1 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 200 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, 200 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: perrimon{at}rascal.med.harvard.edu)
Accepted April 23, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Dorsal Closure, Amnioserosa, Leading edge, JNK, BMP, Drosophila
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
During dorsal closure, the lateral epithelia on each side of the embryo undergo coordinated cell shape changes, move dorsally, and eventually meet and adhere at the dorsal midline. Successful completion of closure internalizes the amnioserosa, a transient dorsal covering, and encloses the embryo in a continuous, protective epidermal layer. Two well-known signal transduction pathways, the Jun N-terminal Kinase (JNK) cassette and the Decapentaplegic (Dpp)/Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) pathway, have been shown to cooperate in regulating the initiation and maintenance of epithelial sheet movement associated with dorsal closure (Glise and Noselli, 1997; Hou et al., 1997; Kockel et al., 1997; Ricos et al., 1999; Riesgo-Escovar and Hafen, 1997). Maintaining tight control over the level of JNK signal transduction throughout the entire process of closure is crucial because unregulated signaling activity, whether too high or too low, results in gross disruption of the process.
Although many of the components of the JNK pathway are distributed more or less uniformly throughout the ectoderm, signaling activity is limited to the LE, as revealed by the restricted expression of transcriptional targets such as dpp and puckered (puc; Glise and Noselli, 1997; Kockel et al., 1997; Sluss et al., 1996; Zeitlinger et al., 1997). puc encodes a phosphatase that negatively regulates the kinase activity of JNK. This negative feedback provides one mechanism with which to control the level of signaling through the JNK pathway (Martin-Blanco et al., 1998). Another mechanism could involve limited activation of the pathway initially. However, the source and identity of upstream signals that trigger and restrict activation of the JNK pathway are currently unknown.
Understanding how LE cells become distinct from other dorsal ectodermal cells may provide additional clues to explain the restriction of JNK pathway activity. Perhaps the LE is intrinsically different from the remainder of the dorsal ectoderm at an early stage in embryogenesis, making LE cells uniquely capable to promote signaling later in development. To explore potential mechanisms by which LE cells are specified, we considered two alternative hypotheses (Fig. 1). In one model, LE cells are fated early in embryogenesis directly in response to dorsoventral (DV) patterning information. By example, dorsal cell fates are thought to be determined by a gradient of signaling activity mediated by the combined action of two BMP family molecules, dpp and screw (scw), herein referred to collectively as the BMP signaling gradient (Ferguson and Anderson, 1992a; Neul and Ferguson, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1998; Wharton et al., 1993). That is, individual dorsal cells directly read the level of BMP signaling to adopt a specific fate, such as amnioserosa, which forms in response to peak levels of signaling, while dorsal ectoderm forms in response to low levels (Ferguson and Anderson, 1992a; Irish and Gelbart, 1987; Wharton et al., 1993). According to this model, LE cell fate is established through a direct readout of an intermediate threshold level of BMP signaling activity. Altering the shape and extent of the BMP signaling gradient in the blastoderm embryo would be expected to alter the number of cells that adopt the LE cell fate, as has been clearly demonstrated for amnioserosa and dorsal cell fates (Jazwinska et al., 1999; Ray et al., 1991; Wharton et al., 1993).
|
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Immunodetection, histochemistry, X-gal staining and in situ hybridization
The following antibodies were used: rat anti-ß-gal at 1:500 (Spana and Doe, 1996), rabbit anti-ß-gal at 1:1000 (Cappel Laboratories), guinea pig anti-Kruppel (573) at 1:300 (a generous gift of Dave Kosman), mouse anti-Fasciclin III (IG10) at 1:40 (Patel et al., 1987), mouse anti-hindsight (1G9) at 1:5 (Yip et al., 1997) and rabbit anti-scribble at 1:500 (Bilder and Perrimon, 2000). Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence were performed as described (Patel, 1994). The appropriate fluorochrome- or enzyme-conjugated secondary antibodies were used at recommended dilutions (Jackson ImmunoResearch). Embryos stained by immunohistochemical methods were dehydrated and mounted in methyl salicylate (Patel, 1994). For X-gal staining, embryos were collected, dechorionated in a 1:1 bleach:water solution for 3 minutes, and fixed for 10 minutes in a 1:1 mixture of heptane:fixative (4% methanol-free formaldehyde in phosphate-buffered saline solution with added 0.1% Triton-X-100 (PBST)). After fixation, all liquid was removed from embryos and they were washed extensively in PBST. Embryos were then incubated briefly in staining solution without X-gal substrate (Ausubel et al., 1994) for 5 minutes, followed by incubation in staining solution plus 0.2% X-gal (from 10% stock solution in DMSO) for several hours at 37°C. After staining, embryos were washed, devitellinized in a 1:1 methanol:heptane mixture, rehydrated and mounted in 70% glycerol. In situ hybridization of embryos was carried out as described (Stronach et al., 1996) with digoxigenin-labeled RNA probes (Boehringer Mannheim) corresponding to dpp-coding sequences.
