1 Division of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA
2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Seattle, Washington 98109, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: jpriess{at}fred.fhcrc.org)
Accepted 17 October 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Blastocoel, Apical-basal polarity, Gastrulation, Ingression, Morphogenesis, Cell fate, Cell shape, Non-muscle myosin, LIT-1, HMR-1, NMY-2, PAR-2, PAR-3, PAR-6, C. elegans
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The dorsal-ventral axis is determined as the embryo divides from two cells to four (reviewed by Schnabel and Priess, 1997). The division of the anterior cell generates two initially equivalent daughters that express a receptor related to the Notch protein. The division of the posterior cell generates non-equivalent daughters, one of which expresses a ligand for the receptor. In an apparently random manner, only one of the receptor-expressing cells contacts the ligand-expressing cell; this interaction leads to the specification of dorsal cell types such as hypodermis (skin).
In addition to anterior-posterior and dorsal-ventral axes, the early embryo must establish an outer-inner polarity. Cells on the ventral surface of the embryo become committed to endodermal and mesodermal fates through a combination of cell signaling events and asymmetrically localized factors (Bowerman et al., 1993; Bowerman et al., 1992; Goldstein, 1992; Lin et al., 1995; Rocheleau et al., 1997). These endodermal and mesodermal precursors must then move from the outer surface of the embryo into the interior for the formation of a functional intestine and muscular system.
Animal embryos use several strategies to position endodermal and mesodermal precursors into their interior, a process called gastrulation. In many embryos, such as those of sea urchins and amphibians, the early embryonic cleavages generate a cluster of cells (the blastula), and a central cavity (the blastocoel) develops within this cluster. Certain cells detach from their neighbors on the cell surface and enter the blastocoel (ingression), or large groups of cells fold into the blastocoel (invagination and involution) (Gilbert and Raunio, 1997). In some animals, gastrulation occurs without formation of a blastocoel. In ctenophores, for example, ectodermal cells spread over and internalize endodermal cells (epiboly) (Komai, 1968; Martindale and Henry, 1999).
Gastrulation in C. elegans begins at the 26-cell stage, when two endodermal precursors ingress from the surface of the embryo into the interior. Shortly thereafter, mesodermal precursors and germline precursors follow the endodermal precursors into the interior of the embryo (Sulston et al., 1983). Very little is known about the cellular or molecular basis for these events. Several mutations have been identified that prevent or delay ingression of the endodermal precursors, most of which cause the endodermal precursors to divide prematurely (Denich et al., 1984; Knight and Wood, 1998). Inhibiting embryonic transcription also causes the endodermal precursors to divide precociously and prevents ingression (Powell-Coffman et al., 1996). Ingression of the endodermal precursors is likely to require embryonic transcription of one or more genes in a chromosomal region called the endoderm determining region, or EDR; a chromosomal deficiency that deletes the EDR delays or prevents ingression (Zhu et al., 1997). There are at least two genes in the EDR that are involved in specification of the endodermal cell fate, suggesting a possible link between cell fate and ingression (Zhu et al., 1997).
In this report we investigate the cellular basis for gastrulation in C. elegans. PAR proteins that show anterior-posterior asymmetry in 1-cell and 2-cell embryos subsequently develop outer-inner, or apical-basal, polarity as the blastula forms. We demonstrate that the apical-basal localization of the PAR proteins is dependent on cell-cell contacts by generating double embryos with abnormal patterns of cell contact. We show that ingression is associated with changes in the shape of the ingressing cells and a redistribution of non-muscle myosin. Finally, we present evidence that cell fate, rather than cell position, is the predominant factor regulating ingression, although steric interactions can play an important role.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
dsRNA-mediated interference (RNAi)
Standard techniques were used to synthesize double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) from T7 promoter-tagged, PCR-amplified cDNA or genomic DNA. For analysis of ama-1(RNAi) embryos (2-4 µg/µl dsRNA made from cDNA region 2876-3450), young adult hermaphrodites carrying both a maternal (pie-1::GFP::HIS-11) and zygotic (end-1::GFP) GFP reporter were injected in the gonad or soaked overnight with dsRNA (Fire et al., 1998; Tabara et al., 1998). After allowing worms to recover for 30 hours, embryos were analyzed for end-1::GFP expression. In a representative experiment, the end-1::GFP reporter was detectable in only 5/224 ama-1(RNAi) embryos. For analysis of hmr-1(RNAi) embryos (2.5 µg/µl dsRNA made from genomic DNA region 13344-13989), approximately 20 hours after injection of dsRNA into wild-type adults, embryos were collected and fixed for immunofluorescence. Embryos were immunostained to confirm HMR-1 depletion.
