Laboratory for Development and Evolution, University Museum of Zoology, Department of Zoology, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: cgme2{at}hermes.cam.ac.uk)
SUMMARY
Germ cells play a unique role in gamete production, heredity and evolution. Therefore, to understand the mechanisms that specify germ cells is a central challenge in developmental and evolutionary biology. Data from model organisms show that germ cells can be specified either by maternally inherited determinants (preformation) or by inductive signals (epigenesis). Here we review existing data on 28 metazoan phyla, which indicate that although preformation is seen in most model organisms, it is actually the less prevalent mode of germ cell specification, and that epigenetic germ cell specification may be ancestral to the Metazoa.
Introduction
Germ cell segregation is an important problem in developmental biology, as
it addresses how the fundamental distinctions between germ cells and somatic
cells are initiated and maintained throughout development. The timing and
mechanism of this segregation are also important for our understanding of
evolution, for these influence the selective pressures that act on germ cells
prior to gametogenesis, and so have important consequences for the selection
of heritable variation (Extavour and
García-Bellido, 2001).
Primordial germ cells of many different species share intrinsic qualities that differentiate them from somatic cells, often long before the somatic gonads are formed. However, there has been a history of disagreement as to how germ cells may be identified, and when in development the germ line is specified. In this review, we examine descriptive and experimental data on the timing and mode of origin of the germ cell lineage throughout the animal kingdom.
There are at least two distinct modes of germ line segregation in animals, both of which are well documented from experimental studies in model systems. These modes are summarised in Box 1. In some species, germ cells can easily be identified very early in embryogenesis, when their differentiation as germ cells is assured by the localisation of maternally inherited determinants before, or immediately following, fertilisation (`preformation'). In other species, germ cells are not observed until later in development, and arise as a result of inductive signals from surrounding tissues (`epigenesis').
To avoid confusion, the terminology that we will use in this review for
germ cells and their precursors follows the nomenclature of Nieuwkoop and
Sutasurya (Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya,
1979). When germ cells become sexually differentiated and enter
the first stages of gametogenesis, they are collectively termed gonia (oogonia
and spermatogonia). Through the processes of oogenesis and spermatogenesis,
gonia become oocytes and spermatocytes, maturing finally into ova and
spermatozoa, respectively. Many organisms generate their gonia from cells
capable of almost indefinite rounds of asymmetric, self-renewing mitotic
divisions; these cells are called germ line stem cells. The first cells that
will give rise exclusively to germ cells by clonal mitotic divisions are
called primordial germ cells (PGCs). The precursors to the PGCs, which are
often initially morphologically indistinguishable from the surrounding somatic
cells, are called presumptive primordial germ cells (pPGCs). These divide
mitotically to produce one PGC and one somatic cell.
Several aspects of germ cell morphology and function are clearly similar
across many phyla of animals (Box
2). In spite of this, the mechanisms that generate germ cells
appear to be highly variable, involving either prelocalised determinants or
inductive processes. Previous monographs on comparative germ cell
specification are now over 20 years old
(Bounoure, 1939;
Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya, 1979
;
Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya, 1981
;
Wolff, 1964
). This review
examines over 150 years worth of data on modes of germ cell specification in
28 metazoan phyla, expanding previous studies with the addition of recent
molecular and experimental data. In this article we have also mapped the data
onto a modern phylogeny of the Metazoa, to address the question of the
ancestral mode and evolution of germ cell specification mechanisms. We
conclude, in agreement with earlier surveys, that epigenesis is a more
frequent mode of germ cell specification than preformation. This finding,
together with data on germ cell origin in basal metazoans, suggests that
epigenesis may have been the ancestral mechanism of early metazoan germ cell
segregation. Our conclusion challenges a widely held view in the field of
developmental biology (e.g. Wolpert,
1998
) that epigenetic germ cell determination is an exception, and
that most animals use localised cytoplasmic determinants to specify the germ
line.
In the following sections, we review data on the earliest specification of
germ cells in development, in both the bilaterian animals (see
Box 3) and their outgroups. We
first consider findings in the few well-studied model organisms, and then the
much wider range of studies on non-model organisms. [As we present the
conclusions of the extensive studies on model organisms only briefly, we refer
the reader to other reviews for further detail
(Houston and King, 2000b;
Matova and Cooley, 2001
;
Noce et al., 2001
;
Saffman and Lasko, 1999
;
Wylie, 2000
)].
Box 1. Modes of germ cell specification: preformation and
epigenesis Preformation
During oogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster, RNAs and proteins are synthesised by the nurse cells (see Table 1). These products (blue) are transported through cytoplasmic bridges (blue arrows) to the oocyte. They become localised to the posterior of the ooplasm both by molecular anchoring at the posterior of the oocyte, and by posterior-specific translational and transcriptional regulation. This posterior ooplasm is the germ plasm, or germ line determinant. During early embryogenesis, cells which inherit the germ plasm become the primordial germ cells (PGCs; red). Epigenesis
No maternally deposited germ plasm has been observed in the oocytes of the mouse Mus musculus. Instead, PGC determination takes place after the segregation of embryonic and extraembryonic tissues. A subpopulation of the pluripotent epiblast cells express `germline competence genes' (striped). These cells are able to interpret the inductive signals that arrive from neighbouring tissues and differentiate into PGCs (red). The inductive signals come from the extraembryonic ectoderm (blue) and endoderm (yellow).
|
|
Preformation in germ cell development
The most comprehensive data set on the molecular mechanisms of germ cell
specification is that available for Drosophila melanogaster. Before
blastoderm formation, precocious cellularisation at the posterior pole of the
embryo creates four to five pole cells
(Huettner, 1923), which are
the exclusive progenitors of the germ line
(Fig. 1A)
(Technau and Campos-Ortega,
1986
; Williamson and Lehmann,
1996
). The pole cells acquire PGC identity through the inheritance
of specialised pole plasm, which is assembled at the posterior pole of the
oocyte before fertilisation (reviewed by
Mahowald, 2001
).
Transplantation (Illmensee and Mahowald,
1974
; Illmensee and Mahowald,
1976
; Illmensee et al.,
1976
) or forced assembly of pole plasm in ectopic sites, such as
at the anterior of the oocyte (Ephrussi
and Lehmann, 1992
), results in PGC formation at these sites, which
indicates that the pole plasm is a true germ cell determinant, and not simply
a germ cell marker. Germ cell specification in D. melanogaster is
obviously driven by preformation. In fact, it seems that all Diptera (see
Box 3) localise pole plasm and
form pole cells, although this preformation with respect to germ line
segregation is not representative of most insects (see discussion below).
|
|
Box 2. Germ cell identification Germ cells can often be distinguished from somatic cells during early development using histological and molecular characteristics. Studies to define the embryonic origin of germ cells should show that putative primordial germ cells (PGCs) satisfy as many of these identification criteria as possible. In laboratory organisms, descriptive techniques can be combined with experimental methods to provide conclusive proof of PGC identity. Although experimental data are not available for most non-model organisms considered here, often a combination of histological and molecular data can indicate the site and developmental timing of PGC formation. Histological characteristics
Until the advent of molecular techniques, most cell types were identified
by their histological characteristics. Germ cells were recognised by their
characteristic large round nucleus, single large nucleolus, cytoplasm
relatively clear of organelles, and granular cytoplasmic material (called
`nuage', see below). These features are shown in the drawing of a resting and
a dividing primordial germ cell from the genital ridge of the turtle
Sternotherus odoratus (Risley,
1933
Electron-dense cytoplasmic bodies Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) has revealed that electron-dense masses exist in the cytoplasm of germ cells of all phyla studied to date. These dense bodies are often called nuage or germ granules, and can be used to identify PGCs at early developmental stages. Germ cell-specific organelles (such as the mitochondrial cloud and Balbiani body) contain dense bodies. Molecular markers Enzyme markers, such as alkaline phosphatase, can be used to identify PGCs. However, because these markers are not always expressed by PGCs at all stages of development, they are usually only suitable for identifying germ cells at certain times of development. Modern studies often identify PGCs by identifying the products of germ cell-specific genes (see Table 1 for genes and proteins involved in germ cell specification and identity, which are useful as germ cell markers in a range of species).
