|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 5 November 2003
doi: 10.1242/dev.00845
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Developmental Biology Program, Memorial Sloan
Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA
2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Skirball Institute of Biomolecular
Medicine, Departments of Cell Biology, and Physiology and Neuroscience, NYU
School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: joyner{at}saturn.med.nyu.edu)
Accepted 28 August 2003
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
 TOP SUMMARY IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
Key words: Fgf8, Fgf17, Fgf18, Mid/hindbrain organizer, FGF receptors, Sprouty, Mouse, Chick
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
;
Liu and Joyner, 2001a;
Wurst and Balley-Cuif, 2001).
FGF8, a member of the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family, is expressed in
r1 adjacent to the mid/hindbrain junction and has organizer activity. FGF8 can
induce the patterned expression of many midbrain/r1 genes and the formation of
ectopic midbrain or cerebellar structures depending on the cellular
environment and isoform (a or b) of FGF8 protein used. Furthermore,
loss-of-function studies in mouse and zebrafish have shown that Fgf8
is required for normal development of the midbrain and cerebellum
(Meyers et al., 1998;
Reifers et al., 1998;
Chi et al., 2003).
Fgf17 and Fgf18, which encode proteins more closely related
to FGF8 than the other FGF family members, are also expressed in the
mid/hindbrain junction region in broader domains than Fgf8, including
the posterior midbrain (Maruoka et al.,
1998; Xu et al.,
1999). In biochemical and cell culture assays FGF17b and FGF18
have similar receptor binding properties and ability to induce proliferation
when compared with FGF8b (Xu et al.,
1999; Xu et al.,
2000). In zebrafish, mRNA injection experiments indicate that
Fgf8 and Fgf17 have similar effects on gastrulation
(Reifers et al., 2000). Loss
of Fgf17 in mouse results in truncation of the posterior midbrain
(inferior colliculus) and reduced proliferation of the anterior cerebellum
(Xu et al., 2000), whereas
Fgf18 does not appear to be required for midbrain or cerebellum
development (Liu et al., 2002;
Ohbayashi et al., 2002). There
is clearly overlap in function between at least Fgf8 and 17,
as removal of one copy of Fgf8 on an Fgf17 mutant background
leads to an exaggerated cerebellum phenotype
(Xu et al., 2000). The exact
functions of each FGF protein therefore are not clear.
Fgf8 mRNA is differentially spliced to generate multiple protein
isoforms. FGF8a and FGF8b are the primary isoforms expressed in r1
(Sato et al., 2001) and they
differ by only 11 amino acids that are included in FGF8b. Surprisingly, we
have shown that these two FGF8 isoforms produce very different phenotypes when
mis-expressed in transgenic mouse embryos
(Liu et al., 1999). Ectopic
expression of the a isoform of Fgf8 in the midbrain and
caudal forebrain results in both expansion of the midbrain and ectopic
expression of En2, but not other genes expressed in the midbrain and
r1 (Lee et al., 1997;
Liu et al., 1999). The EN
transcription factors alone cannot mediate the midbrain expansion, as similar
ectopic expression of En1 does not induce the same phenotype
(Lee et al., 1997), and
Fgf8a produces midbrain expansion even in En2 mutants (D.
Song and A.L.J., unpublished data). In contrast to FGF8a, the b isoform
produces exencephaly and a rapid transformation of the midbrain and
diencephalon into an anterior r1 fate (Liu
et al., 1999) that includes repression of the midbrain gene
Otx2, expansion of the hindbrain gene Gbx2 and an anterior
shift in organizer genes (Fgf8/Wnt1). A further study showed that
GBX2 and EN1/2 are both required for FGF8b to regulate some midbrain/r1 genes
(Liu and Joyner, 2001b).
Recently, the functions of FGF8a and b also were elegantly compared in
chick following electroporation of different concentrations of DNA expression
constructs. Similar to what was observed in mouse, Fgf8a causes
expansion of the midbrain and Fgf8b transforms the midbrain into a
cerebellum based on early gene expression changes and later morphology
(Sato et al., 2001).
Interestingly, the initial effect of FGF8b is to reduce growth of the
midbrain. Thus, FGF8a and b have distinct activities, both on growth and
regulation of gene expression. Of relevance, 100 times lower levels of
Fgf8b induce an expanded midbrain. These results, and other studies
(Martinez et al., 1999;
Liu et al., 1999), have led to
the suggestion that a high level of FGF8 signaling induces cerebellum
development and a lower level induces midbrain development. If this is the
case, then strongly inducing the FGF pathway using activating mutations in
FGFRs should mimic the effects of FGF8b. Furthermore, given the dual functions
of FGF8 proteins in midbrain and cerebellum development, it is important to
determine whether FGF17 and 18 are similar to FGF8a or b.
FGF signaling is mediated by fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)
proteins, which belong to a family of tyrosine kinase-containing transmembrane
proteins that bind to FGF molecules and mediate FGF signaling (reviewed by
Powers et al., 2000).
Loss-of-function studies in mouse have demonstrated that various FGFRs are
essential in processes such as gastrulation, limb outgrowth and lung
morphogenesis (reviewed by Liu and Joyner,
2001a). In vitro studies have indicated that in the presence of
heparin, all three FGFs present in the mid/hindbrain region bind to the c
isoforms of FGFR2 and FGFR3 with high affinity, but not to FGFR1
(Blunt et al., 1997;
Xu et al., 1999).
