Centro de Biología Molecular, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: gmorata{at}cbm.uam.es)
Accepted September 7, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Pnr, GATA factors, Selector genes, DV body axis, Dpp, Dorsal closure, Drosophila
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
By contrast, relatively little is known about genetic subdivisions of the body in the DV axis. A crucial event is the formation in early embryogenesis of a gradient of nuclear expression of the Dorsal protein, whose nuclear translocation requires the activity of the Toll receptor. Spatial restriction of Toll activity is dependent on the accumulation in the ventral region of the active form of the Toll ligand Spatzle, the result of a proteolytic processing catalysed by the serine protease encoded by the gene easter. In turn, the restriction of Easter activity to the ventral region depends on the localised activity of the heparan sulfate transferase encoded by pipe. The Pipe protein is thought to modify the proteoglycans of the matrix to allow interaction with the Easter protease in order to cleave the Spatzle protein (Anderson, 1998).
The Dorsal gradient is a principal element establishing local differences along the DV axis. Different levels of nuclear Dorsal regulate the activity of zygotic target genes such as snail, rhomboid and decapentaplegic (dpp), which are involved in the specification of different cell types. In early embryos, the Dpp product is localised in the dorsal half and its activity determines the formation of dorsal embryonic structures: in absence of dpp activity embryos become ventralised (Irish and Gelbart, 1987), whereas derepressed activity of the Dpp pathway results in dorsalised embryos (Nellen et al., 1996).
The subdivision of the dorsal ectoderm into distinct parts is achieved through the establishment of a complex Dpp activity gradient in the early embryo. This involves the function of another TGFß molecule, encoded by Screw (Scw), which potentiates Dpp signalling (Arora et al., 1994), and that of the secreted protein Short gastrulation (Sog). The activity of Dpp/Scw is modulated by the Sog gradient (Neul and Ferguson, 1998): high Sog levels in the lateral region block Dpp/Scw and allow the formation of neuroectoderm; intermediate levels attenuate Dpp/Scw function to specify dorsal epidermis; low Sog levels enhance Dpp/Scw activity to form the most dorsal tissue, amnioserosa (Ashe and Levine, 1999). The response to Dpp/Scw is further complicated by the activity of brinker (brk), which encodes a transcriptional repressor (Zhang et al., 2001) and is expressed in lateral stripes in the neuroectoderm (Jazwinska et al., 1999b). brk suppresses the response to Dpp signalling, but its activity is repressed by high levels of Dpp in the dorsal ectoderm (Jazwinska et al., 1999b). The nature of the interactions between Dpp and Brk draws a border of the patterning influence of Dpp/Scw.
In addition to its early role specifying dorsal ectoderm, dpp has other embryonic functions that are independent of the polarity of the DV axis; it plays a role in dorsal closure, midgut development and tracheal formation (Affolter et al., 1994). The existence of these other functions is reflected in the dynamics of its expression. Although in early development dpp transcripts cover the half dorsal region of the embryo, after stage 11 (germ band elongation) they disappear from much of the dorsal embryos and become restricted to two longitudinal stripes: a dorsal one at the border of the epidermis with the amnioserosa, and the other in the lateral region (St Johnston and Gelbart, 1987). The expression of dpp in the dorsal stripe is under the control of the JNK pathway (Glise and Noselli, 1997) and is involved in embryonic dorsal closure.
The Dpp activity gradient probably achieves its different roles by activating various target genes. Several of these have been identified that respond to different thresholds of the Dpp/Scw gradient (Ashe et al., 2000). They include Race, hindsight, tailup, u-shaped (ush) and pannier (pnr) (Ramain et al., 1993; Frank and Rushlow, 1996; Rush and Levine, 1997), which define distinct dorsal domains and are probably instrumental in subdividing the dorsal ectoderm into different parts. pnr is a gene encoding a zinc-finger protein containing a GATA motif (Ramain et al., 1993; Winick et al., 1993), which has several embryonic functions connected with dorsal closure and heart development (Heitzler et al., 1996; Gajewski et al., 1999).
During embryogenesis, pnr is expressed in a complex pattern (Winick et al., 1993; Heitzler et al., 1996); in early embryos it is expressed in a broad dorsal domain extending from 20% to 60% of the egg length (Winick et al., 1993), a region including the presumptive amnioserosa and dorsal epidermis. This pattern is later refined, and by germ band retraction pnr is expressed in a longitudinal dorsal domain extending along the thoracic and abdominal segments (Calleja et al., 2000). This late embryonic pattern resembles that described for imaginal development, where it has been shown that pnr has an instructive, selector-like function, determining the identity of the medial dorsal structures of thoracic and abdominal segments (Calleja et al., 2000).