Products of the vasa gene family are the most widely used molecular PGC markers. vasa encodes a DEAD-box RNA helicase that is usually expressed specifically in the germ line. The high conservation of motifs in these genes have made them easy to clone from many phyla. The accompanying figure shows anti-Vasa antibody staining in PGCs of the crustacean Parhyale hawaiensis (C.G.E., unpublished). Transcriptional and translational regulation When first specified, PGCs often remain transcriptionally quiescent, while the surrounding soma is usually transcriptionally active. Germ cell transcriptional repressors can be gene-specific (e.g. germ cell-less in Drosophila) or global (e.g. pie-1 in C. elegans). Translational repression in the germ line has also been documented in Drosophila and C. elegans, but it is not clear how widely the mechanisms are shared.
|
The origin of PGCs in the zebrafish Danio rerio was unclear
(Lin et al., 1992;
Walker and Streisinger, 1983
)
until the identification of a vasa-like gene in 1997
(Olsen et al., 1997
;
Yoon et al., 1997
).
vasa mRNA is synthesized during oogenesis, localises to the cleavage
furrows during the first embryonic cleavages, and seems to be thereby drawn
into clumps that segregate into four cells by the 32-cell stage of
embryogenesis (Yoon et al.,
1997
). These four cells become the PGCs. Cell lineage studies and
vasa expression patterns in other fish
(Braat et al., 1999
) suggest
that preformation may be a common mechanism for the teleosts, but not
necessarily for all fish (see Table
2, Table S2).
Chicken germ cells were thought to originate from the hypoblast (see
Box 3)
(Swift, 1914) until 1981,
when experiments using chick-quail chimaeras made before primitive streak
formation showed that they were of epiblastic origin
(Eyal-Giladi et al., 1981
).
PGCs were then thought to arise through a gradual epigenetic process beginning
at around stage X (an intrauterine early blastoderm stage)
(Karagenc et al., 1996
;
Naito et al., 2001
). However,
the recent isolation of a chicken vasa homologue has made it possible
to trace pPGCs as far back as cleavage stage embryos
(Tsunekawa et al., 2000
).
Chicken vasa protein forms part of the mitochondrial cloud in chick oocytes,
and localises to cleavage furrows until stage IV, when six to eight cells of
the
300-cell embryo contain vasa and are good candidates for the PGCs
(Tsunekawa et al., 2000
).
These data suggest that preformation may be the mechanism for germ cell
specification in chickens, although functional studies have yet to be carried
out.
Epigenesis in germ cell development
The time and site of origin of mammalian germ cells was a controversial
issue for several decades (see Everett,
1945; Heys, 1931
)
(see also references in Table S2 online). This controversy continued until
alkaline phosphatase activity was first used in 1954 as a marker for mouse
germ cells (Chiquoine, 1954
).
This technique was later used to identify these cells in mouse embryos between
7 and 7.5 days post coitum (dpc) (Fig.
1B) (Ginsburg et al.,
1990
; Ozdzenski,
1967
). In 1994, lineage tracing studies moved the time of origin
of these cells to an even earlier stage of development, 6.5 dpc
(Lawson and Hage, 1994
). At
this stage of development, these cells are found posterior to the primitive
streak in the extraembryonic mesoderm, at the base of the allantois (see
Box 3). They are incorporated
into the hindgut epithelium, move into the dorsal mesentery, and from there,
they colonise the genital ridges on the dorsal body wall, forming the gonad
primordia (Chiquoine, 1954
;
Ginsburg et al., 1990
;
Gomperts et al., 1994
).
In contrast to the studies in chick and zebrafish, the isolation of a mouse
vasa homologue has not resulted in the identification of pPGCs at
even earlier stages of development
(Fujiwara et al., 1994;
Noce et al., 2001
;
Toyooka et al., 2000
).
Although mouse vasa homologue protein is expressed in oocytes, it is
not localised to a specific subcellular region, and no germ plasm is formed
(Toyooka et al., 2000
).
Instead, a true epigenetic mechanism for germ line specification has been
demonstrated by both descriptive and experimental evidence
(Tsang et al., 2001
). Cells
of the distal epiblast (see Box
3), which normally differentiate into ectodermal derivatives, can
differentiate as PGCs when transplanted into the proximal epiblast, the region
from which the PGCs normally derive. Conversely, proximal epiblast cells will
not differentiate as PGCs when transplanted to distal sites
(Tam and Zhou, 1996
). These
experiments suggested that inductive signals might be required for germ cell
specification in the mouse. At least some of these inductive signals have been
identified as members of the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) class of
TGFß superfamily intercellular signaling proteins
(Hogan, 1996
). The expression
of Bmp4 (Lawson et al.,
1999
) and Bmp8b
(Ying et al., 2000
) in the
extraembryonic ectoderm, and Bmp2 in the endoderm
(Ying and Zhao, 2001
), is
required for the induction of germ cell fate among proximal epiblast cells. A
study of gene expression at the single cell level has indicated that the genes
fragilis and stella are upregulated in a subset of the
proximal epiblast cells. The expression of these two genes appears to make the
cells competent to respond to BMP signals, which direct them to differentiate
into PGCs (Saitou et al.,
2002
). However, even cells of the distal epiblast, which do not
normally express fragilis or stella, can be induced to
differentiate into PGCs if placed next to the source of the BMP signals
(Tam and Zhou, 1996
). These
results tell us that germ cell specification in mice is clearly epigenetic and
does not depend on maternally localised determinants.
The only other unequivocal evidence for inductive germ cell specification
has arisen from studies on urodele amphibians (see
Box 3). Germ cells were first
identified in the lateral plate mesoderm (LPM) of many urodele species
(Humphrey, 1925;
Humphrey, 1929
;
Ikenishi and Nieuwkoop, 1978
).
Careful explant and grafting experiments have shown that the LPM is not merely
the place in which germ cells could first be unambiguously identified, but
also that these cells actually arose there as a result of inductive signals
from the ventral endoderm (Boterenbrood
and Nieuwkoop, 1973
;
Nieuwkoop, 1947
). These
signals induce both PGCs and other somatic cell types. Kotani showed that
presumptive epidermal cells placed at the site of the LPM can give rise to
PGCs (Kotani, 1957
), and later
studies demonstrated that any part of the animal half of the blastula can give
rise to PGCs under the inductive influence of the ventral endoderm
(Sutasurya and Nieuwkoop,
1974
). Recent studies in the axolotl Ambystoma mexicanum
have confirmed that both a mitochondrial cloud and localised molecular
determinants are absent in oocytes of this organism
(Johnson et al., 2001
) (A. D.