Microscopy, image acquisition and processing
Images of stained embryos were captured with the SPOTTM digital camera (Diagnostic Instruments) using differential interference contrast optics on a Zeiss Axiophot microscope. Fluorescent images of embryos were captured using the Leica TCS NT confocal microscope system and subsequently assembled using Adobe Photoshop software.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
To examine whether LE cell fate is altered in response to changes in DV patterning information, we assayed for the presence, position and extent of the LE in dorsalized mutant backgrounds. First, we used a temperature-sensitive mutation to reduce the activity of the maternally required Toll (Tl) receptor, which, under permissive circumstances, signals to promote Dorsal activity. This allowed us to assess the effect of increasing dorsalization (loss of Dorsal activity) by collecting embryos derived from Tlts mothers at different temperatures. At 18°C, Tlts activity is slightly impaired causing a reduction in ventral cell fates and concomitant broadening of dorsal pattern elements (Anderson et al., 1985). If an expanded dorsal patterning field can specify a broader domain of LE cell fates, then it should occur under these conditions. In these mutant embryos, Puc-expressing LE cells were present as a single cell row and their position was shifted more ventrally compared with wild type (Fig. 3A,B). As in wild-type embryos, the row of LE cells was located at the interface between amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm.
|
A similar phenotype is observed in embryos derived from mothers with a null mutation in the dorsal gene (Fig. 4). Lacking Dorsal protein, embryos are strongly dorsalized and early dpp expression is derepressed ventrally (Ray et al., 1991). Immunofluorescent staining of mutant embryos with various combinations of reagents allowed us to visualize the distributions of amnioserosa, dorsal ectoderm and LE with respect to one another. Although amnioserosa differentiation appeared limited to a central domain of the dorsalized embryos, as observed in embryos from Tlts females, many embryos displayed a nonuniform distribution of amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm. Fig. 4 shows several examples of small multicellular islands of one tissue that are interspersed within larger fields of the other cell type (Fig. 4C-F).
This arrangement of tissues allowed several interesting observations regarding the formation of LE cells. First, in most cases, wherever amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm become juxtaposed, we observed the formation of LE cells by the expression of the puc enhancer in a single row (Fig. 4, compare 4A with 4B,C). Second, very small islands consisting of just a few cells are surrounded by LE cells (Fig. 4C,E: amnioserosal islands; 4D,E',F,F': ectodermal islands). Third, the ectodermal cells that were adjacent to the amnioserosa showed an asymmetric localization of Fasciclin III, just as in wild-type LE cells (Fig. 4 compare inset in 4A with 4E,E'), lending further support to the conclusion that these were indeed differentiated LE cells. Finally, using dpp transcripts as an additional marker of LE, we observed the late pattern of dpp in small rings and circumferential stripes around the embryo (Fig. 4G,G'). Most of these stripes, especially those in the central region of the embryo, were only a single cell wide, resembling the pattern we detected with the puc enhancer. However, it must be noted that because dpp is normally expressed in other tissues besides the LE at later stages, dorsalized embryos displayed additional wider bands of dpp expression anterior and posterior. Nevertheless, three markers for LE revealed the differentiation of LE cells in a single row.
