Irx3 and Pax6 establish differential competence for Shh-mediated induction of GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons of the thalamus.

During embryonic development, the presumptive GABAergic rostral thalamus (rTh) and glutamatergic caudal thalamus (cTh) are induced by Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the zona limitans intrathalamica (ZLI) at the rostral border of the thalamic primordium. We found that these inductions are limited to the neuroepithelium between the ZLI and the forebrain-midbrain boundary, suggesting a prepattern that limits thalamic competence. We hypothesized that this prepattern is established by the overlapping expression of two transcription factors: Iroquois-related homeobox gene 3 (Irx3) posterior to the ZLI, and paired box gene 6 (Pax6) anterior to the forebrain-midbrain boundary. Consistent with this assumption, we show that misexpression of Irx3 in the prethalamus or telencephalon results in ectopic induction of thalamic markers in response to Shh, that it functions as a transcriptional repressor in this context, and that antagonizing its function in the diencephalon attenuates thalamic specification. Similarly, misexpression of Pax6 in the midbrain together with Shh pathway activation results in ectopic induction of cTh markers in clusters of cells that fail to integrate into tectal layers and of atypical long-range projections, whereas antagonizing Pax6 function in the thalamus disrupts cTh formation. However, rTh markers are negatively regulated by Pax6, which itself is down-regulated by Shh from the ZLI in this area. Our results demonstrate that the combinatorial expression of Irx3 and Pax6 endows cells with the competence for cTh formation, whereas Shh-mediated down-regulation of Pax6 is required for rTh formation. Thus, thalamus induction and patterning depends both on a prepattern of Irx3 and Pax6 expression that establishes differential cellular competence and on Shh signaling from the ZLI organizer.

Distinct roles for hindbrain and paraxial mesoderm in the induction and patterning of the inner ear revealed by a study of vitamin-A-deficient quail.

The hindbrain and cranial paraxial mesoderm have been implicated in the induction and patterning of the inner ear, but the precise role of the two tissues in these processes is still not clear. We have addressed these questions using the vitamin-A-deficient (VAD) quail model, in which VAD embryos lack the posterior half of the hindbrain that normally lies next to the inner ear. Using a battery of molecular markers, we show that the anlagen of the inner ear, the otic placode, is induced in VAD embryos in the absence of the posterior hindbrain. By performing grafting and ablation experiments in chick embryos, we also show that cranial paraxial mesoderm which normally lies beneath the presumptive otic placode is necessary for otic placode induction and that paraxial mesoderm from other locations cannot induce the otic placode. Two members of the fibroblast growth factor family, FGF3 and FGF19, continue to be expressed in this mesodermal population in VAD embryos, and these may be responsible for otic placode induction in the absence of the posterior hindbrain. Although the posterior hindbrain is not required for otic placode induction in VAD embryos, the subsequent patterning of the inner ear is severely disrupted. Several regional markers of the inner ear, such as Pax2, EphA4, SOHo1 and Wnt3a, are incorrectly expressed in VAD otocysts, and the sensory patches and vestibulo-acoustic ganglia are either greatly reduced or absent. Exogenous application of retinoic acid prior to 30 h of development is able rescue the VAD phenotype. By performing such rescue experiments before and after 30 h of development, we show that the inner ear defects of VAD embryos correlate with the absence of the posterior hindbrain. These results show that induction and patterning of the inner ear are governed by separate developmental processes that can be experimentally uncoupled from each other.

The cold shock domain protein LIN-28 controls developmental timing in C. elegans and is regulated by the lin-4 RNA.

Mutations in the heterochronic gene lin-28 of C. elegans cause precocious development where diverse events specific to the second larval stage are skipped. lin-28 encodes a cytoplasmic protein with a cold shock domain and retroviral-type (CCHC) zinc finger motifs, consistent with a role for LIN-28 in posttranscriptional regulation. The 3'UTR of lin-28 contains a conserved element that is complementary to the 22 nt regulatory RNA product of lin-4 and that resembles seven such elements in the 3'UTR of the heterochronic gene lin-14. Both lin-4 activity and the lin-4-complementary element (LCE) are necessary for stage-specific regulation of lin-28. Deleting the LCE produces a dominant gain-of-function allele that causes a retarded phenotype, indicating that lin-28 activity is a switch that controls choices of stage-specific fates.

MEK-2, a Caenorhabditis elegans MAP kinase kinase, functions in Ras-mediated vulval induction and other developmental events.

Activated Ras initiates a cascade of sequential phosphorylation events, including the protein kinases Raf, MEK, and MAP kinase. The Let-60 Ras-mediated signal transduction pathway controls vulval induction in Caenorhabditis elegans. Both Lin-45 Raf and Sur-1 MAP kinase have been determined to be essential factors during vulval induction; however, the C. elegans mek gene has not been identified. In this paper, we have cloned a C. elegans mek gene, mek-2, and demonstrated that the MEK-2 protein possesses the biochemical properties of MAP kinase kinases: The C. elegans MEK-2 protein can phosphorylate and activate a human MAP kinase (ERK1), and MEK-2 itself can be phosphorylated and activated by immunoprecipitated mammalian Raf. The mek-2 gene plays a key role in the let-60 ras-mediated vulval induction pathway, as loss-of-function mutations in the gene (ku114 and h294) significantly reduce the signal transmitted through Ras. mek-2(ku114) completely suppressed the Multivulva (Muv) phenotype of a hyperactive let-60 ras mutation, and animals homozygous for mek-2(ku114) also displayed a partial larval lethal phenotype. Animals homozygous for mek-2(h294) exhibited a highly penetrant sterile and Vulvaless phenotype. Microinjection of a gain-of-function mek-2 mutation resulted in Muv and other mutant phenotypes, whereas microinjection of a dominant-negative mutation not only suppressed the Muv phenotype of an activated let-60 ras mutation but also caused an egg-laying defective phenotype in otherwise wild type animals. Our results demonstrate that mek-2 acts between lin-45 raf and sur-1/mpk-1 in a signal transduction pathway used in the control of vulval differentiation and other developmental events.

Mechanism of anteroposterior axis specification in vertebrates. Lessons from the amphibians.

Interest in the problem of anteroposterior specification has quickened because of our near understanding of the mechanism in Drosophila and because of the homology of Antennapedia-like homeobox gene expression patterns in Drosophila and vertebrates. But vertebrates differ from Drosophila because of morphogenetic movements and interactions between tissue layers, both intimately associated with anteroposterior specification. The purpose of this article is to review classical findings and to enquire how far these have been confirmed, refuted or extended by modern work. The "pre-molecular" work suggests that there are several steps to the process: (i) Formation of anteroposterior pattern in mesoderm during gastrulation with posterior dominance. (ii) Regional specific induction of ectoderm to form neural plate. (iii) Reciprocal interactions from neural plate to mesoderm. (iv) Interactions within neural plate with posterior dominance. Unfortunately, almost all the observable markers are in the CNS rather than in the mesoderm where the initial specification is thought to occur. This has meant that the specification of the mesoderm has been assayed indirectly by transplantation methods such as the Einsteckung. New molecular markers now supplement morphological ones but they are still mainly in the CNS and not the mesoderm. A particular interest attaches to the genes of the Antp-like HOX clusters since these may not only be markers but actual coding factors for anteroposterior levels. We have a new understanding of mesoderm induction based on the discovery of activins and fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) as candidate inducing factors. These factors have later consequences for anteroposterior pattern with activin tending to induce anterior, and FGF posterior structures. Recent work on neural induction has implicated cAMP and protein kinase C (PKC) as elements of the signal transduction pathway and has provided new evidence for the importance of tangential neural induction. The regional specificity of neural induction has been reinvestigated using molecular markers and provides conclusions rather similar to the classical work. Defects in the axial pattern may be produced by retinoic acid but it remains unclear whether its effects are truly coordinate ones or are concentrated in certain regions of high sensitivity. In general the molecular studies have supported and reinforced the "pre-molecular ones". Important questions still remain: (i) How much pattern is there in the mesoderm (how many states?) (ii) How is this pattern generated by the invaginating organizer? (iii) Is there one-to-one transmission of codings to the neural plate? (iv) What is the nature of the interactions within the neural plate? (v) Are the HOX cluster genes really the anteroposterior codings?