Johnson, M. Drum and R. Bachvarova, unpublished). The products of germ
cell-specific genes, such as Dazl and vasa, are not
localised in the oocytes or early embryos of this axolotl, and are not
zygotically transcribed in PGCs until they approach the gonadal ridges
(Johnson et al., 2001
;
Johnson et al., 2003
).
Although no data are available yet on the molecular nature of the endodermal
signal that induces PGC and LPM differentiation in urodeles, BMP4 is known to
induce ventral mesoderm in X. laevis
(Dale et al., 1992
;
Jones et al., 1992
), and it is
therefore possible that this signal plays a role in axolotl PGC
specification.
Germ cell specification in non-model systems
The laboratory models we have considered thus far are members of only three bilaterian phyla (Arthropoda, Nematoda and Chordata), and cannot be considered to represent the diversity of the Metazoa. To evaluate the distribution of preformation and epigenesis as modes of germ cell specification, we now summarise what is known about the mode of germ cell formation for each metazoan phylum. Most of these data do not provide conclusive evidence, but the fulfillment of multiple criteria for the identification of PGCs, together with experimental evidence, strongly indicate the mode of PGC determination in many such phyla.
In Table 2, we present recent molecular data, and older descriptive and experimental literature, on comparative germ cell specification (for a fully referenced version of this table, see Table S2 online at http://dev.biologists.org/supplemental/). This table lists the phyla that we have reviewed; the observed location, developmental timing and presumed mode of germ cell specification; and whether functional experiments have been carried out to distinguish between epigenesis and preformation. The criteria used to identify pPGCs and PGCs are also indicated. In the following section, specific references are given only for a few examples of each major clade (see Box 3); references for all other statements can be found in Table S2 at http://dev.biologists.org/supplemental/).
Origin of germ cells in basal animal lineages
Porifera (sponges) and Cnidaria (corals, jellyfish, hydra) are the most
basal (see Box 3) branches of
the Metazoa. In these phyla, germ cells arise from a stem cell population that
also generates other cell types. Thus, the boundary between germ line and soma
is a fluid one. For this reason, these basal groups are sometimes omitted from
comparative discussions of germ cell origin (e.g.
Dixon, 1994;
Ransick et al., 1996
).
However, these organisms can produce haploid gametes and reproduce sexually,
and in that sense their germ line serves the same function as it does in
bilaterian animals. In hydrozoan cnidarians, pluripotent cells called
interstitial cells (I cells) contain electron-dense cytoplasmic bodies similar
to those associated with germ cells in all phyla
(Eddy, 1975
). These bodies
become more numerous in I cells that develop into germ cells, and decrease in
number in I cells that differentiate into nematocytes. In Porifera,
archaeocytes are pluripotent cells that are capable of both germ line and
somatic stem cell divisions.
Ctenophores (comb jellies) also probably diverged from other Metazoa before the origin of the Bilateria (Fig. 2A). Ctenophore germ cells have been described as arising epigenetically, from the meridional canal endoderm (Fig. 2B), but their having an extragonadal origin, followed by their migration to the meridional canal primordium, cannot be ruled out.
|
There is no evidence for germ line determination by preformation in any of these basal animal lineages.
Germ cell specification in bilaterian animals
Recent metazoan phylogenies based on molecular characters suggest that,
with the exception of the basal animal groups mentioned above, all animals
fall within one of three great lineages, each of which includes both simple
and complex animals (Adoutte et al.,
2000; Peterson and Eernisse,
2001
). These three clades are the deuterostomes (which include the
chordates), and two clades of protostomes, the ecdysozoans (which include
C. elegans and Drosophila) and the lophotrochozoans (for
which there are no well-studied laboratory models) (see
Box 3). In
Table 2, the phyla are
organised into these groupings, although in the text we consider the
protostomes as a whole (see supplemental Data 1 at
http://dev.biologists.org/supplemental/
for a guide to the taxonomic groupings used in
Table 2). Within each of these
clades, the relationships between phyla are poorly resolved, so at present it
is not easy to predict which phyla are most likely to retain ancestral
characteristics.
PGCs in protostomes
Drosophila and C. elegans developmental studies have
provided us with so much molecular genetic information on germ cell
specification that it is easy to forget how little is known about the other
protostomes, which include at least 20 phyla and make up the vast majority of
animal species (Brusca and Brusca,
2003). A few remarkable cases of germ plasm segregation have
indeed been observed outside of fruit flies and nematode worms. For example,
fertilized eggs of the bivalve mollusc Sphaerium striatinum contain
an asymmetrically localised dense matter, which is segregated during unequal
cleavages to the 4d cell (Woods,
1931
; Woods,
1932
). The 4d cell (see Box
3) then gives rise to the PGCs. However, although it is tempting
for developmental biologists to assume that germ plasm localisation is a
universal mechanism for protostomian germ line determination, our survey of
published data suggests that this is actually an unusual derived (see
Box 3) feature of nematodes,
dipterans and a few other animals [for a summary of older literature see
Nieuwkoop and Sutasurya (Nieuwkoop and
Sutasurya, 1981
)].
One might hope that D. melanogaster would be representative of the
arthropods (see Box 3), at
least, with respect to germ line specification mechanisms. In reality, the
diversity in the temporal and spatial origin of arthropod germ cells is
extreme (Anderson, 1973;
Kumé and Dan, 1968
;
Nelsen, 1934
). However, a few
generalisations can be made concerning PGC origin in the major arthropod
subphyla. Among the hexapods, most of the basal insect orders for which data
are available do not appear to have early segregated germ cells
(Fig. 2C,D) (e.g.
Heymons, 1891
). The
collembolans (see Box 3) are an
exception, showing segregation of electron dense granules to PGCs in early
embryonic cleavages (Klag,
1982
; Klag and Swiatek,
1999
; Tamarelle,
1979
), but these animals may not be closely related to other
hexapods (Nardi et al., 2003
).
Clear examples of preformation are generally found in some, but not all,
species of higher insect orders such as Diptera (flies) (e.g.
Lassmann, 1936
), Lepidoptera
(moths and butterflies) (e.g. Berg and
Gassner, 1978
) and Hymenoptera (ants, bees and wasps) (e.g.
Gatenby, 1917
). The PGCs of
most crustaceans appear to form late in development from the mesodermal cells
of the coelomic cavities, although early segregation has been observed in some
copepods (Fig. 2E,F)
(Amma, 1911
) and cladocerans
(Kühn, 1913
). Various
authors have claimed that in some members of the chelicerate order Arachnida,
the PGCs are segregated early in embryogenesis, forming a clump of cells
between the yolk and the embryonic primordium (e.g.
Juberthie, 1964
). However,
most studies of both chelicerate and myriapod embryogenesis show no evidence
for early segregated cytoplasmic determinants, and instead report a late
mesodermal origin of PGCs (e.g. Heymons,
1901
; Kautzsch,
1910
). In summary, it is not at all clear what the ancestral
mechanism of arthropod germ line specification might have been, but epigenesis
appears to be more frequent than preformation.
Nematodes are the only protostome phylum in which all members that have
been studied exhibit preformation in PGC development; all other cases of
preformation in the protostomes have been observed in only a few derived
species within phyla for which epigenesis is prevalent and likely ancestral.
For example, most species of the Platyhelminthes derive their germ cells from
neoblasts, a pluripotent cell type that gives rise to different types of
somatic cells, as well as to germ cells
(Gustafsson, 1976;
Ladurner et al., 2000
).
However, the trematode flatworms are a derived group within the
Platyhelminthes that segregate their germ cells by preformation at the
beginning of embryogenesis (Bednarz,
1973
).
Most other protostomes develop their germ cells from a subpopulation of
mesodermal cells at an advanced stage of embryogenesis during the
differentiation of specialised mesodermal cell types. Among lophotrochozoan
protostomes with canonical spiral cleavage (such as some molluscs and some
annelids), this mesodermal subpopulation is derived from one of the products
of the division of the 4d mesendoblast cell. With only two documented
exceptions (among the molluscs) (Dohmen
and Lok, 1975; Dohmen and
Verdonk, 1974
; Verdonk,
1973
), no putative cytoplasmic determinants have been observed in
precursors of this cell, hence there is currently no evidence for preformation
in most annelids and molluscs. The germ line in other groups (such as
nemerteans, brachiopods and some arthropods) develops during larval stages, or
continuously throughout adult development, from the mesodermally derived cells
of the gonadal epithelium.
The phylogenetic position of chaetognaths (see
Box 3) has been contested for
many decades. Because recent studies have questioned their traditional
classification as deuterostomes (Matus et
al., 2002; Telford and
Holland, 1993
), we consider them here along with the other
protostomes. Elpatievsky was the first to recognise that, in chaetognaths, a
specific cytoplasmic structure was assembled after fertilisation and
asymmetrically segregated into a single cell at the 32-cell stage. He traced
the fate of this cell and found that its four descendants were the PGCs of the
juvenile gonad (Elpatievsky,
1909
). Blastomere ablation and cytoplasmic disruption experiments
(Ghirardelli, 1954
;
Ghirardelli, 1955
), combined
with recent data showing that this cytoplasmic structure contains a Vasa-like
protein, support the idea that it may be not only a marker, but also a
determinant of germ cells (Carré et
al., 2002
). Given these findings, there is little doubt that the
mode of chaetognath PGC specification is preformation.
Protostomes are a hugely diverse group, with few shared embryological
characteristics (Nielsen,
2001). However, the present survey suggests that most protostomes
use epigenesis to specify germ cells. Preformation appears in few groups, but
was unlikely to have been used to specify the germ cells of the last common
ancestor of either ecdysozoans or lophotrochozoans. We therefore suggest that
the ancestral protostomian mechanism for germ line specification was
epigenetic, and that germ plasm specification by preformation evolved as a
derived character several times in diverse groups.
PGCs in non-chordate deuterostomes
The deuterostomes include three major phyla, the echinoderms, the
hemichordates and the chordates. In the non-chordate deuterostome phyla, modes
of germ cell specification are hard to classify. The only studies available on
hemichordates are early histological analyses of enteropneust (see
Box 3) development, and opinion
was divided among those researchers as to whether the PGCs were of mesodermal
or ectodermal origin (Bateson,
1885; Morgan,
1894
; Spengel,
1893
). There is no suggestion that PGCs are specified early in
this group.
Echinoderm gonia are presumed to originate epigenetically from the gonadal
epithelium in juveniles and throughout adult life. Regeneration of PGCs,
presumably from mesenchymal cells, has been observed even in fragments of
animals without gonads. The small micromeres of the 16-cell echinoid embryo
seem to share some mitotic characteristics with dipteran pole cells
(Pehrson and Cohen, 1986),
but removal of these cells does not alter the fertility of the adult urchins
(Ransick et al., 1996
).
However, intriguing data showing the specific accumulation in the small
micromeres of molecules usually associated with PGC fate, such as
mitochondrial rRNA (Ogawa et al.,
1999
) and Vasa protein (C.G.E., unpublished), suggest that the
role of the small micromeres as potential pPGCs should be re-evaluated.
PGCs in the chordates
The phylum Chordata includes two invertebrate groups, urochordates (e.g.
sea squirts) and cephalochordates (e.g. Amphioxus), as well as the
vertebrates. The origin of the germ line in urochordates is best understood in
solitary ascidians like Halocynthia roretzi, in which detailed cell
lineage studies have paved the way for contemporary molecular studies
(Nishida, 1987;
Nishida and Satoh, 1983
;
Nishida and Satoh, 1985
), and
Ciona intestinalis, which has recently joined the ranks of the
`genomic' Metazoa (Dehal et al.,
2002
). Some descriptive evidence (such as vasa mRNA and
protein localisation, transcriptional repression of somatic genes) has
suggested that two small blastomeres (B7.6 cells) at the 64-cell stage of
C. intestinalis and H. roretzi are the pPGCs
(Fujimura and Takamura, 2000
;
Takamura et al., 2002
;
Tomioka et al., 2002
). An
organelle whose ultrastructure resembles that of germ plasm, called the
centrosome-attracting body (CAB), has been identified in H. roretzi
embryos (Iseto and Nishida,
1999
; Nishikata et al.,
1999
). The CAB is formed in the posterior vegetal cytoplasm of the
two-cell stage embryo, is inherited by the B7.6 cells during early cleavages,
and has been observed to co-localise with specific mRNAs
(Nakamura et al., 2003
). This
observation raises the possibility that somatic and/or germ cell determinants
may be transmitted to putative PGCs via the CAB. Among the colonial ascidians,
it is known that individual zooids of the colony can exchange germ cells, such
that the PGCs from a single zooid can give rise to almost all of the offspring
of the colony (Stoner and Weissman,
1996
). However, the embryological origin of the PGCs is
unknown.
In cephalochordates, the first morphological identification of germ cells
is very late in development in the region of the gonad anlagen, suggesting
that they are epigenetically determined. Interestingly, an electron-dense
region of ooplasm has been reported to localise to a single blastomere at
early cleavage stages (Holland and
Holland, 1992). Further studies will be necessary to establish
whether this blastomere gives rise to the germ cells, which would provide
another example of germ cell segregation by preformation.
As the evolution of germ cell origin in vertebrates has been recently
reviewed (Johnson et al.,
2003), we summarise only briefly here the general patterns of
vertebrate epigenesis and preformation. Among the Agnatha (see
Box 3), lamprey germ cells are
first distinguished at the time of gastrulation, although their germ layer of
origin is uncertain (Beard,
1902a
; Okkelberg,
1921
). Few data are available on the embryology of hagfish, but
germ cells in this group have been reported to arise from the gonadal
epithelium (Walvig, 1963
). In
cartilaginous fishes, most researchers have first identified germ cells at
late stages of development, and have presumed that they were of mesodermal
origin, although in 1900 John Beard suggested that their yolky nature meant
that they derived from the blastoderm before mesoderm formation
(Beard, 1900
;
Beard, 1902b
). Extensive
studies in zebrafish and some other teleosts have shown that germ cells form
by preformation, but the examination of other bony fish using a variety of
markers leaves it unclear whether germ cell segregation by preformation is
common to all teleosts, let alone to all ray-finned fish. Thus it is uncertain
whether preformation is the ancestral mechanism of germ cell formation for all
fish.
Very little embryological information is available on sarcopterygians (see Box 3) other than tetrapods, but in dipnoans (see Box 3), Andrew Johnson and colleagues have failed to detect a mitochondrial cloud in oocytes of the lungfish Protopterus annectans, which suggests that germ cell determinants are not localised in this animal before the onset of embryogenesis. This leads Johnson and colleagues to favour an epigenetic origin of germ cells in this group (Johnson et al., 2002).
The living tetrapods include the Amphibia (frogs, salamanders, newts) and the Amniota (birds, reptiles, mammals). We have already discussed the descriptive and experimental evidence on germ cell formation in A. mexicanum and other urodeles, and in the anuran X. laevis. The evidence provided by A. mexicanum and X. laevis seems to hold true generally for urodeles and anurans, respectively. The urodeles employ epigenetic mechanisms late in development to specify germ cells, whereas anurans clearly specify their germ cells by preformation.
Few amniotes, other than birds and mammals, have been studied in detail.
The studies on vasa protein distribution throughout chick development have
shown that germ cells are specified during cleavage stages, and are not
induced from a subset of epiblast cells around the time of primitive streak
formation, as had been thought previously. Most studies on reptiles, including
turtles (Fig. 2G), suggest that
PGCs in these organisms originate in the extraembryonic endoderm, presumably
epigenetically as there is no evidence for a predetermined subset of
extraembryonic cells that later differentiate to become PGCs
(Fig. 2H)
(Risley, 1933).
Notwithstanding these data, bird PGCs were also considered to be induced
epigenetically from extraembryonic tissue before the convincing quail-chick
chimaera experiments on uterine stage chick embryos, which showed that chick
PGCs were derived from the epiblast well before primitive streak formation
(Eyal-Giladi et al., 1981
),
were published. Subsequent examination of Vasa protein localisation was
necessary to establish that chick PGCs are probably specified by preformation.
The availability of vasa as a molecular marker may allow the origin
of PGCs in other sauropsid species (see Box
3) to be clarified. The cross-reacting chicken Vasa antibody
developed by Tsunekawa and coworkers
(Tsunekawa et al., 2000
) also
offers exciting possibilities for further study of germ cell origin in
reptiles.
The data available on the Eutheria (placental mammals) strongly suggests
that the epigenetic segregation of germ cells, which has been so well
characterised in mice, is common to all placental mammals. However,
embryological studies carried out in the past on the monotremes (see
Box 3) and metatherians (see
Box 3) have not been able to
determine the time or place of germ cell origin in these animals. The
possibility that localised determinants may play a role in embryonic pattern
formation in marsupials cannot be ruled out
(Selwood, 1968), but there is
nothing to suggest that these determinants have anything to do with germ
cells, whose earliest reported visualisation is at the 12 somite stage using
alkaline phosphatase as a marker (Ullmann
et al., 1997
). The extreme difficulty of obtaining monotreme
specimens for study (Caldwell,
1887
) means that even modern studies of development in these
animals often rely on histological preparations that are
100 years old
(Hughes and Hall, 1998
).
Overall, it seems likely that, with few or no exceptions, mammals rely upon
epigenetic mechanisms to specify germ cells.
Fig. 3 summarises the published data on germ cell specification mechanisms in the 28 metazoan phyla discussed above. In the following discussion, we present interpretations and predictions arising from this summary on the ancestry and evolution of germ cell specification mechanisms.
|
In species that segregate PGCs by preformation, the germ line is immortal and continuous from generation to generation, and this makes it tempting to speculate that preformation has a common origin and continuous history. However, closer inspection makes it clear that in only three cases are entire phyla characterised by germ plasm-driven PGC specification (rotifers, nematodes and chaetognaths), and none of these phyla can be considered to be basal to the Metazoa (Fig. 3). Other clades that show PGC segregation via preformation (e.g. dipteran insects, anuran amphibians, archosaurian reptiles) are derived lineages within phyla for which epigenetic specification is likely to be a basal mechanism (Fig. 3).
The data we have reviewed here suggest that PGCs can be segregated at almost any point during embryogenesis: before blastoderm formation; after embryonic rudiment formation but before germ layer separation; after germ layer separation but before gonadogenesis; or after gonadogenesis and continuously throughout adult life. Although many studies are not experimental, and are therefore not conclusive, for most phyla we have been able to combine observations based on the distinctive morphology of germ cells with those based on molecular techniques of PGC identification. In members of 23 out of 28 phyla, PGCs are first observed after embryonic rudiment formation. These observations imply that inductive signals are probably responsible for germ line segregation in these groups. The alternative hypothesis is that, in these groups, a germ line is segregated early, but is not distinguished cytologically, and has not yet been identified. Although this is certainly likely to be true for some groups, there are others where the data argue strongly against it (e.g. nemerteans, holothuroids, acoelomorphs). On balance, we believe that epigenesis is likely to be the mode used to segregate germ cells in most animals, including all animals basal to the Bilateria. This suggests that epigenesis is probably the basal mode of germ cell specification for the Metazoa. However, the variability in timing and site of germ cell origin suggests that the specific molecular mechanisms used for inductive signaling are unlikely to be the same in all cases.
Evolutionary origin of germ cells
The most obvious similarity of PGCs across phyla is the presence of some
kind of aggregate of electron-dense, basophilic bodies in the cytoplasm of
germ cells. Such aggregates are widely accepted as markers of germ cells, and
in some cases have been shown to confer germ cell fate autonomously on the
cells that contain them. These aggregates are variously called dense bodies,
nuage, mitochondrial clouds, chromatoid bodies, yolk nuclei or Balbiani
bodies, and have been observed at some stage during the development of the
germ cells of all phyla examined by electron microscopy (see references in
Table S2 at
http://dev.biologists.org/supplemental/)
(see also Eddy, 1975). The
exact relationship between all of these differently named structures has not
been determined, but it is possible that they are all different morphological
manifestations of the same germ line-specific body. The pluripotent cell types
of several basal phyla also contain these dense bodies, and gonia in these
phyla are derived from such pluripotent cells.
Several convincing studies have shown that the composition of the
electron-dense aggregates found in germ cells is similar in widely divergent
phyla. They always contain a combination of RNAs, proteins, endoplasmic
reticulum and mitochondria, and may sometimes contain other organelles (such
as microtubules) as well. Where studied, the proteins and RNAs localised to
these aggregates are products of germ cell-specific genes that are often
conserved across divergent phyla (e.g.
Bradley et al., 2001). The
dynamics of organelle movement during the assembly of these aggregates also
shows striking similarity between different animals
(Carré et al., 2002
;
Heasman et al., 1984
;
Holland and Holland, 1992
).
Thus primordial germ cells, as a specialised cell type, may well be homologous
across all Metazoa, by the criterion that they have retained an ancestral
suite of molecular characteristics that define the germ cell lineage.
We suggest that this complex suite of molecular characters, including several gene expression profiles, the subcellular architecture of germ cells and possibly molecular mechanisms of regulating gene activity, is likely to have evolved only once, and thus may constitute a homologous cell identity `program'. However, this suite of germ cell characters may be turned on in cells of different germ layer origin, at different times and places during development. This means that neither the mechanisms that trigger germ cell formation, nor the cells in which the `program' is elicited, are homologous.
In bilaterian outgroups and basal Bilateria, the induction of germ cells probably occurred in a population of pluripotent somatic stem cells (similar to the archaeocytes of Porifera, the I cells of Cnidaria and the neoblasts of Acoelomorpha). In higher bilaterian lineages, the same germ cell fate may be elicited at different times and from different cells during development, by a variety of mechanisms. In some derived animal lineages, this mechanism may be maternal segregation of determinants, which include components of the molecular assembly that characterise germ cells. If this view is correct, then we might expect that future investigations on the molecular aspects of germ cell differentiation will continue to reveal conservation of the gene products and cell biological characteristics of germ cells, whereas studies on the mechanisms of PGC segregation in non-model organisms may provide experimental evidence for a diversity of mechanisms that trigger germ cell formation, including epigenetic induction, as well as the segregation of determinants.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Ronald Jenner, Max Telford and Mark Martindale for comments on the manuscript, Anne McLaren for the photograph of mouse PGCs, and members of the lab for discussion. C.G.E. thanks the staff of the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, and of the Balfour and Scientific Periodicals Libraries of the University of Cambridge for their help in obtaining the older literature. Part of the work was done at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, with the help of a Carl Zeiss post-course research fellowship awarded to C.G.E. C.G.E. is funded by the Wellcome Trust.
Footnotes
Supplemental data available online
REFERENCES
Adoutte, A., Balavoine, G., Lartillot, N., Lespinet, O.,
Prud'homme, B. and de Rosa, R. (2000). The new animal
phylogeny: reliability and implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 97,4453
-4456.
Amma, K. (1911). Über die Differenzierung der Keimbahnzellen bei den Copepoden. Arch. Zellforsch. 6,497 -576.
Anderson, D. T. (1973). Embryology and Phylogeny in Annelids and Arthropods. Oxford: Pergamon.
Bateson, W. (1885). The later stages in the development of Balanoglossus kowalevskii, with a suggestion as to the affinities of the Enteropneusta. Quart. J. Microscop. Sci. 25,81 -122.
Beard, J. (1900). The morphological continuity of the germ cells in Raja batis. Anat. Anz. 18,465 -485.
Beard, J. (1902a). The germ cells of Pristiurus. Anat. Anz. 21, 50-61.
Beard, J. (1902b). The germ cells. I. Raja batis. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Anat. Ontogenie Tiere 16,615 -702.
Bednarz, S. (1973). The developmental cycle of the germ cells in several representatives of Trematoda (Digenera). Zool. Pol. 23,279 -326.
Berg, G. J. and Gassner, G. (1978). Fine structure of the blastoderm embryo of the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: gelechiidae). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 1,81 -105.
Bolker, J. A. and Raff, R. A. (1996). Developmental genetics and traditional homology. BioEssays 18,489 -494.[Medline]
Boterenbrood, E. C. and Nieuwkoop, P. D. (1973). The formation of the mesoderm in the urodelan amphibians. V. Its regional induction by the endoderm. Wilhelm Roux' Archiv. Entwick. Org. 173,319 -332.
Bounoure, L. (1939). L'origine des Cellules Reproductrices et le Problème de la Lignée Germinale. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Braat, A. K., Speksnijder, J. E. and Zivkovic, D. (1999). Germ line development in fishes. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 43,745 -760.[Medline]
Bradley, J. T., Kloc, M., Wolfe, K. G., Estridge, B. H. and Bilinski, S. M. (2001). Balbiani bodies in cricket oocytes: development, ultrastructure, and presence of localized RNAs. Differentiation 67,117 -127.[CrossRef][Medline]
Brusca, G. J. and Brusca, R. C. (2003). Invertebrates. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Buehr, M. and Blackler, A. W. (1970). Sterility and partial sterility in the South African clawed toad following the pricking of the egg. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 23,375 -384.[Medline]
Caldwell, W. H. (1887). The Embryology of Monotremata and Marsupialia. Part I. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 178,463 -486.
Carré, D., Djediat, C. and Sardet, C.
(2002). Formation of a large Vasa-positive granule and its
inheritance by germ cells in the enigmatic Chaetognaths.
Development 129,661
-670.
Chiquoine, A. D. (1954). The identification, origin, and migration of the primordial germ cells in the mouse embryo. Anat. Rec. 2,135 -146.
Dale, L., Howes, G., Price, B. M. and Smith, J. C. (1992). Bone morphogenetic protein 4: a ventralizing factor in early Xenopus development. Development 115,573 -585.[Abstract]
Dehal, P., Satou, Y., Campbell, R. K., Chapman, J., Degnan, B.,
De Tomaso, A., Davidson, B., Di Gregorio, A., Gelpke, M., Goodstein, D. M. et
al. (2002). The draft genome of Ciona intestinalis:
insights into chordate and vertebrate origins. Science
298,2157
-2167.
Deppe, U., Schierenberg, E., Cole, T., Krieg, C., Schmitt, D., Yoder, B. and von Ehrenstein, G. (1978). Cell lineages of the embryo of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 75,376 -380.[Abstract]
Dixon, K. E. (1994). Evolutionary aspects of primordial germ cell formation. CIBA Found. Symp. 182,92 -120.[Medline]
Dohmen, M. R. and Lok, D. (1975). The ultrastructure of the polar lobe of Crepidula fornicata. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 34,419 -428.[Medline]
Dohmen, M. R. and Verdonk, N. H. (1974). The structure of a morphogenetic cytoplasm, present in the polar lobe of Bithynia tentaculata (Gastropoda, Prosobranchia). J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 31,423 -433.[Medline]
Eddy, E. M. (1975). Germ plasm and the differentiation of the germ cell line. Int. Rev. Cytol. 43,229 -280.[Medline]
Elpatievsky, W. (1909). Die Urgeschlechtszellenbildung bei Sagitta. Anat. Anz. 35,226 -239.
Ephrussi, A. and Lehmann, R. (1992). Induction of germ cell formation by oskar. Nature 358,387 -392.[CrossRef][Medline]
Everett, N. B. (1945). The present status of the germ-cell problem in vertebrates. Biol. Rev. 20, 45-55.
Extavour, C. and García-Bellido, A.
(2001). Germ cell selection in genetic mosaics in Drosophila
melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
98,11341
-11346.
Eyal-Giladi, H., Ginsburg, M. and Farbarov, A. (1981). Avian primordial germ cells are of epiblastic origin. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 65,139 -147.[Medline]
Fujimura, M. and Takamura, K. (2000). Characterization of an ascidian DEAD-box gene, Ci-DEAD1: specific expression in the germ cells and its mRNA localization in the posterior-most blastomeres in early embryos. Dev. Genes Evol. 210, 64-72.[CrossRef][Medline]
Fujiwara, Y., Komiya, T., Kawabata, H., Sato, M., Fujimoto, H.,
Furusawa, M. and Noce, T. (1994). Isolation of a DEAD-family
protein gene that encodes a murine homolog of Drosophila vasa and its
specific expression in germ cell lineage. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 91,12258
-12262.
Gatenby, J. B. (1917). The segregation of the germ-cells in Trichogramma evanescens. Quart. J. Microscop. Sci. 62,149 -187.
Ghirardelli, E. (1954). Studi sul determinante germinale (d.g.) nei Chetognati: Richerche sperimentali su Spadella cephaloptera Busch. Pubbls. Staz. zool. Napoli 25,444 -453.
Ghirardelli, E. (1955). Studi sul determinante germinale (d.g.) nei Chetognati: Effetti della centrifugazione delle uova e azione del LiCl ed NaSCN. Atti Acad. naz. Lincei Rc. 19,498 -502.
Ginsburg, M., Snow, M. H. L. and McLaren, A. (1990). Primordial germ cells in the mouse embryo during gastrulation. Development 110,521 -528.[Abstract]
Gomperts, M., García-Castro, M., Wylie, C. and Heasman,
J. (1994). Interactions between primordial germ cells play a
role in their migration in mouse embryos. Development
120,135
-141.
Gustafsson, M. K. S. (1976). Studies on cytodifferentiation in neck region of Diphyllobothrium dendriticum Nitzch, 1824. Z. Parasitenk 50,323 -329.[Medline]
Heasman, J., Quarmby, J. and Wylie, C. C. (1984). The mitochondrial cloud of Xenopus oocytes: the source of germinal granule material. Dev. Biol. 105,458 -469.[Medline]
Heymons, R. (1891). Die Entwicklung der Weiblichen Geschlechtsorgane von Phyllodromia (Blatta) germanica.Z. Wiss. Zool. 53.
Heymons, R. (1901). Entwicklungsgeschichte der Scolopender. Zoologica 33, 1-244.
Heys, F. (1931). The problem of the origin of germ cells. Q. Rev. Biol. 6, 1-45.
Hird, S. N., Paulsen, J. E. and Strome, S.
(1996). Segregation of germ granules in living Caenorhabditis
elegans embryos: cell-type-specific mechanisms for cytoplasmic
localisation. Development
122,1303
-1312.
Hogan, B. L. (1996). Bone morphogenetic proteins: multifunctional regulators of vertebrate development. Genes Dev. 10,1580 -1594.[CrossRef][Medline]
Holland, L. Z. and Holland, N. D. (1992). Early
development in the lancelet (=Amphioxus) Branchiostoma floridae from
sperm entry through pronuclear fusion: presence of vegetal pole plasm and lack
of conspicuous ooplasmic segregation. Biol. Bull.
182, 77-96.
Houston, D. W. and King, M. L. (2000a). A
critical role for Xdazl, a germ plasm-localized RNA, in the
differentiation of primordial germ cells in Xenopus.Development 127,447
-456.
Houston, D. W. and King, M. L. (2000b). Germ plasm and molecular determinants of germ cell fate. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 50,155 -181.[Medline]
Huettner, A. F. (1923). The origin of the germ cells in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Morphol. 2, 385-422.
Hughes, R. L. and Hall, L. S. (1998). Early development and embryology of the platypus. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 353,1101 -1114.[CrossRef][Medline]
Humphrey, R. R. (1925). The primordial germ cells of Hemidactylium and other Amphibia. J. Morphol. Physiol. 41,1 -43.
Humphrey, R. R. (1929). The early position of the primordial germ cells in Urodeles: evidence from experimental studies. Anat. Rec. 42,301 -314.
Ikenishi, K. and Nieuwkoop, P. D. (1978). Location and ultrastructure of primordial germ cells (PGCs) in Ambystoma mexicanum. Dev. Growth Diff. 20, 1-9.
Ikenishi, K., Kotani, M. and Tanabe, K. (1974). Ultrastructural changes associated with UV irradiation in the `germinal plasm' of Xenopus laevis. Dev. Biol. 36,155 -168.[Medline]
Ikenishi, K., Nakazato, S. and Okuda, T. (1986). Direct evidence for the presence of germ cell determinant in vegetal pole cytoplasm of Xenopus laevis and in a subcellular fraction of it. Dev. Growth Diff. 28,563 -568.
Illmensee, K. and Mahowald, A. P. (1974). Transplantation of posterior polar plasm in Drosophila. Induction of germ cells at the anterior pole of the egg. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 4,1016 -1020.
Illmensee, K. and Mahowald, A. P. (1976). The autonomous function of germ plasm in a somatic region of the Drosophila egg. Exp. Cell Res. 97,127 -140.[Medline]
Illmensee, K., Mahowald, A. P. and Loomis, M. R. (1976). The ontogeny of germ plasm during oogenesis in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 49, 40-65.[Medline]
Iseto, T. and Nishida, H. (1999). Ultrastructural studies on the centrosome-attracting body: electron-dense matrix and its role in unequal cleavages in ascidian embryos. Dev. Growth Diff. 41,601 -609.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson, A. D., Bachvarova, R. F., Drum, M. and Masi, T. (2001). Expression of axolotl DAZL RNA, a marker of germ plasm: widespread maternal RNA and onset of expression in germ cells approaching the gonad. Dev. Biol. 234,402 -415.[CrossRef][Medline]
Johnson, A. D., Drum, M., Bachvarova, R. F., Masi, T., White, M. E. and Crother, B. I. (2003). Evolution of predetermined germ cells in vertebrate embryos: implications for macroevolution. Evol. Dev. 5,414 -431.[Medline]
Jones, C. M., Lyons, K. M., Lapan, P. M., Wright, C. V. and
Hogan, B. L. (1992). DVR-4 (bone morphogenetic protein-4) as
a posterior-ventralizing factor in Xenopus mesoderm induction.
Development 115,639
-647.
Juberthie, C. (1964). Recherches sur la biololgie des Opilions. Ann. Spél. 19, 1-237.
Karagenc, L., Cinnamon, Y., Ginsburg, M. and Petitte, J. N. (1996). Origin of primordial germ cells in the prestreak chick embryo. Dev. Genet. 19,290 -301.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kautzsch, G. (1910). Über die Entwicklung von Agelena labyrinthica Clerck. II. Teil. Zool. Jarhb. Anat. 30,535 -602.
Klag, J. (1982). Germ line of Tetrodontophora bielanensis (Insecta, Collembola). Ultrasctructural study on the origin of primordial germ cells. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 72,183 -195.[Medline]
Klag, J. and Swiatek, P. (1999). Differentiation of primordial germ cells during embryogenesis of Allacma fusca (L.) (Collembola: Symphypleona). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 28,161 -168.[CrossRef]
Kloc, M., Bilinski, S., Chan, A. P. and Etkin, L. D. (2001). Mitochondrial ribosomal RNA in the germinal granules in Xenopus embryos revisited. Differentiation 67, 80-83.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kloc, M., Dougherty, M. T., Bilinski, S., Chan, A. P., Brey, E., King, M. L., Patrick, C. W., Jr and Etkin, L. D. (2002). Three-dimensional ultrastructural analysis of RNA distribution within germinal granules of Xenopus. Dev. Biol. 241, 79-93.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kotani, M. (1957). On the formation of the primordial germ cells from the presumptive ectoderm of Triturus gastrulae. J. Inst. Polytech. Osaka City Univ. D. 8, 145-159.