Embryo handling and analysis
To examine blastocoel formation, 1-cell or 2-cell embryos were pipetted onto a poly-L-lysine (Sigma)-coated coverslip containing clay spacers; the coverslip was inverted onto a slide for observation. In all other experiments 2-cell or 4-cell embryos were mounted for videomicroscopy on 4% agarose (see Sulston et al., 1983). Isolated AB blastomeres were mounted in embryonic culture medium (Shelton and Bowerman, 1996) on slides and covered with coverslips coated with 1.5% agarose; techniques used to isolate and culture embryos or individual blastomeres were essentially as described (Shelton and Bowerman, 1996). Embryo combination experiments were performed at 15°C. To inhibit transcription, embryonic culture medium was supplemented with 50 µg/ml -amanitin (Sigma). Laser ablations were performed as described elsewhere (Mello et al., 1992).
4D images were acquired as described (Thomas et al., 1996) using 4D Grabber v1.32 software (C. Thomas, Integrated Microscopy Resource, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA). Movies were analyzed using 4D Viewer v4.11 (C. Thomas, Integrated Microscopy Resource, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA) and Nematode Navigator software (kindly provided by J. Pitt, http://www.fhcrc.org/labs/priess/nn.html). The volume of the blastocoel and embryo (± s.d.) were calculated using NIH Image1.62 (Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health, USA).
Ingressions were scored when a cell sank permanently from the surface of the embryo. Comparisons of ingression times were based on the analysis of 4D videorecordings of three embryos; all cells that ingressed during gastrulation were followed in each embryo. Ingression times were normalized to cell division timings presented by Sulston et al. (Sulston et al., 1983) using the interval between the MSa and MSaaa divisions as a measure of developmental time. Descriptions of wild-type gastrulation were based on observations of these and additional 4D videorecordings. Ectopic ingressions in mex-1 mutants were scored in the ABpr lineage. lit-1 temperature shifts were from 15°C to 25°C at the 24-cell stage. Because of the variable expressivity of the lit-1 mutant phenotype, analysis of MS ingression was restricted to the 7/11 embryos showing simultaneous ingression of all wishbone cells. In the E ablation experiments, analysis was restricted to the anterior MS central cells that do not contact the E corpse.
Electron microscopy
Mixed-stage embryos were fixed, embedded, sectioned and stained for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) as described (Priess and Hirsh, 1986). Several thick sections were cut from each block to determine the precise stage and orientation of specific embryos. Sections were analyzed from >50 embryos embedded in three different blocks. Embryos for scanning electron microscopy were fixed as for TEM, omitting the tannic acid treatment. Embryos were transferred by mouth pipet to a poly-L-lysine coated coverslip, then dehydrated and dried as described (Braet et al., 1997).
Immunostaining and fluorescence microscopy
Embryos were fixed and processed for overnight immunostaining at 4°C as described (Leung et al., 1999). Cultured blastomeres were fixed in 20°C methanol for 15 minutes, then immunostained at 37°C for 1 hour. A strain containing the itIs153 reporter was used for analysis of PAR-2 in cultured blastomeres. Unless indicated otherwise, immunofluorescence studies were based on the observation of 15-100 embryos at the indicated stage. The following dilutions of antibodies/antisera were used: 1:200 mouse anti-GFP (-GFP; Clontech); 1:10 rabbit
-HMR-1 (Costa et al., 1998); 1:50 rabbit
-NMY-2 (Guo and Kemphues, 1996); 1:10 rabbit
-PAR-2 (Boyd et al., 1996); 1:10 chicken
-PAR-3 (Tabuse et al., 1998); 1:15 rabbit
-PAR-3 (Etemad-Moghadam et al., 1995); 1:10 rabbit
-PAR-6 (Hung and Kemphues, 1999); 1:1000 rabbit
-PGL-1 (Kawasaki et al., 1998). Secondary antibodies were conjugated with Alexa Fluor 488 (Molecular Probes) or Cy-3 (Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, Inc.). In some experiments, DNA was stained with 60 ng/ml 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI).
Confocal images were acquired on a Leica TCS SP spectral confocal microscope. All other images were acquired using a standard epifluorescence microscope equipped with a digital camera; some epifluorescence images were numerically deconvolved using DeltaVision algorithms (Applied Precision, Inc.).