These findings were corroborated by observing puc enhancer expression in embryos that contain up to four copies of the dpp+ gene. Increasing the gene dosage of dpp+ produces a broader domain of maximal signaling which results in expansion of amnioserosa tissue (Wharton et al., 1993). By this criterion, embryos with extra copies of dpp+ are dorsalized. Under these conditions, LE fate remained one cell wide (not shown). In summary, mutant genotypes that dorsalize the embryo alter the distribution and expand the size of amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm tissues but do not expand the LE fate beyond a single row nor displace the LE cell row from the amnioserosa-dorsal ectoderm interface.
Leading edge is proportionately lost with increasing ventralization
Ventralizing mutations reduce the domain of dpp expression, accompanied by reduction or elimination of dorsal cell fates (Ray et al., 1991). To determine the effect of progressive loss of dorsal patterning activity on LE cell specification, we examined puc enhancer trap expression in various ventralized embryos. Simply halving the dosage of Cactus (Cact), an inhibitor of Dorsal activity, can weakly ventralize embryos, owing to an expansion of the Dorsal activity gradient (Roth et al., 1991). As a result, the domain of maximal BMP signaling activity is reduced along with the overall size of the amnioserosa. In embryos heterozygous for a cact null mutation, LE cells were observed in a single row; however, the ring of LE cells was positioned slightly more dorsally than in wild type and appeared smaller to account for the reduced area of the amnioserosa tissue (Fig. 5A).
|
Intermediate ventralization results from mutations in the zygotic genes screw (scw) and tolloid (tld) because Scw and Tld are necessary to create the peak BMP signal, required for formation of the amnioserosa (Arora et al., 1994; Arora and Nusslein-Volhard, 1992; Ferguson and Anderson, 1992b; Neul and Ferguson, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1998). Consequently, scw and tld mutant embryos do not differentiate amnioserosa tissue, but they do retain some dorsal epidermal pattern elements. Based on the model whereby dorsal cell fates are specified in direct response to specific threshold levels of BMP signaling, moderate ventralization might be expected to convert cells normally adopting an amnioserosa fate to adopt a more ventral cell fate, the LE cell fate. In scw and tld mutant backgrounds, we were unable to detect formation of LE (not shown). Similarly, LE cells were not detected in embryos mutant for hypomorphic dpp alleles in which amnioserosa fails to form. In all of these cases, either the DV fate map has been shifted too far ventrally to retain the dorsally derived LE fate, or an interaction between amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm is necessary to specify LE cells within the ectoderm.
Direct modulators of the BMP signaling gradient do not affect leading edge specification
To target the region of the BMP signaling gradient where we imagine LE cell fate might arise, we examined LE differentiation further in zygotic mutant backgrounds where the shape of the BMP activity gradient is directly altered (Fig. 6). Both brinker (brk) and short gastrulation (sog) modulate BMP signaling activity such that the intermediate portion of the signaling gradient is enlarged, as observed by the expansion of molecular markers and pattern elements in the dorsal ectoderm (Ashe et al., 2000; Francois et al., 1994; Jazwinska et al., 1999). In other words, loss of either brk or sog activities results in a lateral shift in the embryonic fate map. With respect to amnioserosa differentiation in particular, brk mutants are relatively normal (Jazwinska et al., 1999). In contrast, sog mutants have fewer amnioserosa cells because Sog is essential for achieving the maximum level of BMP signaling required for patterning the amnioserosa (Ashe and Levine, 1999). If LE was specified in response to a discrete intermediate threshold level of BMP activity, mutants such as these might be expected to expand the LE domain.
|
Leading edge markers are differentially expressed in U-shaped mutants
Taken together, our results raise the possibility that amnioserosa may be required for LE formation. To address the function of amnioserosa for LE specification, we examined puc enhancer expression in several mutants of the U-shaped class, including u-shaped (ush) and hindsight (hnt). Incidentally, the dorsal expression domains of these genes are directly regulated by DV patterning signals (Ashe et al., 2000; Yip et al., 1997). In these mutant embryos, the amnioserosa tissue is fated normally and begins to differentiate up to stage 11, but then degenerates prematurely (Frank and Rushlow, 1996; Lamka and Lipshitz, 1999). In both ush and hnt mutants, programmed cell death takes place over the course of a few hours, with elimination of amnioserosa cells by stage 13 the time when dorsal closure would normally commence. Unexpectedly, we observed different patterns of expression with the puc enhancer in the two mutants. In ush embryos, ß-gal-positive cells were not detected (Fig. 7A). In contrast, hnt mutant embryos displayed Puc-positive LE cells at the edge of the dorsal ectoderm, albeit with less uniform expression than normally observed (Fig. 7C). To confirm these observations, we examined the accumulation of dpp mRNA in the LE. Similar to puc enhancer expression, we observed differential expression of dpp in ush versus hnt mutant embryos. ush mutant embryos show a consistent and significant reduction in LE dpp expression, although residual dpp transcripts are seen (Fig. 7D, arrowhead). dpp expression appears relatively normal in hnt mutant embryos (Fig. 7E).