pnr embryonic expression and its role in adult development suggest that it may be involved in subdividing the dorsal part of the body into distinct genetic domains, but to date this possibility has not been examined. It has been reported that in pnr mutant embryos dorsal closure is defective and as a consequence the embryos present holes in the dorsal cuticle (Heitzler et al., 1996). We investigate the embryonic function of pnr by studying the effects of alterations of pnr activity on the larval patterns and on the expression of genes involved in larval patterning. We show that it has an instructive role in specifying the dorsomedial pattern of all thoracic and abdominal segments. Our results indicate that pnr is the gene responsible for a major subdivision along the DV axis in the Drosophila body. We also show that pnr is involved in embryonic dorsal closure by activating dpp in the cells in the leading edge.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To distinguish hemizygous or homozygous mutant embryos from their heterozygous siblings, we made use of balancer chromosomes carrying lacZ transgenes: FM7c ftz-lacZ (Klambt et al., 1991), CyO wg-lacZ (Ingham et al., 1991) and TM3 hb lacZ (Hyduk and Percival-Smith, 1996). Other lacZ lines used were en-lacZ (Simcox et al., 1991), brkM12-lacZ (Jazwinska et al., 1999a) and ush-lacZ.
Gal4/UAS experiments
The UAS-pnr chromosome was a gift from Mariann Bienz and has been described elsewhere (Heitzler et al., 1996). We also used the UAS-tkvDN (Haerry et al., 1998). The Gal4 lines used were en-Gal4 (Tabata et al., 1995), Ubx-Gal4 (M. Calleja and G. M., unpublished), arm-Gal4 (Sanson et al., 1996), ptc-Gal4 (Wilder and Perrimon, 1995) and wg-Gal4 (M. Calleja and G. M., unpublished). LP1-Gal4 drives expression in the amnioserosa (G. M., unpublished).
Analysis of embryonic cuticles
Embryos were collected overnight and aged an additional 12 hours, then first instar larvae were dechorionated in commercial bleach for 3 minutes and the vitelline membrane removed using heptano-methanol 1:1. Then, after washing with methanol and 0.1% Triton X-100, larvae were mounted in Hoyers lactic acid 1:1 and allow to clear at 65°C for at least 24 hours.
Immunostaining
Embryos were stained using standard procedures for confocal microscopy (Gonzalez-Crespo et al., 1998); secondary antibodies were coupled to Red-X and FITC fluorochroms (Jackson Immunoresearch) and embryos were analysed under a laser-scan Zeiss microscope.
In situ hybridisation and antibody/in situ hybridisation double labelling were performed as described previously (Azpiazu and Frasch, 1993), and embryos were mounted in Permount (Fisher Scientific). Digoxigenin-labelled RNA probes were synthesised as described (Tautz and Pfeifle, 1989). Those used were pnr full-length antisense RNA probe synthesised from a plasmid provided by Pat Simpson and dpp antisense RNA probe synthesised from a plasmid provided by Ana Macías.
The antibodies used were anti-Cad (Macdonald and Struhl, 1986), anti BP102 (hybridoma bank), anti-Eve (Frasch et al., 1986), anti-Ftz (Krause et al., 1988), anti-Kr (provided by Jordi Casanova), anti-Pnr and rabbit anti-ß-galactosidase (Capel).
Production of an anti-PNR antibody
We have studied (with the help of Juan Pablo Albar of the Centro Nacional de Biotecnologia) the amino-acid sequence of the Pnr protein using the PeptieStructure program, which makes secondary structure predictions for a peptide sequence. The predictions include measures for antigenicity index, chain flexibility, hydrophobicity and surface probability. In accordance with these data, we have chosen two peptides: a first peptide spanning amino acids 7 to 26 (DGDSTSDQQSTRDYPHFSGDYC) and a second from amino acid 272 to 284 (TRKRKPKKTGSGSC). The peptides were prepared as a fusion with KLH to increase the antigenicity of each peptide. Antiserum against these peptides was raised in rabbits. We performed the first injection with 250 µg of a mix of the two peptides and the next five injections with a mix of 125 µg each injection. The second injection was 21 days after the first, and the other boosters were given also with a 21 days interval. Antiserum from the rabbit was tested against fixed Drosophila embryos.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
As development proceeds the overall extent of the pnr domain in the AP axis does not change; the only significant modification is that between embryonic stages 10 and 11, pnr transcription is repressed in much of the A8 segment (Fig. 1B,D), thus leaving a gap of expression that has already been noted (Calleja et al., 2000). The small posterior portion in the posterior region in late embryos that does not contains pnr activity exhibits caudal (cad) activity (Fig. 1E). It corresponds to the presumptive A10 segment (Moreno and Morata, 1999), which gives rise to analia structures.
