Jaw transformation with gain of symmetry after <i>Dlx5/Dlx6</i> inactivation: Mirror of the past?

Beverdam, Annemiek; Merlo, Giorgio R.; Paleari, Laura; Mantero, Stefano; Genova, Francesca; Barbieri, Ottavia; Janvier, Philippe; Levi, Giovanni

doi:10.1002/gene.10156

Cited by 176 publications

(241 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regardless of the name one gives to those tissues between the mandibular BA1 and the FNP, or if you believe that the maxillary prominence is not pharyngeal/branchial in nature, this fails to recognize the bias of the transformations as being centered around structures that they apparently do not even consider to be "maxillary," such as the PQ derivatives (e.g., the incus and ala temporalis) and (ostensibly) the associated squamosal. And whereas we (Depew et al, 2002a) have never claimed, as asserted by Lee et al, that the Dlx5/ 6 Ϫ/Ϫ mutant phenotype is atavistic, we believe that the essence of the observation made by Beverdam et al (2002) that the mirror-image duplication seen in the Dlx5/6 Ϫ/Ϫ mutant is reminiscent of the mirror-image seen in various fossils is appropriate: it suggests a conserved aspect of where at least some patterning information for the developing jaws is positioned. Perhaps lost sight of by semantics is that the Dlx5/6 Ϫ/Ϫ mutants demonstrate that the complement of Dlx expression in the cranial neural crest dictates the morphogenic response to the patterning information Dlx-positive cells encounter, and (based on the mirror-image duplication of the structures generated) that one such source of patterning information is likely to be found at the junction of the upper and lower jaw articulations.…”

Section: Jaws: Bauplan and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…This postulation was also genetically tested in mice (Beverdam et al, 2002;Depew et al, 2002a). Being foreshadowed by the alterations evident in the Dlx5 Ϫ/Ϫ mice, the functional loss of both Dlx5 and Dlx6 leads to a homeotic transformation at and around the jaw joint (Fig.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, they appear as mirror-image duplications, strongly suggestive of a point of positional information being interpreted by the CNC around the plate. Lee et al also suggest that the homeotic transformation seen in the Dlx5/6 Ϫ/Ϫ mutants, rather than having been a duplication of the maxillary part of the first arch at the expense of the mandibular first arch (as interpreted by the authors of the knockouts; Beverdam et al, 2002, andDepew et al, 2002a), shows there has been a loss of first pharyngeal arch identity and its replacement by a nonpharyngeal arch maxillary prominence. Regardless of the name one gives to those tissues between the mandibular BA1 and the FNP, or if you believe that the maxillary prominence is not pharyngeal/branchial in nature, this fails to recognize the bias of the transformations as being centered around structures that they apparently do not even consider to be "maxillary," such as the PQ derivatives (e.g., the incus and ala temporalis) and (ostensibly) the associated squamosal.…”

Section: Jaws: Bauplan and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, phenotypic transformations above and about the hinge region can be experimentally induced. These morphologic transformations are accompanied by the loss of mdBA1-specific molecular identities (e.g., the loss of dHAND and mesenchymal Pitx1 expression) and the acquisition of maxillary-like identities (e.g., up-regulated Meis2 and Wnt5a expression; Beverdam et al, 2002;Depew et al, 2002a).…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Depew

Simpson

2006

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classic neontology (comparative embryology and anatomy), through the application of the concept of homology, has demonstrated that the development of the gnathostome (jawed vertebrate) skull is characterized both by a fidelity to the gnathostome bauplan and the exquisite elaboration of final structural design. Just as homology is an old concept amended for modern purposes, so are many of the questions regarding the development of the skull. With due deference to Geoffroy-St. Hilaire, Cuvier, Owen, Lankester et al., we are still asking: How are bauplan fidelity and elaboration of design maintained, coordinated, and modified to generate the amazing diversity seen in cranial morphologies? What establishes and maintains pattern in the skull? Are there universal developmental mechanisms underlying gnathostome autapomorphic structural traits? Can we detect and identify the etiologies of heterotopic (change in the topology of a developmental event), heterochronic (change in the timing of a developmental event), and heterofacient (change in the active capacetence, or the elaboration of capacity, of a developmental event) changes in craniofacial development within and between taxa? To address whether jaws are all made in a like manner (and if not, then how not), one needs a starting point for the sake of comparison. To this end, we present here a "hinge and caps" model that places the articulation, and subsequently the polarity and modularity, of the upper and lower jaws in the context of cranial neural crest competence to respond to positionally located epithelial signals. This model expands on an evolving model of polarity within the mandibular arch and seeks to explain a developmental patterning system that apparently keeps gnathostome jaws in functional registration yet tractable to potential changes in functional demands over time. It relies upon a system for the establishment of positional information where pattern and placement of the "hinge" is driven by factors common to the junction of the maxillary and mandibular branches of the first arch and of the "caps" by the signals emanating from the distal-most first arch midline and the lamboidal junction (where the maxillary branch meets the frontonasal processes). In this particular model, the functional registration of jaws is achieved by the integration of "hinge" and "caps" signaling, with the "caps" sharing at some critical level a developmental history that potentiates their own coordination. We examine the evidential foundation for this model in mice, examine the robustness with which it can be applied to other taxa, and examine potential proximate sources of the signaling centers. Lastly, as developmental biologists have long held that the anterior-most mesendoderm (anterior archenteron roof or prechordal plate) is in some way integral to the normal formation of the head, including the cranial skeletal midlines, we review evidence that the seminal patterning influences on the early anterior ectoderm extend well beyond the neural plate and are just as importan...

