Unlike the rest of the axial skeleton, which develops solely from somitic mesoderm, patterning of the rib cage is complicated by its derivation from two distinct tissues. The thoracic skeleton is derived from both somitic mesoderm, which forms the vertebral bodies and ribs, and from lateral plate mesoderm, which forms the sternum. By generating mouse mutants in Hox5, Hox6 and Hox9 paralogous group genes, along with a dissection of the Hox10 and Hox11 group mutants, several important conclusions regarding the nature of the 'Hox code' in rib cage and axial skeleton development are revealed. First, axial patterning is consistently coded by the unique and redundant functions of Hox paralogous groups throughout the axial skeleton. Loss of paralogous function leads to anterior homeotic transformations of colinear regions throughout the somite-derived axial skeleton. In the thoracic region, Hox genes pattern the lateral plate-derived sternum in a non-colinear manner, independent from the patterning of the somite-derived vertebrae and vertebral ribs. Finally, between adjacent sets of paralogous mutants, the regions of vertebral phenotypes overlap considerably; however, each paralogous group imparts unique morphologies within these regions. In all cases examined, the nextmost posterior Hox paralogous group does not prevent the function of the more-anterior Hox group in axial patterning. Thus, the 'Hox code' in somitic mesoderm is the result of the distinct, graded effects of two or more Hox paralogous groups functioning in any anteroposterior location.

The border between the posterior ectoderm and the endoderm is a location where two germ layers meet and establish an enduring relationship that also later serves, in deuterostomes, as the anatomical site of the anus. In the sea urchin, a prototypic deuterostome, the ectoderm-endoderm boundary is established before gastrulation, and ectodermal cells at the boundary are thought to provide patterning inputs to the underlying mesenchyme. Here we show that a short-range Wnt5 signal from the endoderm actively patterns the adjacent boundary ectoderm. This signal activates a unique subcircuit of the ectoderm gene regulatory network, including the transcription factors IrxA, Nk1, Pax2/5/8 and Lim1, which are ultimately restricted to subregions of the border ectoderm (BE). Surprisingly, Nodal and BMP2/4, previously shown to be activators of ectodermal specification and the secondary embryonic axis, instead restrict the expression of these genes to subregions of the BE. A detailed examination showed that endodermal Wnt5 functions as a short-range signal that activates only a narrow band of ectodermal cells, even though all ectoderm is competent to receive the signal. Thus, cells in the BE integrate positive and negative signals from both the primary and secondary embryonic axes to correctly locate and specify the border ectoderm.

To date, only the five most posterior groups of Hox genes, Hox9-Hox13, have demonstrated loss-of-function roles in limb patterning. Individual paralog groups control proximodistal patterning of the limb skeletal elements. Hox9 genes also initiate the onset of Hand2 expression in the posterior forelimb compartment, and collectively, the posterior HoxA/D genes maintain posterior Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) expression. Here we show that an anterior Hox paralog group, Hox5, is required for forelimb anterior patterning. Deletion of all three Hox5 genes (Hoxa5, Hoxb5, and Hoxc5) leads to anterior forelimb defects resulting from derepression of Shh expression. The phenotype requires the loss of all three Hox5 genes, demonstrating the high level of redundancy in this Hox paralogous group. Further analyses reveal that Hox5 interacts with promyelocytic leukemia zinc finger biochemically and genetically to restrict Shh expression. These findings, along with previous reports showing that point mutations in the Shh limb enhancer lead to similar anterior limb defects, highlight the importance of Shh repression for proper patterning of the vertebrate limb.

It is a challenge to understand how the information encoded in DNA is used to build a three dimensional structure. To explore how this works the assembly of a relatively simple skeleton has been examined at multiple control levels. The skeleton of the sea urchin embryo consists of a number of calcite rods produced by 64 skeletogenic cells. The ectoderm supplies spatial cues for patterning, essentially telling the skeletogenic cells where to position themselves and providing the factors for skeletal growth. Here we describe the information known about how this works. First the ectoderm must be patterned so that the signaling cues are released from precise positions. The skeletogenic cells respond by initiating skeletogenesis immediately beneath two regions (one on the right and the other on the left side). Growth of the skeletal rods requires additional signaling from defined ectodermal locations, and the skeletogenic cells respond to produce a membrane-bound template in which the calcite crystal grows. Important in this process are three signals, FGF, VEGF, and Wnt5. Each is necessary for explicit tasks in skeleton production.

Highlights d Niche cell wrapping templates a laminin-based basement membrane around the gonad d Basement membrane and dystroglycan maintain niche cell wrapping d Basement membrane inhibits Notch to ensure primordial germ cell quiescence d Niche cell wrapping protects primordial germ cells from cannibalism by neighboring cells

No abstract

No abstract

Genome manipulation methods in C. elegans require microinjecting DNA or ribonucleoprotein complexes into the microscopic core of the gonadal syncytium. These microinjections are technically demanding and represent a key bottleneck for all genome engineering and transgenic approaches in C. elegans. While there have been steady improvements in the ease and efficiency of genetic methods for C. elegans genome manipulation, there have not been comparable advances in the physical process of microinjection. Here, we report a simple and inexpensive method for handling worms using a paintbrush during the injection process that nearly tripled average microinjection rates compared to traditional worm handling methods. We found that the paintbrush increased injection throughput by substantially increasing both injection speeds and post-injection survival rates. In addition to dramatically and universally increasing injection efficiency for experienced personnel, the paintbrush method also significantly improved the abilities of novice investigators to perform key steps in the microinjection process. We expect that this method will benefit the C. elegans community by increasing the speed at which new strains can be generated and will also make microinjection-based approaches less challenging and more accessible to personnel and labs without extensive experience.