Analysis of NMY-2 localization
For the analysis of NMY-2 localization in MS descendants, embryos expressing pha-4::GFP::HIS-11 were stained with antibodies or antisera against PGL-1, GFP and NMY-2; GFP and PGL-1 staining were used as reference points to identify specific MS descendants after fixation. NMY-2 was scored as enriched when the apical concentration in an ingressing cell appeared greater than in other surface cells, exclusive of dividing cells.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
PAR proteins and apical-basal polarity in early embryos
Analysis of the PAR proteins has focused primarily on their anterior-posterior localization at the 1-cell stage and their roles in subsequent anterior-posterior polarity (see Introduction). After cell division begins, however, this anterior-posterior asymmetry is reiterated only in the lineage of cells that form the germline (Boyd et al., 1996; Etemad-Moghadam et al., 1995; Guo and Kemphues, 1995; Hung and Kemphues, 1999) (the germline cells P2 and P3 are indicated by cyan asterisks in Fig. 2). In contrast, some somatic (non-germline) cells show an apical-basal polarity in PAR localization (Boyd et al., 1996; Etemad-Moghadam et al., 1995; Guo and Kemphues, 1995; Hung and Kemphues, 1999). By the 4-cell stage, the posterior PAR protein PAR-2 is localized to basolateral surfaces (arrows, Fig. 2A,B), and is not detected on the apical surfaces of somatic cells. By the middle of the 4-cell stage, the anterior PAR proteins PAR-3 and PAR-6 are present over the entire cortex of each somatic blastomere (arrows, Fig. 2C). However by the end of the 4-cell stage and at later stages PAR-3 and PAR-6 are concentrated in a broad cap centered on the apical surface (arrow, Fig. 2D). The apical-basal polarity of the PAR proteins persists through early gastrulation, although the level of PAR-2 diminishes (Fig. 2E). After gastrulation begins, cells in the interior of the embryo accumulate PAR-3 and PAR-6 on their blastocoel-facing surfaces (arrowheads, Fig. 2F,F'); these and later changes in PAR distribution were not analyzed further (see also Leung et al., 1999).
|
Apical-basal polarity of PAR proteins requires cell interactions
How do the PAR proteins switch from anterior-posterior polarity to apical-basal polarity? Germline blastomeres, which maintain anterior-posterior PAR polarity during the early embryonic stages, are transcriptionally quiescent, while somatic blastomeres that switch to apical-basal asymmetry are transcriptionally active (Seydoux et al., 1996). However, we found that PAR-3 and PAR-2 switch from anterior-posterior to apical-basal polarity after embryonic transcription is prevented by double-stranded RNA inhibition (RNAi) of the ama-1 gene [Fig. 2G and data not shown; the ama-1 gene encodes the large subunit of RNA polymerase II (Rogalski and Riddle, 1988)]. In addition, a blastocoel appeared to form normally in ama-1(RNAi) embryos (n=6) and in wild-type embryos exposed to -amanitin (n=4). Thus apical-basal PAR polarity, as well as blastocoel formation, appears to be determined by maternally provided gene products.
We asked whether cell contacts determine apical-basal PAR polarity by constructing and analyzing double embryos with ectopic cell contacts, as described above. 2-cell embryos were joined head to head, then allowed to develop between 15 and 45 minutes (1-3 additional cell cycles) before fixation. We found that PAR-2 was excluded from the apical regions of somatic blastomeres in the double embryos, but was localized to all basal and lateral membranes including ectopic sites of cell contact (n=6; arrow, Fig. 3A). In contrast, PAR-3 and PAR-6 were localized predominately to the contact-free, apical surfaces of somatic blastomeres (n=6 and 8, respectively; Fig. 3B-D). As in wild-type embryos, there appeared to be a cap of PAR-3 and PAR-6 toward the center of the apical cortex.
|
Ingression of cells during gastrulation
Ingression occurs on the ventral surface of the embryo. Many of the cells that ingress are born on the ventral surface (E, MS and P4 descendants; Fig. 4B). Other cells, such as the C descendants (green cells in Fig. 4B), are born in dorsal or lateral positions and move to the ventral surface prior to ingression. We analyzed 4D videorecordings of gastrulating embryos to determine when and where cells ingress. Cells do not ingress from a single location, but rather enter the blastocoel from several positions over the ventral surface of the embryo; these patterns of ingression are summarized in Fig. 4C, and some of the major groups of ingressing cells are described here briefly.
The daughters of the E blastomere are the first to ingress, beginning at the 26-cell stage (90 minutes after the first embryonic division). Ingression of the E daughters (yellow asterisks in Fig. 4D) takes about 16 minutes, and creates a transient opening on the surface of the embryo. This opening is sealed as neighboring cells, primarily MS descendants and P4 (red and cyan arrowheads, respectively, Fig. 4D), spread across the surface of the E daughters. In scanning electron micrographs of the ventral surface, the MS descendants show wedge-shaped processes that are oriented toward the ingressing E daughters (Fig. 5A,B). The leading edges of these processes taper into thin sheets over the surfaces of the E daughters (Fig. 5C). Although the P4 blastomere moves across the surfaces of the E daughters, it does not extend processes resembling those from the MS descendants (Fig. 5).
