Multiple roles for Hox genes in segment-specific shaping of CNS lineages

In this “Extra View” article we highlight some of the recently accumulating evidence showing that Hox genes are involved at different steps during the development of neural cell lineages to control segmental patterning of the CNS. In addition to their well-known early role in establishing segmental identities, Hox genes act on neural stem cells and their progeny at various stages during embryonic and postembryonic development to control proliferation, cell fate and/or apoptosis in a segment-specific manner. This leads to differential shaping of serially homologous lineages and thus to structural diversification of segmental CNS units (neuromeres) in adaptation to their specific functional tasks in processing sensory information and generation of motor patterns.     

Hox genes regulate the same character by different strategies in each segment

Hox genes control regional identity along the anterior-posterior axis in various animals. Each region contains morphological characteristics specific to that region as well as some that are shared by several different regions. The mechanism by which one Hox gene regulates region-specific characteristics has been extensively analyzed. However, little attention has been paid to the mechanism by which different Hox genes regulate the same characteristics in different regions. Here, we show that two Hox genes in Drosophila, Sex combs reduced and Ultrabithorax, employ different mechanisms to achieve the same out-put, the absence of sternopleural bristles, in the prothorax and metathorax, respectively. Sternopleural bristles are characteristics of the mesothorax and we found that spineless is involved in their development. Analysis of the regulatory relationship between Hox genes and spineless indicated that ss expression is repressed by Sex combs reduced in the prothorax. Since sole misexpression of ss could induce ectopic sternopleural bristle formation in the prothorax irrespective of the expression of Sex combs reduced, spineless repression appears to be critical for inhibition of sternopleural bristles by Sex combs reduced. In contrast, spineless was expressed in the metathorax independently of Ultrabithorax activity, indicating that Ultrabithorax blocks sternopleural bristle formation through mechanisms other than spineless repression. Our finding indicates that the same characteristics can be achieved in different segments by different Hox genes acting in different ways.     

Moz-dependent Hox expression controls segment-specific fate maps of skeletal precursors in the face

Development of the facial skeleton depends on interactions between intrinsic factors in the skeletal precursors and extrinsic signals in the facial environment. Hox genes have been proposed to act cell-intrinsically in skeletogenic cranial neural crest cells (CNC) for skeletal pattern. However, Hox genes are also expressed in other facial tissues, such as the ectoderm and endoderm, suggesting that Hox genes could also regulate extrinsic signalling from non-CNC tissues. Here we study moz mutant zebrafish in which hoxa2b and hoxb2a expression is lost and the support skeleton of the second pharyngeal segment is transformed into a duplicate of the first-segment-derived jaw skeleton. By performing tissue mosaic experiments between moz(-) and wild-type embryos, we show that Moz and Hox genes function in CNC, but not in the ectoderm or endoderm, to specify the support skeleton. How then does Hox expression within CNC specify a support skeleton at the cellular level? Our fate map analysis of skeletal precursors reveals that Moz specifies a second-segment fate map in part by regulating the interaction of CNC with the first endodermal pouch (p1). Removal of p1, either by laser ablation or in the itga5(b926) mutant, reveals that p1 epithelium is required for development of the wild-type support but not the moz(-) duplicate jaw-like skeleton. We present a model in which Moz-dependent Hox expression in CNC shapes the normal support skeleton by instructing second-segment CNC to undergo skeletogenesis in response to local extrinsic signals.     

Plasticity of axial identity among somites: cranial somites can generate vertebrae without expressing Hox genes appropriate to the trunk

Classic studies have shown that the presomitic mesoderm is already committed to a specific morphological fate, for example, the ability to generate a rib. Hox gene expression in the paraxial mesoderm has also been shown to be fixed early and not susceptible to modulation by an ectopic environment. This is in contrast to the plasticity of Hox expression in neuroectodermal derivatives. We reexamine here the potential of somites for morphological plasticity by transplanting the cranial (occipital) somites 1-4, that normally produce small contributions to the skull, to the trunk of avian embryos. Surprisingly, the transposed cranial somites are able to form reasonably normal vertebral anlage. In addition, the cranial somitic mesoderm produces intervertebral disks, structures not normally found in the skull. These somites are however unable to generate some elements of the vertebrae, such as the costal process. In contrast to the morphogenetic plasticity of the occipital somites, their characteristic inability to support survival of dorsal root ganglia was not significantly modified by posterior transplantation. Dorsal root ganglia initially developed and then degenerated with the same morphological stages as normally observed. In striking contrast to the plasticity of morphology, we found that all four members of the of the fourth paralogous group of Hox genes that are expressed endogenously at the level of the graft are not upregulated in the caudad-transposed cranial mesoderm. It therefore appears that genes other than those of the Hox family normally expressed at this axial level control the position-specific morphogenesis of ectopic vertebrae formed from cranial somites. In evolutionary terms, the present results imply that occipital somites that were incorporated into the "New Head" retain the ability to develop according to their original morphogenetic fate, into vertebrae.     