Interestingly, in mouse and chick embryos Fgfr2 and Fgfr3
are not expressed near the mid/hindbrain organizer and Fgfr1 is
expressed at low levels (Ishibashi and
McMahon, 2002; Walshe and
Mason, 2000), raising the question of whether FGFR2/3 mediate FGF
signaling from the organizer. Indeed, a recent study of mice lacking
Fgfr1 specifically in the midbrain and r1 showed that Fgfr1
is the primary FGF receptor required in midbrain and cerebellum development
(Trokovic et al., 2003).
The Sprouty (Spry) family of proteins are antagonists of multiple tyrosine
kinase-containing receptors including those for epidermal growth factor and
FGF. In Drosophila, spry is expressed in cells receiving Fgf signals,
and loss of spry phenocopies gain-of-function mutations in
fgf (breathless) or fgfr (branchless)
(Hacohen et al., 1998). There
are multiple Spry members in the vertebrates, two of which (Spry1 and
Spry2) are expressed in the mid/hindbrain region of mouse and chick
embryos and induced by FGF (4 or 8b)-soaked beads in chick embryos
(Chambers et al., 2000;
de Maximy et al., 1999;
Minowada et al., 1999). Thus,
similar to other signaling pathways, FGF induces a negative feedback loop, and
a fine balance between activating and suppressing signaling must be required
for proper midbrain and cerebellum development.
In this study, we compared the activity of FGF17b and FGF18 to FGF8 in midbrain/cerebellum development using the chick electroporation assay. Strikingly, mis-expression of Fgf17b or Fgf18 at similar levels to Fgf8 induced expansion of the midbrain and regulation of midbrain genes similar to FGF8a. Of significance, among the four FGF proteins tested, only FGF8b induces Gbx2 and represses Otx2 producing a broad Gbx2+/Otx2– domain that abuts the Otx2 positive cells in the remainder of the midbrain. Interestingly, FGF8b induces organizer genes at the new Gbx2/Otx2 border, whereas FGF8a induces Fgf8 in scattered cells in the midbrain. In addition, only FGF8b strongly induces the feedback inhibitors Spry1 and Spry2, and we show that Spry1 is a direct target of FGF8 signaling. Consistent with the idea that FGF8b induces a higher level of signaling, mis-expression of activated FGFRs leads to induction of Gbx2 and Spry1/2 and repression of Otx2 similar to FGF8b, although the induction is in scattered cells and does not produce a late phenotype of cerebellum induction.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
;
Liu et al., 1999). In ovo
electroporation in chicken embryos was performed as described previously
(Timmer et al., 2001) with
some modifications. Specifically, cDNAs for mouse Fgf8a
(Lee et al., 1997),
Fgf8b (Liu et al.,
1999), Fgf17b (Xu et
al., 1999) and Fgf18
(Maruoka et al., 1998), and
human mutant FGFR genes were cloned into a chicken expression vector
pMiwIII (Muramatsu et al.,
1997) such that they are under the control of a chicken
ß-actin promoter. Two mutant forms of human FGFR1, N546K and
K656E (M. Mohammadi, unpublished), as well as one mutant form of human FGFR2,
C342Y (Mansukhani et al.,
2000), were used in this study. The expression constructs were
injected into the midbrain ventricles of stage 9-12 chicken embryos
(Hamburger and Hamilton, 1992)
and two electrodes were placed on either side of the rostral brain. Five
rectangular electric pulses of 10 volts, for 50 mseconds were then
delivered.
Reagents
Human FGF17b protein was kindly provided by Shaun K. Olsen and M.
Mohammadi. An in situ probe for chicken Gbx2 was generated by RT-PCR
from stage 18 chicken brain RNA according to chicken sequences published in
GenBank. A probe for chicken Otx2 was made by Dado Boncinelli. The
chick Fgf8 probe was from Brigid Hogan, and Spry1 and
Spry2 probes were from Gail Martin. The chick Wnt1 probe was
from Marion Wassef.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
). To
determine the temporal sequence of mid/hindbrain expression of the three Fgf
genes, we examined gene expression in whole mouse embryos. Fgf8
expression was first seen at the four-somite stage
(Fig. 1A,C), whereas
Fgf18 expression was not detected until slightly later at the
five-somite stage (Fig. 1D,E
and data not shown). Fgf17 expression was first detected in the
midbrain/r1 region at the six-somite stage
(Fig. 1I and data not shown).
At E9.5, both Fgf17 and Fgf18 were strongly expressed in
domains encompassing the posterior midbrain and anterior r1
(Fig. 1F,J), with the
Fgf17 expression domain being broadest. Fgf8 expression, by
contrast, was restricted to a small domain at the anterior border of r1
(Fig. 1B).
|
). By 40 hours, Fgf18 was induced by FGF8b-soaked
beads (n=4/4, Fig. 1H)
but not by BSA-soaked beads (n=0/4,
Fig. 1G). By contrast,
Fgf17 was not induced by either FGF8b-soaked beads (n=0/4,
Fig. 1L) or BSA-soaked beads
(n=0/4, Fig. 1K). A
time course of Fgf18 induction was then performed. Fgf18
mRNA was not detected in midbrain explants after 8 hours of exposure to FGF8b
(n=4), but was present by 16 hours (n=3) (inset in
Fig. 1H and data not shown). We
have previously shown that Fgf8 is not induced by FGF8 in the same
assay (Liu et al., 1999).
Taken together, these studies demonstrate that Fgf8 is the first Fgf
expressed in the mid/hindbrain region and suggest that it, in turn, induces
Fgf18 (directly or indirectly) in surrounding cells.
