We investigated whether co-expression of Neurog1 and Atoh1 in common neurosensory precursors could explain the loss of hair cells in Neurog1 null mice. Analysis of terminal mitosis, using BrdU, supports previous findings regarding timing of exit from cell cycle. Specifically, we show that cell cycle exit occurs in spiral sensory neurons in a base-to-apex progression followed by cell

We have investigated the expression of FGF10 during ear development and the effect of an FGF10 null mutation on ear development. Our in situ hybridization data reveal expression of FGF10 in all three canal crista sensory epithelia and the cochlea anlage as well as all sensory neurons at embryonic day 11.5 (E11.

The forkhead genes are involved in patterning, morphogenesis, cell fate determination, and proliferation. Several Fox genes (Foxi1, Foxg1) are expressed in the developing otocyst of both zebrafish and mammals. We show that Foxg1 is expressed in most cell types of the inner ear of the adult mouse and that Foxg1 mutants have both morphological and histological defects in the inner ear. These mice have a shortened cochlea with multiple rows of hair cells and supporting cells. Additionally, they demonstrate striking abnormalities in cochlear and vestibular innervation, including loss of all crista neurons and numerous fibers that overshoot the organ of Corti. Closer examination shows that some anterior crista fibers exist in late embryos. Tracing these fibers shows that they do not project to the brain but, instead, to the cochlea. Finally, these mice completely lack a horizontal crista, although a horizontal canal forms but comes off the anterior ampulla. Anterior and posterior cristae, ampullae, and canals are reduced to varying degrees, particularly in combination with Fgf10 heterozygosity. Compounding Fgf10 heterozygotic effects suggest an additive effect of Fgf10 on Foxg1, possibly mediated through bone morphogenetic protein regulation. We show that sensory epithelia formation and canal development are linked in the anterior and posterior canal systems. Much of the Foxg1 phenotype can be explained by the participation of the protein binding domain in the delta/notch/hes signaling pathway. Additional Foxg1 effects may be mediated by the forkhead DNA binding domain.

At E8.5, the LIM-homeodomain factor Lmx1a is expressed throughout the otic placode but becomes developmentally restricted to non-sensory epithelia of the ear (endolymphatic duct, ductus reuniens, cochlea lateral wall). We confirm here that the ears of newborn dreher (Lmx1a dr ) mutants are dysmorphic. Hair cell markers such as Atoh1 and Myo7 reveal for the first time that newborn Lmx1a mutants have only three sensory epithelia: two enlarged canal cristae and one fused epithelium comprising an amalgamation of the cochlea, saccule and utricle, a "cochlear-gravistatic" endorgan. The enlarged anterior canal crista develops by fusion of horizontal and anterior crista whereas the posterior crista fuses with an enlarged papilla neglecta that may extend into the cochlear lateral wall. In the fused endorgan the cochlear region is distinguished from the vestibular region by markers such as Gata3, the presence of a tectorial membrane and cochlea-specific innervation. The cochlea-like apex displays minor disorganization of the hair and supporting cells. This contrasts with the basal half of the cochlear region which shows a vestibular epithelium-like organization of hair cells and supporting cells. The dismorphic features of the cochlea are also reflected in altered gene expression patterns. Fgf8 expression expands from inner hair cells in the apex to most hair cells in the base. Two supporting cell marker proteins, Sox2 and Prox1, also differ in their cellular distribution between the base and the apex. Sox2 expression expands in mutant canal cristae prior to their enlargement and fusion and displays a more diffuse and widespread expression in the base of the cochlear region whereas Prox1 is not detected in the base. These changes in Sox2 and Prox1 expression suggest that Lmx1a expression restricts and sharpens Sox2 expression thereby defining non-sensory and sensory epithelium. The adult Lmx1a mutant organ of Corti showed a loss of cochlear hair cells, suggesting that long term hair cell maintenance is also disrupted in these mutants.

The molecular basis of mechanosensation, mechanosensory cell development and mechanosensory organ development is reviewed with an emphasis on its evolution. In contrast to eye evolution and development, which apparently modified a genetic program through intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top (Pax6, Eya1, Six1) of the hierarchy and the structural genes (rhodopsin) at the bottom, the as yet molecularly unknown mechanosensory channel precludes such a firm conclusion for mechanosensors. However, recent years have seen the identification of several structural genes which are involved in mechanosensory tethering and several transcription factors controlling mechanosensory cell and organ development; these warrant the interpretation of available data in very much the same fashion as for eye evolution: molecular homology combined with potential morphological parallelism. This assertion of molecular homology is strongly supported by recent findings of a highly conserved set of microRNAs that appear to be associated with mechanosensory cell development across phyla. The conservation of transcription factors and their regulators fits very well to the known or presumed mechanosensory specializations which can be mostly grouped as variations of a common cellular theme. Given the widespread distribution of the molecular ability to form mechanosensory cells, it comes as no surprise that structurally different mechanosensory organs evolved in different phyla, presenting a variation of a common theme specified by a conserved set of transcription factors in their cellular development. Within vertebrates and arthropods, some mechanosensory organs evolved into auditory organs, greatly increasing sensitivity to sound through modifications of accessory structures to direct sound to the specific sensory epithelia. However, while great attention has been paid to the evolution of these accessory structures in vertebrate fossils, comparatively less attention has been spent on the evolution of the inner ear and the central auditory system. Recent advances in our molecular understanding of ear and brain development provide novel avenues to this neglected aspect of auditory neurosensoy evolution.

The development and evolution of mechanosensory cells and the vertebrate ear is reviewed with an emphasis on delineating the cellular, molecular and developmental basis of these changes. Outgroup comparisons suggests that mechanosensory cells are ancient features of multicellular organisms. Molecular evidence suggests that key genes involved in mechanosensory cell function and development are also conserved among metazoans. The divergent morphology of mechanosensory cells across phyla is interpreted here as 'deep molecular homology' that was in parallel shaped into different forms in each lineage. The vertebrate mechanosensory hair cell and its associated neuron are interpreted as uniquely derived features of vertebrates. It is proposed that the vertebrate otic placode presents a unique embryonic adaptation in which the diffusely distributed ancestral mechanosensory cells became concentrated to generate a large neurosensory precursor population. Morphogenesis of the inner ear is reviewed and shown to depend on genes expressed in and around the hindbrain that interact with the otic placode to define boundaries and polarities. These patterning genes affect downstream genes needed to maintain proliferation and to execute ear morphogenesis. We propose that fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) and their receptors (FGFRs) are a crucial central node to translate patterning into the complex morphology of the vertebrate ear. Unfortunately, the FGF and FGFR genes have not been fully analyzed in the many mutants with morphogenetic ear defects described thus far. Likewise, little information exists on the ear histogenesis and neurogenesis in many mutants. Nevertheless, a molecular mechanism is now emerging for the formation of the horizontal canal, an evolutionary novelty of the gnathostome ear. The existing general module mediating vertical canal growth and morphogenesis was modified by two sets of new genes: one set responsible for horizontal canal morphogenesis and another set for neurosensory formation of the horizontal crista and associated sensory neurons. The dramatic progress in deciphering the molecular basis of ear morphogenesis offers grounds for optimism for translational research toward intervention in human morphogenetic defects of the ear.

The development of the nervous system requires the concerted actions of multiple transcription factors, yet the molecular events leading to their expression remain poorly understood. Barhl1, a mammalian homeodomain transcription factor of the BarH class, is expressed by developing inner ear hair cells, cerebellar granule cells, precerebellar neurons, and collicular neurons. Targeted gene inactivation has demonstrated a crucial role for Barhl1 in the survival and/or migration of these sensory cells and neurons. Here we report the regulatory sequences of Barhl1 necessary for directing its proper spatiotemporal expression pattern in the inner ear and central nervous system (CNS). Using a transgenic approach, we have found that high-level and cell-specific expression of Barhl1 within the inner ear and CNS depends on both its 5 promoter and 3 enhancer sequences. Further transcriptional, binding, and mutational analyses of the 5 promoter have identified two homeoprotein binding motifs that can be occupied and activated by Barhl1. Moreover, proper Barhl1 expression in inner ear hair cells and cerebellar and precerebellar neurons requires the presence of Atoh1. Together, these data delineate useful Barhl1 regulatory sequences that direct strong and specific gene expression to inner ear hair cells and CNS sensory neurons, establish a role for autoregulation in the maintenance of Barhl1 expression, and identify Atoh1 as a key upstream regulator.The mammalian Barhl1 and Barhl2 proteins belong to the BarH class of homeodomain transcription factors that are evolutionarily conserved in both invertebrate and vertebrate species ranging from Drosophila flies to humans. The factors of this class are usually expressed in the developing and adult nervous systems and are required for proper neural development and survival (4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 18-20, 24, 26-32, 34). In Drosophila, BarH1 and BarH2 are coexpressed in cells of the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system and are redundantly required for determining the subtypes of external sensory organs and photoreceptor and primary pigment cells during eye development (12,13,15). The vertebrate Barhl1 and Barhl2 genes similarly display overlapping yet distinct patterns of expression in the CNS and sensory organs, thereby also playing redundant as well as distinct roles during neurogenesis (4, 7, 18-20, 24, 26-29, 31, 32, 34). For instance, Xenopus Barhl2 is expressed in the developing neural plate and retina during Xenopus embryogenesis and plays a key role in patterning the neural plate and specifying retinal ganglion cells (27,29).The functions of mammalian Barhl genes during murine neurogenesis have been extensively investigated previously. In the developing mouse inner ear, Barhl1 but not Barhl2 is specifically expressed in all hair cells of the cochlear and vestibular systems (4, 18). The targeted disruption of Barhl1 leads to hearing loss as a result of the age-related progressive degeneration of inner and outer hair cells in the organ of Corti (18), demonstr...

We review the in vivo evidence for afferent fiber guidance to the inner ear sensory epithelia and the central nuclei of termination. Specifically, we highlight our current molecular understanding for the role of hair cells and sensory epithelia in guiding afferents, how disruption of certain signals can alter fiber pathways, even in the presence of normal hair cells, and what role neurotrophins play in fiber guidance of sensory neurons to hair cells. The data suggest that the neurotrophin BDNF is the most important molecule known for inner ear afferent fiber guidance to hair cells in vivo. This suggestion is based on experiments on Ntf3 transgenic mice expressing BDNF under Ntf3 promoter that show deviations of fiber growth in the ear to areas that express BDNF but have no hair cells. However, fiber growth can occur in the absence of BDNF as demonstrated by double mutants for BDNF and Bax. We directly tested the significance of hair cells or sensory epithelia for fiber guidance in mutants that lose hair cells (Pou4f3) or do not form a posterior crista (Fgf10). While these data emphasize the role played by BDNF, normally released from hair cells, there is some limited capacity for directed growth even in the absence of hair cells, BDNF, or sensory epithelia. This directed growth may rely on semaphorins or other matrix proteins because targeted ablation of the sema3 docking site on the sema receptor Npn1 results in targeting errors of fibers even in the presence of hair cells and BDNF. Overall, our data support the notion that targeting of the afferent processes in the ear is molecularly distinct from targeting processes in the central nuclei. This conclusion is derived from data that show no recognizable central projection deviation, even if fibers are massively rerouted in the periphery, as in Ntf3 tgBDNF mice in which vestibular fibers project to the cochlea.