| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 The Forsyth Institute, Department of Cytokine Biology, and Harvard-Forsyth Department of Oral Biology, 140 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115; pyelick{at}forsyth.org, 2 Department of Developmental and Cell Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697
Introduction Fate Maps and Lineages of Skeletal Precursors in Zebrafish Segment-specification in the Cranial Skeleton Using Zebrafish to Study Skeletal Organogenesis: Development of Pharyngeal Teeth Zebrafish Skeletal Mutants Organization and Division Patterns in Cartilage Condensations Zebrafish Mutants Reveal Cell Interactions in the Developing Craniofacial Skeleton Correlating Zebrafish Mutants with Human Syndromes CLASS 1: GENES AFFECTING THE SPECIFICATION, SURVIVAL, AND/OR MIGRATION OF NEURAL CREST CELLS CLASS 2: GENES REGULATING MESENCHYMAL CELL CONDENSATION AND DIFFERENTIATION CLASSES 3 & 4: PROLIFERATION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND POSSIBLE ECM MUTANTS Using Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis in Zebrafish Conclusions and Caveats Future Prospects REFERENCES
| Abstract |
|---|
 Top Next |
|---|
Key words. Molecular genetics, craniofacial development, zebrafish, ENU mutagenesis
| Introduction |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
). Zebrafish form essentially all of the same skeletal and muscle tissue types as their higher vertebrate counterparts, but in much more simple spatial patterns composed of smaller numbers of cells. Furthermore, their development has been studied with single-cell resolution. Examples of this are the lineage-tracing techniques used to characterize neural crest cell contributions to pharyngeal arch cartilages and mesodermal contributions to muscles (Schilling et al., 1994, 1996a). Mutagenesis screens have identified zebrafish mutants exhibiting both expected and surprisingly new types of craniofacial anomalies (Neuhauss et al., 1996; Piotrowski et al., 1996; Schilling et al., 1996b), and these promise to reveal many new essential functions for genes in the formation of the cranial skeleton and musculature.
|
| Fate Maps and Lineages of Skeletal Precursors in Zebrafish |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
).
Zebrafish have provided the opportunity for the examination of cell lineages during craniofacial development and the production of high-resolution fate maps, which suggest that many aspects of its development are very similar to those of mammals. Analysis of cells simply injected with fluorescently labeled dextrans and followed in living embryos has shown that craniofacial mesenchyme is derived from both migratory neural crest and paraxial mesoderm (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994), as have chick-quail chimeric studies in avians (Koentges and Lumsden, 1996). Migrating neural crest cells adopt cartilage, pigment, neuronal, and glial cell fates, while the surrounding mesoderm forms muscle and endothelia. The neurocranium derives from both cranial neural crest and mesoderm, while the pharyngeal skeleton, including the jaw and branchial arches, derives solely from cranial neural crest cells (Fig. 2A). This dual mesenchymal origin has made it complicated for us to understand the exact nature of tissue interactions and gene functions that create craniofacial structures.
|
The ultimate destination of the migrating CNC cells corresponds to their rostro-caudal and medial-lateral location prior to migration: The rostro-caudal position corresponds to segmental fate, while the medial-lateral position corresponds to the cell-type-specific fate—either cartilage, pigment, glial, or neuronal (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994). Lineage tracing of superficial neural crest cells has demonstrated that the most laterally located neural crest cells assume neuronal or Schwann cell identities, while more medial cells assume cartilage, pigment, and connective tissue cell identities (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994). Recent evidence suggests that determination of these different cell-type-specific fates of pre-migratory neural crest cells may be controlled, at least in part, by secreted proteins of the Wnt family expressed at the dorsal embryonic midline (Dorsky et al., 1998; Fig. 3B). While such positional differences in the fates of pre-migratory neural crest cells have not been described in other vertebrates, they may well reflect a conserved underlying organization that is more easily observed in the relatively small numbers of rapidly developing cells of transparent zebrafish embryos. In support of this idea, mammalian and chick neural crest cells exhibit some fate restrictions in vitro (for review, see Baroffio et al., 1990; Henion and Weston, 1997). Furthermore, loss-of-function approaches to disrupt certain Wnts in mice and Xenopus (Wnt1/Wnt3a) (Augustine et al., 1993; Saint-Jeannet et al., 1997) lead to neural crest defects.