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Primary versus secondary specification of leading edge cells
Using mutations that influence DV patterning, it is possible to alter the size and distribution of BMP target gene expression patterns, which indicate the extent of amnioserosa and dorsal ectodermal cell fates. If LE fate was specified directly by a particular threshold level of BMP signal, then one would expect LE fate to be perturbed in concert with amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm fates in DV mutants. Mutations in genes such as dl, Tl, brk and sog alter the size of BMP target gene expression domains; however, these mutants failed to alter specification of LE fate. Among these genotypes, brk and sog specifically modulate the shape of the BMP signaling gradient in a region where LE fate might arise (Jazwinska et al., 1999), yet LE formation in these mutants is fundamentally normal. Furthermore, in dorsalized embryos, LE cells were observed regularly at the boundary between amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm even when the morphology of these tissues was severely disrupted. Islands of amnioserosa cells within a field of ectoderm were consistently surrounded with a single row of LE cells, independent of the number of amnioserosa cells constituting the island. The converse situation also occurred; again, a single row of LE cells formed at the boundary between the ectoderm and amnioserosa.
We also analyzed DV mutants to determine whether a decrease in BMP signaling activity converts amnioserosa to LE as predicted by a gradient patterning model. A range of ventralizing mutations (cact, sog, scw, dpp) displaying progressive loss of amnioserosa tissue did not give rise to embryos with an expanded domain of LE cells. In fact, LE cells were not detected in the absence of amnioserosa. We found no situation in which an altered BMP gradient was associated with expanded LE fate (Table 1), thus the prediction of a direct gradient response model does not explain LE fate specification.
|
Mechanisms for leading edge formation in a single cell row
If LE cells are specified as a secondary consequence of DV patterning gradients, then what additional mechanisms are at work to define LE as a single row of cells? Our data are consistent with several mechanisms. One possibility is that specification of the LE involves the combinatorial action of nested sets of transcriptional regulators, including Hnt dorsally and Ush in a broader domain (Ashe et al., 2000; Cubadda et al., 1997; Fossett et al., 2000; Jazwinska et al., 1999; Yip et al., 1997). Accordingly, loss of Hnt function is predicted to result in a failure to differentiate amnioserosa, coupled with dorsal expansion of more lateral fates, such as the LE. Consistent with this model, hnt mutant embryos displayed Puc-positive cells with partial LE character in the region of the dying amnioserosa during stage 11. These results suggest that Hnt may be necessary to distinguish amnioserosa from LE fate at the time of extended germ band stage. This timing is late, relative to the timing of the early BMP threshold response, further supporting the notion that LE specification is a secondary consequence of initial BMP signaling.
Ush may play a role in differentiation of more lateral fates adjacent to the amnioserosa and the Hnt expression domain. Indeed, we show that Ush function is essential for LE development because LE does not form in ush mutant embryos. Based on these results, we imagine Ush could define a competency zone from which LE cells arise, or Ush could participate in generating or modulating a signal(s) for communication between the differentiating amnioserosa and dorsal ectoderm. Ush is related to mammalian zinc-finger protein family, Friend of GATA (FOG), which has been shown to participate as a cofactor with GATA transcription factors. Together, these protein complexes regulate cell fate determination multiple times during both mammalian and Drosophila development (Cubadda et al., 1997; Fossett et al., 2000; Fox et al., 1999; Haenlin et al., 1997). Interestingly, FOG2, a mammalian homolog of Ush, appears to be required during an inductive signaling event between two distinct tissues in the mouse heart (Tevosian et al., 2000), suggesting that inductive processes in development may commonly use the function of Ush family members. We have not determined whether the function of Ush in LE cell specification is localized to the amnioserosa, the dorsal ectoderm, or both. Experiments to replace Ush function in a tissue-specific manner should address that issue.
Although transcriptional targets of BMP signaling, such as ush and hnt, among others, define at least three specific threshold responses (Ashe et al., 2000; Jazwinska et al., 1999), the size difference between the nested expression domains of these markers still fails to account for a cell fate defined by a single row of cells. An additional mechanism to explain the spatially restricted stripe of LE cells is through an inductive signaling event. From the analysis of dorsalized mutants, we observed that LE forms as a result of the juxtaposition of amnioserosa tissue with dorsal ectoderm, which may provide spatially limited activation of the JNK pathway. Thus, restricted expression of JNK target genes, such as puc and dpp may be a direct result of a signal that specifies LE.
Communication between the amnioserosa and the dorsal ectoderm during embryogenesis has been suggested in two cases recently. First, Hnt expression in the amnioserosa is required nonautonomously for proper cell rearrangements in the dorsal ectoderm, associated with retraction of the embryonic germband (Lamka and Lipshitz, 1999). Second, the raw gene product appears to be expressed in the amnioserosa, though it influences the activity of the JNK pathway in the ectoderm during dorsal closure (Byars et al., 1999). As amnioserosa and ectoderm develop, they may acquire different cell affinities, which cause them to sort into separate domains or islands (in the case of dorsalized embryos), displaying smooth borders at their interface. A difference in cell adhesion at the boundary may be sufficient to generate signaling for LE specification similar to inductive mechanisms at work at the compartmental boundaries of larval imaginal discs (Dahmann and Basler, 1999; Vincent, 1998). The challenge now will be to identify molecules that may participate in an inductive signal.
Concluding remarks
Our results suggest that a multistep process determines the LE as a single row of cells. We demonstrate that LE does not form directly in response to discrete intermediate levels of BMP signaling activity, but forms secondarily by the action of transcriptional regulators that are themselves BMP target genes. Among these targets, Hnt and Ush define a LE competency zone that is expanded in hnt mutants and eliminated in ush mutants. We propose that from within the competency zone, LE fate is further refined to a single row by an unknown inductive signal generated by the physical juxtaposition of amnioserosa with dorsal ectoderm. This signal activates the JNK pathway that regulates localized expression of dpp and puc.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Anderson, K. V., Jurgens, G. and Nusslein-Volhard, C. (1985). Establishment of dorsal-ventral polarity in the Drosophila embryo: genetic studies on the role of the Toll gene product. Cell 42, 779-789.[Medline]
Arora, K. and Nusslein-Volhard, C. (1992). Altered mitotic domains reveal fate map changes in Drosophila embryos mutant for zygotic dorsoventral patterning genes. Development 114, 1003-1024.[Abstract]
Arora, K., Levine, M. S. and OConnor, M. B. (1994). The screw gene encodes a ubiquitously expressed member of the TGF-beta family required for specification of dorsal cell fates in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 8, 2588-2601.[Abstract]
Ashe, H. L. and Levine, M. (1999). Local inhibition and long-range enhancement of Dpp signal transduction by Sog. Nature 398, 427-431.[Medline]
Ashe, H. L., Mannervik, M. and Levine, M. (2000). Dpp signaling thresholds in the dorsal ectoderm of the Drosophila embryo. Development 127, 3305-3312.
Ausubel, F. M., Brent, R., Kingston, R. E., Moore, D. D., Siedman, J. G., Smith, J. A. and Struhl, K. (1994). Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. Boston, MA: John Wiley and Sons.
Bilder, D. and Perrimon, N. (2000). Localization of apical epithelial determinants by the basolateral PDZ protein Scribble. Nature 403, 676-680.[Medline]
Byars, C. L., Bates, K. L. and Letsou, A. (1999). The dorsal-open group gene raw is required for restricted DJNK signaling during closure. Development 126, 4913-4923.
Campos-Ortega, J. A. and Hartenstein, V. (1997). The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster. Berlin, New York: Springer.
Chasan, R. and Anderson, K. V. (1993). Maternal control of dorsal-ventral polarity and pattern in the embryo. In The Development of Drosophila melanogaster. Vol. 1 (ed. M. Bate and A. Martinez Arias), pp. 387-424. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Cubadda, Y., Heitzler, P., Ray, R. P., Bourouis, M., Ramain, P., Gelbart, W., Simpson, P. and Haenlin, M. (1997). u-shaped encodes a zinc finger protein that regulates the proneural genes achaete and scute during the formation of bristles in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 11, 3083-3095.
Dahmann, C. and Basler, K. (1999). Compartment boundaries: at the edge of development. Trends Genet. 15, 320-326.[Medline]
Ferguson, E. L. and Anderson, K. V. (1992a). Decapentaplegic acts as a morphogen to organize dorsal-ventral pattern in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 71, 451-61.[Medline]
Ferguson, E. L. and Anderson, K. V. (1992b). Localized enhancement and repression of the activity of the TGF-beta family member, decapentaplegic, is necessary for dorsal-ventral pattern formation in the Drosophila embryo. Development 114, 583-597.[Abstract]
Fossett, N., Zhang, Q., Gajewski, K., Choi, C. Y., Kim, Y. and Schulz, R. A. (2000). The multitype zinc-finger protein U-shaped functions in heart cell specification in the drosophila embryo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 7348-53.
Fox, A. H., Liew, C., Holmes, M., Kowalski, K., Mackay, J. and Crossley, M. (1999). Transcriptional cofactors of the FOG family interact with GATA proteins by means of multiple zinc fingers. EMBO J. 18, 2812-2822.
Francois, V., Solloway, M., ONeill, J. W., Emery, J. and Bier, E. (1994). Dorsal-ventral patterning of the Drosophila embryo depends on a putative negative growth factor encoded by the short gastrulation gene. Genes Dev. 8, 2602-16.[Abstract]
Frank, L. H. and Rushlow, C. (1996). A group of genes required for maintenance of the amnioserosa tissue in Drosophila. Development 122, 1343-1352.
Glise, B. and Noselli, S. (1997). Coupling of Jun amino-terminal kinase and Decapentaplegic signaling pathways in Drosophila morphogenesis. Genes Dev. 11, 1738-1747.[Abstract]
Haenlin, M., Cubadda, Y., Blondeau, F., Heitzler, P., Lutz, Y., Simpson, P. and Ramain, P. (1997). Transcriptional activity of pannier is regulated negatively by heterodimerization of the GATA DNA-binding domain with a cofactor encoded by the u-shaped gene of Drosophila. Genes Dev. 11, 3096-3108.
Hou, X. S., Goldstein, E. S. and Perrimon, N. (1997). Drosophila Jun relays the Jun amino-terminal kinase signal transduction pathway to the Decapentaplegic signal transduction pathway in regulating epithelial cell sheet movement. Genes Dev. 11, 1728-1737.[Abstract]
Irish, V. F. and Gelbart, W. M. (1987). The decapentaplegic gene is required for dorsal-ventral patterning of the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 1, 868-879.[Abstract]
Jazwinska, A., Rushlow, C. and Roth, S. (1999). The role of brinker in mediating the graded response to Dpp in early Drosophila embryos. Development 126, 3323-3334.
Knust, E. (1997). Drosophila morphogenesis: movements behind the edge. Curr. Biol. 7, R558-R561.[Medline]
Kockel, L., Zeitlinger, J., Staszewski, L. M., Mlodzik, M. and Bohmann, D. (1997). Jun in Drosophila development: redundant and nonredundant functions and regulation by two MAPK signal transduction pathways. Genes Dev. 11, 1748-1758.[Abstract]
Lamka, M. L. and Lipshitz, H. D. (1999). Role of the amnioserosa in germ band retraction of the Drosophila melanogaster embryo. Dev. Biol. 214, 102-112.[Medline]
Martin-Blanco, E., Gampel, A., Ring, J., Virdee, K., Kirov, N., Tolkovsky, A. M. and Martinez-Arias, A. (1998). puckered encodes a phosphatase that mediates a feedback loop regulating JNK activity during dorsal closure in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 12, 557-570.
Neul, J. L. and Ferguson, E. L. (1998). Spatially restricted activation of the SAX receptor by SCW modulates DPP/TKV signaling in Drosophila dorsal-ventral patterning. Cell 95, 483-494.[Medline]
Nguyen, M., Park, S., Marques, G. and Arora, K. (1998). Interpretation of a BMP activity gradient in Drosophila embryos depends on synergistic signaling by two type I receptors, SAX and TKV. Cell 95, 495-506.[Medline]
Noselli, S. (1998). JNK signaling and morphogenesis in Drosophila. Trends Genet 14, 33-38.[Medline]
Patel, N. H. (1994). Imaging neuronal subsets and other cell types in whole-mount Drosophila embryos and larvae using antibody probes. In Drosophila melanogaster: Practical Uses in Cell and Molecular Biology. Vol. 44 (ed. L. S. B. Goldstein and E. A. Fyrberg), pp. 446-487. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Patel, N. H., Snow, P. M. and Goodman, C. S. (1987). Characterization and cloning of fasciclin III: a glycoprotein expressed on a subset of neurons and axon pathways in Drosophila. Cell 48, 975-988.[Medline]
Ray, R. P., Arora, K., Nusslein-Volhard, C. and Gelbart, W. M. (1991). The control of cell fate along the dorsal-ventral axis of the Drosophila embryo. Development 113, 35-54.[Abstract]
Ricos, M. G., Harden, N., Sem, K. P., Lim, L. and Chia, W. (1999). Dcdc42 acts in TGF-beta signaling during Drosophila morphogenesis: distinct roles for the Drac1/JNK and Dcdc42/TGF-beta cascades in cytoskeletal regulation. J. Cell Sci. 112, 1225-1235.
Riesgo-Escovar, J. R. and Hafen, E. (1997). Drosophila Jun kinase regulates expression of decapentaplegic via the ETS-domain protein Aop and the AP-1 transcription factor DJun during dorsal closure. Genes Dev. 11, 1717-1727.[Abstract]
Ring, J. M. and Martinez Arias, A. (1993). puckered, a gene involved in position-specific cell differentiation in the dorsal epidermis of the Drosophila larva. Development 117 Suppl., 251-259.
Roth, S., Hiromi, Y., Godt, D. and Nusslein-Volhard, C. (1991). cactus, a maternal gene required for proper formation of the dorsoventral morphogen gradient in Drosophila embryos. Development 112, 371-388.[Abstract]
Slack, J. (1990). From Egg to Embryo: Regional Specification in Early Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sluss, H. K., Han, Z., Barrett, T., Davis, R. J. and Ip, Y. T. (1996). A JNK signal transduction pathway that mediates morphogenesis and an immune response in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 10, 2745-2758.[Abstract]
Spana, E. and Doe, C. Q. (1996). Numb antagonizes Notch signaling to specify sibling neuron cell fates. Neuron 17, 21-26.[Medline]
Stronach, B. E., Siegrist, S. E. and Beckerle, M. C. (1996). Two muscle-specific LIM proteins in Drosophila. J. Cell Biol. 134, 1179-1195.[Abstract]
Tevosian, S. G., Deconinck, A. E., Tanaka, M., Schinke, M., Litovsky, S. H., Izumo, S., Fujiwara, Y. and Orkin, S. H. (2000). FOG-2, a cofactor for GATA transcription factors, is essential for heart morphogenesis and development of coronary vessels from epicardium. Cell 101, 729-739.[Medline]
Vincent, J. P. (1998). Compartment boundaries: where, why and how? Int. J. Dev. Biol. 42, 311-315.[Medline]
Wharton, K. A., Ray, R. P. and Gelbart, W. M. (1993). An activity gradient of decapentaplegic is necessary for the specification of dorsal pattern elements in the Drosophila embryo. Development 117, 807-822.
Yip, M. L., Lamka, M. L. and Lipshitz, H. D. (1997). Control of germ-band retraction in Drosophila by the zinc-finger protein HINDSIGHT. Development 124, 2129-2141.
Zeitlinger, J., Kockel, L., Peverali, F. A., Jackson, D. B., Mlodzik, M. and Bohmann, D. (1997). Defective dorsal closure and loss of epidermal decapentaplegic expression in Drosophila fos mutants. EMBO J. 16, 7393-7401.