Induction of Spry1 and Spry2 by FGF-soaked beads has been
shown to occur more rapidly in chick embryonic brains than other midbrain/r1
genes such as En and Wnt1
(Chambers et al., 2000;
Minowada et al., 1999). We
therefore sought to determine whether the Spry genes are direct
targets of FGF8b using our mouse brain explant assay, as protein synthesis
inhibitors can be added to the medium. First we examined whether expression of
the mouse Spry genes are similarly controlled by FGF signaling, using explants
from prosomere 1 (p1), where neither Spry is expressed
(Fig. 2A,B). Similar to in the
chick, we found that Spry1 and Spry2 were rapidly induced
within 4 hours by FGF8b-soaked beads (n=4/4 for each gene,
Fig. 2D,H and data not shown),
but not BSA-soaked beads (n=0/4 for each gene,
Fig. 2C), in p1 explants. Next
we added 50 µg/ml cyclohexamide or ethanol to the medium, and found that
Spry1 is not induced by this treatment
(Fig. 2E,G), whereas
Spry2 is induced by cyclohexamide alone (data not shown). Regulation
of Spry1 by FGF8b in the presence of the protein synthesis inhibitor
was then tested, and indeed Spry1 was found to be induced
(n=6/6; Fig. 2F). By
contrast, the induction of En1, En2 and Gbx2 by FGF8b-soaked
beads was efficiently blocked by cyclohexamide (data not shown), consistent
with our observation that it takes at least 8 hours for these genes to be
induced by FGF8b-soaked beads (Liu and
Joyner, 2001b). These results show that induction of
Spry1, but not of En1, En2 and Gbx2 by FGF8b is
direct.
|
;
Ishibashi and McMahon, 2002)
(Fig. 3A-F), this raises the
question of whether FGF8b regulates these receptors as well as Fgf18.
We therefore examined the effects of FGF8b on the expression of Fgfr genes in
p1 brain explants. Fgfr1 was expressed at low levels in these
explants and the expression was not altered by FGF8b-soaked beads after 40
hours (Fig. 3G,H;
n=4/4). Fgfr2 expression was maintained in p1 brain explants
in the presence of BSA-soaked beads (n=4/4), with the highest level
being along the dorsal midline (Fig.
3I). Significantly, FGF8b-soaked beads downregulated
Fgfr2 expression in the surrounding cells
(Fig. 3J; n=4/4).
Fgfr3 expression was also maintained in control p1 brain explants
(Fig. 3K; n=4/4), and
was repressed by FGF8b-soaked beads (Fig.
3L; n=4/4). The repression of Fgfr3 by FGF8b
seemed to be more efficient than repression of Fgfr2, consistent with
Fgfr3 expression being more restricted to the rostral midbrain at
E9.5 than Fgfr2.
|
), but did
not address whether it can induce a cerebellum or regulate other genes. The
function of FGF17 in the midbrain/r1 has not been explored in such a
gain-of-function assay. Only one isoform of FGF18 has been described and it
contains a 12 amino acid insert in the same position that FGF8b has an 11
amino acid insert compared to FGF8a (Xu et
al., 1999). Three isoforms of FGF17 have been described and one
(referred to as FGF17b) has an 11 amino acid insert in a similar position to
FGF8b, whereas FGF17a lacks this insert. FGF17c has a stop codon that
truncates the protein before the conserved FGF domain. To compare the activity
of FGF17b and FGF18 with FGF8a/b in midbrain and cerebellum induction we used
the electroporation assay described by Sato et al.
(Sato et al., 2001) in which
FGF8a induces midbrain development and FGF8b represses midbrain development
and later induces a cerebellum. Expression constructs containing mouse cDNAs
for Fgf17b or Fgf18 (see Materials and methods) were
electroporated into the midbrain and caudal forebrain region of chick embryos
(Fig. 4A) at stages 9-12
(Hamburger and Hamilton, 1992)
at a concentration of 1 µg/µl, and examined for changes in midbrain
morphology and midbrain/r1 gene expression.
|
) by
electroporating mouse Fgf8a and Fgf8b expression vectors at
different concentrations (Table
1). The transfection efficiency was monitored by visualizing the
expression of co-electroporated GFP (Fig.
4B) and by examining the transgene RNA using section in situ
hybridization (see Fig. 5). Similar to recent studies (Sato et al.,
2001), when Fgf8b was electroporated into the midbrain
and caudal forebrain at a concentration of 0.1 µg/µl to 3 µg/µl,
midbrain development was repressed and the region was probably transformed
into an ectopic cerebellum (n=22/22;
Fig. 4D, compare with the control in
4C, and data not shown). By contrast, electroporation of 0.01
µg/µl Fgf8b (n=6/6, data not shown), or 1-2
µg/µl Fgf8a (n=5/5;
Fig. 4E) led to expansion of
the midbrain and transformation of the diencephalon into a midbrain. Analysis
of expression of the Fgf8a and Fgf8b mRNA produced by the
expression vectors showed that similar levels and patterns of expression were
obtained when 1-2 µg/µl of the DNA was used (inset in
Fig. 5A,B). As expected, no
Fgf8 mRNA was detected when 0.01 µg/µl Fgf8b was used
(data not shown).
|
|
) found that FGF8b induces Gbx2, Pax2/5, En1/2 and
represses Otx2 and Pax6, whereas FGF8a only induces
En1/2. Thus, a key distinction between the activity of FGF8a and
FGF8b is that only FGF8b induces Gbx2 and represses Otx2
(compare Fig. 5A,B with 5E,F).
Consistent with the similar phenotype produced by FGF17b, FGF18 and FGF8a,
neither FGF17b nor FGF18 induced Gbx2 or repressed Otx2
(Fig. 5I,J,M,N). We found that
electroporation of a low level of Fgf8b vector (0.01 µg/µl)
also did not alter Gbx2 and Otx2 expression (data not
shown). The response of the endogenous Fgf8 gene to the four FGFs was
very interesting. FGF8b (1 µg/µl) was found to induce Fgf8 in a
sharp band of cells at the new Gbx2/Otx2 boundary in the dorsal and
lateral midbrain (Fig. 5G; see
Fig. 7A,B). By contrast, FGF8a
induced Fgf8 in scattered cells in the midbrain
(Fig. 5C), whereas FGF17b and
FGF18 or low FGF8a did not induce detectable levels of Fgf8
(Fig. 5K,O and data not shown).
With all expression vectors, En2 was upregulated broadly (data not
shown). Finally, we examined the induction of Spry1 and
Spry2, as we found that Spry1 is a direct target of FGF8b
signaling. Only FGF8b strongly induced the Spry genes in the
midbrain, and FGF17b or FGF18 only weakly induced Spry1 in some
experiments (Fig. 5H,L,P and
data not shown). Taken together, the gene expression studies and morphological
analysis demonstrate that when Fgf17 and Fgf18 are expressed
at similar mRNA levels, they enhance midbrain development similar to
Fgf8a.
|
), it might be
expected that the three proteins activate FGF signaling to the same level. One
possible reason why electroporation of Fgf17b and 18
expression constructs does not produce similar changes in gene expression and
proliferation to Fgf8b is that production or secretion of FGF17b and
FGF18 protein is less efficient than FGF8b. To determine whether the same
concentrations of FGF17b or FGF8b have identical activities, we used our mouse
brain explant assay to compare the changes in gene expression induced by beads
soaked in FGF17b compared with FGF8b. Similar to the in vivo results, FGF17b
was found to induce En1 (n=7/7) and only weakly induce
Spry1 (n=6/6) in midbrain explants
(Fig. 6I,L; data not shown).
Furthermore, Gbx2 was induced in only three out of 12 midbrain
explants and FGF17b did not repress Otx2 (n=8/8) in midbrain
explants (Fig. 6C,F; data not
shown). In the same experiments, FGF8 strongly induce En1
(n=5/5), Spry1 (n=3/3) and Gbx2
(n=9/9), and repressed Otx2 (n=3/7)
(Fig. 6B,E,H,K; data not
shown). In all experiments, beads soaked in BSA had no effect on gene
expression (Fig. 6A,D,G,H;
n
2). Thus, the difference in activity of FGF17b compared with
FGF8b is most likely to be due to intrinsic differences in their ability to
induce the FGF signaling pathway.
|
Y) of FGFR2, which leads to receptor activation possibly by
inducing spontaneous dimerization of the receptors
(Mangasarian et al., 1997);
and two containing mutations in the tyrosine kinase domains of FGFR3
[N540K (Bellus et al.,
1995)] or [K650E
(Tavormina et al., 1995)]. As
the kinase domains are very well conserved among different FGFRs, and
Fgfr1 but not Fgfr3 is expressed in the midbrain/r1 region,
activated forms of FGFR1 containing the N546K and K656E mutations were
used. We examined gene expression changes in embryos electroporated with 1 µg/µl of the FGFR2C342Y or the FGFR1N546K vector. Similar to FGF8b, Gbx2, Fgf8 and Spry1 and 2 were induced and Otx2 repressed in the midbrain by FGFR2C342Y (Fig. 5Q,R,T and data not shown). Different from the homogeneous alterations in gene expression produced by electroporation of Fgf8b, the expression of the activated FGFR induced Gbx2, Fgf8 and Spry and repressed Otx2 in patches of cells mainly in the ventricular zone. This is probably due to the cell autonomous function of the activated FGFR compared with the secreted FGF8b protein, as the level and pattern of expression of the FGFR2C342Y mRNA was similar to the mouse Fgf8 cDNA (inset in Fig. 5Q). The FGFR1N546K vector produced similar results, when assayed for Fgf8 (n=2/3) and Gbx2 (n=3/3) expression by whole-mount RNA in situ analysis (data not shown).
We next determined the long-term phenotype of transiently expressing activated FGFRs in the midbrain. Unlike FGF8b, the three activated FGFRs (FGFR1N546K, FGFR1K656E and FGFR2C342Y) produced enlargement of the midbrain and diencephalon (Fig. 7A-C; Table 1 and data not shown). At a DNA concentration of as high as 3 µg/µl, ectopic expression of FGFR2C342Y or FGFR1N546K caused a similar phenotype to that obtained with 1 µg/µl DNA (Fig. 7B and data not shown). The FGFR1K656E mutant at 3 µg/µl led to a non-specific loss of the entire brain region including midbrain and cerebellum, preventing a morphological or marker gene analysis (Table 1 and data not shown). Histological analysis of sections through E8-10 chicken embryos (n=2) electroporated with FGFR2C342Y confirmed that the long-term phenotype of activated FGFRs is an enlarged midbrain, as the electroporated side showed the same histological features of the midbrain as on the control side (data not shown).
One possible reason why transient mis-expression of the FGFRs leads to
expansion of the midbrain is that the upregulation of Gbx2 and
Spry1/2, and repression of Otx2 does not happen in a
sufficient number of cells to transform the midbrain into a cerebellum.