The extent of the Pnr domain in the DV axis is also modified during embryogenesis; by stage 10 there is no detectable pnr activity in the amnioserosa cells (Fig. 1B), even though in earlier stages it is expressed in the amnioserosa presumptive region (Fig. 1A,C). We have mapped pnr expression (Fig. 1F) with respect to that of dpp: a determinant of dorsal development in embryos and a positive regulator of pnr (Winick et al., 1993). In early embryonic stages, dpp is expressed in the dorsal half of the embryo (Ferguson and Anderson, 1992), but by stage 10 the Dpp product lacks in the most dorsal tissue (amnioserosa) and occupies about half of the epidermis, from the border of the amnioserosa to a mid-lateral region (St Johnston and Gelbart, 1987). This is later resolved in two stripes by subsequent loss of expression in the mid-dorsal region. The expression of pnr is confined within the domain defined by the two dpp stripes. dpp and pnr overlap in the dorsal region, and share a common border with the amnioserosa (Fig. 1F).
We have studied some aspects of the regulation of pnr activity. The loss of expression in the A8 segment depends on Abdominal-B (Abd-B) activity: in Abd-B mutants pnr is expressed in the A8 site (Fig. 2A). However, none of the known Abd-B target genes expressed in the A8 segment, spalt (sal), empty spiracles (ems) or grain (gnr) (Castelli-Gair, 1998), mediates this regulation, because pnr expression is not altered after mutation of any of these genes (not shown). Finally, we found that in mutant embryos for lines (lin), a co-factor of Abd-B function (Castelli-Gair, 1998), pnr is not downregulated in A8 (Fig. 2B).
|
On the ventral side, the pnr domain abuts that of iro (Calleja et al., 2000), raising the possibility that iro might be a negative regulator of pnr. However homozygous Df(3L)iro2 embryos, totally deficient for the Iroquois complex (Leyns et al., 1996), show normal pnr expression (not shown).
Because pnr is activated by dpp in early development (Winick et al., 1993; Ashe et al., 2000), we have checked whether its late expression is negatively regulated by brk, an antagonist of the Dpp pathway (Campbell and Tomlinson, 1999; Jazwinska, et al., 1999a; Minami et al., 1999). brk is expressed in a longitudinal domain in the lateral region of the embryo (Jazwinska et al., 1999b), close to the Pnr domain; thus, it might regulate a possible activating role of dpp on pnr. Besides, there is evidence (Jazwinska et al., 1999b; Ashe et al., 2000) that alterations in brk activity modify the extent of the early Pnr domain. Double label experiments show that in wild-type late embryos (from stage 10), pnr and brk define parallel longitudinal domains. brk is expressed in a more ventral position but there is an ample zone of overlap between the two domains (Fig. 2C). In brkM68 embryos, pnr expression from stage 10 onwards is like the wild type (Marty et al., 2000). As there is compelling evidence that early pnr activity is regulated by brk levels (Jazwinska et al., 1999b; Ashe et al., 2000), it suggests that pnr is under different control in late embryonic development. This is supported by the observation that in embryos lacking tkv zygotic function, the extent of the pnr domain is normal, although expression levels are weaker than in wild-type embryos (Affolter et al., 1994). It also supported by our finding that driving a dominant negative form of thick veins (UAS-tkv-DN) (Haerry et al., 1998) with Ubx-Gal4 does not alter normal pnr activity (not shown).
The developmental role of pnr during embryogenesis: phenotype of loss and of gain of pnr activity
We have studied the effects on the larval cuticle patterns of alterations in pnr activity. The principal morphological features of the dorsal and ventral epidermis of the wild-type first instar larva are illustrated in Fig. 3. There are various types of cuticle differentiations on the dorsal side, which are easily discernible from the thick denticles present in the ventral side. The arrangement of cell types is not uniform in the dorsal cuticle. The dorsomedial region differentiates all the dorsal pattern elements, described by Heemskerk and DiNardo (Heemskerk and DiNardo, 1994), but the dorsolateral region lacks some of these elements. Especially relevant is the lack of dorsal triangles [cell type 1 in Heemskerk and DiNardo (Heemskerk and DiNardo, 1994)] in the dorsolateral region (Fig. 4), which differentiates only spinules (cell type 4). These dorsal triangles are especially clear in the abdominal segments. As they do not extend to the lateral region, the distinction between the medial and lateral region of the dorsal epidermis can be assayed by the presence or absence of dorsal triangles.
|
|
There are two principal phenotypic alterations in pnrVX6 embryos. The first is that dorsal closure is defective, as has already been reported (Heitzler et al., 1996). The left and right sides do not fuse properly, often leaving holes in the dorsal cuticle, which gives the embryos a characteristic basket shape. This indicates an involvement on pnr in dorsal closure that we examine below. Although there are holes in the dorsal epidermis, dorsal cuticular elements are present in pnrVX6 larvae (Fig. 3).
The second phenotypic trait is the disappearance in the abdominal region of the most dorsal pattern elements, the dorsal triangles, which appear to be replaced by dorsolateral spinules (Fig. 3). Our interpretation is that in the absence of pnr the dorsomedial pattern cannot be formed and the dorsolateral pattern extends dorsally. We have measured the width of the dorsal domain (as indicated by the distance from the border of the amnioserosa to the middle Dpp stripe) and found that there is a normal number of cells. This suggests that in the absence of pnr function, there is no cell loss but that the dorsomedial domain is transformed into the dorsolateral one. This is in good agreement with the previous observation (Calleja et al., 2000) that in pnrVX6 mutant embryos the iro domain extends dorsally. As expected, no effect is seen in the ventral body region.
