Fibroblast growth factor (Fgf) proteins are important regulators of pharyngeal arch development. Analyses of Fgf8 function in chick and mouse and Fgf3 function in zebrafish have demonstrated a role for Fgfs in the differentiation and survival of postmigratory neural crest cells (NCC) that give rise to the pharyngeal skeleton. Here we describe, in zebrafish, an earlier, essential function for Fgf8 and Fgf3 in regulating the segmentation of the pharyngeal endoderm into pouches. Using time-lapse microscopy, we show that pharyngeal pouches form by the directed lateral migration of discrete clusters of endodermal cells. In animals doubly reduced for Fgf8 and Fgf3, the migration of pharyngeal endodermal cells is disorganized and pouches fail to form. Transplantation and pharmacological experiments show that Fgf8 and Fgf3 are required in the neural keel and cranial mesoderm during early somite stages to promote first pouch formation. In addition, we show that animals doubly reduced for Fgf8 and Fgf3 have severe reductions in hyoid cartilages and the more posterior branchial cartilages. By examining early pouch and later cartilage phenotypes in individual animals hypomorphic for Fgf function, we find that alterations in pouch structure correlate with later cartilage defects. We present a model in which Fgf signaling in the mesoderm and segmented hindbrain organizes the segmentation of the pharyngeal endoderm into pouches. Moreover, we argue that the Fgf-dependent morphogenesis of the pharyngeal endoderm into pouches is critical for the later patterning of pharyngeal cartilages.
"The formation of the pharyngeal pouches requires signals from the surrounding mesodermal and neural tissues and it has been shown that Fgf function is necessary for the formation of all of the pouches . There are, however, also significant differences between the development of the anterior and posterior pouches. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Segmentation is a feature of the body plans of a number of diverse animal groupings, including the annelids, arthropods and chordates. However, it has been unclear whether or not these different manifestations of segmentation are independently derived or have a common origin. Central to this issue is whether or not there are common developmental mechanisms that establish segmentation and the evolutionary origins of these processes. A fruitful way to address this issue is to consider how segmentation in vertebrates is directed. During vertebrate development three different segmental systems are established: the somites, the rhombomeres and the pharyngeal arches. In each an iteration of parts along the long axis is established. However, it is clear that the formation of the somites, rhombomeres or pharyngeal arches have little in common, and as such there is no single segmentation process. These different segmental systems also have distinct evolutionary histories, thus highlighting the fact that segmentation can and does evolve independently at multiple points. We conclude that the term segmentation indicates nothing more than a morphological description and that it implies no mechanistic similarity. Thus it is probable that segmentation has arisen repeatedly during animal evolution.
"9 along the entire extent of pharyngeal endoderm at both ages in Foxi3 mutants , whereas Pax9 is restricted to pouches in wild type embryos . support cranial neural crest cell survival and branchial arch devel - opment is conserved from fish to mammals , and loss of pharyngeal Fgfs leads to missing craniofacial skeletal structures in vertebrates ( Crump et al . , 2004 ; Trumpp et al . , 1999 ) . Foxi3 and Fgf8 are expressed in similar patterns in the pharyngeal region , and Foxi3 mutants and Fgf8 branchial ectoderm - conditional knockouts have similar phenotypes , in particular , a significantly reduced mandible and concomitant apoptosis of cranial neural crest cells in the first arch ( Abu - Issa et"
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The bones of the vertebrate face develop from transient embryonic branchial arches that are populated by cranial neural crest cells. We have characterized a mouse mutant for the Forkhead family transcription factor Foxi3, which is expressed in branchial ectoderm and endoderm. Foxi3 mutant mice are not viable and display severe branchial arch-derived facial skeleton defects, including absence of all but the most distal tip of the mandible and complete absence of the inner, middle and external ear structures. Although cranial neural crest cells of Foxi3 mutants are able to migrate, populate the branchial arches and display some elements of correct proximo-distal patterning, they succumb to apoptosis from embryonic day 9.75 onwards. We show this cell death correlates with a delay in expression of Fgf8 in branchial arch ectoderm and a failure of neural crest cells in the arches to express FGF-responsive genes. Zebrafish foxi1 is also expressed in branchial arch ectoderm and endoderm, and morpholino knockdown of foxi1 also causes apoptosis of neural crest in the branchial arches. We show that heat shock induction of fgf3 in zebrafish arch tissue can rescue cell death in foxi1 morphants. Our results suggest that Foxi3 may play a role in the establishment of signaling centers in the branchial arches that are required for neural crest survival, patterning and the subsequent development of branchial arch derivatives.
"There is no information on the origins of zebrafish head mural cells, therefore we crossed our transgenic acta2:mCherryca8 fish with transgenic fli1a:nEGFPy7 zebrafish. Fli1a:nEGFPy7 labels endothelial cells and ectomesenchymal neural crest derivatives of the ventral head but not mesodermal or endodermal derivatives , . If mural cells derive from a neural crest lineage, we might expect co-localization of fli1a:EGFP and acta2:mCherry, however, at 4, 7, and 10 dpf (Fig 8A, 8B, data not shown, respectively), we do not see co-localization of markers. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Mural cells of the vascular system include vascular smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and pericytes whose role is to stabilize and/or provide contractility to blood vessels. One of the earliest markers of mural cell development in vertebrates is α smooth muscle actin (acta2; αsma), which is expressed by pericytes and SMCs. In vivo models of vascular mural cell development in zebrafish are currently lacking, therefore we developed two transgenic zebrafish lines driving expression of GFP or mCherry in acta2-expressing cells. These transgenic fish were used to trace the live development of mural cells in embryonic and larval transgenic zebrafish. acta2:EGFP transgenic animals show expression that largely mirrors native acta2 expression, with early pan-muscle expression starting at 24 hpf in the heart muscle, followed by skeletal and visceral muscle. At 3.5 dpf, expression in the bulbus arteriosus and ventral aorta marks the first expression in vascular smooth muscle. Over the next 10 days of development, the number of acta2:EGFP positive cells and the number of types of blood vessels associated with mural cells increases. Interestingly, the mural cells are not motile and remain in the same position once they express the acta2:EGFP transgene. Taken together, our data suggests that zebrafish mural cells develop relatively late, and have little mobility once they associate with vessels.
PLoS ONE 03/2014; 9(3):e90590. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0090590 · 3.23 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.