Both blastomeres of the mouse 2‐cell embryo contribute to the embryonic portion of the blastocyst

Chróścicka, Anna; Komorowski, Sebastian; Maleszewski, Marek

doi:10.1002/mrd.20081

Cited by 53 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The earlier-dividing two-cell blastomere did not give rise to any trophectoderm. However, this proposal contradicts all previously published observations regarding developmental potential and fate of cells from the two-cell embryo, because all other groups have reported contribution of both two-cell blastomeres to both ICM and TE (Gardner, 2001;Piotrowska et al, 2001;Marikawa, 2003, 2005;Chroscicka et al, 2004;Hiiragi and Solter, 2004;Plusa et al, 2005a;Motosugi et al, 2005;PiotrowskaNitsche and Zernicka-Goetz, 2005). Before these observations can be considered as changing the paradigms of early mouse development, it is essential to explore whether this lineage relationship holds true in other mouse strains and if it can be reproduced by other groups using alternate lineage tracing methods.…”

Section: Polarity In the Oocyte And Blastocystmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…The descendants of one of the two-cell blastomeres tended to occupy the polar trophectoderm and nearby ICM cells, whereas the other's descendents occupied the mural trophectoderm and surface cells of ICM. However, other groups have reported that there is no correlation between the first cleavage plane and the em/ab axis Marikawa, 2003, 2005;Chroscicka et al, 2004;Hiiragi and Solter, 2004). An alternative model suggested that the first cleavage plane is determined by the angle of pronuclear aposition and does not always cross the animal pole (Hiiragi and Solter, 2004; reviewed in Rossant and Tam, 2004).…”

Section: Polarity In the Oocyte And Blastocystmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cell and molecular regulation of the mouse blastocyst

Yamanaka

Ralston

Stephenson

et al. 2006

Developmental Dynamics

264

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animals use diverse strategies to specify tissue lineages during development. A common strategy is to partition maternally supplied and localized lineage determinants into progenitor cells. The mouse embryo appears to use a different, more regulative strategy to specify the first three lineages: the epiblast (EPI: future embryo), the trophectoderm (TE: future placenta), and the primitive endoderm (PE: future yolk sac). These lineages are specified during two successive differentiation steps leading to formation of the blastocyst. Here, we review classic and contemporary models of early lineage specification in the mouse, and describe recent efforts to understand the molecular regulation of these events. We describe evidence that trophectoderm differentiation bears resemblance to the process of epithelialization and describe the importance of apical/basal protein complexes in regulating this process. Next, we present a revised model of PE specification, and describe evidence that PE cells in the inner cell mass sort out to occupy their ultimate position on the surface of the EPI. Finally, we describe factors that reinforce these lineages and three distinct stem cell types that can be isolated from them. Together, these mechanisms guide the differentiation of the first lineages of the mouse and thereby set up tissues that will be important for the first steps of embryonic body patterning. Developmental Dynamics 235:2301-2314, 2006.

show abstract

Section: Polarity In the Oocyte And Blastocystmentioning

confidence: 66%

Section: Polarity In the Oocyte And Blastocystmentioning

confidence: 95%

Cell and molecular regulation of the mouse blastocyst

Yamanaka

Ralston

Stephenson

et al. 2006

Developmental Dynamics

264

221

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some investigators argue that early cleavage divisions generate cells with identical potential in terms of generating ICM and TE and are not in any way predictive of cell fate (Alarcon et al 2003;Chroscicka et al 2004;Hiiragi et al 2004;Kurotaki et al 2007;Motosugi et al 2005). A contrasting view is that there are already some differences established between the blastomeres of the 2-cell stage embryo, most probably as a result of differential partitioning of oocyte contents when the zygote undergoes cleavage (Gardner, 2001), and that these differences play a part in guiding but not necessarily imposing cell fate decisions, including information that influences the orientation and order of subsequent cell divisions (Zernicka-Goetz, 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, others believe that the first cleavage division is somewhat random in its orientation and that there is an inherent symmetry to early mouse development (Hiiragi et al 2004;Kurotaki et al 2007;Motosugi et al 2005). Moreover, it is argued that there is no bias to the fates of the blastomeres at the 2-cell stage as determined by lineage tracing experiments (Alarcon et al 2003;Chroscicka et al 2004;Motosugi et al 2005;Waksmundzka et al 2006). Instead, blastocyst formation is inferred to be driven entirely by positional cues, due, at least in part, to the confining effects of the surrounding zona pellucida (ZP) (Dietrich et al 2007;Honda et al 2008;Kurotaki et al 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of superovulation on the contributions of individual blastomeres from 2-cell stage CF1 mouse embryos to the blastocyst

Katayama

Roberts

2010

Int. J. Dev. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It remains controversial whether blastomeres of 2-cell stage mouse embryos show bias in their contribution to the blastocyst and whether there is any effect of superovulation. Twocell stage embryos from CF1 mice were derived by either natural breeding (N) or superovulation (S) and cultured in vitro. At blastocyst, inner cell mass and trophectoderm were distinguished by Cdx2 and Oct4 immunostaining. A fluorescent dye (CM-Dil) was also used to tag individual blastomeres at the 2-cell stage, and the descendant cells identified by their red fluorescence. S and N embryos developed to blastocyst at the same rate and contained a similar number of cells. However, with S embryos, the descendants of the blastomere labeled with CM-DiI contributed predominantly to either the embryonic or abembryonic pole about 70% of the time, whereas most N embryos displayed random patterning, with no restriction to one or other of the poles. In Sembryos, but not N-embryos, the leading blastomere at second cleavage contributed preferentially to the embryonic pole of the blastocyst and the lagging blastomere to the abembryonic pole and hence mural trophectoderm. In addition, a tetrahedral rather than a "flat" morphology at the 4-cell stage of S-embryos was strongly biased to displaying the embryonic/abembryonic pattern at blastocyst. In contrast, S-embryos lacking a zona pellucida resembled N embryos in their patterning. In CF1 mice, superovulation has little effect on development to blastocyst, but enforces a greater degree of lineage restriction than natural breeding, most likely through constraints imposed by the zona pellucida.

show abstract

“…24 However, several groups that addressed lineage allocation in early mammalian development using different approaches have failed to replicate any preferential contribution of the progeny of early blastomeres to the distinct lineages of the blastocyst. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] In addition, molecular experiments investigating the role of Cdx2 establishment and development of the first specialized cells and their plasticity. The acquired knowledge may not only resolve some of the controversies about early developmental cell lineage allocation, but may, in the long term, also benefit cellbased therapies in regenerative medicine.…”

Section: 12mentioning

confidence: 99%