We expected an effect on the amnioserosa, because pnr is expressed in early embryos in the entire dorsal half, which includes the presumptive amnioserosa region. Moreover, Heitzler et al. (Heizler et al., 1996) report that in pnrVX6 mutants, amnioserosa cells die prematurely. However, we fail to see any alteration in pnrVX6 embryos; the amnioserosa cells appear morphologically normal until the end of embryogenesis. They also express molecular markers such as ush (Fig. 5B). Besides, a characteristic phenotypic trait of the genes required for amnioserosa development is that the mutant embryos adopt an u-shaped morphology (Frank and Rushlow, 1996), owing to their inability to retract the germ band. In pnrVX6 embryos, germ band retraction is normal, suggesting that amnioserosa development is not affected.
|
The principal conclusion from the ectopic expression experiments can be summarised by saying that pnr is able to induce a transformation of the ventral and dorsolateral patterns into the mediodorsal ones. In arm-Gal4/UAS-pnr larvae, the entire epidermis becomes dorsalised (Fig. 4F,G). Close inspection of these larvae shows the presence in the abdominal segments of a continuous belt of dorsal triangles, indicating that the transformation is towards the mediodorsal pattern. A similar observation is made using a Ubx-Gal4 driver (Fig. 4B,E). This line mimics the expression of the wild-type Ultrabithorax (Ubx) gene in embryos and shows expression from the posterior compartment of the second thoracic segment (T2) down to the abdominal segment A7, although it is weaker in the more posterior abdominal segments. The presence of the Pnr protein in the entire Ubx domain can be demonstrated with the anti-Pnr antibody (Fig. 4C).
The transformation of ventral to dorsal epidermis can also be seen in lines driving expression in restricted regions of segments. en-Gal4/UAS-pnr embryos show the transformation in the P compartments; a thin stripe of dorsal epidermis can be seen in the ventral region of each segment. In wg-Gal4/UAS-pnr embryos the transformation is restricted to a portion of the anterior compartment (Fig. 4H) that corresponds to the embryonic expression of wg, just anterior to the en stripe (Bejsovec and Martinez Arias, 1991). These results suggest that transformation induced by Pnr is cell autonomous, restricted only to the cells containing the product.
We have not tested whether the effect of ectopic pnr expression extends to the mesoderm, but it clearly affects the central nervous system (CNS). In Ubx-Gal4/UAS-pnr embryos, the ventral cord is clearly altered, precisely in the Ubx domain (not shown), suggesting that the transformation induced by pnr affects all the ectodermal derivatives.
In contrast to the observed in the epidermis and the CNS, ectopic pnr expression does not seem to affect in the amnioserosa, the most dorsal ectodermal derivative. In Ubx-Gal4/UAS-pnr embryos the amnioserosa develops normally even though it contains high levels of Pnr protein (Fig. 4C). We have used a amnioserosa specific driver LP1 (see Fig. 7) to express pnr only in this tissue and do not observe any defect. In Ubx-Gal4/UAS-pnr or LP1/UAS-pnr embryos, germ band retraction is normal.
|
The wild-type expression of ush is shown in Fig. 5A; it covers the amnioserosa and also part of the dorsal domain in the epidermis, where it overlaps with pnr. In the dorsal epidermis, the ush domain is similar to that of pnr: the two genes define longitudinal domains and both are downregulated in A8. The difference is that the ush domain is narrower. In absence of pnr activity (pnrVX6 embryos), ush expression in the epidermis is abolished, whereas that in the amnioserosa it is unaffected (Fig. 5B). Conversely, ectopic pnr activity induces ush expression outside its normal domain (Fig. 5C), suggesting an upstream control by pnr. This control of ush by pnr provides an explanation for the downregulation of ush in the A8 segment: ush expression depends on that of pnr, which is turned off. We note that ush has to have other regulators, because its expression in the amnioserosa does not depend on pnr (Fig. 5B).
The wild-type expression of dpp changes during embryogenesis, suggesting the existence of several regulatory tiers; the original broad dorsal expression is resolved in late embryonic stages into two thin stripes running in the anteroposterior direction (Fig. 5D). A dorsal stripe is located at the junction of the epidermis with the amnioserosa, whereas the other is located more ventrally. The dorsal stripe probably reflects a requirement for activity of the Dpp pathway in dorsal closure, as indicated by the dorsal open phenotype of mutations in Dpp transducers such as think veins and punt (Affolter et al., 1994). It is under the control of the JNK pathway (Glise and Noselli, 1997). It requires the activity of hemipterous (hep) a mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MAPKK) related to vertebrate Jun N-terminal kinase kinase (JNKK). hep controls dorsal closure by independently activating dpp and puckered (pc) a gene necessary for the movement of the leading edges during dorsal closure (Martin-Blanco et al., 1998).