Indeed, Sato et al. (Sato et al.,
2001) showed that co-electroporation of an Otx2
expression vector (1 µg/µl DNA) with an Fgf8b expression vector
(0.1 µg/µl DNA) results in expansion of the midbrain, indicating that
Otx2 positive cells that receive an FGF8b signal respond by expanding
the midbrain, whereas Gbx2 positive cells form a cerebellum.
Alternatively, or in addition, FGF8b may eventually lead to transformation of
the midbrain into a cerebellum because the organizer is extended along the new
Gbx2/Otx2 border and it maintains the transformation. In order to
explore these ideas further, we analyzed whole-mount embryos mis-expressing
Fgf8b or FGFR2C342Y for expression of genes
normally expressed near the organizer region. In embryos electroporated with
the Fgf8b vector, the normal rings of Fgf8 (n=4),
Wnt1 (n=4) and En1 (n=3) at the
mid/hindbrain junction were repressed on the electroporated side and both
genes were induced along the dorsal midline and in a transverse band in the
caudal diencephalon, probably adjacent to the induced Gbx2 domain
(Fig. 8A-D; n=4 for
Fgf8, n=3 for En1). By contrast, expression of the activated
FGFR vector induced Fgf8, En1 and Wnt1 only in
patches of cells in the midbrain and caudal diencephalon
(Fig. 8E,F and data not shown).
The resolution of the experiment is not such that we can determine whether
these genes are induced at new Gbx2/Otx2 borders. Taken together,
these studies are consistent with the idea that a high level of FGF signaling
is required to induce Gbx2 and repress Otx2 and that
transformation of a broad region into Otx2-/Gbx2+ cells is required
for late cerebellum formation.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
).
Thus, Fgf8 mutants are equivalent to Fgf8/17/18 triple
mutants, and determination of the normal requirement for Fgf17/18 in
the midbrain and cerebellum will await analysis of Fgf17/18 double
mutants.
Consistent with the expression patterns of Fgfr1, Fgfr2 and
Fgfr3, we found that FGF8b is sufficient to repress expression of
Fgfr2 and Fgfr3 in caudal forebrain explants. A study of
zebrafish ace mutants that have a mutation in fgf8 showed
that FGF8 is also required to restrict fgfr3 from the mid/hindbrain
junction, because in ace mutants fgfr3 is mis-expressed in
the midbrain and r1 (Sleptsova-Friedricha
et al., 2001). Thus, Fgf8 negatively regulates FGF
signaling by repressing two FGF receptors. Although Fgfr1 is the key
receptor that mediates FGF signaling in r1 and the caudal midbrain
(Trokovic et al., 2003), the
other two FGF receptors might play a role in mediating a low level of FGF
signaling in anterior regions of the midbrain.
Expression of two negative regulators of FGF signaling, Spry1 and
Spry2, in a broad domain surrounding the mouse mid/hindbrain junction
region has indicated that FGF signaling is attenuated by SPRY proteins in this
region. Interestingly, we found that only FGF8b strongly induces expression of
Spry1 and Spry2 in the chick anterior midbrain or mouse
brain explants. Furthermore, using a brain explant assay we demonstrated that
Spry1 (and probably Spry2) is a direct downstream target of
FGF8b signaling. This indicates that Spry1 expression can be used as
a read-out for FGF signaling. Consistent with this, in mouse embryos lacking
Fgf8 in the midbrain/r1 after the six-somite stage, Spry2 is
maintained at the 7- to 9-somite stage, but greatly reduced by the 13-16
somite stage (Chi et al.,
2003).
Taken together, our studies and others show that in mouse FGF8b regulates at least three components of the FGF signaling pathway. First, FGF8b induces expression of another FGF protein, FGF18. FGF8b also directly induces two negative modulators of the pathway (SPRY 1/2), and thus produces a negative-feedback loop. Furthermore, our finding that FGF8b also represses Fgfr2 and Fgfr3 demonstrates that a second negative feedback loop contributes to fine regulation of the level of FGF signaling in r1 and the midbrain to ensure appropriate patterning and growth.
FGF8b has a distinct activity from FGF8a, FGF17b and FGF18 in the
midbrain
To gain insight into how three Fgf genes orchestrate midbrain and
cerebellum development, we explored the activity of FGF17b and FGF18 in
comparison to FGF8a and FGF8b in their ability to regulate cell proliferation
and gene expression when mis-expressed in the midbrain. Of the four proteins,
only FGF8b has the ability to transform the midbrain into a cerebellum.
Associated with this unique activity, only FGF8b can induce Gbx2 and
repress Otx2 when expressed in the midbrain. Furthermore, and likely
of crucial importance for maintaining the transformation, only FGF8b induces
an ectopic organizer region at the new Gbx2/Otx2 border in the
midbrain. By contrast, FGF8a, FGF17b and FGF18 induce expansion of the
midbrain, and do not alter Gbx2 or Otx2 expression.
Spry1/2 is strongly induced by FGF8b and only weakly by FGF17b and
FGF18, whereas endogenous Fgf8 is only induced locally by FGF8a. This
different activity of FGF8b protein can not be due to a higher level of
expression of the Fgf8b construct, as it is only at a 100-fold lower
DNA concentration at which the mouse Fgf8b mRNA can not even be
detected that FGF8b induces a midbrain. As Fgf17and 18 are
expressed in the midbrain, although Fgf8 is restricted to r1,
Fgf17 and Fgf18 could be the main FGFs that normally
directly regulate growth and patterning of the midbrain.