|
| Segment-specification in the Cranial Skeleton |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
). Segment-restricted neural crest cell (NCC) emigration thereby coordinates the segmentation of pharyngeal arch cartilages and the cranial nerves that innervate them (Raible and Kruse, 2000). The most anteriorly positioned CNC cells contribute to the first and second (mandibular and hyoid) arch structures, and align with rhombomeres 2/3 (r2/3) and 4/5 (r4/5), respectively. NCC emigrating from the r6 level and more posterior levels contribute to the branchial arches (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994). Surprisingly, lineage-tracing studies of mesoderm adjacent to the neural crest revealed a similar rhombomeric alignment, suggesting that the metameric organization of the head can be extended to include the paraxial mesoderm, which morphologically exhibits no overt segmentation (Fig. 2B; Schilling and Kimmel, 1994). Perhaps, as is thought to occur in other body regions, the mesoderm plays a role in organizing and maintaining craniofacial segmentation, as well as coordinating the formation of the craniofacial skeleton, musculature, and vasculature. Studies in the chick have suggested that segmental organization in the arches is imposed by the migrating neural crest, since heterotopically transplanted crest can re-organize an arch’s skeleton and musculature in some cases (Nodén, 1983). Support for this idea comes from genetic analysis of the chinless (chn) mutation in zebrafish, in which muscle defects accompany mutant cartilage defects and can be rescued by the restoration of wild-type cartilage in a chn mutant by transplantation (Schilling et al., 1996a). New evidence suggests that this is not the entire story, however, since surgical removal of the entire hindbrain in chick embryos prior to neural crest cell emigration does not alter arch specification, as assessed by the expression of arch epithelial markers (Veitch et al., 1999). Furthermore, recent transplantation studies in mouse and zebrafish embryos have demonstrated that neural crest cells are plastic with respect to their segment-specific patterns of Hox gene expression, and again, these implicate the cranial mesoderm as a source of environmental signals that may mediate such plasticity (Trainor and Krumlauf, 2000; Schilling et al., 2001). In the zebrafish, such plasticity is seen in the lineal descendents of single transplanted neural crest cells, both in Hox gene expression and in their final skeletal fates, but not in transplants of larger cohorts of cells. These results suggest that segmental identities among crest cells are maintained through community effects.
In zebrafish, each arch forms a unique set of neural-crest-derived cartilages and bones that resemble those of other vertebrates (Langille and Hall, 1989; Hall and Miyake, 1995; Schilling and Kimmel, 1997). First-arch derivatives include a ventral Meckel’s cartilage and dorsal palatoquadrate (pq); second-arch structures include ventral ceratohyal (ch), basihyal (bh), and interhyal cartilages, and the dorsal hyosymplectic (hs) cartilages; and third- through seventh-arch structures include, from dorsal to ventral, pharyngobranchial, epibranchial, bilateral ceratobranchial cartilages, and corresponding midline hypobranchial and basibranchial cartilages (Fig. 2a). Cartilage development is particularly rapid, and by five days most of the cartilages of the pharyngeal skeleton are well-formed, and larvae begin to feed (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994).
There are six different types of cartilage present in the zebrafish cranium, cell-rich hyaline cartilage being the most abundant (Benjamin, 1990), and as in other vertebrates, two types of bone, dermal and cartilage-replacement (Cubbage and Mabee, 1996; Schilling, in press). In teleosts, the bone is sometimes referred to as "acellular", since the osteocytes tend to lie peripherally. Dermal bone (bones that develop directly within a connective tissue) and cartilage-replacement bone (bones that develop indirectly through a cartilage intermediate) first develop during larval stages. The majority of bones of the zebrafish skull are cartilage bones (43/74) which undergo either endochondral (ossify within cartilage) or perichondral (ossify around cartilage) bone formation. Because bones do not appear until 5 to 6 days of development, beyond the stages examined in lineage studies or in mutational screens (most of the existing mutants are lethal by 5 days), little is known about their early development, and we do not discuss it here.
| Using Zebrafish to Study Skeletal Organogenesis: Development of Pharyngeal Teeth |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
. Based on these similarities, we expect that similar epithelial/mesenchymal cell interactions and gene expression patterns govern both zebrafish and mammalian tooth development. Over the past two years, enormous progress has been made toward the identification of genes involved in mammalian tooth development and specification. Position-dependent control of tooth germ initiation and morphogenesis involves restricted epithelial signals that elicit the differential expression of transcription factors, particularly homeobox genes, in the adjacent dental mesenchyme (see Maas and Bei, 1997; Thesleff and Sharpe, 1997; Peters and Balling, 1999; Tucker and Sharpe, 1999; and references therein). The original hypothesis that regionalization of the pharyngeal mesenchyme specifies different tooth types has evolved into what is now termed the odontogenic homeobox code of tooth specification (Sharpe, 1995), reflecting the expansion of the well-documented Hox gene patterning of the axial skeleton to include patterning of the teeth.
