In order to investigate similarities and differences in genetic control of development among teeth within and between species, we determined the expression pattern of all eight Dlx genes of the zebrafish during development of the pharyngeal dentition and compared these data with that reported for mouse molar tooth development. We found that (i) dlx1a and dlx6a are not expressed in teeth, in contrast to their murine orthologs, Dlx1 and Dlx6; (ii) the expression of the six other zebrafish Dlx genes overlaps in time and space, particularly during early morphogenesis; (iii) teeth in different locations and generations within the zebrafish dentition differ in the number of genes expressed; (iv) expression similarities and differences between zebrafish Dlx genes do not clearly follow phylogenetic and linkage relationships; and (v) similarities and differences exist in the expression of zebrafish and mouse Dlx orthologs. Taken together, these results indicate that the Dlx gene family, despite having been involved in vertebrate tooth development for over 400 million years, has undergone extensive diversification of expression of individual genes both within and between dentitions. The latter type of difference may reflect the highly specialized dentition of the mouse relative to that of the zebrafish, and/or genome duplication in the zebrafish lineage facilitating a redistribution of Dlx gene function during odontogenesis.

We have used dlx genes to test the hypothesis of a separate developmental program for dermal and cartilage bones within the neuro-and splanchnocranium by comparing expression patterns of all eight dlx genes during cranial bone formation in zebrafish from 1 day postfertilization (dPF) to 15 dPF. dlx genes are expressed in the visceral skeleton but not during the formation of dermal or cartilage bones of the braincase. The spatiotemporal expression pattern of all the members of the dlx gene family, support the view that dlx genes impart cellular identity to the different arches, required to make arch-specific dermal bones. Expression patterns seemingly associated with cartilage (perichondral) bones of the arches, in contrast, are probably related to ongoing differentiation of the underlying cartilage rather than with differentiation of perichondral bones themselves. Whether dlx genes originally functioned in the visceral skeleton only, and whether their involvement in the formation of neurocranial bones (as in mammals) is secondary, awaits clarification. Developmental Dynamics 235:1371-1389, 2006.

To test whether cartilage bones and dermal bones, which belong to two different units of the vertebrate skeleton, have distinct developmental programs possibly reflected in a different molecular control of their ossification process, we currently investigate the development of some selected cranial bones in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Here we present some light microscopical and ultrastructural findings with respect to the maxillary bone (a dermal bone that is edentulous in the zebrafish) and the basioccipital bone (a cartilage bone, i.e., with a perichondral phase followed by endochondral invasion). The two bones differ in (a) the area where matrix is first deposited--an unstructured extracellular domain in the former versus intermingling of bone matrix elements with cartilage matrix in the latter--and (b) the progression of ossification--continuously from an initium in the former versus through fusion of separate anlagen in the latter. These findings seem to support the hypothesis that the two types of bone have at least some distinctive features in their developmental programs.

Bony fish, and in particular teleosts, represent a morphologically extremely diverse group of vertebrates, well suited to study certain problems in odontogenesis. In this article we address some questions that can benefit much from the use of fish dentitions as paradigms, such as endodermal participation in tooth formation and epithelial primacy in initiation events. Next, we highlight some results recently obtained in our laboratory with respect to two models, the zebrafish (Cyprinidae), and selected species of cichlids (Cichlidae). Finally, we pinpoint some questions that lend themselves admirably to be examined using fish models, such as the factors that control renewed initiation of teeth, and the relationship (or absence thereof) between Hox genes and tooth formation.