Mouse mutant analyses have shown that Fgf17 is more important in
the midbrain than Fgf18, because only Fgf17 mutants have a
truncation of the posterior midbrain (Xu
et al., 2000; Liu et al.,
2002; Ohbayashi et al.,
2002). Our comparison of the activities of FGF17 and FGF18 show
that Fgf18 could also function with Fgf17 in regulating
midbrain development. Loss-of-function studies have also shown that
Fgf17 plays a role, along with Fgf8, in regulating late
proliferation of the anterior cerebellum
(Xu et al., 2000). Our finding
that FGF17b and FGF18 have such distinct activities from FGF8b in the midbrain
are in contrast to previous tissue culture studies that indicated the proteins
have similar binding affinities to FGFR2c and FGFR3c and similar functions in
regulating proliferation (Xu et al.,
1999; Xu et al.,
2000). One possibility was that FGF17b and FGF18 proteins are not
produced or secreted as efficiently as FGF8b in the chick midbrain. We have
ruled out this possibility by showing that when similar concentrations of
FGF17b and FGF8b protein are compared in mouse brain explant assays, they
differentially regulate gene expression similar to the electroporation
experiments. Thus, the intrinsic activity of FGF8b is different from that of
FGF17b, possibly because the 11 amino acid inserts in the two proteins are
distinct. Our study demonstrates the importance of testing the activity of
proteins in vivo where they normally function. Finally, although Fgf8
alone encodes two proteins sufficient for directing development of both the
midbrain and cerebellum, Fgf17 and Fgf18 probably augment
the proliferative and midbrain inducing ability of Fgf8a or a low
level of Fgf8b.
Activated FGFRs regulate midbrain/r1 genes similar to FGF8b
It is possible that the difference in the phenotypes produced by
mis-expression of Fgf8a versus Fgf8b is quantitative,
because in vitro studies have shown that FGF8b has a much higher affinity for
FGFRs than FGF8a. Consistent with this, electroporation of a low concentration
of Fgf8b expression vector has similar effects to high concentrations
of Fgf8a (Sato et al.,
2001), and some Wnt1-Fgf8a transgenics have phenotypes
similar to Wnt1-Fgf8b transgenics
(Liu et al., 1999). By
contrast, FGF17b and FGF18 have similar binding affinities and proliferation
activities to FGF8b in vitro (Xu et al.,
1999; Xu et al.,
2000), but do not behave like FGF8b when mis-expressed in the
midbrain or applied to brain explants. However, the biochemical studies were
carried out using FGFR2 and FGFR3, which are not the major receptors that
mediate midbrain/r1 patterning (Trokovic
et al., 2003). It is possible that there are qualitative
differences in the way FGF8b interacts with FGFR1, that allow FGF8b to
activate the downstream pathway more efficiently. We addressed this
possibility by asking whether high level FGF signaling is sufficient to induce
Gbx2 and repress Otx2 using activating mutations in FGFR1
and FGFR2. Indeed, the activated FGFRs regulate key target genes similar to
FGF8b. Of significance, the activated FGFRs strongly induce Spry1/2
and Gbx2 and repress Otx2.
Given the changes in gene expression induced by activated FGFRs, it was
perhaps surprising that the long-term phenotype of transient expression of
activated FGFRs is expansion of the midbrain. We suggest that in transient
mis-expression studies such as electroporations, Gbx2 must be induced
in a homogeneous domain so that a new organizer can form along the extended
Gbx2/Otx2 border, and the organizer can then maintain the long-term
transformation of the midbrain into a cerebellum. In support of this idea,
when Gbx2 is electroporated into the midbrain, Otx2 is only
transiently repressed in scattered cells in the anterior midbrain, and
although the isthmus is expanded anteriorly, no ectopic cerebellum forms
(Katahira et al., 2000). As
electroporation produces mosaic gene expression, the secreted protein FGF8b,
but not the activated FGF receptor, can induce Gbx2 throughout the
electroporated region. In addition, although the activated FGFRs can induce
Fgf8 as well as Wnt1 and En1 in the midbrain, it is
in patches of cells because of the cell-autonomous nature of the receptors. As
the response of Otx2-expressing midbrain cells to FGF8b is
proliferation of the midbrain (Sato et
al., 2001), and there are Otx2-positive cells present on
the side of the midbrain electroporated with the activated FGFRs, this could
account for the later expansion of the midbrain.
|
Conclusions |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
) and OTX2
inhibits Fgf8 from being induced in the midbrain
(Li and Joyner, 2001;
Martinez-Barbera et al.,
2001). FGF8b then induces Fgf18 in the surrounding cells,
producing a larger domain and gradient of Fgf mRNA that extends into
the midbrain. FGF8b also maintains two negative feedback loops by inducing
Spry1 and Spry2 expression and inhibiting Fgfr2 and
Fgfr3. Fgf17 is then induced by an unknown mechanism that is
dependent on Fgf8 (Chi et al.,
2003) in a broader domain than Fgf18, further extending
the gradient of Fgf mRNA expression. FGF17 and FGF18 protein, and possibly
FGF8a and a low level of FGF8b, then regulate proliferation of the midbrain
and cerebellum and En expression. The narrow domain where
Fgf8 is expressed becomes the isthmus because of the activity of
FGF8b (Li et al., 2002), and
the adjacent Otx2-negative r1 cells become the cerebellum. We have
recently shown that by the 15-somite stage Gbx2 is not required in r1
for cerebellum development, but is required earlier to specify r1
(Li et al., 2002). Thus, once
Fgf8 expression in r1 is stabilized, perhaps by a secreted factor
from the midbrain (Irving and Mason,
1999), a key function of high level signaling by FGF8b is to
maintain a cascade of gene expression in the midbrain/r1 that maintains an
Otx2-negative domain in r1 in which the cerebellum develops.