We find that, just as in hep mutants, in pnrVX6 embryos, the dorsal Dpp stripe disappears, although the stripe located more ventrally is not altered (Fig. 5E). Moreover, ectopic pnr activity also induces ectopic dpp expression (Fig. 5F). These results argue that pnr acts as a positive regulator of dpp in late embryogenesis. We note, however, that the dorsal dpp stripe of the wild type is not interrupted in A8, as might be expected if it required continuous pnr activity. As the downregulation of pnr occurs between stages 10 and 11 (Fig. 1B,D) and by that time the dorsal dpp stripe is already formed, we suspect the earlier pnr expression induces dpp activity in A8 and later dpp maintains its own expression.
The loss of the dorsal dpp stripe in the absence of either pnr function or JNK activity (Glise and Noselli, 1997) suggested that pnr might be required for the initiation or functioning of the JNK pathway. Therefore, we checked the activity of the JNK pathway in pnrVX6 embryos by examining the expression of puc, the final element of the cascade. The result is that puc activity is not altered (Fig. 6), indicating that the formation of the dorsal dpp stripe requires independent inputs from the JNK pathway and from pnr.
|
The Pnr product is ineffective in the amnioserosa
Despite its overall effect on the epidermis and the CNS, there is no detectable effect of pnr activity in the amnioserosa. For example, in Ubx-Gal4/UAS-pnr embryos the amnioserosa appeared to be unaffected even though it contains Pnr protein (Fig. 4C). Moreover, in those embryos there is an expansion of dpp expression all over the epidermis except in the amnioserosa (not shown), suggesting that pnr is unable to induce dpp activity there. We have explored this phenomenon by using a new Gal4 line, LP1, which drives high expression levels specifically in the amnioserosa (Fig. 7). In LP1/UAS-pnr embryos there is a high level of Pnr protein in the amnioserosa (Fig. 7B) but no sign of ectopic dpp expression (Fig. 7D). In addition, the expression of specific amnioserosa genes such as Kr is not affected (Fig. 7C) and germ band retraction is normal. This result suggests that the developmental function of pnr is inhibited in the amnioserosa at the post-transcriptional level. It resembles the phenomenon of phenotypic suppression/posterior prevalence, described for Hox gene function in the AP axis (Gonzalez-Reyes and Morata, 1990; Duboule, 1991; Duboule and Morata, 1994).
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
pnr expression and regulation during embryogenesis
In early development, pnr is activated in response to dpp activity (Winick et al., 1993; Ashe et al., 2000) in a broad dorsal domain, which we show extends from parasegments 2/3 to the border between 13/14, although the borders are not strictly parasegmental. The control by dpp is consistent with the effect of brk mutations on early pnr expression (Jazwinska et al., 1999b; Ashe et al., 2000).
The original expression domain is substantially modified during embryogenesis. By germ band extension (stage 10) pnr activity is limited dorsally by the border between the epidermis and the amnioserosa, and laterally by the dorsal border of iro (Calleja et al., 2000). We do not know which factor(s) is responsible for the loss of expression in the amnioserosa, although likely candidates are several genes specifically active in this region, such as Race, zen, hindsight or serpent (Frank and Rushlow, 1996; Rush and Levine, 1997). In addition, we do not know how the late expression is regulated at the lateral border. It is not achieved by iro, as the loss of the entire Iroquois complex does not affect pnr expression.
Another modification occurs between stages 10 and 11, and is the loss of expression in the A8 segment. Expectedly, it is under the control of Abd-B; in Abd-B mutants the gap in A8 does not appear (Fig. 2A). However, none of the known Abd-B target genes sal, ems and grn (Castelli-Gair, 1998) is involved in the regulation, as their mutations do not affect pnr expression. Our finding that lin, which is considered as a co-factor of Abd-B (Castelli-Gair, 1998), is involved (Fig. 2B), suggests that downregulation of pnr in the A8 segment is mediated either by an unknown Abd-B target or directly by interaction between the Abd-B and Lin products. It is not clear why pnr activity has to be eliminated precisely in the A8 segment. We notice that this segment gives rise to the spiracles, protruding structures that are very different from those differentiated by the other abdominal segments where pnr remains active. In fact, there are several Abd-B target genes specifically activated in the spiracles (Castelli-Gair, 1998). It is possible that the formation of these structures demands that the pnr activity, which specifies larval epidermis of very different morphology, be turned off.
Interestingly, whereas early pnr expression is under dpp control, the late expression is not. Late inactivation of the Dpp pathway, using a dominant negative form of thick veins, does not modify pnr expression. In addition, mutations at brk, which allow higher response levels to Dpp signalling (Campbell and Tomlinson, 1999; Jazwinska et al., 1999a; Minami et al., 1999) fail to affect pnr expression in late development (Marty et al., 2000; H. H. and G. M., unpublished), although they affect early expression (Jazwinska et al., 1999b; Ashe et al., 2000). This indicates that pnr expression is controlled independently in early and late development, and by different factors.
pnr functions during embryogenesis
There is already evidence that pnr has distinct functions during embryogenesis. Its activity in the dorsal epidermis is required for dorsal closure (Heitzler et al., 1996) and it is also expressed in the dorsal mesoderm where it is involved in the specification of cardiac cells (Gajewski et al., 1999).