Major players in mammalian tooth specification, as revealed in gene expression patterns in tooth primordia, include four growth factor families—Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs), Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), Wnts, and Hedge Hog growth factors (Hhs)—and the transcription factors they induce (Jernvall and Thesleff, 2000). It is the reiterative expression of many of these genes during various stages of tooth development that results in the formation of teeth of specific size and shape (Thesleff and Jernvall, 1997; Jernvall and Thesleff, 2000).
In mammals, tooth development begins with the expression of Pitx2 and Shh in the thickened epithelial stripe marking the dental lamina (Thomas et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 1999; St Amand et al., 2000). Subsequently, epithelial expression of FGF and BMP family members and the induction of Pax9 and Msx1 in the adjacent dental mesenchyme, and a shift of the inductive potential from the epithelium to the mesenchyme, are required for tooth morphogenesis to proceed (Peters et al., 1998a,b). Recent studies indicate that the four types of mammalian teeth—incisor, canine, premolar, and molar—are specified by early epithelial signals and not by neural-crest-derived signals, as was previously thought (Tucker et al., 1998). This was dramatically demonstrated by the transformation of an incisor to a molar through the inhibition of epithelial bmp4 signaling with the Bmp antagonist, noggin (Tucker et al., 1998). In addition, analysis of loss-of-function mutations in homeobox genes Dlx1 and 2 and compensatory activities of Dlx 5 and 6 reveals requirements for these homeobox genes in tooth morphogenesis (Thomas et al., 1997; Weiss et al., 1998a,b).
A great many zebrafish orthologues of genes involved in mammalian tooth development have now been identified. Examples of these include members of all four growth factor families, including BMPs (refs), FGFs (Hauptmann and Gerster, 2000a,b), Wnts (refs), and Hhs (refs), as well as homeobox genes such as Hoxb-2 and –5 (Thomas and Sharpe, 1998; Yan et al., 1998; Suzuki et al., 2000), and dlx1 and 2 (Zerucha et al., 1997), among others (Table; Fig. 5). Representatives of all of these have been shown to be expressed in localized regions of the early craniofacial mesenchyme in zebrafish, like their counterparts in mammals, though most have not been examined at later stages in the 5th branchial arch during the formation of the tooth primordia (Fig. 4).
|
|
|
It is possible, though, to examine tooth development in zebrafish harboring mutations in genes with demonstrated mutations in mammalian and/or zebrafish tooth development, where tooth phenotypes are expected. In fact, tooth phenotypes are readily observed in snh/bmp7 (Dick et al., 2000; Schmid et al., 2000) and laf/alk8 (Bauer et al., 2001; Mintzer et al., 2001) mutants (Fig. 5).
| Zebrafish Skeletal Mutants |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
Most of the zebrafish jaw and branchial arch mutants were identified in two large-scale chemical mutagenesis screens in the early 1990s: one at the Max-Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany, and one at the Harvard Medical School in Boston, USA (Fig. 6). Both used similar methods. The mutagen, N-ethyl N-nitrosourea (ENU), was titrated to induce single base-pair mutations and F3 embryos screened for craniofacial morphology (Mullins et al., 1994; Solnica-Krezel et al., 1994; Driever et al., 1996; Haffter et al., 1996). The Tübingen screen alone resulted in the isolation of over 100 skeletal mutants, including at least four Classes with defects in: (1) the ventral skeleton of each pharyngeal arch, particularly the mandibular and hyoid arches; (2) the posterior five gill-bearing arches, including the tooth-bearing seventh arch; (3) cartilage differentiation and growth; and (4) the midline of the braincase (Brand et al., 1996; Piotrowski et al., 1996; Schilling et al., 1996b). The Boston ENU mutagenesis screen produced 48 skeletal mutations in 34 genetic loci that exhibited many similarities to those identified in Tübingen, and which were classified into three Groups having defects in: (1) the overall pattern of the craniofacial skeleton; (2) cartilage differentiation and morphogenesis; and (3) spatial arrangement of otherwise normal skeletal elements (Neuhauss et al., 1996). A few additional unique mutations that did not fit into any of these categories were also identified. Perhaps most intriguing were whole classes of genes—for example, the anterior arch mutants described in more detail in the following section—the loss of which produced nearly identical phenotypes that differed in severity, suggesting that they may lead to the discovery of entire genetic pathways required for craniofacial development. Testing this hypothesis requires an understanding of both the cellular basis for the observed defects in these mutants and the cloning of the underlying genes, and this is currently the focus of major efforts in several laboratories.
|
| Organization and Division Patterns in Cartilage Condensations |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
Cartilage patterning appears to reflect a progressive subdivision in which individual skeletal elements arise out of common primordia (Bertmar, 1959), and early work in zebrafish, where Nomarski optics was used for the visualization of cartilage precursors in the pharyngeal arches, has supported this notion (Schilling and Kimmel, 1997). The first cranial chondrification begins at 2 days post-fertilization (dpf). From an initial condensation, which is similar in each arch, protrusions develop that pre-figure individual skeletal elements. Kimmel et al. (1998) have taken this a step further to describe two major stages in cartilage formation in the hyoid (second pharyngeal) arch: an early morphogenetic phase of re-organization within the condensation, followed by a growth phase. In the hyoid, two sites of chondrification—a dorsal hyosymplectic and ventral ceratohyal—appear within the larger condensation. Simple movements of cartilage precursors in these sites correlate with the future shapes of the cartilages, forming "stacks" that are polarized and aligned with the long axis of the element. Overlapping in time with these re-arrangements, the cells begin to divide and the cartilage grows isometrically, generally preserving its initial shape. Interestingly, growth is concentrated near articulations or joints between cartilages, and in many ways future joint regions appear to be regions where chondrogenesis patterns are organized.
The usefulness of such descriptive studies was immediately obvious in the analysis of one group of zebrafish mutants, those that affect the ventral pharyngeal cartilages. Four mutants—sucker (suc), schmerle (she), hoover (hvr), and sturgeon (stu)—show reductions in the ventral cartilages and loss of joints between these cartilages and the dorsal elements in each arch. Particularly in the most severe member of this class, suc, differences are apparent at the earliest stages of cartilage condensation in the hyoid arch, for example. In contrast to wild-type embryos, only a tiny ventral set of precursors of the ceratohyal cartilage appears to condense in the mutant, and these have a reversed polarity with respect to the dorsal hyosymplectic. Furthermore, this remnant of the ventral cartilage is fused to its dorsal neighbor, beginning even at these earliest stages of condensation, presumably due to the absence of joint cartilage. Thus, suc—and probably she, hvr, and stu as well, which show similar but less severe phenotypes—is required to orient the way in which cells stack together during cartilage condensation and to form a joint between these regions of chondrogenesis. Similarities in the phenotypes of all four members of this class of mutants suggest the exciting possibility that all may lie in a common genetic pathway.
| Zebrafish Mutants Reveal Cell Interactions in the Developing Craniofacial Skeleton |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
), but not in the neural crest. suc/et1 mutants lack expression of several transcription factors (e.g., dHAND, gsc) in the ventral arch neural crest. Similarly, et1 knockout mice exhibit numerous craniofacial defects, including the lower jaw defects and defects in transcription factor expression characteristic of suc/et1 mutants, suggesting that the role of et1 is conserved throughout vertebrates. Thus, like its mammalian counterparts, zebrafish suc/et1 is thought to be an epithelial and paraxial mesoderm-derived arch core signal that regulates gene expression in adjacent arch skeletogenic cells (Clouthier et al., 2000). This idea is supported by mosaic studies in the fish demonstrating that suc/et1 mutant neural crest cells are able to express ventral ectomesenchymal markers when transplanted into wild-type arches. Based on descriptive studies of chondrogenesis in suc/et1 mutants, we can now interpret how skeletogenic cells respond to suc/et1, both in the orientations of their movements and in division patterns with respect to the developing joint region. It remains to be determined how such a signal expressed broadly in the arch environment results in a specific joint defect. It will be interesting to examine how suc/et1 affects the expression of other secreted growth and differentiation factors, including ligands of the TGFâ superfamily, that are required for joint formation in mice, and are expressed in developing joint regions (Kingsley, 1994; Storm and Kingsley, 1999). Other zebrafish mutants with phenotypes similar to that of suc/et1 may help resolve these issues, and are prime candidates for additional genes in the suc/et1 signaling pathway. Recent analysis of another mutant, van gogh (vgo), for which the underlying gene is still unknown, supports the idea of a signaling role for the pharyngeal endoderm in chondrogenesis (Piotrowski and Nusslein-Volhard, 2000). Mutation of vgo affects many of the same structures disrupted in suc/et1 mutants but with very different consequences. In vgo mutants, Meckel’s cartilage is well-developed but occasionally points posteriorly, where it often fuses with ventral elements of the second pharyngeal arch. Ceratohyal cartilages appear to be abnormal and fuse with posterior pharyngeal arch cartilages. Unlike the ventral arch mutants, vgo mutants have severe segmentation defects in the skeleton, such that cartilages of adjacent arches often fuse. In some cases, the ventral elements of arches 2-5 coalesce into a common mass. Although segmental patterning of the hindbrain is not disrupted in vgo mutants, the endoderm of the foregut does not form pharyngeal pouches, and the surrounding mesoderm is mis-patterned. This results in the fusion of initially well-patterned migrating neural crest cells once they reach the arches. Defects in the separation of migrating groups of neural crest cells are therefore thought to result in a failure to separate cartilage condensations, presumably because there is no pharyngeal pouch epithelium keeping them apart. These possibilities can now be examined through more detailed cellular analysis of chondrification in vgo, as described above for the ventral arch mutants. In addition, a direct patterning role for the endoderm in inductive interactions with cartilage precursors can now be tested with mosaic analysis. In addition, several mutations in zebrafish genes such as casanova (a novel Sox-related protein [Dickmeis et al., 2001; Kikuchi et al., 2001], bonnie-and-clyde, a Mix homeoprotein [Kikuchi et al., 2000], and faust/gata5 (Reiter et al., 1999) that are required for early endodermal development also show defects in craniofacial chondrogenesis, and these provide further tools for the study of endodermal requirements in skeletal development.
