectodermal patterning is obtained from studies using this organism. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Neurobiol 36: 128–151, 1998     

Using a neural network to identify potential HLA-DR1 binding sites within proteins

The presentation by antigen-presenting cells of immunodominant peptide segments in association with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) encoded proteins is fundamental to the efficacy of a specific immune response. One approach used to identify immunodominant segments within proteins has involved the development of predictive algorithms which utilize amino acid sequence data to identify structural characteristics or motifs associated with in vivo antigenicity. The parallel-computing technique termed ‘neural networking’ has recently been shown to be remarkably efficient at addressing the problem of pattern recognition and can be applied to predict protein secondary structure attributes directly from amino acid sequence data. In order to examine the potential of a neural network to generalize peptide structural feature related to binding within class II MHC-encoded proteins, we have trained a neural network to determine whether or not any given amino acid of a protein is part of a peptide segment capable of binding to HLA-DR1. We report that a neural network trained on a data base consisting of peptide segments known to bind to HLA-DR1 is able to generalize features relating to HLA-DR1-binding capacity (r = 0.17 and p = 0.0001).     

How to keep proliferative neural stem/progenitor cells

It has long been argued that cell cycle regulators such as cyclins, cyclin-dependent kinases and their inhibitors affect the fate of neuronal progenitor cells. Recently, we identified that cyclin D2, which localizes at the basal tip of the radial glial cell (i.e., the neural progenitor in the developing neocortex), functions to give differential cell fates to its daughter cells just after cell division. This basally biased localization is due to transportation of cyclin D2 mRNA via its unique cis-regulatory sequence and local translation into cyclin D2 protein at the basal endfoot. During division of the neural progenitor cells, cyclin D2 protein is inherited by the daughter cell that retain the basal process, resulting in asymmetric distribution of cyclin D2 protein between the two daughter cells. Cyclin D2 is similarly localized in the human fetal cortical primordium, suggesting a common mechanism for the maintenance of neural progenitors and a possible scenario in evolution of primate brains. Here we introduce our recent findings and discuss how cyclin D2 functions in mammalian brain development and evolution.     

The G protein Gαs acts as a tumor suppressor in sonic hedgehog signaling-driven tumorigenesis

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are critical players in tumor growth and progression. The redundant roles of GPCRs in tumor development confound effective treatment; therefore, targeting a single common signaling component downstream of these receptors may be efficacious. GPCRs transmit signals through heterotrimeric G proteins composed of Gα and Gβγ subunits. Hyperactive Gα_s signaling can mediate tumor progression in some tissues; however, recent work in medulloblastoma and basal cell carcinoma revealed that Gα_s can also function as a tumor suppressor in neoplasms derived from ectoderm cells including neural and epidermal stem/progenitor cells. In these stem-cell compartments, signaling through Gα_s suppresses self-renewal by inhibiting the Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) and Hippo pathways. The loss of GNAS, which encodes Gα_s, leads to activation of these pathways, over-proliferation of progenitor cells, and tumor formation. Gα_s activates the cAMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA) signaling pathway and inhibits activation of SHH effectors Smoothened-Gli. In addition, Gα_s-cAMP-PKA activation negatively regulates the Hippo pathway by blocking the NF2-LATS1/2-Yap signaling. In this review, we will address the novel function of the signaling network regulated by Gα_s in suppression of SHH-driven tumorigenesis and the therapeutic approaches that can be envisioned to harness this pathway to inhibit tumor growth and progression.     

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.     

Multipotent neural stem cells generate glial cells of the central complex through transit amplifying intermediate progenitors in Drosophila brain development

The neural stem cells that give rise to the neural lineages of the brain can generate their progeny directly or through transit amplifying intermediate neural progenitor cells (INPs). The INP-producing neural stem cells in Drosophila are called type II neuroblasts, and their neural progeny innervate the central complex, a prominent integrative brain center. Here we use genetic lineage tracing and clonal analysis to show that the INPs of these type II neuroblast lineages give rise to glial cells as well as neurons during postembryonic brain development. Our data indicate that two main types of INP lineages are generated, namely mixed neuronal/glial lineages and neuronal lineages. Genetic loss-of-function and gain-of-function experiments show that the gcm gene is necessary and sufficient for gliogenesis in these lineages. The INP-derived glial cells, like the INP-derived neuronal cells, make major contributions to the central complex. In postembryonic development, these INP-derived glial cells surround the entire developing central complex neuropile, and once the major compartments of the central complex are formed, they also delimit each of these compartments. During this process, the number of these glial cells in the central complex is increased markedly through local proliferation based on glial cell mitosis. Taken together, these findings uncover a novel and complex form of neurogliogenesis in Drosophila involving transit amplifying intermediate progenitors. Moreover, they indicate that type II neuroblasts are remarkably multipotent neural stem cells that can generate both the neuronal and the glial progeny that make major contributions to one and the same complex brain structure.     

Regulation of progenitor cell survival by a novel chromatin remodeling factor during neural tube development

During development, progenitor cell survival is essential for proper tissue functions, but the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood. Here we show that ERCC6L2, a member of the Snf2 family of helicase-like proteins, plays an essential role in the survival of developing chick neural cells. ERCC6L2 expression is induced by the Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) signaling molecule by a mechanism similar to that of the known Shh target genes Ptch1 and Gli1. ERCC6L2 blocks programmed cell death induced by Shh inhibition and this inhibition is independent of neural tube patterning. ERCC6L2 knockdown by siRNA resulted in the aberrant appearance of apoptotic cells. Furthermore, ERCC6L2 cooperates with the Shh signal and plays an essential role in the induction of the anti-apoptotic factor Bcl-2. Taken together, ERCC6L2 acts as a key factor in ensuring the survival of neural progenitor cells.     

Genetic and molecular mechanisms of neurogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster

Cells of the neurogenic ectoderm of insects have to decide between a neural and an epidermal fate. In Drosophila, this decision id mediated by cellular interactions. The products of two different groups of genes, i.e., the neurogenic genes and the genes of the achaete-scute complex and daughterless, seem to provide the molecular basis for the elements of a signal chain that permits the commitment of the cells to a given fate.     

Multiple lineage-specific roles of Smad4 during neural crest development

During vertebrate development, neural crest cells are exposed to multiple extracellular cues that drive their differentiation into neural and non-neural cell lineages. Insights into the signals potentially involved in neural crest cell fate decisions in vivo have been gained by cell culture experiments that have allowed the identification of instructive growth factors promoting either proliferation of multipotent neural crest cells or acquisition of specific fates. For instance, members of the TGFβ factor family induce neurogenesis and smooth muscle cell formation at the expense of other fates in culture. In vivo, conditional ablation of various TGFβ signaling components resulted in malformations of non-neural derivatives of the neural crest, but it is unclear whether these phenotypes involved aberrant fate decisions. Moreover, it remains to be shown whether neuronal determination indeed requires TGFβ factor activity in vivo. To address these issues, we conditionally deleted Smad4 in the neural crest, thus inactivating all canonical TGFβ factor signaling. Surprisingly, neural crest cell fates were not affected in these mutants, with the exception of sensory neurogenesis in trigeminal ganglia. Rather, Smad4 regulates survival of smooth muscle and proliferation of autonomic and ENS neuronal progenitor cells. Thus, Smad signaling plays multiple, lineage-specific roles in vivo, many of which are elicited only after neural crest cell fate decision.