We provide evidence for another and more general function of pnr. Our results indicate that it specifies the identity of a dorsomedial body region that spans from the labial segment to the end of the abdomen. This is clearly demonstrated by the effects seen in mutant embryos and after ectopic expression experiments. In pnrVX6 embryos, the dorsomedial cuticle does not form, and there is an expansion of the dorsolateral epidermis (Fig. 4), suggesting that the cells of the dorsomedial domain acquire a dorsolateral fate. The ectopic expression experiments also point to the same conclusion. In larvae like arm-Gal4/UAS-pnr, the entire larval epidermis acquires dorsomedial features (Fig. 4F,G), whereas using more restricted drivers (Ubx-Gal4, wg-Gal4) the transformation is limited to the region where the Pnr protein is present (Fig. 4D,E.H), suggesting that the effect of pnr is cell autonomous. Thus, the Pnr protein is able by itself to trigger a developmental pathway, a typical property of selector gene products (Mann and Morata, 2000). In addition, it induces a ventral to dorsal transformation as corresponding to each segment, indicating that it acts in combination with Hox genes. These observations indicate that selector genes in the AP and DV axes have to co-operate to determine the different spatial patterns.
The transformation of ventral and dorsolateral epidermis towards dorsomedial observed after ectopic pnr expression is also reflected in the activity of marker genes of the distinct regions. Characteristic genes of the ventral neuroectoderm such as BP102 for the CNS (not shown) or buttonhead (C. Estella and G. M., unpublished) are suppressed. In addition, pnr is able to suppress iro activity (Calleja et al., 2000), a property that, as in the adult cells, is important to keep the dorsomedial and dorsolateral domains separate during embryogenesis.
The developmental effects observed after either loss or the gain of pnr function in the larval epidermis resemble those reported for the adult cuticle. In the latter, it has been shown that the activity of pnr maintains the segregation of the dorsal cuticle into medial and lateral domains, and also specifies the identity of a medial one (Calleja et al., 2000). This indicates that pnr has a general function involved in the subdivision of the body along the DV axis. The longitudinal stripe of pnr expression established during embryogenesis is probably a major constituent of the body and represents an zone of common identity.
In addition, Pnr has other more concrete functions connected with the specification of cardiac cells (Gajewski et al., 1999) and embryonic dorsal closure (Heitzler et al., 1996). Our results indicate that the involvement of pnr in dorsal closure is exerted through its activation of dpp in late embryogenesis, which is responsible for the formation of the Dpp stripe at the junction of the epidermis with the amnioserosa. Normal functioning of the Dpp pathway in this region is required for dorsal closure (Affolter et al., 1994; Glise and Noselli, 1997), suggesting that defects in dorsal closure observed in pnr mutant embryos (Heitzler et al., 1996) is the result of the lack of the dorsal dpp stripe.
There is evidence that this dpp expression requires function of the JNK kinase pathway (Glise and Noselli, 1997), and we show that it also requires pnr activity. Our observation that in absence of pnr activity the expression of puc, the end element of the JNK pathway (Martin-Blanco et al., 1998) is normal, indicates that in pnr mutants the JNK pathway is normally active. In turn, it shows that the activation of dpp in the dorsal stripe requires independent inputs from both the JNK pathway and pnr.
Phenotypic suppression of pnr in the amnioserosa?
One intriguing aspect of pnr function is that it is able to induce a developmental modification in all ectodermal structures along the DV body axis except in the amnioserosa, the most dorsal tissue. Even under conditions in which pnr is transcribed and translated in all the amnioserosa cells (Fig. 7), it does not appear to elicit any developmental effect; none of the amnioserosa marker genes is affected by forcing pnr activity and the retraction of the germ band [a morphological indicator of the function of specific amnioserosa genes (Frank and Rushlow, 1996)] is also normal. Similarly, pnr is able to induce dpp activity all over the body except in the amnioserosa (Fig. 5, Fig. 7), where the presence of the Pnr protein appears to be inconsequential. This situation resembles the phenotypic suppression/posterior prevalence phenomenon discovered in the Hox genes specifying the AP body axis (Gonzalez-Reyes and Morata, 1990; Duboule, 1991; Duboule and Morata, 1994). It consists of a functional inactivation of a Hox protein by the presence of another normally expressed in a more posterior region of the body. It is conceivable that there might be a dorsal prevalence in the DV axis, by which dorsal expressing genes are functionally dominant over the ventral expressing ones. It would be expected that genes specifying amnioserosa would be able to transform all structures as they would be ranking highest in the functional hierarchy.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Affolter, M., Nellen, D., Nussbaumerm, U. and Basler, K. (1994). Multiple requeriments for the receptor serine/threonine kinase thick veins reveal novel functions of TGFß homologs during Drosophila embryogenesis. Development 120, 3105-3117.