show abstract

Section: Jaws: Bauplan and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Jaws: Bauplan and Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Depew

Simpson

2006

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Dlx5 Ϫ/Ϫ mice show a delayed ossification of dermal bones (Merlo et al, 2000), resembling the defects exhibited by mice in which one copy of Cbfa1, a key regulator of osteoblast differentiation, is inactivated (Otto et al, 1997). In Dlx5/6 Ϫ/Ϫ mutant mice, there is a homeotic transformation of the mandibular skeleton into a maxillary skeleton (Beverdam et al, 2002;Depew et al, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Expression of the dlx gene family during formation of the cranial bones in the zebrafish (Danio rerio): Differential involvement in the visceral skeleton and braincase

Verreijdt

Debiais-Thibaud

Borday-Birraux

et al. 2006

Developmental Dynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Vertebrate Embryo: Craniofacial Development

Francis‐West¹,

Crespo-Enríquez²

2016

Encyclopedia of Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Craniofacial development requires the co‐ordinated integration of signals from the endoderm, mesoderm, ectoderm, neuroectoderm and neural crest cells (NCCs). Reflecting this complexity, craniofacial abnormalities are leading causes of birth defects and infant mortality. As the craniofacial complex shares tissue origins with the heart, craniofacial defects are often linked to cardiac defects. The key steps in craniofacial development and evolution include the generation, migration and differentiation of NCCs, and the dynamic interplay between signals in the NCC and the endoderm, ectoderm and mesoderm. The NCC determine species diversity whilst signals from the endoderm determine which facial structures are formed. Reflecting the evolutionary novelty of the head, the mechanisms of musculoskeletal development are also distinct from the trunk. Key Concepts The vertebrate head arose due to the evolution of neural crest and sensory placodes. Neural crest cells are a transient population of multipotent cells that give rise to most of the derivatives of the face and neck. The neck and lower jaw are formed from pharyngeal arches, transient structures that arise in a rostral‐caudal sequence. The pharyngeal arches initially consist of mesoderm, ectoderm, endoderm and neural crest. Each of these tissue layers gives rise to different derivatives. The cranial neural crest arises from the forebrain, midbrain and hindbrain. The neural crest streams migrate along stereotypical paths into the developing face and pharyngeal arches. Patterning of the pharyngeal arches 2, 3, 4 and 6 is determined by Hox genes. The developing face (pharyngeal arch 1 or mandibular primordia, maxillary primordia, lateral and medial processes) does not express Hox genes. The face is patterned by homeobox genes. Growth factors, for example SHH, FGF8, ENDOTHELIN‐1 and BMP4 control the growth of the face (cell survival and proliferation) through epithelial–mesenchymal signalling interactions and patterning via regulation of homeobox gene expression. Signals from the early endoderm pattern the facial primordia, for example medial nasal process (nasal septum) versus the mandibular primordia (Meckel's cartilage). The neural crest determines the shape of the face, that is characteristic species shape. These effects are mediated, in part, by BMP4 expression and the positioning of the FEZ, a growth zone in the upper face. The cranial mesoderm and cranial NCC are required for both the development of the head and heart and therefore, cardiac and craniofacial abnormalities often occur together. The development of some cardiac muscles and cranial striated muscles has shared molecular requirements.

show abstract

Jaw transformation with gain of symmetry after Dlx5/Dlx6 inactivation: Mirror of the past?

Cited by 176 publications

References 24 publications

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Expression of the dlx gene family during formation of the cranial bones in the zebrafish (Danio rerio): Differential involvement in the visceral skeleton and braincase

Vertebrate Embryo: Craniofacial Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Jaw transformation with gain of symmetry after Dlx5/Dlx6 inactivation: Mirror of the past?

Cited by 176 publications

References 24 publications

21st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

21st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Expression of the dlx gene family during formation of the cranial bones in the zebrafish (Danio rerio): Differential involvement in the visceral skeleton and braincase

Vertebrate Embryo: Craniofacial Development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

21^st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull