Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine and Department of Pharmacology, New York University Medical School, 540 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: sink{at}saturn.med.nyu.edu)
Accepted August 9, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Drosophila, hibris, Nephrin, Mesoderm, Myoblast, Myotube, Muscle attachment sites, Mesectoderm, Dumbfounded, DM-GRASP, BEN, SC1
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In the present study, we have examined the action of Drosophila Hibris (Hbs). Hbs is a new member of the recently identified Nephrin subfamily of the IgSF. The Nephrins are represented in organisms ranging from humans to worms (Kestila et al., 1998; Holzmann et al., 1999; Ahola et al., 1999; Teichmann and Chothia, 2000). In the Drosophila embryo, Hbs is now implicated in myoblast fusion and myotube guidance during somatic mesoderm development, influencing contact between mesodermal-mesodermal and mesodermal-epidermal cells. Until very recently, there has been extremely limited information on the extracellular molecules that facilitate these processes. With the gradually increasing identification of proteins that are involved in these events, several are now from the IgSF with two being from the Nephrin subfamily (Bour et al., 2000) (present study) and two from the DM-GRASP/BEN/SC1 subfamily (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000) (H. A. D. and H. S., unpublished).
During myoblast fusion in Drosophila, there are two identifiable populations of myoblasts founder cells and fusion-competent myoblasts. The founder cells are specialized mesodermal cells that serve as a scaffold to which fusion competent myoblasts fuse (Bate, 1990). In order for fusion to occur, the fusion-competent myoblasts must find and recognize the founder cells. In Drosophila another Nephrin-like protein, Sticks and Stones (Sns), is present on the fusion competent myoblasts but not on the founder cells (Bour et al., 2000). In the absence of Sns, there is a comprehensive failure of myoblast fusion and the somatic musculature does not form (Paululat et al., 1999; Bour et al., 2000). This suggests that Sns has a role in the fusion-competent myoblasts-founder cell recognition and/or fusion initiation processes. Interestingly a phenotype identical to that for sns was reported for a deletion that affected the IgSF proteins Dumbfounded (Duf) and IrreC-Rst. In the absence of both duf and irreC-rst, the fusion competent myoblasts and founder cells fail to fuse. Returning duf expression to the mesoderm can largely rescue this combinatorial phenotype, and when ectopically expressed, Duf can attract fusion competent myoblasts to novel locations (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000), which illustrates the attractant activity of Duf. While the role of irreC-rst in the deletion phenotype remains to be analyzed, overexpression in the mesoderm can block myoblast fusion (H. A. D. and H. S., unpublished). Therefore the IgSF proteins Sns, Duf and IrreC-Rst represented the first extracellular proteins involved in the myoblast-founder cell recognition/fusion process (Frasch and Leptin, 2000).
As fusion-competent myoblasts fuse to founder cells, the ends of the developing myotubes form structures highly reminiscent of the filopodia that are found on axonal growth cones (Bate, 1990). Just as growth cone filopodia search for guidance cues, so too the filopodia-like structures on myotubes are used to search for epidermal cells that will serve as sites for muscle attachment (Bate, 1990). An understanding of the molecular mechanisms that facilitate myotube guidance is still very much in its infancy. To date, the only extracellular molecules implicated in the guidance of myotubes are the ligand/receptor pair, Slit/Roundabout (Robo an IgSF protein) (Kidd et al., 1998; Kidd et al., 1999), and the receptor tyrosine kinase Derailed (Callahan et al., 1996). In slit mutant embryos, a subset of muscle fibers is no longer attracted to its appropriate attachment sites, while overexpressing the Robo receptor in a myotube subset causes them to target attachment sites with high Slit levels (Kramer et al., 2001). Mutations that disrupt the derailed receptor tyrosine kinase gene also cause aberrant attachment site targeting by a small subset of myotubes (Callahan et al., 1996).
Clearly the small number of extracellular molecules involved in myoblast fusion or myotube guidance identified to date is insufficient to explain fully the molecular basis of coordinated fiber formation and correct localization of attachments. In the present study, we show that hbs is expressed in a diverse range of tissues, including fusion-competent myoblasts and the epidermal cells where the myotubes attach. In contrast to Sns, we find that the deleterious effects of altered Hbs levels arise when there is an excess of the protein. Overexpression of hbs in somatic mesoderm results in incomplete fusion between fusion-competent myoblasts and founder cells, thereby partially phenocopying the sns and the duf/irreC-rst deletion loss-of-function mutant phenotypes. When hbs is misexpressed in the epidermis, all myotube populations respond by going to aberrant locations. These results implicate Hbs as a component of the molecular machinery that facilitates both myoblast and myotube guidance. S2 cell aggregation assays suggest that this is mediated by a direct physical interaction with Duf. We also report on the effects of overexpressing hbs in adult tissues, implicating it in cell-cell contact events during eye, bristle sensory organ and wing development.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Cloning and molecular analysis of hibris
Primers were designed to PCR amplify a genomic DNA fragment that encodes part of the hbs ORF (sense strand primer: 5'-CCGTACTCTGTAAGTATACGC-3', antisense primer 5'-GCATGTAGAGTTCGCACC-3'). The PCR fragment was amplified from adult fly genomic DNA and used to screen a Drosophila embryonic 9-12hour cDNA library (Zinn et al., 1988). cDNA inserts from positive plaques were sequenced (by Jackson Laboratories) and the data were organized and translated using Lasergene software (DNASTAR). BLAST searches of public databases were conducted to identify homologs in other organisms. To determine intron/exon boundaries, cDNA4 sequence was aligned with the genomic sequence for the region (Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project). cDNA4 (longest cDNA) was used to probe a northern blot using standard Church conditions (Sambrook et al., 1989).
Immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization and eye sectioning
Oregon-R wild-type embryos were collected over a 24 hour period for analyzing the hbs wild-type expression pattern, and over 18 hours for analyzing expression in the sim loss- and gain-of-function experiments. Staging was in accordance with Hartenstein (Hartenstein, 1993). A non-radioactive antisense RNA probe was generated using cDNA4 as the template, and in situ hybridization for embryos followed the protocol of Kopczynski et al. (Kopczynski et al., 1998). For double-labeling with antibodies, embryos were washed when the desired intensity of the in situ expression pattern was attained, then stained in accordance with published protocols. In situ hybridization of wild-type third instar larvae imaginal discs followed the protocol available at http://www-bier.ucsd.edu/imagdisc.html. Adult eyes were fixed and sectioned as described (Tomlinson and Ready, 1987).
S2 cell aggregation assay
cDNA4 was subcloned into the EcoRI site of the RmHa3 vector (Bunch et al., 1988). Other constructs used included Sns-RmHa3 and Ha-Duf-RmHa3 (kind gifts from Malabika Chakravarti and Susan Abmayr); IrreC-Rst-RmHa3 (Schneider et al., 1995); Fasciclin II-RmHa3 (Fambrough and Goodman, 1996); and Side-RmHa3 (Sink et al., 2001). S2 cells were transfected using Superfect (Qiagen) in accordance with the manufacturers directions. Induction of protein expression with copper sulfate and assaying of cell aggregation were carried out as previously described (Bieber, 1994). Cells were immunohistochemically processed to check for protein expression (Bieber, 1994). For mixed aggregation assays, cells were pre-labeled with DiI or DiO by adding 5 µl/ml of 2.5 mg dye/ml ethanol to the cells after transfection, shaking for 3 hours, then washing before induction.
Generation of polyclonal antibody and use
The SalI/Pst fragment was subcloned into the SalI/HindIII sites of the pQE31 expression vector (Qiagen) to generate a six-histidine tagged fusion protein. Five times at 21day intervals, two adult rabbits were immunized with 250 µg of fusion protein (at Covance Research Products). The antibody was concentrated over Protein A beads (Sigma) (Sambrook et al., 1989). We routinely preabsorbed the antibody against 2 hours embryos overnight before use at a final concentration of 1:500.
Generation of X-ray deletions in the hibris region
Male EP(2)2590 (Rorth et al., 1998) or l(2)k04218 (Kania et al., 1995) flies were irradiated with 5000 rad for 10 minutes, then crossed to w; ScO/CyO virgins. Progeny were screened for the removal of the P-element, indicated by reversion to white eye color. In situ hybridization with cDNA4 was used to screen for the absence of embryonic hbs expression.
Generation of UAS-hibris transformants
cDNA4 was subcloned into the EcoRI site of pUAST (Brand and Perrimon, 1993). The transformant line was generated in a w1118 background and mapped to the 2nd chromosome. For the UAS-secreted Hbs construct cDNA4 was partially digested with EcoRI and completely digested with EcoNI, generating a new stop codon 5' to the transmembrane domain. Six independent transformant lines were isolated.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Hibris is a member of the Nephrin subfamily of the immunoglobulin superfamily
BLAST searches of public databases with the cDNA4 sequence revealed it was in the GenBank database as hibris (hbs) (AF210316) (Artero and Baylies, 1999). The hbs gene encodes protein domains that are characteristic of members of the immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF). Translation of the sequence (Fig. 1, Fig. 2A) uncovered a characteristic conserved start site (Cavener, 1987) followed by a stretch of hydrophobic amino acids typical of signal peptides (von Heijne, 1990). Following the signal sequence are six consecutive immunoglobulin-like (Ig) domains. The next region has the tryptophan and potential second cysteine characteristic of Ig domains, yet lacks the first conserved cysteine. This modified Ig domain is followed by two complete Ig domains, then a single fibronectin type-III (FN) domain. There are 12 potential sites for asparagine-linked glycosylation on the ectodomain. Following the FN domain there are the 26 hydrophobic amino acids of the transmembrane domain, then a cytoplasmic tail consisting of 160 amino acids (Fig. 1, Fig. 2A) that contains 11 tyrosine residues. Analysis of the cytoplasmic tail with the PEST Sequence Utility program on the ExPASy Molecular Biology Server predicts a PEST sequence (Rogers et al., 1986) in the amino acids KSQSEAEPSNDDVYSK starting at amino acid 1078.
|
|
Based on information from the BDGP (Kimmerly et al., 1998), hbs maps to 51D11-E1 on the right arm of the second chromosome. 51D11-E1 is covered by a contig of sequenced P1s. Alignment analyses showed that cDNA4 straddled a >40 kb region in P1s DS00087 and DS04940, with the bulk of the hbs ORF lying in a region of approximately 5 kb (Fig. 2B). Exons range from 172 bp to 647 bp. While most introns are small (23 bp to 130 bp), the intron between the first and second exon is almost 40 kb in size (Fig. 2B).
Testing Hibris binding ability
Proteins belonging to the IgSF are frequently implicated in cell-cell adhesion (Goodman, 1996; Brummendorf and Rathjen, 1996; Walsh and Doherty, 1997). The ability of Hbs, Sns, Duf, IrreC-Rst and Side to bind homotypically was tested with the S2 cell aggregation assay (Bieber, 1994). As a negative control, S2 cells were transfected with RmHa3 vector (Bunch et al., 1988), and as a positive control, S2 cells were transfected with Fasciclin II-RmHa3 (Fambrough and Goodman, 1996). Homotypic aggregation was observed for Fasciclin II and Duf. To test for heterotypic interactions, the S2 cells were labeled with either DiI (red) or DiO (green), and the aggregates were examined using confocal microscopy. When Fasciclin II-transfected cells (red) were mixed with RmHa3-transfected cells (green), all aggregates formed contained only red cells. Similarly, when Duf-transfected cells (red) were mixed with RmHa3-transfected cells (green), aggregates were again all comprised of only red cells (Fig. 2C). When Duf-transfected cells (red) were mixed with Hbs- (Fig. 2C) or Sns-transfected cells (green), the resultant aggregates all had both red and green cells, but when Duf-transfected cells (red) were mixed RmaHa3- or Irrec-transfected (green) cells, all the resultant aggregates contained only red fluorescent cells. A result matrix is presented in Fig. 2D.
hbs is expressed in a temporally and spatially complex manner
hbs is expressed in a highly dynamic manner across tissue types and life stages. At stage 5, along the dorsal surface of the cellularized embryo, a strong narrow band of hbs expression is present that extends along approximately two-thirds the length of the embryo. This band of expression broadens laterally, decreases in length, and becomes confined to the dorsal furrows (data not shown). By stage 8, dorsal expression is still present at the furrows, and hbs expression also begins ventrally, where it is associated with the mesectodermal cells. Expression strengthens in the mesectodermal cells as they move into close juxtaposition with one another at the ventral midline, forming neighboring columns (across stages 9 and 10) (Fig. 3A,B). Expression continues during stage 11 as the mesectodermal cells intermingle, divide and move internally. By stage 12, as the midline axonal scaffold is forming (Klambt et al., 1991), a subset of midline cells posterior to the developing posterior commissure continue to express hbs (3C). The number of hbs-expressing cells at the midline decreases so that by late stage 14 there are two to three hbs-expressing cells below the posterior commissure (Fig. 3D). Expression in these cells is absent by stage 15. Double-labeling of glial cells with anti-Repo mAb revealed that a subset of the exit glia at the edge of the CNS were hbs positive from stages 12 to 15.
|
In third instar larvae, in the eye/antennal disc, hbs expression is strong behind the morphogenetic furrow, and also as clusters within the furrow (Fig. 3I). In the larval brain there is hbs expression in the optic lobes (Fig. 3J). Expression in the larval wing disc consists of a striking cruciform pattern (Fig. 3K), corresponding to the regions that abut the presumptive wing margin, and those areas destined to be wing veins L3 and L4. More proximally, is expression in the region destined to be wing veins L0 and L1. There is also light expression in the presumptive notum region. In leg discs expression is seen in concentric circles (Fig. 3L).
hbs mutant embryos do not display overt phenotypes
In order to determine the function of Hbs during embryonic development, a series of deletions were generated by irradiation of nearby P-elements (Fig. 4A). For EP(2)2590, over 50 w flies were isolated from the 71,700 progeny screened and 13 stable lines were successfully established, while for l(2)k04218 55,600 progeny were screened and 29 lines established. Deletion 12 removes hbs expression as assayed by in situ hybridization with cDNA4, and is lethal over l(2)k06403 but not l(2)k04218. As our smallest deletion removing hbs, this line has a phenotype where the ventral muscle pattern is abnormal in two to three hemisegments per mutant embryo. The abnormality consists of a loss of some muscle fibers from the ventral muscle group (Fig. 4B). In hemisegments where the muscle patterning is normal, motor innervation is also normal (Fig. 5D). Deletion 11 does not remove or disrupt hbs expression, yet also shows the ventral muscle defect that was seen in Deletion 12 (as does Deletion 6). Furthermore, in deletions 11 and 12 transheterozygotes, the muscle phenotype is present (Fig. 4C). As such, the ventral muscle phenotype maps to a gene(s) in the region other than hbs. It appears that hbs mutant embryos do not have an overt muscle phenotype as: (1) the muscle phenotype in deletion 12 is no different from that in the transheterozygote deletions 11 and 12 embryos; (2) muscle number, insertion sites and innervation are normal in the unaffected hemisegments; and (3) unfused myoblasts are barely evident in late stage 16. We also assayed the nervous system across stages 12-17 with mAbs BP102, 1D4, 22C10, anti-wrapper and anti-Repo, and did not find any defects (data not shown). As such, Hbs appears functionally redundant in the development of the embryonic somatic mesoderm and central nervous system. Deletion 12 in trans with sns, irreC-rst or the duf/irreC-rst deletion did not produce phenotypes in the embryonic muscles or the adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Overexpressing a secreted form of Hbs with all of the aforementioned GAL4 drivers did not generate gain-of-function phenotypes (data not shown). In addition, the adult hbs gain-of-function phenotypes were not suppressed as transheterozygotes with sns, irreC-rst or the duf/irreC-rst deletion.
Correct hbs expression depends on sim, Notch and bap, but not mef2
hbs expression in the mesectoderm and developing CNS midline partially overlaps with the expression of the transcription factor single minded (sim) (Crews et al., 1988). In sim embryos, the mesectodermal progeny survive but fail to differentiate or migrate to appropriate locations (Nambu et al., 1990). In sim mutant embryos, hbs expression was abolished at the CNS midline (Fig. 8B). When sim was misexpressed in all neuroblasts with the sca-GAL4 driver (Klaes et al., 1994), the domain of hbs expression at the CNS midline was expanded (Fig. 8C). Yet when sim was misexpressed in all post-mitotic neurons using elav-GAL4 drivers (Luo et al., 1994) hbs expression was unaltered (data not shown).
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
It was postulated that vertebrate Nephrins might bind homotypically (Tryggvason, 1999), as IgSF proteins often do (Goodman, 1996; Brummendorf and Rathjen, 1996; Walsh and Doherty, 1997). In the S2 cell aggregation assay, neither Hbs nor Sns mediated homotypic adhesion. Owing to the structural similarity between Hbs and Sns and their expression patterns they were also tested in S2 cells for ability to bind in trans and did not. This is the first evidence suggesting that Nephrin proteins interact heterophilically in trans with other potentially non-Nephrin extracellular partners.
IgSF proteins and myoblast fusion
During normal development fusion competent myoblasts fuse to a specialized subset of myoblasts called founder cells. These founder cells act as scaffold for muscle formation (Bate, 1990). A crucial issue is the identity of the proteins that mediate the recognition/fusion event. The Drosophila homologs of the IgSF Nephrin subfamily and the DM-GRASP/BEN/SC1 subfamily provide the first putative links for the molecular pathways.
Both Drosophila Nephrin-like proteins, Sns and Hbs, are present on the fusion competent myoblasts but not the founder cells (Bour et al., 2000) (present study). In the sns mutant, fusion-competent myoblasts do not fuse to founder cells, and consequently normal muscle fibers fails to form (Bour et al., 2000). Potential roles for Sns are: (1) to recognize a founder cell derived attractant and facilitate fusion competent myoblast movement towards the founder cell; (2) to help form adhesive junctions at sites where fusion will be initiated; or (3) to function as the receptor/ligand that initiates myoblast fusion (Bour et al., 2000; Frasch and Leptin, 2000). In contrast to sns, in the absence of hbs myoblast fusion and muscle formation appear relatively normal when assayed with anti-muscle myosin antibody. Additionally, motor axon response to the muscles is normal, as judged by the pattern of connectivity. One interpretation of the failure to produce a loss-of-function phenotype is that Hbs is redundant. Alternatively, the function of Hbs may not be completely duplicated, but its absence may give a phenotype that is subtler than we can detect given our reagents and/or criteria.
With the identification of Sns and Hbs on fusion-competent myoblasts, the question arises as to what the corresponding extracellular partners may be on the founder cells/forming myotubes. IrreC-rst (Ramos et al., 1993) and Duf (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000) are the Drosophila members of the DM-GRASP/BEN/SC1 (Burns et al., 1991; Tanaka et al., 1991; Pourquie et al., 1992) subfamily of the IgSF. duf is expressed by the founder cells but not the fusion-competent myoblasts (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000), and irreC-rst is expressed in the embryonic mesoderm but the identity of the cells was not specified (Ramos et al., 1993). Myoblast fusion fails in the combined absence of duf and irreC-rst (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000). The return of duf expression to the mesoderm can rescue the phenotype; however, rescue with irreC-rst was not attempted. So the respective contribution of the two proteins to the fusion phenotype is uncertain. However, as Duf misexpression can guide myoblasts to novel locations, it is considered a founder cell-derived attractant (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000).
The similar fusion phenotype for the sns mutant and the duf/irreC-rst deletion and the attractive properties of Duf suggest Sns and Duf underscore a fusion-competent myoblast-founder cell attraction mechanism (Frasch and Leptin, 2000). Meanwhile, hbs overexpression in the somatic mesoderm partially phenocopies the sns loss-of-function mutant and the irreC-rst/duf deletion, suggesting reduced attraction of myoblasts to the myotubes. However myoblast fusion is also partially blocked when IrreC-Rst is overexpressed in the mesoderm (H. A. D. and H. S., unpublished), and myoblasts go to ectopic locations when Duf is presented in the epidermis (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000). So the Hbs gain-of-function phenotype could also be interpreted as the response of myoblasts to an imbalance of attractive forces.
Support for Hbs mediating an attractive function comes from the S2 cell assays. Under the given assaying conditions, neither Sns nor Hbs interacts homotypically, and Hbs does not bind to Sns in trans. These observations go against a model where Hbs might block in trans an Sns-mediated attraction between fusion competent myoblasts and bias the interaction towards the Duf-expressing founder cells. In the S2 cell aggregation assay, both Hbs and Sns show an interaction with Duf, mediating heterophilic adhesion between S2 cells. But neither Sns nor Hbs induced aggregates in combination with IrreC-Rst or Side (other 5 Ig domain proteins in muscles) (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000; Sink et al., 2001). These results support a model where both Hbs and Sns facilitate the Duf-induced attraction of fusion competent myoblasts to founder cells. But the results do not rule out other interaction combinations between these different proteins. Further experiments are required to determine if they act in cis or in complexes, or whether they require different conditions for binding to one another in trans in the S2 cell assay (Bieber et al., 1994).
Hibris and myotube guidance
When hbs was globally expressed with the da-GAL4 driver, the myoblast fusion defect was enhanced, and muscle fiber insertions were also misplaced. To determine whether the latter was due to hbs misexpression in the musculature or the epidermis, we misexpressed hbs in the epidermis with several GAL4 drivers. When misexpressed in the epidermis within a hemisegment, subsets of muscles fail to traverse the hemisegment and either bunch ventrally (en-GAL4 and sca-GAL4 drivers) or align with the segment boundary (pnr-GAL4 drivers). As such, the misplaced muscle attachment phenotype observed in the da-GAL4 gain-of-function condition is attributed to epidermally rather than mesodermally misexpressed hbs.
hbs is broadly expressed in the epidermis around and at the sites where muscles will ultimately attach, then becomes confined to the muscle attachment sites themselves. During normal development, Hbs may assist in slowing and constraining myotube exploration in the region where attachments must ultimately form. The data on myoblast fusion links Hbs to an attraction/adhesion mechanism. Furthermore, Duf is present in developing mytotubes (Ruiz-Gomez et al., 2000) and Sns is also present at the muscle attachment sites (Bour et al., 2000). Given these expression patterns and the heterotypic interaction of Duf with Hbs and Sns, it is possible that these proteins also interact during myotube guidance, serving to direct myotubes to their expidermal attachment sites.
Overexpression of hbs in the adult
hbs is also expressed in the larval imaginal discs. Misexpression of hbs in the wing disc yielded abnormal distal wing margins and disorganized microchaetes on the notum. At first glance, these phenotypes look like mild loss-of-function Notch defect; however, microchaete numbers did not deviate from normal. Hence, the microchaete phenotype appears to be due to displacement of cells, rather than changes in cell number caused by disturbance of lateral inhibition. This could arise if: (1) the cell-cell associations within proneural clusters are slightly perturbed, resulting in subtle changes in the location of the founder cells; or (2) founder cells are normally specified but subsequent alterations in cell-cell associations lead to them being slightly displaced.
Misexpression of hbs in the eye disc results in a rough eye phenotype, which is reminiscent of that seen when irreC-rst is absent or misexpressed in the eye disc (Ramos et al., 1993; Schneider et al., 1995). Yet neither gain-of-function eye phenotype was suppressed by a 50% decrease in the expression of the other gene, and no rough eye phenotype was observed in the hbs and irreC-rst transheterozygotes. As Hbs and IrreC-Rst did not give a positive result in the S2 cell aggregation assay, and the overexpression of irreC-rst in the wing imaginal disc caused a notal microchaete phenotype that differs from that for hbs (H. A. D. and H. S., unpublished), there is still no direct support that Hbs and IrreC-Rst interact directly with one another in a simple one-to-one trans binding relationship. More suitable interaction analyses await elucidation of whether Duf and Sns have roles in eye.
Regulation of hbs expression
The complex spatiotemporal expression pattern of hbs, added to the sensitivity of several tissues to abnormal hbs levels, brings into question the identity of the upstream regulators. We examined hbs expression in Notch, mef2, bap and sim mutant backgrounds.
Notch-mediated lateral inhibition defines which myoblasts will become founder cells (Corbin et al., 1991). hbs and sns are excluded from the founder cells and confined to fusion-competent myoblasts. As with sns, this exclusion of hbs from the founder cells occurs downstream of Notch. Thus Sns and Hbs represent two components of the molecular repertoire that distinguishes fusion competent myoblasts from founder cells from one another. The transcription factor Mef2 regulates expression of muscle specific genes such as myosin, MLP60A, tropomyosin I and muscleblind (Bour et al., 1995; Ranganayakulu et al., 1995; Lin et al., 1996; Lin et al., 1997; Stronach et al., 1999; Artero et al., 1998) and its absence results in a myoblast fusion defect (Lilly et al., 1995). As for sns, hbs expression also appears unperturbed in the mef2 mutant. So neither the loss of sns nor hbs expression contributes to the mef2 myoblast fusion phenotype. In contrast to Mef2, the activity of the homeobox gene bap is crucial for correct levels of expression of hbs in the early visceral mesoderm cell clusters. Similarly the Sim helix-loop-helix transcription factor (Nambu et al., 1990; Nambu et al., 1991) is essential for hbs expression in the mesectoderm and CNS midline. Whether there a direct physical regulation of hbs expression by the Sim or Bap proteins awaits analysis of the hbs promoter region.
We have presented the first evidence of a direct physical interaction between extracellular molecules that are expressed on either fusion-competent myoblasts and at muscle attachment sites (Hbs and Sns), or on muscle founder cells and developing myotubes (Duf). Our observations suggest that adhesion between these molecules may aid recognition between fusion competent myoblasts and founder cells, and between myotubes and epidermal attachment sites. Whether the large cytoplasmic domains on these proteins have signaling abilities must now be determined.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Ahola, H., Wang, S. X., Luimula, P., Solin, M. L., Holzman, L. B. and Holthofer, H. (1999). Cloning and expression of the rat nephrin homolog. Am. J. Pathol. 155, 907-913.
Apidianakis, Y., Nagel A. C., Chalkiadaki, A., Preiss, A. and Delidakis, C. (1999). Overexpression of the m4 and malpha genes of the E(spl)-complex antagonizes notch mediated lateral inhibition. Mech. Dev. 86, 39-50.[Medline]
Artero, R., Prokop, A., Paricio, N., Begemann, G., Pueyo, I., Mlodzik, M., Perez-Alonso, M. and Baylies, M. K. (1998). The muscleblind gene participates in the organization of Z-bands and epidermal attachments of Drosophila muscles and is regulated by Dmef2. Dev. Biol. 195, 131-143.[Medline]
Azpiazu, N. and Frasch, M. (1993). tinman and bagpipe: two homeo box genes that determine cell fates in the dorsal mesoderm of Drosophila. Genes Dev. 7, 1325-1340.[Abstract]
Bate, M. (1990). The embryonic development of larval muscles in Drosophila. Development 110, 791-804.[Abstract]
Bieber, A. J. (1994). Analysis of cellular adhesion in cultured cells. In Methods in Cell Biology (ed. L. S. B. Goldstein and E. A. Fyrberg), pp. 683-696. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bour, B. A., OBrien, M. A., Lockwood, W. L., Goldstein, E. S., Bodmer, R., Taghert, P. H., Abmayr, S. M. and Nguyen, H. T. (1995). Drosophila MEF2, a transcription factor that is essential for myogenesis. Genes Dev. 9, 730-741.[Abstract]
Bour, B. A., Chakravarti, M., West, J. M. and Abmayr, S. M. (2000). Drosophila SNS, a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily that is essential for myoblast fusion. Genes Dev. 14, 1498-1511.
Bracco, E., Pergolizzi, B., Peracino, B., Ponte, E., Balbo, A., Mai, A., Ceccarelli, A. and Bozzaro, S. (2000). Cell-cell signaling and adhesion in phagocytosis and early development of Dictyostelium. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 44, 733-742.[Medline]
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118, 401-415.
Brummendorf, T. and Rathjen, F. G. (1996). Structure/function relationships of axon-associated adhesion receptors of the immunoglobulin superfamily. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 6, 584-593.[Medline]
Bunch, T. A., Grinblat, Y. and Goldstein, L. S. (1998). Characterization and use of the Drosophila metallothionein promoter in cultured Drosophila melanogaster cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 1043-1061.[Abstract]
Burns, F. R., von Kannen, S., Guy, L., Raper, J. A., Kamholz, J. and Chang, S. (1991). DM-GRASP, a novel immunoglobulin superfamily axonal surface protein that supports neurite extension. Neuron 7, 209-220.[Medline]
Callahan, C. A., Bonkovsky, J. L., Scully, A. L. and Thomas, J. B. (1996). derailed is required for muscle attachment site selection in Drosophila. Development 122, 2761-2767.
Calleja, M., Moreno, E., Pelaz, S. and Morata, G. (1996). Visualization of gene expression in living adult Drosophila. Science 274, 252-255.
Cavener, D. (1987). Comparison of the consensus sequence flanking translational start sites in Drosophila and vertebrates. Nucleic Acids Res. 15, 1353-1361.[Abstract]
Corbin, V., Michelson, A. M., Abmayr, S. M., Neel, V., Alcamo, E., Maniatis, T. and Young, M. W. (1991). A role for the Drosophila neurogenic genes in mesoderm differentiation. Cell 67, 311-323.[Medline]
Crews, S. T., Thomas, J. B. and Goodman, C. S. (1988). The Drosophila single-minded gene encodes a nuclear protein with sequence similarity to the per gene product. Cell 52, 143-151.[Medline]
Fambrough, D. and Goodman, C. S. (1996). The Drosophila beaten path gene encodes a novel secreted protein that regulates defasciculation at motor axon choice points. Cell 87, 1049-1058.[Medline]
Frasch, M. and Leptin, M. (2000). Mergers and acquisitions: unequal partnerships in Drosophila myoblast fusion. Cell 102, 127-129.[Medline]
Freeman, M. (1996). Reiterative use of the EGF receptor triggers differentiation of all cell types in the Drosophila eye. Cell 87, 651-660.[Medline]
Goodman, C. S. (1996). Mechanisms and molecules that control growth cone guidance. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 19, 341-377.[Medline]
Greig, S. and Akam, M. (1993). Homeotic genes autonomously specify one aspect of pattern in the Drosophila mesoderm. Nature 362, 630-632.[Medline]
Hacker, U. and Perrimon, N. (1998). DRhoGEF2 encodes a member of the Dbl family of oncogenes and controls cell shape changes during gastrulation in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 12, 274-284.
Hartenstein, A. Y., Rugendorff, A., Tepass, U. and Hartenstein, V. (1992). The function of the neurogenic genes during epithelial development in the Drosophila embryo. Development 116, 1203-1220.
Hartenstein, V. (1993). Atlas of Drosophila Development. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Heitzler, P., Haenlin, M., Ramain, P., Calleja, M. and Simpson, P. (1996). A genetic analysis of pannier, a gene necessary for viability of dorsal tissues and bristle positioning in Drosophila. Genetics 143, 1271-1286.
Holzman, L. B., St. John, P. L., Kovari, I. A., Verma, R., Holthofer, H. and Abrahamson, D. R. (1999). Nephrin localizes to the slit pore of the glomerular epithelial cell. Kidney Int. 56, 1481-1491.[Medline]
Hoppe, P. E. and Greenspan, R. J. (1986). Local function of the Notch gene for embryonic ectodermal pathway choice in Drosophila. Cell 46, 773-783.[Medline]
Jagla, K., Frasch, M., Jagla, T., Dretzen, G., Bellard, F. and Bellard, M. (1997). ladybird, a new component of the cardiogenic pathway in Drosophila required for diversification of heart precursors. Development 124, 3471-3479.
Kamiguchi, H. and Lemmon, V. (2000). IgCAMs: bidirectional signals underlying neurite growth. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 12, 598-605.[Medline]
Kania, A., Salzberg, A., Bhat, M., DEvelyn, D., He, Y., Kiss, I. and Bellen, H. J. (1995). P-element mutations affecting embryonic peripheral nervous system development in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 139, 1663-1678.
Kestila, M., Lenkkeri, U., Mannikko, M., Lamerdin, J., McCready, P., Putaala, H., Ruotsalainen, V., Morita, T., Nissinen, M., Herva, R., Kashtan, C. E., Peltonen, L., Holmberg, C., Olsen, A. and Tryggvason, K. (1998). Positionally cloned gene for a novel glomerular protein nephrin is mutated in congenital nephrotic syndrome. Mol. Cell. 1, 575-582.[Medline]
Kidd, T., Brose, K., Mitchell, K. J., Fetter, R. D., Tessier-Lavigne, M., Goodman, C. S. and Tear, G. (1998). Roundabout controls axon crossing of the CNS midline and defines a novel subfamily of evolutionarily conserved guidance receptors. Cell 92, 205-215.[Medline]
Kidd. T., Bland, K. S. and Goodman, C. S. (1999). Slit is the midline repellent for the robo receptor in Drosophila. Cell 96, 785-794.[Medline]
Kimmerly, W., Stultz, K., Lewis, S., Lewis, K., Lustre, V., Romero, R., Benke, J., Sun, D., Shirley, G., Martin, C. and Palazzolo, M. (1996). A P1-based physical map of the Drosophila euchromatic genome. Genome Res. 6, 414-430.[Abstract]
Klaes, A., Menne, T., Stollewerk, A., Scholz, H. and Klambt, C. (1994). The Ets transcription factors encoded by the Drosophila gene pointed direct glial cell differentiation in the embryonic CNS. Cell 78, 149-160.[Medline]
Klambt, C., Jacobs, J. R. and Goodman, C. S. (1991). The midline of the Drosophila central nervous system: a model for the genetic analysis of cell fate, cell migration, and growth cone guidance. Cell 64, 801-815.[Medline]
Kornberg, T., Siden, I., OFarrell, P. and Simon, M. (1985). The engrailed locus of Drosophila: in situ localization of transcripts reveals compartment-specific expression. Cell 40, 45-53.[Medline]
Kopczynski, C. C., Noordermeer, J. N., Serano, T. L., Chen, W. Y., Pendleton, J. D., Lewis, S., Goodman, C. S. and Rubin, G. M. (1998). A high throughput screen to identify secreted and transmembrane proteins involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9973-9978.
Kramer, S. G., Kidd, T., Simpson, J. H. and Goodman, C. S. (2001). Switching repulsion to attraction: Changing responses to Slit during transition in mesoderm migration. Science 292, 737-740.
Lilly, B., Zhao, B., Ranganayakulu, G., Paterson, B. M., Schulz, R. A. and Olson, E. N. (1995). Requirement of MADS domain transcription factor D-MEF2 for muscle formation in Drosophila. Science 267, 688-693.[Medline]
Lin, M. H., Nguyen, H. T., Dybala, C. and Storti, R. V. (1996). Myocyte-specific enhancer factor 2 acts cooperatively with a muscle activator region to regulate Drosophila tropomyosin gene muscle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93, 4623-4628.
Lin, M. H., Bour, B. A., Abmayr, S. M. and Storti, R. V. (1997). Ectopic expression of MEF2 in the epidermis induces epidermal expression of muscle genes and abnormal muscle development in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 182, 240-255.[Medline]
Luo, L., Liao, Y. J., Jan, L. Y. and Jan, Y. N. (1994). Distinct morphogenetic functions of similar small GTPases: Drosophila Drac1 is involved in axonal outgrowth and myoblast fusion. Genes Dev. 8, 1787-1802.[Abstract]
Mohler, J. and Pardue, M. L. (1984). Deficiency mapping of the 93D heat-shock locus in Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma 86, 457-467.
Mlodzik M., Baker N. E. and Rubin, G. M. (1990). Isolation and expression of scabrous, a gene regulating neurogenesis in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 4, 1848-1861.[Abstract]
Morel, V. and Schweisguth, F. (2000). Repression by suppressor of hairless and activation by Notch are required to define a single row of single-minded expressing cells in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 14, 377-388.
Nambu, J. R., Franks, R. G., Hu, S. and Crews, S. T. (1990). The single-minded gene of Drosophila is required for the expression of genes important for the development of CNS midline cells. Cell 63, 63-75.[Medline]
Nambu, J. R., Lewis, J. O., Wharton, K. A., Jr and Crews, S. T. (1991). The Drosophila single-minded gene encodes a helix-loop-helix protein that acts as a master regulator of CNS midline development. Cell 67, 1157-1167.[Medline]
Paululat, A., Holz, A. and Renkawitz-Pohl, R. (1999). Essential genes for myoblast fusion in Drosophila embryogenesis. Mech Dev. 83, 17-26.[Medline]
Pourquie, O., Corbel, C., Le Caer, J. P., Rossier, J. and Le Douarin, N. M. (1992). BEN, a surface glycoprotein of the immunoglobulin superfamily, is expressed in a variety of developing systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89, 5261-5265.[Abstract]
Ramos, R. G., Igloi, G. L., Lichte, B., Baumann, U., Maier, D., Schneider, T., Brandstatter, J. H., Frohlich, A. and Fischbach, K. F. (1993). The irregular chiasm C-roughest locus of Drosophila, which affects axonal projections and programmed cell death, encodes a novel immunoglobulin-like protein. Genes Dev. 7, 2533-2547.[Abstract]
Ranganayakulu, G., Zhao, B., Dokidis, A., Molkentin, J. D., Olson, E. N. and Schulz, R. A. (1995). A series of mutations in the D-MEF2 transcription factor reveal multiple functions in larval and adult myogenesis in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 171, 169-181.[Medline]
Rogers, S., Wells, R. and Rechsteiner, M. (1986). Amino acid sequences common to rapidly degraded proteins: the PEST hypothesis. Science 234, 364-368.[Medline]
Rorth, P., Szabo, K., Bailey, A., Laverty, T., Rehm, J., Rubin, G. M., Weigmann, K., Milan, M., Benes, V., Ansorge, W. and Cohen, S. M. (1998). Systematic gain-of-function genetics in Drosophila. Development 125, 1049-1057.
Ruiz-Gomez, M., Coutts, N., Price, A., Taylor, M. V. and Bate, M. (2000). Drosophila dumbfounded: a myoblast attractant essential for fusion. Cell 102, 189-198.[Medline]
Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F. and Maniatis, T. (1989). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Press.
Schneider, T., Reiter, C., Eule, E., Bader, B., Lichte, B., Nie, Z., Schimansky, T., Ramos, R. G. and Fischbach, K. F. (1995). Restricted expression of the irreC-rst protein is required for normal axonal projections of columnar visual neurons. Neuron 15, 259-271.[Medline]
Simmons, P. J., Levesque, J. P. and Zannettino, A. C. (1997). Adhesion molecules in haemopoiesis. Baillieres Clin. Haematol. 10, 485-505.[Medline]
Sink, H., Rehm, E. J., Richstone, L., Bulls, Y. M. and Goodman, C. S. (2001). sidestep encodes a target-derived attractant essential for motor axon guidance in Drosophila. Cell 105, 57-67.[Medline]
Somlo, S. and Mundel, P. (2000). Getting a foothold in nephrotic syndrome. Nat. Genet. 24, 333-335.[Medline]
Stronach, B. E., Renfranz, P. J., Lilly, B. and Beckerle, M. C. (1999). Muscle LIM proteins are associated with muscle sarcomeres and require dMEF2 for their expression during Drosophila myogenesis. Mol. Biol. Cell 10, 2329-2342.
Tanaka, H., Matsui, T., Agata, A., Tomura, M., Kubota, I., McFarland, K. C., Kohr, B., Lee, A., Phillips, H. S. and Shelton, D. L. (1991). Molecular cloning and expression of a novel adhesion molecule, SC1. Neuron 7, 535-545.[Medline]
Teichmann, S. A. and Chothia, C. (2000). Immunoglobulin superfamily proteins in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Mol. Biol. 296, 1367-1383.[Medline]
Tomlinson, A. and Ready, D. F. (1987). Neuronal differentiation in the Drosophila ommatidium. Dev. Biol. 120, 336-376.
Tryggvason, K. (1999). Unraveling the mechanisms of glomerular ultrafiltration. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 10, 2440-2445.
von Heijne, G. (1990). The signal peptide. J. Membr. Biol. 115, 195-201.[Medline]
Walsh, F. S. and Doherty, P. (1997). Neural cell adhesion molecules of the immunoglobulin superfamily: role in axon growth and guidance. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13, 425-456.[Medline]
Ward, E. J. and Skeath, J. B. (2000). Characterization of a novel subset of cardiac cells and their progenitors in the Drosophila embryo. Development 127, 4959-4969.
Winick, J., Abel, T., Leonard, M. W., Michelson, A. M., Chardon-Loriaux, I., Holmgren, R. A., Maniatis, T. and Engel, J. D. (1993). A GATA family transcription factor is expressed along the embryonic dorsoventral axis in Drosophila melanogaster. Development 119, 1055-1065.
Wodarz, A., Hinz, U., Engelbert, M. and Knust, E. (1995). Expression of crumbs confers apical character on plasma membrane domains of ectodermal epithelia of Drosophila. Cell 82, 67-76.[Medline]
Xiao, H., Hrdlicka, L. and Nambu, J. R. (1996) Alternate functions of the single-minded and rhomboid genes in development of the Drosophila ventralneuroectoderm. Mech. Dev. 58, 65-74.[Medline]
Zinn, K., McAllister, L. and Goodman, C. S. (1988). Sequence analysis and neuronal expression of fasciclin I in grasshopper and Drosophila. Cell 53, 577-587.[Medline]