Anderson, K. V. (1998). Pinning down positional information: dorsal-ventral polarity in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 95, 439-442.[Medline]
Arora, K., Levine, M. and OConnor, M. B. (1994). The screw gene encodes a ubiquitously expressed member of the TGF-ß 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., Mannervick, M. and Levine, M. (2000). Dpp signaling thresholds in the dorsal ectoderm of the Drosophila embryo. Development 127, 3305-3312.
Azpiazu, N. and Frasch, M. (1993). tinman and bagpipe: two homeobox genes that determine cell fates in the dorsal mesoderm of Drosophila. Genes Dev. 7, 1325-1340.[Abstract]
Bejsovec, A. and Martinez Arias, A. (1991). Roles of wingless in patterning the larval epidermis of Drosophila. Development 113, 471-485.[Abstract]
Bokor, P. and DiNardo, S. (1996). The roles of hedgehog, wingless and lines in patterning the dorsal epidermis in Drosophila. Development 122, 1083-1092.
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.
Brown, S. and Castelli-Gair Hombria, J. (2000). Drosophila grain encodes a GATA transcription factor required for cell rearrangement during morphogenesis. Development 127, 4867-4876.
Calleja, M., Herranz, H., Estella, C., Casal, J., Lawrence, P., Simpson, P. and Morata, G. (2000). Generation of medial and lateral dorsal body domains by the pannier gene of Drosophila. Development 127, 3971-3980.
Campbell, G. and Tomlinson, A. (1999). Transducing the Dpp morphogen gradient in the wing of Drosophila: regulation of Dpp targets by brinker. Cell 96, 553-562.[Medline]
Casanova, J., Sánchez-Herrero, E. and Morata, G. (1986). Identification and characterization of a parasegment specific regulatory element of the Abdominal-B gene of Drosophila. Cell 47, 627-636.[Medline]
Castelli-Gair, J. (1998). The lines gene of Drosophila is required for specific functions of the Abdominal-B protein. Development 125, 1269-1274.
Dalton, D., Chadwick, R. and McGuinnis, W. (1989). Expression and embryonic function of empty spiracles: a Drosophila homeobox gene with two patterning functions on the anterior-posterior axis of the embryo. Genes Dev. 3, 1940-1956.[Abstract]
de Celis, J. F., Barrio, R. and Kafatos, F. C. (1996). A gene complex acting downstream of dpp in Drosophila wing morphogenesis. Nature 381, 421-424.[Medline]
Duboule, D. (1991). Patterning in the vertebrate limb. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 1, 211-216.[Medline]
Duboule, D. and Morata, G. (1994). Colinearity and functional hierarchy among genes of the homeotic complexes. Trends Genet. 10, 358-364.[Medline]
Ferguson, E. L. and Anderson, K. V. (1992). decapentaplegic acts as a morphogen to organize dorsal-ventral pattern in the Drosophila embryo. Cell 71, 451-461.[Medline]
Frank, L. H. and Rushlow, C. (1996). A group of genes required for the maintenance of the amnioserosa tissue in Drosophila. Development 122, 1343-1352.
Frasch, M., Glover, D. M. and Saumweber, H. (1986). Nuclear antigens follow different pathways into daughter nuclei during mitosis in early Drosophila embryos. J. Cell Sci. 82, 155-172.[Abstract]
Gajewski, K., Fossett, N., Molkentin, J. D. and Schulz, R. A. (1999). The zinc finger proteins Pannier and GATA4 function as cardiogenic factors in Drosophila. Development 126, 5679-5688.
Glise, B. and Noselli, S. (1997). Coupling the Jun amini-terminal kinase and decapentaplegic signaling pathways in Drosophila morphogenesis. Genes Dev. 11, 1738-1747.[Abstract]
Gonzalez-Crespo, S., Abu-Shaar, S. M., Torres, M., Martinez, A. C., Mann, R. S. and Morata, G. (1998). Antagonism between extradenticle function and Hedgehog signalling in the developing limb. Nature 394, 196-200.[Medline]
Gonzalez-Reyes, A. and Morata, G. (1990). The development effect of overexpressing a Ubx product in Drosophila embryos is dependent on its interactions with other homeotic products. Cell 61, 512-522.
Haerry, T. E., Khalsa, O., OConnor, M. B. and Wharton, K. A. (1998). Synergistic signaling by two BMP ligands through the SAX and TKV receptors controls wing growth and patterning in Drosophila. Development 125, 3977-3987.
Heemskerk, J. and DiNardo, S. (1994). Drosophila hedgehog acts as a morphogen in cellular patterning. Cell 76, 449-460.[Medline]
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.
Hyduk, D. and Percival-Smith, A. (1996). Genetic characterization of the homeodomain-independent activity of the Drosophila fushi tarazu gene product. Genetics 142, 481-492.