|
Control of cell ingression
Cells in the left half of the wishbone group of MS descendants ingress at the same time and have the same fate as cells in the right half of the wishbone [see Fig. 4C; see also Sulston et al. (Sulston et al., 1983)]. The observation that cells with identical fates, but with different positions, can ingress at the same time suggests that cell fate could determine the time of ingression. In their analysis of the C. elegans cell lineage, Sulston et al. (Sulston et al., 1983) documented several examples of pairs of cells that were located in different parts of the embryo but that had identical, or nearly identical, patterns of division and differentiation. We selected nine such examples of AB descendants (cell pairs numbered a and b in Table 1), and determined their ingression times from videorecordings of live embryos. Cells with the same fate usually had remarkably similar ingression times (8/9 cases). For example, the ingression times of cells 4a and 4b differed by only 1 minute (Table 1). In contrast, cells that were born in equivalent cell cycles, but that had different fates could differ significantly in ingression times. For example, the ingression times of cells 4a and 9b differed by 77 minutes (Table 1).
|
To understand how ingression times are determined in the wild-type MS lineage, we focused on the difference in ingression times between the MS wishbone descendants and their closely related relatives in the center of the wishbone (hereafter called the central cells; see Fig. 4C). As described above, the MS central cells (asterisks, Fig. 6A) remain on the surface for one cell cycle after the wishbone cells ingress. The central cells that remain on the surface overlie E descendants in the center of the embryo, while the wishbone cells ingress along the perimeter of the E descendants. We therefore asked whether preventing E ingression would allow the central cells to ingress with the wishbone cells. Although killing the E blastomere with a laser microbeam prevented ingression of the E daughters, the central cells did not ingress along with the wishbone cells (12/12 embryos, Fig. 6B). We obtained identical results in experiments where the fate of the E blastomere was altered by a chromosomal deficiency of the endoderm determining region (Zhu et al., 1997); although the E daughters and many of the subsequent E descendants remained on the surface of the mutant embryos, the wishbone and central cells showed the wild-type difference in ingression times (6/6 embryos).
|
Cell shape changes in ingressing cells
In living embryos, the apical surfaces of the E daughters initially appear rounded (arrowhead, Fig. 7A), similar to the apical surfaces of neighboring cells. Shortly before ingression, their apical surfaces flatten (Fig. 7B), and remain flattened during ingression; small, transient protrusions of the apical membranes appear during flattening (data not shown). We observed a similar apical flattening during ingression of the MS descendants (Fig. 7E), suggesting that apical flattening is a general characteristic of ingressing cells.
|
Cell shape changes often are driven by actin and non-muscle myosin. We therefore examined the distribution of NMY-2, a C. elegans non-muscle myosin (Guo and Kemphues, 1996). NMY-2 is present at low levels at the cell cortex during all stages of the cell cycle (Fig. 7C,D), and is strongly enriched in the contractile ring or midbody of mitotic cells (arrows, Fig. 7C,D). NMY-2 began to show enrichment on the apical surfaces of the E daughters just prior to ingression (24-cell stage, 6/36 embryos). This enrichment was evident in most E daughters at the onset of ingression (26-cell stage, 36/43 embryos; Fig. 7D), and in all E daughters near the end of ingression (28-cell stage, 20/20 embryos. The level of NMY-2 at the apical surface decreased once the E daughters entered the blastocoel (data not shown). We observed a similar apical enrichment of NMY-2 on ingressing MS descendants (arrowhead, Fig. 7F).
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Gastrulation in embryos like Drosophila involves sheets of cells that invaginate to form furrows and pockets. While adherens junctions link the surface cells of Drosophila embryos at the time of gastrulation (Oda et al., 1998; Tepass and Hartenstein, 1994), adherens junctions are not visible in C. elegans embryos until most of the cell movements associated with gastrulation are complete (Costa et al., 1998) (our unpublished observations). The absence of adherens junctions in early C. elegans embryos may thus facilitate ingression by small groups of cells. In sea urchins, primary mesenchyme cells appear to lose adherens junction connections with neighboring surface cells during ingression (Miller and McClay, 1997a; Miller and McClay, 1997b). In our survey of ingression times in C. elegans embryos, we noted that sister cells ingressed at approximately the same time; solitary cells did not ingress. A likely possibility is that the midbody linkage between sister cells prevents either sister from ingressing alone. Both electron microscopic and immunocytochemical studies have shown that the embryonic cells in C. elegans remain coupled by midbodies to their sisters through most of the cell cycle (Krieg et al., 1978) (J. N. and J. R. P., unpublished observations).