Another intriguing class of zebrafish mutants with clear human correlates includes those that disrupt the midline, resulting in fusions of the ventral neurocranium (Brand et al., 1996; Kimmel et al., 2001a). Such phenotypes were not observed among the jaw or general chondrogenesis mutants from either the Tübingen or Boston screen. Recent cloning of one of these mutants, you too (yot), has shown that it encodes gli2, a transcription factor in the Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling pathway (Karlstrom et al., 1999). This implicates Shh in midfacial cartilage patterning and provides a zebrafish model for the human syndrome holoprosencephaly, in which midline fusions have been linked to human mutations in Shh (see below). Surprisingly, mutations in shh itself in zebrafish (known as sonic you, syu) do not exhibit such neurocranial fusions. However, recent evidence inhibiting translation of both syu and its close relative tiggy-winkle hedgehog (twhh), with simultaneous use of the new technique of gene "knockdown" with morpholino oligonucleotides (Nasevicius and Ekker, 2000), has demonstrated their requirements in specification of the neurocranial midline. This suggests some redundancy between hedgehog family members in zebrafish, but reinforces the notion that the mechanisms of midline craniofacial development have been conserved between mammals and zebrafish.
| Correlating Zebrafish Mutants with Human Syndromes |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
In the making of comparisons between zebrafish and human craniofacial phenotypes, several caveats must be considered. One is the predominance of dominant alleles underlying most human syndromes, while, to date, most of the identified zebrafish craniofacial mutants are homozygous recessive lethal alleles. Thus, corresponding zebrafish phenotypes may have very different presentations and may be much more severe than heterozygous mutations in human orthologues. Another consideration is that independent duplications of genes within teleosts or mammals may have led to distinct and/or partially redundant gene functions. In several cases, the functions of a single mammalian gene appear to be distributed among multiple zebrafish genes, probably due to an ancient genome duplication in an ancestor of the ray-finned fishes (Postlethwait et al., 1998, 1999; Taylor et al., 2001), with the result that a gene mutation in zebrafish may not be as severe as that of its human homologue. This can be an advantage for genetic studies in that single gene mutations in zebrafish may result in less severe and—more importantly—non-lethal phenotypes than would result in other vertebrates, allowing for the characterization of distinct gene functions. Interestingly, however, gene order or synteny is surprisingly similar between zebrafish and human genomes relative to that of mice and humans for example, which facilitates direct comparisons. Given these caveats, in the paragraphs that follow, we will attempt to correlate some of the many identified zebrafish mutants with possible corresponding human craniofacial anomalies.
CLASS 1: GENES AFFECTING THE SPECIFICATION, SURVIVAL, AND/OR MIGRATION OF NEURAL CREST CELLS
Of the hundreds of mutants identified in the large-scale zebrafish mutant screens, surprisingly few display obvious defects in early neural crest specification or migration, although these may become more apparent as the phenotypes are further analyzed. As discussed above, if neural crest cells are specified by progressive fate restrictions, we might predict the existence of genes that regulate lineally related subsets of neural crest cell fates. Interestingly, several zebrafish mutants have phenotypes that appear to be restricted to specific neural crest sublineages while not overtly affecting others, and in some cases these appear to have direct mammalian correlates. For example, the pigmentation mutant colourless (cls), which encodes a zebrafish orthologue of the HMG-box-containing transcription factor, sox10 (Dutton et al., 2001), exhibits defects in NCC-derived pigment cells, neurons and glia, while the craniofacial skeleton appears normal (Kelsh and Eisen, 2000). The combination of pigment and enteric neuronal defects in these mutants is reminiscent of mutations in 3 genes in mice—piebald (s), lethal spotting (ls), and Dominant megacolon (Dom). Molecular characterization has shown that s and ls in mice encode an endothelin receptor (a B-type; Hosoda et al., 1994) and its ligand, endothelin 3 (Baynash et al., 1994), respectively, while Dom encodes Sox10, the functional homologue of cls (Herbarth et al., 1998; Southard-Smith et al., 1998). These phenotypes all bear a striking resemblance to the human Waardenburg-Shah syndrome and Hirschsprung’s disease, which are characterized by both otic and pigmentation defects (Hassinger et al., 1980). Similarities in the pigmentation and peripheral neural defects between these human syndromes and cls/sox10 mutants in zebrafish suggest that the mechanisms of specification of neural-crest-derived melanocytes and enteric neurons are conserved between fish and humans, and validate the use of zebrafish as an appropriate model for the molecular/genetic characterization of these syndromes. The experimental advantages available in zebrafish have allowed researchers to demonstrate that pigment cell precursors, and possibly other crest cells, fail to migrate in cls/sox10 mutants and die instead, as may also occur in Waardenburg-Shah and Hirschsprung’s patients. Similarly, recent studies suggest that apoptosis is the underlying reason behind the autosomal-dominant human disorder Treacher Collins syndrome (Dixon et al., 2000), which predominantly affects first- and second-arch structures, and may underlie additional mouse and human syndromes as well. From a developmental perspective, the demonstrated requirement for cls/sox10 in all non-skeletogenic neural crest derivatives is one of the first indications that skeletogenic and non-skeletogenic populations of CNC may be under separate genetic control at early developmental stages (Kelsh and Eisen, 2000).