Ingham, P. W., Taylor, A. M. and Nakano, Y. (1991). Role of the Drosophila patched gene in positional signalling. Nature 353, 184-187.[Medline]
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., Kirov, N., Wieschaus, E., Roth, S. and Rushlow, C. (1999a). The Drosophila gene brinker reveals a novel mechanism of Dpp target gene regulation. Cell 96, 563-573.[Medline]
Jazwinska, A., Rushlow, C. and Roth, S. (1999b). The role of brinker in mediating the graded response to Dpp in early Drosophila embryos. Development 126, 3323-3334.
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]
Krause, H., Klemenz, R. and Gehring, W. J. (1988). Expression, modification, and localization of the fushi tarazu protein in Drosophila embryos. Genes Dev. 2, 1021-1036.[Abstract]
Lawrence, P. (1992). The Making of a Fly. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lawrence, P. and Morata, G. (1994). Homeobox genes: Their function in Drosophila segmentation and pattern formation. Cell 78, 181-189.[Medline]
Leyns, L., Gomez-Skarmeta, J. L. and Dambly, C. C. (1996). iroquois: a prepattern gene that controls the formation of bristles on the thorax of Drosophila. Mech. Dev. 59, 63-72.[Medline]
Macdonald, P. M. and Struhl, G. (1986). A molecular gradient in early Drosophila embryos and its role in specifying the body pattern. Nature 324, 537-545.[Medline]
Mann, R. S. and Abu-Shaar, M. (1996). Nuclear import of the homeodomain protein extradenticle in response to Wg and Dpp signalling. Nature 383, 630-633.[Medline]
Mann, R. S. and Morata, G. (2000). The developmental and molecular biology of genes the subdivide the body of Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Cell. Dev. Biol. 16, 243-271.[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.
Martinez-Arias, A. and Lawrence, P. (1985). Parasegments and compartments in the Drosophila embryo. Nature 313, 639-642.[Medline]
Marty, T., Muller, B., Basler, K. and Affolter, M. (2000). Schnurri mediates Dpp-dependent repression of brinker transcription. Nat. Cell Biol. 2, 745-749.[Medline]
Minami, M., Kinoshita, N., Kamoshida, Y., Tanimoto, H. and Tabata, T. (1999). brinker is a target of Dpp in Drosophila that negatively regulates Dpp- dependent genes. Nature 398, 242-246.[Medline]
Moreno, E. and Morata, G. (1999). Caudal is the Hox gene that specifies the most posterior Drosophila segment. Nature 400, 873-877.[Medline]
Nellen, D., Burke, R., Struhl, G. and Basler, K. (1996). Direct and long-range action of a DPP morphogen gradient. Cell 85, 357-368.[Medline]
Neul, J. and Ferguson, E. (1998). Spatially restricted activation of the SAX receptor by SCW modulates DPP/TKV signaling in Drosophila Dorsal-Ventral patterning. Cell 95, 483-494.[Medline]
Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and Wieschaus, E. (1980). Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature 287, 795-801.[Medline]
Ramain, P., Heitzler, P., Haenlin, M. and Simpson, P. (1993). pannier, a negative regulator of achaete and scute in Drosophila, encodes a zinc finger protein with homology to the vertebrate transcription factor GATA-1. Development 119, 1277-1291.
Rush, J. and Levine, M. (1997). Regulation of a dpp target gene in the Drosophila embryo. Development 124, 303-311.
Sanson, B., White, P and Vincent, J. P. (1996). Uncoupling cadherin-based adhesion from wingless signalling in Drosophila. Nature 383, 627-630.[Medline]
Simcox, A. A., Hersperger, E., Shearn, A., Whittle, J. R. and Cohen, S. M. (1991). Establishment of imaginal discs and histoblast nests in Drosophila. Mech. Dev. 34, 11-20.[Medline]
St Johnston, R. and Gelbart, W. (1987). Decapentaplegic transcripts are localized along the dorsal-ventral axis of the Drosophila embryo. EMBO J. 6, 2785-2791.[Abstract]
Tabata, T., Schwartz, C., Gustavson, E., Ali, Z. and Kornberg, T. (1995). Creating a Drosophila wing de novo, the role of engrailed, and the compartment border hypothesis. Development 121, 3559-3569.
Tautz, D. and Pfeifle, C. (1989). A non-radioactive in situ hybridization method for the localization of specific RNAs in Drosophila embryos reveals translational control of the segmentation gene hunchback. Chromosoma 98, 81-85.[Medline]
Wilder, E. L. and Perrimon, N. (1995). Dual functions of wingless in the Drosophila leg imaginal disc. Development 121, 477-488.
Winick, J., Abel, T., Leonard, M. W., Michelson, A. M., Chardon, I. L., 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.
Zhang, H., Levine, M. and Ashe, L. H. (2001). Brinker is a sequence-specific transcriptional repressor in the Drosophila embryo. Genes Dev. 15, 261-266.