Article

Tbx5 and Tbx4 Are Not Sufficient to Determine Limb-Specific Morphologies but Have Common Roles in Initiating Limb Outgrowth

Division of Developmental Biology, National Institute for Medical Research, Mill Hill, London NW7 1AA, United Kingdom.
Developmental Cell (Impact Factor: 9.71). 02/2005; 8(1):75-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2004.11.013
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

Morphological differences between forelimbs and hindlimbs are thought to be regulated by Tbx5 expressed in the forelimb and Tbx4 and Pitx1 expressed in the hindlimb. Gene deletion and misexpression experiments have suggested that these factors have two distinct functions during limb development: the initiation and/or maintenance of limb outgrowth and the specification of limb-specific morphologies. Using genetic methods in the mouse, we have investigated the roles of Tbx5, Tbx4, and Pitx1 in both processes. Our results support a role for Tbx5 and Tbx4, but not for Pitx1, in initiation of limb outgrowth. In contrast to conclusions from gene misexpression experiments in the chick, our results demonstrate that Tbx5 and Tbx4 do not determine limb-specific morphologies. However, our results support a role for Pitx1 in the specification of hindlimb-specific morphology. We propose a model in which positional codes, such as Pitx1 and Hox genes in the lateral plate mesoderm, dictate limb-specific morphologies.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Malcolm Logan, Aug 12, 2015
  • Source
    • "The restricted expression domains of Tbx5 and Tbx4 in the forelimb and the hindlimb, respectively, suggest that these genes could play an active role in determining forelimb and hindlimb morphologies and this was supported by some experiments in the chick [24] [25]. Gene deletion–gene replacement experiments in mouse embryos, however, clearly demonstrated that Tbx5 and Tbx4 have equivalent roles in the initiation of limb outgrowth and do not control limb-type specific morphology [26]. Ectopic expression of Tbx4 in the Tbx5 mutant forelimb can rescue forelimb formation in the absence of Tbx5 activity demonstrating that Tbx4 can produce forelimb features and Tbx5 is not required for forelimb structures to form. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The limbs are a significant evolutionary innovation that enabled vertebrates to diversify and colonise new environments. Tetrapods have two pairs of limbs, forelimbs in the upper body and hindlimbs in the lower body. The morphologies of the forelimbs and hindlimbs are distinct, reflecting their specific locomotory functions although they share many common signaling networks that regulate their development. The paired appendages in vertebrates form at fixed positions along the rostral-caudal axis and this occurs as a consequence of earlier subdivision of the lateral plate mesoderm (LPM) into regions with distinct limb forming potential. In this review, we discuss the molecular mechanisms that confer a broad region of the flank with limb-forming potential and its subsequent refinement into distinct forelimb-forming, hindlimb-forming and interlimb territories.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology
  • Source
    • "Wnt and Fgf signaling also have important roles in the initiation of both fore-and hindlimb outgrowth, but interactions among these pathways differ to some degree in the fore-and hindlimbs (Sekine et al. 1999; Takeuchi et al. 2003; Cooper et al. 2011). As mentioned in the previous section, Tbx5's role in initial outgrowth and patterning is limited to the forelimb, while Tbx4 and Pitx1's role is restricted to the hindlimb (Rodriguez-Esteban et al. 1999; Takeuchi et al. 2003; Minguillon et al. 2005; Naiche and Papaioannou 2007; Ouimette et al. 2010). The result of this is that Tbx4 and Pitx1 only contribute to the hindlimb networks for initiation (Fig. 4) and patterning (Fig. 5), while Tbx5 only contributes to the forelimb networks. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While fore- and hindlimbs are commonly assumed to be serially homologous, the serial homology of the pectoral and pelvic girdles is more ambiguous. We investigate the degree to which a common history, developmental program, and gene network are shared between the girdles relative to the rest of the appendicular skeleton. Paleontological data indicate that pectoral appendages arose millions of years before pelvic appendages. Recent embryological and genetic data suggest that the anatomical similarity between the fore- and hindlimbs arose through the sequential, derived deployment of similar developmental programs and gene networks, and is therefore not due to ancestral serial homology. Much less developmental work has however been published about the girdles. Here we provide the first detailed review of the developmental programs and gene networks of the pectoral and pelvic girdles. Our review shows that, with respect to these programs and networks, there are fewer similarities between pelvic and pectoral girdles than there are between the limbs. The available data therefore support recent hypotheses that the anatomical similarities between the fore- and hindlimbs arose during the fin-to-limb transition through the derived co-option of similar developmental mechanisms, while the phylogenetically older pectoral and pelvic girdles have remained more distinct since their evolutionary origin.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · Evolution
  • Source
    • " the genome of the extant cephalochordate amphioxus ( Ruvinsky et al . , 2000 ; Horton et al . , 2008 ) . Interestingly , in this finless chordate Tbx4 / 5 is expressed in the ventral mesoderm , suggested as a precursor of the LPM in vertebrates ( Horton et al . , 2008 ) . Moreover , this amphioxus gene is able to induce limbs in transgenic mice ( Minguillon et al . , 2005 ; Horton et al . , 2008 ) . Thus , the fin‐inducing properties of Tbx4 / 5 probably predate its duplication in vertebrates . However , regionalization into CM and PLPM may have been mandatory for the activation of its function as fin inducer ( Fig . 2A , B ; Onimaru et al . , 2011 ) . Lampreys offer a challenge to test these hypotheses "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The locomotory appendages of vertebrates have undergone significant changes during evolution, which likely promoted a wide range of adaptive strategies. These appendages first evolved as unpaired finfolds in the dorsal midline of early chordates, more than 500 million years ago. Later on, during vertebrates' radiation, two sets of locomotory appendages emerged, developing from both sides of the latero-ventral body wall. The morphology of these paired fins in fishes at different phylogenetic positions suggests an evolutionary tendency for increasing elaboration of the endoskeleton and concomitant reduction of the distal dermoskeleton. This evolutionary process culminated with the origin of limbs in the lineages leading to tetrapods. The developmental programs responsible for the evolution of vertebrate appendages have been a major topic for evolutionary developmental biology recently. Gene expression comparisons performed in chordates explored how these mechanisms were transferred from a midline to latero-ventral position. On another front, gene function assays have begun to test classical hypotheses concerning the transition from fish fins to tetrapod limbs. In this review, we highlight these recent findings on the evolution of vertebrate fin development. First, we discuss new perspectives on the transition from midline to paired appendages focus on (i) origin and molecular regionalization of the lateral plate mesoderm and (ii) novel ectodermic competency zones for fin induction. Next, we review recent work exploring how tetrapod limbs evolved from fish fins, considering (i) molecular and structural changes in the distal ectoderm of fins and (ii) modulation of 5'HoxD transcription during fin endoskeleton development. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 9999B: XX-XX, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2014 · Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B Molecular and Developmental Evolution
Show more