Leaving the midline

In the developing nervous system, pathfinding axons navigate through a series of intermediate targets in order to form synaptic connections. Vertebrate spinal commissural axons extend toward and across the floor plate (FP), a key intermediate target located at the ventral midline (VM). Subsequently, post-crossing commissural axons grow either alongside or significant distances away from the floor plate (FP), but never re-cross the VM. Consistent with this behavior, post-crossing commissural axons lose responsiveness to the FP-associated chemoattractants, Netrin-1 and SHH, and gain responsiveness to Slits, which are potent midline repellents, in vitro. In addition, the results of several in vivo studies suggest that the upregulation of Slit-binding repulsive Robo receptors, Robo1/2, alters the responsiveness of decussated commissural axons to midline guidance cues. Nevertheless, in vertebrates, it is unclear whether Robo1/2 are the sole or major repellent receptors responsible for driving these commissural axons away from the VM and preventing their re-entry into the FP. We recently re-visited these issues in the chick spinal cord by assessing the consequences of manipulating Robo expression on commissural axons in ovo. Our findings suggest that, at least in chick embryos, the upregulation of repulsive Robos on post-crossing axons alters the responsiveness of these axons to midline repellents and facilitates their expulsion from, but is not likely to have a significant role in preventing their re-entry into the VM.     

Dead cells do tell tales

The most recent major advances in the study of programmed cell death (PCD) in plants include the observation that peptide inhibitors of caspases inhibit the hypersensitive response. Nitric oxide has been shown to be required for the induction of disease related PCD. Mutant analysis has led to the cloning of the first genes involved in PCD related disease resistance, LSD1 and MLO.     

Ancestors and variants: tales from the cryptic

SUMMARY Those who work at the interface of development and evolution are united by the conviction that developmental comparisons can shed light on both the evolution of specific morphologies and the macroevolutionary process itself. In practice, however, the field comprises a diversity of approaches. As the field grows and practitioners attempt to digest a growing mountain of comparative data, the various approaches of "Evo Devo" have themselves evolved. A meeting organized by the authors and held at the University of Chicago in the Spring of 1999 illustrated some of these changes. This review will draw on its content to discuss recent developments in two areas: the reconstruction of common ancestors and the developmental basis of evolutionary change.