Ingressing cells in C. elegans embryos show an apical flattening and an apical accumulation of non-muscle myosin. Apical flattening could promote ingression by redistributing cytoplasm toward the basal region of an ingressing cell, and create space at the surface of the embryo for neighboring cells to redistribute their cytoplasm laterally. The invagination of epithelial sheets in Drosophila gastrulation is also associated with an apical flattening and accumulation of non-muscle myosin (Leptin and Grunewald, 1990; Sweeton et al., 1991; Young et al., 1991). Thus the cellular basis for invagination by epithelial sheets and for ingression by small groups of cells may be conserved, with the principal difference being whether the cells are linked by junctional complexes.
Cell fate and ingression
In principle, gastrulation could position a subset of unspecified cells into the interior of the embryo, where subsequent events would specify the endodermal and mesodermal fates appropriate for internal organs. Instead, C. elegans and many other animals appear to specify the fates of endodermal and mesodermal progenitors when these progenitors are on the embryo surface. Thus there must be direct or indirect mechanisms that couple gastrulation movements with cell fate.
Our present study provides evidence that cell fate is tightly linked to cell ingression in C. elegans. For example, mex-1 mutants with ectopic MS-like cells show ectopic ingressions during the period MS descendants normally ingress, and a mutation in lit-1 that changes the fate of MS descendants can change the ingression time of those descendants. Similarly, in Drosophila the cell fate regulators snail and twist appear to control invagination (reviewed by Leptin, 1995).
The molecular connections between cell fate and ingression or invagination are not known. Embryonic transcription is required for gastrulation in C. elegans (Powell-Coffman et al., 1996), though we have shown here that transcription is not required for the apical-basal localization of the PAR proteins or for blastocoel formation. Instead, embryonic transcription is required for the apical concentration of non-muscle myosin in ingressing cells and for the apical flattening of these cells. A simple model is that the cellular machinery required for ingression or invagination is regulated by one master control gene, and that this gene is in turn regulated by any one of several embryonically expressed transcription factors that specify cell fate. By analogy, the Drosophila cell cycle regulator string has a large, complex promoter controlled by numerous transcription factors that also control region-specific differentiation, creating regions of mitosis that match regions of common cell fate (Edgar et al., 1994; Johnston and Edgar, 1998; Lehman et al., 1999).
The control of MS ingression in C. elegans appears to be an example of fine-tuning in a developmental system. After ingression of the E daughters, the largest available spaces in the blastocoel are anterior to, and on both sides of, the E daughters. The MS wishbone cells overlie these spaces, and ingress into them. In contrast, the MS central cells overlie the E daughters, and do not ingress at the same time as the wishbone cells. Our analysis of lit-1 mutant embryos demonstrates that the presence of the E daughters in the blastocoel is sufficient to prevent ingression of the central cells during ingression of the wishbone cells; we consider it likely that this is a steric interaction, but cannot exclude more specific cell signaling. However, the MS central cells are subject to an additional, lit-1-dependent, control that prevents ingression even when space in the blastocoel is made available by killing the E blastomere. We propose that in normal development this mechanism prevents the central cells from attempting to ingress when there is not sufficient space to do so.
Establishing apical-basal polarity and the PAR proteins
The events of gastrulation indicate that early embryonic cells have apical-basal polarity; for example, NMY-2 accumulates at the apical surface of ingressing cells, and the blastocoel forms at the basal surfaces. Apical-basal asymmetry is evident in embryonic cells of C. elegans as early as the 4-cell stage: PAR-3 and PAR-6 are localized to the apical surfaces, and PAR-2 and HMR-1(cadherin) are localized to the basal and lateral surfaces of cells. Drosophila and vertebrate homologues of PAR-3 and PAR-6, together with the atypical protein kinase PKC-3, have been shown to function in establishing apical-basal polarity in epithelial cells and neuroblasts (reviewed by Ohno, 2001). We have shown here that large cell separations are observed between both basal and lateral surfaces of cells in par-3 mutants. This result suggests that par-3(+) may have a role in distinguishing the basal from lateral surfaces during blastocoel formation in wild-type embryos, where large separations only occur between basal surfaces.
We have shown that cell contacts restrict PAR-3 and PAR-6 to the contact-free, apical surfaces. This mechanism differs, at least in part, from the mechanism that localizes these same proteins to the anterior surface of the 1-cell embryo. While PAR-2 has a role in determining PAR-3 localization at the 1-cell stage, PAR-2 is not required for the apical localization of PAR-3 at the 4-cell stage, nor is it required for blastocoel formation. HMR-1(cadherin) also is localized to cell contacts, but does not appear to have a role in PAR localization or blastocoel formation (our present results) (Costa et al., 1998). Interestingly, genetic or immunological inhibition of E-cadherin function in early mouse embryos does not prevent individual cells from becoming polarized, but rather causes a randomization in the axis of polarity (Johnson et al., 1986; Larue et al., 1994; Riethmacher et al., 1995). HMR-1 appears to be the only classical cadherin with a ß-catenin binding site, similar to mouse E-cadherin (Hill et al., 2001), although the C. elegans genome sequence predicts several cadherin-related proteins whose functions and localization have not been determined (Hill et al., 2001).
Localization of PAR-3, or associated proteins, to the apical surface could in principle differentiate the basal surface from the lateral surface. For example, the localization of ion channels to the apical surface could create a gradient that affects the opposite, basal, surface differently than the lateral surfaces. Vectorial ion transport is essential for formation of the blastocoel in mouse embryos, and channel proteins appear to be localized with apical-basal polarity in trophectodermal cells lining the blastocoel [reviewed by Watson and Barcroft (Watson and Barcroft, 2001)]. It will be interesting in future studies to determine how apical-basal polarity of the PAR proteins directs subsequent asymmetries. In the 1-cell embryo, the anterior-posterior polarity of the PAR proteins establishes a parallel gradient of MEX-5 in the cytoplasm. MEX-5 in turn functions to prevent the anterior expression of posterior proteins (Schubert et al., 2000). However, MEX-5 is uniformly distributed in somatic blastomeres that have an apical-basal polarity in PAR protein distribution, suggesting that MEX-5 does not mediate apical-basal polarity.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bowerman, B., Draper, B. W., Mello, C. C. and Priess, J. R. (1993). The maternal gene skn-1 encodes a protein that is distributed unequally in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 74, 443-452.[Medline]
Bowerman, B., Eaton, B. A. and Priess, J. R. (1992). skn-1, a maternally expressed gene required to specify the fate of ventral blastomeres in the early C. elegans embryo. Cell 68, 1061-1075.[Medline]
Boyd, L., Guo, S., Levitan, D., Stinchcomb, D. T. and Kemphues, K. J. (1996). PAR-2 is asymmetrically distributed and promotes association of P granules and PAR-1 with the cortex in C. elegans embryos. Development 122, 3075-3084.
Braet, F., de Zanger, R. and Wisse, E. (1997). Drying cells for SEM, AFM and TEM by hexamethyldisilazane: a study on hepatic endothelial cells. J. Microsc. 186, 84-87.[Medline]
Brenner, S. (1974). The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 77, 71-94.
Cheng, N. N., Kirby, C. M. and Kemphues, K. J. (1995). Control of cleavage spindle orientation in Caenorhabditis elegans: the role of the genes par-2 and par-3. Genetics 139, 549-559.
Costa, M., Raich, W., Agbunag, C., Leung, B., Hardin, J. and Priess, J. R. (1998). A putative catenin-cadherin system mediates morphogenesis of the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. J. Cell Biol. 141, 297-308.
Denich, K. T. R., Schierenberg, E., Ishenghi, E. and Cassada, R. (1984). Cell-lineage and developmental defects of temperature-sensitive embryonic arrest mutants of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Rouxs Arch. Dev. Biol. 193, 164-179.
Edgar, B. A., Lehman, D. A. and OFarrell, P. H. (1994). Transcriptional regulation of string (cdc25): a link between developmental programming and the cell cycle. Development 120, 3131-3143.
Etemad-Moghadam, B., Guo, S. and Kemphues, K. J. (1995). Asymmetrically distributed PAR-3 protein contributes to cell polarity and spindle alignment in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 83, 743-752.[Medline]
Fire, A., Xu, S., Montgomery, M. K., Kostas, S. A., Driver, S. E. and Mello, C. C. (1998). Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 391, 806-811.[Medline]
Gilbert, S. F. and Raunio, A. M. (1997). Embryology: Constructing the Organism. Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Goldstein, B. (1992). Induction of gut in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. Nature 357, 255-257.[Medline]
Goldstein, B. and Hird, S. N. (1996). Specification of the anteroposterior axis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 122, 1467-1474.
Guo, S. and Kemphues, K. J. (1995). par-1, a gene required for establishing polarity in C. elegans embryos, encodes a putative Ser/Thr kinase that is asymmetrically distributed. Cell 81, 611-620.[Medline]
Guo, S. and Kemphues, K. J. (1996). A non-muscle myosin required for embryonic polarity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 382, 455-458.[Medline]
Hill, E., Broadbent, I. D., Chothia, C. and Pettitt, J. (2001). Cadherin superfamily proteins in Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster. J. Mol. Biol. 305, 1011-1024.[Medline]
Hung, T. J. and Kemphues, K. J. (1999). PAR-6 is a conserved PDZ domain-containing protein that colocalizes with PAR-3 in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. Development 126, 127-135.
Johnson, M. H., Maro, B. and Takeichi, M. (1986). The role of cell adhesion in the synchronization and orientation of polarization in 8-cell mouse blastomeres. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 93, 239-255.[Medline]
Johnston, L. A. and Edgar, B. A. (1998). Wingless and Notch regulate cell-cycle arrest in the developing Drosophila wing. Nature 394, 82-84.[Medline]
Junkersdorf, B. and Schierenberg, E. (1992). Embryogenesis in C. elegans after elimination of individual blastomeres or induced alteration of the cell division order. Rouxs Arch. Dev. Biol. 202, 17-22.
Kaletta, T., Schnabel, H. and Schnabel, R. (1997). Binary specification of the embryonic lineage in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 390, 294-298.[Medline]
Kawasaki, I., Shim, Y. H., Kirchner, J., Kaminker, J., Wood, W. B. and Strome, S. (1998). PGL-1, a predicted RNA-binding component of germ granules, is essential for fertility in C. elegans. Cell 94, 635-645.[Medline]
Knight, J. K. and Wood, W. B. (1998). Gastrulation initiation in Caenorhabditis elegans requires the function of gad-1, which encodes a protein with WD repeats. Dev. Biol. 198, 253-265.[Medline]
Komai, T. (1968). Ctenophora. In Invertebrate Embryology (ed. M. Kume and K. Dan), pp. 117-124. Belgrade: Prosveta.
Krieg, C., Cole, T., Deppe, U., Schierenberg, E., Schmitt, D., Yoder, B. and von Ehrenstein, G. (1978). The cellular anatomy of embryos of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 65, 193-215.[Medline]
Larue, L., Ohsugi, M., Hirchenhain, J. and Kemler, R. (1994). E-cadherin null mutant embryos fail to form a trophectoderm epithelium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91, 8263-8267.[Abstract]
Lehman, D. A., Patterson, B., Johnston, L. A., Balzer, T., Britton, J. S., Saint, R. and Edgar, B. A. (1999). Cis-regulatory elements of the mitotic regulator, string/Cdc25. Development 126, 1793-1803.
Leptin, M. (1995). Drosophila gastrulation: from pattern formation to morphogenesis. Ann. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 11, 189-212.[Medline]
Leptin, M. and Grunewald, B. (1990). Cell shape changes during gastrulation in Drosophila. Development 110, 73-84.[Abstract]
Leung, B., Hermann, G. J. and Priess, J. R. (1999). Organogenesis of the Caenorhabditis elegans intestine. Dev. Biol. 216, 114-134.[Medline]
Lin, R., Hill, R. J. and Priess, J. R. (1998). POP-1 and anterior-posterior fate decisions in C. elegans embryos. Cell 92, 229-239.[Medline]
Lin, R., Thompson, S. and Priess, J. R. (1995). pop-1 encodes an HMG box protein required for the specification of a mesoderm precursor in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 83, 599-609.[Medline]
Martindale, M. Q. and Henry, J. Q. (1999). Intracellular fate mapping in a basal metazoan, the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, reveals the origins of mesoderm and the existence of indeterminate cell lineages. Dev. Biol. 214, 243-257.[Medline]
Mello, C. C., Draper, B. W., Krause, M., Weintraub, H. and Priess, J. R. (1992). The pie-1 and mex-1 genes and maternal control of blastomere identity in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 70, 163-176.[Medline]
Meneghini, M. D., Ishitani, T., Carter, J. C., Hisamoto, N., Ninomiya-Tsuji, J., Thorpe, C. J., Hamill, D. R., Matsumoto, K. and Bowerman, B. (1999). MAP kinase and Wnt pathways converge to downregulate an HMG-domain repressor in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 399, 793-797.[Medline]
Miller, J. R. and McClay, D. R. (1997a). Changes in the pattern of adherens junction-associated ß-catenin accompany morphogenesis in the sea urchin embryo. Dev. Biol. 192, 310-322.[Medline]
Miller, J. R. and McClay, D. R. (1997b). Characterization of the role of cadherin in regulating cell adhesion during sea urchin development. Dev. Biol. 192, 323-339.[Medline]
Oda, H., Tsukita, S. and Takeichi, M. (1998). Dynamic behavior of the cadherin-based cell-cell adhesion system during Drosophila gastrulation. Dev. Biol. 203, 435-450.[Medline]
Ohno, S. (2001). Intercellular junctions and cellular polarity: the PAR-aPKC complex, a conserved core cassette playing fundamental roles in cell polarity. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 13, 641-648.[Medline]
Portereiko, M. F. and Mango, S. E. (2001). Early morphogenesis of the Caenorhabditis elegans pharynx. Dev. Biol. 233, 482-494.[Medline]
Powell-Coffman, J. A., Knight, J. and Wood, W. B. (1996). Onset of C. elegans gastrulation is blocked by inhibition of embryonic transcription with an RNA polymerase antisense RNA. Dev. Biol. 178, 472-483.[Medline]
Pratis, V., Casey, E., Collar, D. and Austin, J. (2001). Creation of low-copy integrated transgenic lines in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 157, 1217-1226.
Priess, J. R. and Hirsh, D. I. (1986). Caenorhabditis elegans morphogenesis: The role of the cytoskeleton in elongation of the embryo. Dev. Biol. 117, 156-173.[Medline]
Riethmacher, D., Brinkmann, V. and Birchmeier, C. (1995). A targeted mutation in the mouse E-cadherin gene results in defective preimplantation development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 855-859.[Abstract]
Rocheleau, C. E., Downs, W. D., Lin, R., Wittmann, C., Bei, Y., Cha, Y. H., Ali, M., Priess, J. R. and Mello, C. C. (1997). Wnt signaling and an APC-related gene specify endoderm in early C. elegans embryos. Cell 90, 707-716.[Medline]
Rocheleau, C. E., Yasuda, J., Shin, T. H., Lin, R., Sawa, H., Okano, H., Priess, J. R., Davis, R. J. and Mello, C. C. (1999). WRM-1 activates the LIT-1 protein kinase to transduce anterior/posterior polarity signals in C. elegans. Cell 97, 717-726.[Medline]
Rogalski, T. M. and Riddle, D. L. (1988). A Caenorhabditis elegans RNA polymerase II gene, ama-1 IV, and nearby essential genes. Genetics 118, 61-74.
Schierenberg, E. (1987). Reversal of polarity and early cell-cell interaction in the embryo of C. elegans. Dev. Biol. 122, 452-463.[Medline]
Schnabel, R. and Priess, J. R. (1997). Specification of cell fates in the early embryo. In C. elegans II (ed. D. L. Riddle, T. Blumenthal, B. J. Meyer and J. R. Priess), pp. 361-382. Plainview, New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Schubert, C. M., Lin, R., de Vries, C. J., Plasterk, R. H. A. and Priess, J. R. (2000). MEX-5 and MEX-6 function to establish soma/germline asymmetry in early C. elegans embryos. Mol. Cell 5, 671-682.[Medline]
Seydoux, G., Mello, C. C., Pettitt, J., Wood, W. B., Priess, J. R. and Fire, A. (1996). Repression of gene expression in the embryonic germ lineage of C. elegans. Nature 382, 713-716.[Medline]
Shelton, C. A. and Bowerman, B. (1996). Time-dependent responses to glp-1-mediated inductions in early C. elegans embryos. Development 122, 2043-2050.
Simske, J. S. and Hardin, J. (2001). Getting into shape: epidermal morphogenesis in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. BioEssays 22, 12-23.
Sulston, J. E., Schierenberg, E., White, J. G. and Thomson, J. N. (1983). The embryonic cell lineage of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 100, 64-119.[Medline]
Sweeton, D., Parks, S., Costa, M. and Wieschaus, E. (1991). Gastrulation in Drosophila: formation of the ventral furrow and posterior midgut invaginations. Development 112, 775-789.[Abstract]
Tabara, H., Grishok, A. and Mello, C. C. (1998). RNAi in C. elegans: soaking in the genome sequence. Science 282, 430-431.
Tabuse, Y., Izumi, Y., Piano, F., Kemphues, K. J., Miwa, J. and Ohno, S. (1998). Atypical protein kinase C cooperates with PAR-3 to establish embryonic polarity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 125, 3607-3614.
Tepass, U. and Hartenstein, V. (1994). Development of intercellular junctions in the Drosophila embryo. Dev. Biol. 161, 563-596.[Medline]
Thomas, C., DeVries, P., Hardin, J. and White, J. (1996). Four-Dimensional Imaging: Computer Visualization of 3D Movements in Living Specimens. Science 273, 603-607.
Wallenfang, M. R. and Seydoux, G. (2000). Polarization of the anterior-posterior axis of C. elegans is a microtubule-directed process. Nature 408, 89-92.[Medline]
Watson, A. J. and Barcroft, L. C. (2001). Regulation of blastocyst formation. Front. Biosci. 6, D708-730.[Medline]
Young, P. E., Pesacreata, T. C. and Kiehart, D. P. (1991). Dynamic changes in the distribution of cytoplasmic myosin during Drosophila embryogenesis. Development 111, 1-14.[Abstract]
Zhu, J., Hill, R. J., Heid, P. J., Fukuyama, M., Sugimoto, A., Priess, J. R. and Rothman, J. H. (1997). end-1 encodes an apparent GATA factor that specifies the endoderm precursor in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. Genes Dev. 11, 2883-2896.