CLASS 2: GENES REGULATING MESENCHYMAL CELL CONDENSATION AND DIFFERENTIATION
Zebrafish mutations affecting patterning of the arches, such as suc/et1 and vgo, as well as mutants that disrupt the midline of the neurocranium are examples of a second general class that resembles human mutations defective in chondrocyte condensation and differentiation. Phenotypes of both suc/et1 and Et1(-/-) mice, as well as vgo mutants, resemble the DiGeorge syndrome (DGS) and velocardiofacial syndrome in humans, which are associated with translocations and deletions in chromosome 22q11, and are characterized by cleft palate, conotruncal heart anomalies, and thymus and thyroid defects (Kurihara et al., 1995; Hong, 1998). Several genes within this chromosomal region, including a ubiquitin fusion degradation gene (UFD; Lindsay, 2001), are candidates both for the human disorders and for the genetic defect underlying the vgo phenotype in zebrafish, as are several other genes that give DGS-like phenotypes when mutated in mice, such as the A-type endothelin receptor, the transcription factor dHAND, and the Tbox transcription factor, Tbx1 (Jerome and Papaioannou, 2001; Lindsay et al., 2001; Merscher et al., 2001). The midline phenotypes of zebrafish yot/gli2 mutants resemble holoprosencephaly in humans associated with mutations in Shh signaling, since both are characterized by ventral brain and midfacial skeletal defects (Muenke and Cohen, 2000). Therefore, the zebrafish provide a model system both for DGS/velocardiofacial syndromes and for holoprosencephaly, in that chondrocyte condensation and differentiation can be observed directly in response to suc/et1 or Shh signaling, respectively.
A much larger group of zebrafish mutants defective in skeletal condensations, for which the underlying genes have not yet been cloned, are the "flatheads", which disrupt the posterior branchial arches, including those that bear teeth (Schilling et al., 1996b). These are caused by mutations in at least 8 genes with at least another 30 or so mutations for which complementation analysis is currently unresolved. We might speculate that human counterparts of such gill arch mutants in zebrafish would likely correspond to defects in throat structures such as the larynx, which derive from homologous arch segments. The flathead mutants have been classified based on their segment-specific branchial arch defects: (1) all pharyngeal arches, (2) arches 3-7, and (3) arches 4-6. Surprisingly, pharyngeal teeth, which form only on arch 7, are generally present in mutants in classes 1 and 2, suggesting that teeth develop somewhat independently of their underlying cartilages (see below). In addition, the disruption of whole contiguous sets of branchial arches in many flathead mutants appears to reflect a normal process by which these posterior arches all subdivide from a common mesenchymal primordium (Schilling and Kimmel, 1994). As described above for individual cartilages of the hyoid arch, progressive condensation from a common primordium may thus be a feature of many different aspects of craniofacial development.
CLASSES 3 & 4: PROLIFERATION, DIFFERENTIATION, AND POSSIBLE ECM MUTANTS
The other large group of zebrafish craniofacial mutants for which the underlying genetic causes are still unknown are the "hammerheads". Hammerheads result from mutations in at least 7 different genes, with over 20 additional mutants still unresolved (Piotrowski et al., 1996). Hammerhead mutants lack tissue rostral to the eyes, causing the eyes to bulge laterally. In many of these mutants, individual chondrocytes appear small and misaligned, and the overall body length is reduced up to 20%, similar to many human cartilage differentiation and ECM defects. Hammerhead mutants fall into classes based on their chondrocyte morphologies: (1) kinked cartilages and shortened bodies, (2) severely reduced numbers or absence of chondrocytes, (3) reduced Alcian staining, (4) reduced or malformed cartilages, and (5) chondrocytes with tumor-like growths.