Quaternary structures of Vac8 differentially regulate the Cvt and PMN pathways

ABSTRACT

Armadillo (ARM) repeat proteins constitute a large protein family with diverse and fundamental functions in all organisms, and armadillo repeat domains share high structural similarity. However, exactly how these structurally similar proteins can mediate diverse functions remains a long-standing question. Vac8 (vacuole related 8) is a multifunctional protein that plays pivotal roles in various autophagic pathways, including piecemeal microautophagy of the nucleus (PMN) and cytoplasm-to-vacuole targeting (Cvt) pathways in the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Vac8 comprises an H1 helix at the N terminus, followed by 12 armadillo repeats. Herein, we report the crystal structure of Vac8 bound to Atg13, a key component of autophagic machinery. The 70-Å extended loop of Atg13 binds to the ARM domain of Vac8 in an antiparallel manner. Structural, biochemical, and in vivo experiments demonstrated that the H1 helix of Vac8 intramolecularly associates with the first ARM and regulates its self-association, which is crucial for Cvt and PMN pathways. The structure of H1 helix-deleted Vac8 complexed with Atg13 reveals that Vac8[Δ19–33]-Atg13 forms a heterotetramer and adopts an extended superhelical structure exclusively employed in the Cvt pathway. Most importantly, comparison of Vac8-Nvj1 and Vac8-Atg13 provides a molecular understanding of how a single ARM domain protein adopts different quaternary structures depending on its associated proteins to differentially regulate 2 closely related but distinct cellular pathways.     

A nested deletion approach to generate Cre deleter mice with progressive Hox profiles

In mice, the loxP/Cre recombinase-dependent system of recombination offers powerful possibilities for engineering genetic configurations of interest. This system can also be advantageously used for conditional mutagenesis in vivo, whenever such an approach is required due to deleterious effects of either one mutation, or a combination thereof. Here, we report on the production of an allelic series of insertions of a Hoxd11/Cre fusion transgene at different positions within the HoxD complex, in order to produce the CRE recombinase with a 'Hox profile' progressively more extended. We used the R26R (R26R) reporter mouse line to functionally assess the distribution and efficiency of the CRE enzyme and discuss the usefulness of these various lines as deleter strains.     

Two more Posterior Hox genes and Hox cluster dispersal in echinoderms

Background

Hox genes are key elements in patterning animal development. They are renowned for their, often, clustered organisation in the genome, with supposed mechanistic links between the organisation of the genes and their expression. The widespread distribution and comparable functions of Hox genes across the animals has led to them being a major study system for comparing the molecular bases for construction and divergence of animal morphologies. Echinoderms (including sea urchins, sea stars, sea cucumbers, feather stars and brittle stars) possess one of the most unusual body plans in the animal kingdom with pronounced pentameral symmetry in the adults. Consequently, much interest has focused on their development, evolution and the role of the Hox genes in these processes. In this context, the organisation of echinoderm Hox gene clusters is distinctive. Within the classificatory system of Duboule, echinoderms constitute one of the clearest examples of Disorganized (D) clusters (i.e. intact clusters but with a gene order or orientation rearranged relative to the ancestral state).

Results

Here we describe two Hox genes (Hox11/13d and e) that have been overlooked in most previous work and have not been considered in reconstructions of echinoderm Hox complements and cluster organisation. The two genes are related to Posterior Hox genes and are present in all classes of echinoderm. Importantly, they do not reside in the Hox cluster of any species for which genomic linkage data is available.

Conclusion

Incorporating the two neglected Posterior Hox genes into assessments of echinoderm Hox gene complements and organisation shows that these animals in fact have Split (S) Hox clusters rather than simply Disorganized (D) clusters within the Duboule classification scheme. This then has implications for how these genes are likely regulated, with them no longer covered by any potential long-range Hox cluster-wide, or multigenic sub-cluster, regulatory mechanisms.

     

Sea urchin Hox genes: insights into the ancestral Hox cluster

We describe the Hox cluster in the radially symmetric sea urchin and compare our findings to what is known from clusters in bilaterally symmetric animals. Several Hox genes from the direct-developing sea urchin Heliocidaris erythrogramma are described. CHEF gel analysis shows that the Hox genes are clustered on a < or = 300 kilobase (kb) fragment of DNA, and only a single cluster is present, as in lower chordates and other nonvertebrate metazoans. Phylogenetic analyses of sea urchin, amphioxus, Drosophila, and selected vertebrate Hox genes confirm that the H. erythrogramma genes, and others previously cloned from other sea urchins, belong to anterior, central, and posterior groups. Despite their radial body plan and lack of cephalization, echinoderms retain at least one of the anterior group Hox genes, an orthologue of Hox3. The structure of the echinoderm Hox cluster suggests that the ancestral deuterostome had a Hox cluster more similar to the current chordate cluster than was expected Sea urchins have at least three Abd-B type genes, suggesting that Abd-B expansion began before the radiation of deuterostomes.      

Why are Hox genes clustered?

The evolutionarily conserved genomic organization of the Hox genes has been a puzzle ever since it was discovered that their order along the chromosome is similar to the order of their functional domains along the antero-posterior axis. Why has this colinearity been maintained throughout evolution? A close look at regulatory sequences from the mouse Hox clusters^(1,2) suggests that enhancer sharing between adjacent Hox genes may be one reason. Moreover, characterizing the activity of one of these mouse enhancers in Drosophila⁽²⁾ illustrates that despite many similarities, not all Hox clusters are built in the same way.