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPSUMMARYIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionsREFERENCES |
|---|
Bellus, G. A., McIntosh, I., Smith, E. A., Aylsworth, A. S., Kaitila, I., Horton, W. A., Greenhaw, G. A., Hecht, J. T. and Francomano, C. A. (1995). A recurrent mutation in the tyrosine kinase domain of fibroblast growth factor receptor 3 causes hypochondroplasia. Nat. Genet. 10,357 -359.[CrossRef][Medline]
Blunt, A. G., Lawshe, A., Cunningham, M. L., Seto, M. L.,
Ornitz, D. M. and MacArthur, C. A. (1997). Overlapping
expression and redundant activation of mesenchymal fibroblast growth factor
(FGF) receptors by alternatively spliced FGF-8 ligands. J. Biol.
Chem. 272,3733
-3738.
Chambers, D., Medhurst, A. D., Walsh, F. S., Price, J. and Mason, I. (2000). Differential display of genes expressed at the midbrain–hindbrain junction identifies sprouty2: an FGF8-inducible member of a family of intracellular FGF antagonists. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 15,22 -35.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chi, C., Martinez, S., Wurst, W. and Martin, G. R.
(2003). The isthmic organizer signal FGF8 is required for cell
survival in the prospective midbrain and cerebellum.
Development 130,2633
-2644.
de Maximy, A. A., Nakatake, Y., Moncada, S., Itoh, N., Thiery, J. P. and Bellusci, S. (1999). Cloning and expression pattern of a mouse homologue of drosophila sprouty in the mouse embryo. Mech. Dev. 81,213 -216.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hacohen, N., Kramer, S., Sutherland, D., Hiromi, Y. and Krasnow, M. A. (1998). sprouty encodes a novel antagonist of FGF signaling that patterns apical branching of the Drosophila airways. Cell 92,253 -263.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hamburger, V. and Hamilton, H. L. (1992). A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. 1951. Dev. Dyn. 195,231 -272.[Medline]
Irving, C. and Mason, I. (1999). Regeneration of isthmic tissue is the result of a specific and direct interaction between rhombomere 1 and midbrain. Development 126,3981 -3989.[Abstract]
Ishibashi, M. and McMahon, A. P. (2002). A sonic hedgehog-dependent signaling relay regulates growth of diencephalic and mesencephalic primordia in the early mouse embryo. Development 129,4807 -4819.
Joyner, A. L., Liu, A. and Millet, S. (2000). Otx2, Gbx2 and Fgf8 interact to position and maintain a mid-hindbrain organizer. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 12,736 -741.[CrossRef][Medline]
Katahira, T., Sato, T., Sugiyama, S., Okafuji, T., Araki, I., Funahashi, J. and Nakamura, H. (2000). Interaction between Otx2 and Gbx2 defines the organizing center for the optic tectum. Mech. Dev. 91,43 -52.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lee, S. M., Danielian, P. S., Fritzsch, B. and McMahon, A. P. (1997). Evidence that FGF8 signalling from the midbrain-hindbrain junction regulates growth and polarity in the developing midbrain. Development 124,959 -969.[Abstract]
Li, J., Lao, Z. and Joyner, A. (2002). Changing requirements for gbx2 in development of the cerebellum and maintenance of the mid/hindbrain organizer. Neuron 36, 31.[CrossRef][Medline]
Li, J. Y. and Joyner, A. L. (2001). Otx2 and Gbx2 are required for refinement and not induction of mid-hindbrain gene expression. Development 128,4979 -4991.
Liu, A. and Joyner, A. L. (2001a). Early anterior/posterior patterning of the midbrain and cerebellum. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24,869 -896.[CrossRef][Medline]
Liu, A. and Joyner, A. L. (2001b). EN and GBX2 play essential roles downstream of FGF8 in patterning the mouse mid/hindbrain region. Development 128,181 -191.[Abstract]
Liu, A., Losos, K. and Joyner, A. L. (1999). FGF8 can activate Gbx2 and transform regions of the rostral mouse brain into a hindbrain fate. Development 126,4827 -4838.[Abstract]
Liu, Z., Xu, J., Colvin, J. S. and Ornitz, D. M.
(2002). Coordination of chondrogenesis and osteogenesis by
fibroblast growth factor 18. Genes Dev.
16,859
-869.
Mangasarian, K., Li, Y., Mansukhani, A. and Basilico, C. (1997). Mutation associated with Crouzon syndrome causes ligand-independent dimerization and activation of FGF receptor-2. J. Cell Physiol. 172,117 -125.[CrossRef][Medline]
Mansukhani, A., Bellosta, P., Sahni, M. and Basilico, C.
(2000). Signaling by fibroblast growth factors (FGF) and
fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2)-activating mutations blocks
mineralization and induces apoptosis in osteoblasts. J. Cell
Biol. 149,1297
-1308.
Martinez, S., Crossley, P. H., Cobos, I., Rubenstein, J. L. and Martin, G. R. (1999). FGF8 induces formation of an ectopic isthmic organizer and isthmocerebellar development via a repressive effect on Otx2 expression. Development 126,1189 -1200.[Abstract]
Martinez-Barbera, J. P., Signore, M., Boyl, P. P., Puelles, E.,
Acampora, D., Gogoi, R., Schubert, F., Lumsden, A. and Simeone, A.
(2001). Regionalisation of anterior neuroectoderm and its
competence in responding to forebrain and midbrain inducing activities depend
on mutual antagonism between OTX2 and GBX2.
Development 128,4789
-4800.
Maruoka, Y., Ohbayashi, N., Hoshikawa, M., Itoh, N., Hogan, B. M. and Furuta, Y. (1998). Comparison of the expression of three highly related genes, Fgf8, Fgf17 and Fgf18, in the mouse embryo. Mech. Dev. 74,175 -177.[CrossRef][Medline]
Meyers, E. N., Lewandoski, M. and Martin, G. R. (1998). An Fgf8 mutant allelic series generated by Cre- and Flp-mediated recombination. Nat. Genet. 18,136 -141.[CrossRef][Medline]
Minowada, G., Jarvis, L. A., Chi, C. L., Neubuser, A., Sun, X., Hacohen, N., Krasnow, M. A. and Martin, G. R. (1999). Vertebrate Sprouty genes are induced by FGF signaling and can cause chondrodysplasia when overexpressed. Development 126,4465 -4475.[Abstract]
Muramatsu, T., Mizutani, Y., Ohmori, Y. and Okumura, J. (1997). Comparison of three nonviral transfection methods for foreign gene expression in early chicken embryos in ovo. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 230,376 -380.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ohbayashi, N., Shibayama, M., Kurotaki, Y., Imanishi, M.,
Fujimori, T., Itoh, N. and Takada, S. (2002). FGF18 is
required for normal cell proliferation and differentiation during osteogenesis
and chondrogenesis. Genes Dev.
16,870
-879.
Ohuchi, H., Kimura, S., Watamoto, M. and Itoh, N. (2000). Involvement of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)18-FGF8 signaling in specification of left-right asymmetry and brain and limb development of the chick embryo. Mech. Dev. 95, 55-66.[CrossRef][Medline]
Powers, C. J., McLeskey, S. W. and Wellstein, A. (2000). Fibroblast growth factors, their receptors and signaling. Endocr. Relat. Cancer 7,165 -197.[Abstract]
Reifers, F., Bohli, H., Walsh, E. C., Crossley, P. H., Stainier, D. Y. and Brand, M. (1998). Fgf8 is mutated in zebrafish acerebellar (ace) mutants and is required for maintenance of midbrain-hindbrain boundary development and somitogenesis. Development 125,2381 -2395.[Abstract]
Reifers, F., Adams, J., Mason, I. J., Schulte-Merker, S. and Brand, M. (2000). Overlapping and distinct functions provided by fgf17, a new zebrafish member of the Fgf8/17/18 subgroup of Fgfs. Mech. Dev. 99,39 -49.[CrossRef][Medline]
Sato, T., Araki, I. and Nakamura, H. (2001).
Inductive signal and tissue responsiveness defining the tectum and the
cerebellum. Development
128,2461
-2469.
Sleptsova-Friedricha, I., Lib, Y., Emelyanova, A., Ekkerc, M., Korzha, V. and Ge, R. (2001). Fgfr3 and regionalization of anterior neural tube in zebrafish. Mech. Dev. 102,213 -217.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tavormina, P. L., Shiang, R., Thompson, L. M., Zhu, Y. Z., Wilkin, D. J., Lachman, R. S., Wilcox, W. R., Rimoin, D. L., Cohn, D. H. and Wasmuth, J. J. (1995). Thanatophoric dysplasia (types I and II) caused by distinct mutations in fibroblast growth factor receptor 3. Nat. Genet. 9,321 -328.[CrossRef][Medline]
Timmer, J., Johnson, J. and Niswander, L. (2001). The use of in ovo electroporation for the rapid analysis of neural-specific murine enhancers. Genesis 29,123 -132.[CrossRef][Medline]
Trokovic, R., Trokovic, N., Hernesniemi, S., Pirvola, U., Vogt Weisenhorn, D. M., Rossant, J., P.McMahon, A., Wurst, W., and Partanen, J. (2003). FGFR1 is independently required in both developing mid- and hindbrain for sustained response to isthmic signals. EMBO J. 221811 -1823.[CrossRef][Medline]
Walshe, J. and Mason, I. (2000). Expression of FGFR1, FGFR2 and FGFR3 during early neural development in the chick embryo. Mech. Dev. 90,103 -110.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wurst, W. and Bally-Cuif, L. (2001). Neural plate patterning: upstream and downstream of the isthmic organizer. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2,99 -108.[CrossRef][Medline]
Xu, J., Lawshe, A., MacArthur, C. A. and Ornitz, D. M. (1999). Genomic structure, mapping, activity and expression of fibroblast growth factor 17. Mech. Dev. 83,165 -178.[CrossRef][Medline]
Xu, J., Liu, Z. and Ornitz, D. M. (2000). Temporal and spatial gradients of Fgf8 and Fgf17 regulate proliferation and differentiation of midline cerebellar structures. Development 127,1833 -1843.[Abstract]
Ye, W., Bouchard, M., Stone, D., Liu, X., Vella, F., Lee, J., Nakamura, H., Ang, S. L., Busslinger, M. and Rosenthal, A. (2001). Distinct regulators control the expression of the mid-hindbrain organizer signal FGF8. Nat. Neurosci. 4,1175 -1181.[CrossRef][Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