The jellyfish (jef) mutant is a particularly notable and severe example of the second class, in that it lacks all cartilages, including cartilaginous elements of the pectoral girdle. Here we can draw a parallel with mammalian mutants in genes such as sox9 (campomelic dysplasia), in which cartilage condensations form but fail to differentiate (Bi et al., 2001). As in flathead mutants, teeth are present in jef mutants, despite the absence of cb5 arch cartilages that normally support these teeth. This observation and the fact that tooth development appears largely unaffected in mutants hammerhead (ham) and head on (hen), both of which exhibit reduced numbers of chondrocytes, reinforce the notion that differentiation of teeth can occur independent of overtly differentiated cartilage or bone of attachment.
One clear set of candidates for genes, mutations in which might cause phenotypes like those observed in ham and hen, includes fibroblast growth factor receptors fgfr1, -2, and -3, dominant mutations of which, in humans, result in defects in cell proliferation. In humans, defects are evident in the growth plates of cartilages that undergo endochondral bone formation, and generally result in reduced bone length but not necessarily in altered bone shape. In addition, defects are often observed in cranial sutures, which often exhibit premature fusion. Syndromes included in this category are: Pfeiffer syndrome (FGFR1); Crouzon, Apert, Jackson-Weiss, and Saethre Chotzen syndromes, all of which can result from mutations in FGFR2; and achondroplasia, hypochondroplasia, and thanatophoric dysplasias, many of which are due to mutations in FGFR3.
Finally, a third class of mutants, including geist (get), whitebread (wib), or jekyll (jek), was characterized as having reduced Alcian blue staining, which specifically labels proteoglycans of the ECM. Clear candidates for genes underlying these phenotypes include ECM components such as aggrecan, a cartilage-specific proteoglycan core protein, whose mutation results in the nanomelia phenotype in chick and cartilage matrix deficiencies in mice (Vertel et al., 1994), as well as hyaluronan synthase, a regulator of ECM deposition (Spicer and Nguyen, 1999). Collagens are also likely candidates, since many human defects in ECM components and matrix homeostasis are due to mutations in collagen genes. This is not surprising, since collagens are the most abundant ECM proteins, with type I collagen constituting about 90% of total protein mass in bone. Human syndromes for which these fish mutants could serve as models include a long list for which the underlying genetic basis is mutations in a variety of collagen genes (So et al., 2001, review). Although zebrafish type II collagen has been identified (Yan et al., 1995; Lele and Krone, 1997), a mutant has not yet been identified, and most zebrafish collagen genes have yet to be characterized.
| Using Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis in Zebrafish |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
| Conclusions and Caveats |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
However, there is clearly a long way to go. The zebrafish screens have not approached saturation, making the absence of certain expected phenotypes, such as the homeotic phenotypes observed in Hoxa2 mutant mice, uninformative. Recent efforts to use morpholino oligonucleotides to knockdown Hox gene functions are beginning to clarify these discrepancies and reveal unforeseen redundant functions among closely related Hox genes (McClintock et al., 2001). Allele number is a good indicator of extent of saturation; for example, among the pharyngeal cartilage mutants identified in the Boston screen, only one set of multiple alleles was isolated among 34 mutated loci. The use of more specialized and perhaps more arduous screens—through antibody staining, in situ hybridization, or Alcian blue staining of developing cartilages, for example—may result in the identification of mutants that would otherwise be overlooked in screens based solely on morphological criteria.
An additional complication is that early lethal phenotypes thwart the analysis of later gene function. Defects in relatively late events such as chondrification or ossification will not be apparent if early lethality prevents the embryos from developing to the appropriate stage. This problem can be overcome only by more sophisticated methods of conditional gene inactivation, techniques which are being explored in zebrafish, such as temperature-sensitive mutant alleles (Rawls and Johnson, 2001), or caged forms of morpholino oligonucleotides (Ando et al., 2001). Specialized screens, perhaps for dominant alleles more like those typically found in many human syndromes, will be necessary to overcome this obstacle, and will result in the isolation of mutants that were missed in previous large-scale chemical and insertional mutagenesis screens.
| Future Prospects |
|---|
|
TopPreviousNext |
|---|
The use of fluorescently labeled transgenes is one attractive approach that has already shown promise and allows for high throughput screening of living embryos. Zebrafish lines can be made to express transgenes constructed from tissue- and/or stage-specific promoters driving fluorescent reporter genes such as green fluorescent protein (GFP) in the developing craniofacial skeleton (e.g., type I collagen) or musculature (e.g., actin or myosin), and in the latter case one such alpha-actin-GFP line is already available (Higashijima et al., 1997). In addition, researchers can use zebrafish mutants already available in the community to "re-mutagenize" and assay for phenotypic suppressor and/or enhancer activities, allowing for unprecedented detailed characterization of molecular regulatory mechanisms.
Large-scale efforts currently under way to sequence the zebrafish genome are expected to be completed by the end of 2002 (Nasevicius and Ekker, 2000), allowing for the rapid identification of every mapped mutant zebrafish allele. This accomplishment will facilitate the identification of syntenic regions between zebrafish, human, and other vertebrate and invertebrate species for which entire genome sequences are available, providing insights into genome evolution, the significance of genome duplications (Postlethwait et al., 1998), and the significance of synteny in the maintenance of developmental processes. With the entire genome sequence, sophisticated microarray techniques, and available zebrafish mutants in hand, experiments can be designed to associate functional pathways with entire developmental gene expression profiles. Furthermore, the availability of morpholino oligonucleotides for the efficient inhibition of the translation of targeted genes (Nasevicius and Ekker, 2000) allows for the rapid identification of essential functions of new candidate genes as soon as they are identified.
New techniques continue to emerge that are facilitating the molecular dissection of craniofacial developmental processes in zebrafish. As reviewed here, gene discovery in zebrafish through mutational analysis, and soon through functional genomic approaches, promises to have a huge impact on the elucidation of gene function, and the in vivo characterization of functional interactions of gene products. This knowledge will have a particularly significant impact on the field of tissue engineering and on efforts to regenerate diseased or missing craniofacial cartilages, bones, and teeth. These available and rapidly emerging tools ensure that the zebrafish will continue to be a leading model for the molecular dissection and analysis of genes regulating craniofacial development, and for functional studies of craniofacial disease and repair.
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
Top |
|---|
Amsterdam A, Hopkins N (1999). Retrovirus-mediated insertional mutagenesis in zebrafish. Meth Cell Biol 60:87–98.[Medline]
Amsterdam A, Burgess S, Golling G, Chen W, Sun Z, Townsend K, et al. (1999). A large-scale insertional mutagenesis screen in zebrafish. Genes Dev 13:2713–2724.
Ando H, Furuta T, Tsien RY, Okamoto H (2001). Photo-mediated gene activation using caged RNA/DNA in zebrafish embryos. Nat Genet 28:317–325.[Medline]
Angelo S, Lohr J, Lee KH, Ticho BS, Breitbart RE, Hill S, et al. (2000). Conservation of sequence and expression of Xenopus and zebrafish dHAND during cardiac, branchial arch and lateral mesoderm development. Mech Dev 95(1-2):231–237.[Medline]
Augustine K, Liu ET, Sadler TW (1993). Antisense attenuation of Wnt-1 and Wnt-3a expression in whole embryo culture reveals roles for these genes in craniofacial, spinal cord, and cardiac morphogenesis. Dev Genet 14:500–520.[Medline]
Baroffio A, Dupin E, Le Douarin NM (1990). Cell lineage studies in avian neural crest ontogeny. Adv Exp Med Biol 265:53–62.[Medline]
Barth KA, Kishimoto Y, Rohr KB, Seydler C, Schulte-Merker S, Wilson SW (1999). Bmp activity establishes a gradient of positional information throughout the entire neural plate. Development 126:4977–4987.[Abstract]
Bauer H, Lele Z, Rauch GJ, Geisler R, Hammerschmidt M (2001). The type I serine/threonine kinase receptor Alk8/Lost-a-fin is required for Bmp2b/7 signal transduction during dorsoventral patterning of the zebrafish embryo. Development 128:849–858.[Abstract]
Baynash AG, Hosoda K, Giaid A, Richardson JA, Emoto N, Hammer RE, et al. (1994). Interaction of endothelin-3 with endothelin-B receptor is essential for development of epidermal melanocytes and enteric neurons. Cell 79:1277–1285.[Medline]
Benjamin M (1990). The cranial cartilages of teleosts and their classification. J Anat 169:153–172.[Medline]
Bertmar G (1959). On the ontogeny of the chondral skull in Characidae, with a discussion on the chondrocranial base and visceral chondrocranium in fishes. Acta Zool 40:203–364.
Bi W, Huang W, Whitworth DJ, Deng JM, Zhang Z, Behringer RR, et al. (2001). Haploinsufficiency of Sox9 results in defective cartilage primordia and premature skeletal mineralization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:6698–6703.
Brand M, Heisenberg CP, Warga RM, Pelegri F, Karlstrom RO, Beuchle D, et al. (1996). Mutations affecting development of the midline and general body sh