Kühn, A. (1913). Die Sonderung der Keimesbezirke in der Entwicklung der Sommereier von Polyphemus pediculus de Geer. Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Anat. Ontogenie Tiere 35,243 -340.
Kumé, M. and Dan, K. (1968). Invertebrate Embryology. Belgrade: Prosveta.
Ladurner, P., Rieger, R. and Baguñà, J. (2000). Spatial distribution and differentiation potential of stem cells in hatchlings and adults in the marine platyhelminth Macrostomum sp.: a bromodeoxyuridine analysis. Dev. Biol. 226,231 -241.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lassmann, G. W. P. (1936). The early embryological development of Melophagus ovinus L., with special reference to the development of the germ cells. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 29,397 -413.
Lawson, K. A., Dunn, N. R., Roelen, B. A., Zeinstra, L. M.,
Davis, A. M., Wright, C. V., Korving, J. P. and Hogan, B. L.
(1999). Bmp4 is required for the generation of
primordial germ cells in the mouse embryo. Genes Dev.
13,424
-436.
Lawson, K. A. and Hage, W. J. (1994). Clonal analysis of the origin of primordial germ cells in the mouse. CIBA Found. Symp. 182,68 -91.[Medline]
Lin, S., Long, W., Chen, J. and Hopkins, N. (1992). Production of germ-line chimeras in zebrafish by cell transplants from genetically pigmented to albino embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89,4519 -4523.[Abstract]
Mahowald, A. P. (2001). Assembly of the Drosophila germ plasm. Int. Rev. Cytol. 203,187 -213.[Medline]
Manton, S. M. (1928). On the embryology of a mysid crustacean, Hemimysis lamornae. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B. Biol. Sci. 216,363 -463.
Matova, N. and Cooley, L. (2001). Comparative aspects of animal oogenesis. Dev. Biol. 231,291 -320.[CrossRef][Medline]
Matus, D. S., Huber, J. L., Halanych, K. M. and Martindale, M. Q. (2002). The phylogenetic position of the Chaetognaths: a molecular approach using developmental regulatory genes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42,1274 .
McLaren, A. (2003). Primordial germ cells in the mouse. Dev. Biol. (in press).
Morgan, T. H. (1894). The development of Balanoglossus. J. Morphol. 9, 1-86.
Naito, M., Sano, A., Matsubara, Y., Harumi, T., Tagami, T.,
Sakurai, M. and Kuwana, T. (2001). Localization of primordial
germ cells or their precursors in stage X blastoderm of chickens and their
ability to differentiate into functional gametes in opposite-sex recipient
gonads. Reproduction
121,547
-552.
Nakamura, Y., Makabe, K. W. and Nishida, H. (2003). Localization and expression pattern of type I postplasmic mRNAs in embryos of the ascidian Halocynthia roretzi. Gene Expr. Patterns 3,71 -75.[CrossRef][Medline]
Nardi, F., Spinsanti, G., Boore, J. L., Carapelli, A., Dallai,
R. and Frati, F. (2003). Hexapod origins: monophyletic or
paraphyletic? Science
299,1887
-1889.
Nelsen, O. E. (1934). The segregation of the germ cells in the grasshopper, Melanoplus differentialis (Acrididae; Orthoptera). J. Morphol.545 -575.
Nielsen, C. (2001). Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nieuwkoop, P. D. (1947). Experimental observations on the origin and determination of the germ cells, and on the development of the lateral plates and germ ridges in the urodeles. Arch. Neerl. Zool. 8,1 -205.
Nieuwkoop, P. D. and Suminski, E. H. (1959). Does the so-called `germinal plasm' play an important role in the development of the primordial germ cells. Arch. Anat. Microsc. Morphol. Exp. 48,189 -198.[Medline]
Nieuwkoop, P. D. and Sutasurya, L. A. (1979). Primordial Germ Cells in the Chordates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nieuwkoop, P. D. and Sutasurya, L. A. (1981). Primordial Germ Cells in the Invertebrates: from epigenesis to preformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nishida, H. (1987). Cell lineage analysis in ascidian embryos by intracellular injection of a tracer enzyme. III. Up to the tissue restricted stage. Dev. Biol. 121,526 -541.[Medline]
Nishida, H. and Satoh, N. (1983). Cell lineage analysis in ascidian embryos by intracellular injection of a tracer enzyme. I. Up to the eight-cell stage. Dev. Biol. 99,382 -394.[Medline]
Nishida, H. and Satoh, N. (1985). Cell lineage analysis in ascidian embryos by intracellular injection of a tracer enzyme. II. The 16- and 32-cell stages. Dev. Biol. 110,440 -454.[Medline]
Nishikata, T., Hibino, T. and Nishida, H. (1999). The centrosome-attracting body, microtubule system, and posterior egg cytoplasm are involved in positioning of cleavage planes in the ascidian embryo. Dev. Biol. 209, 72-85.[CrossRef][Medline]
Noce, T., Okamoto-Ito, S. and Tsunekawa, N. (2001). Vasa homolog genes in mammalian germ cell development. Cell Struct. Funct. 26,131 -136.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ogawa, M., Amikura, R., Akasaka, K., Kinoshita, T., Kobayashi, S. and Shimada, H. (1999). Asymmetrical distribution of mitochondrial rRNA into small micromeres of sea urchin embryos. Zool. Sci. 16,445 -451.
Okkelberg, P. (1921). The early history of the germ cells in the Brook Lamprey, Entosphenus wilderi (Gage). J. Morphol. 35,1 -152.
Olsen, L. C., Aasland, R. and Fjose, A. (1997). A vasa-like gene in zebrafish identifies putative primordial germ cells. Mech. Dev. 66,95 -105.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ozdzenski, W. (1967). Observations on the origin of primordial germ cells in the mouse. Zool. Pol. 117,367 -379.
Pehrson, J. R. and Cohen, L. H. (1986). The fate of the small micromeres in sea urchin development. Dev. Biol. 113,522 -526.[Medline]
Peterson, K. J. and Eernisse, D. J. (2001). Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences. Evol. Dev. 3, 170-205.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ransick, A., Cameron, R. A. and Davidson, E. H.
(1996). Postembryonic segregation of the germ line in sea urchins
in relation to indirect development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 93,6759
-6763.
Risley, P. L. (1933). Contributions on the development of the reproductive system in Sternotherus odoratus (Latreille). I. The embryonic origin and migration of the primordial germ cells. Zeit. Zellforsch. mikrosk. Anat. 18,459 -492.
Ruiz-Trillo, I., Paps, J., Loukota, M., Ribera, C., Jondelius,
U., Baguñà, J. and Riutort, M. (2002). A
phylogenetic analysis of myosin heavy chain type II sequences corroborates
that Acoela and Nemertodermatida are basal bilaterians. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 99,11246
-11251.
Saffman, E. E. and Lasko, P. (1999). Germline development in vertebrates and invertebrates. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55,1141 -1163.[CrossRef][Medline]
Saitou, M., Barton, S. C. and Surani, M. A. (2002). A molecular programme for the specification of germ cell fate in mice. Nature 418,293 -300.[CrossRef][Medline]
Selwood, L. (1968). Interrelationships between developing oocytes and ovarian tissues in the chiton Sypharochiton septentriones (Ashby) (Mollusca, Polyplacophora). J. Morphol. 125,71 -103.[Medline]
Smith, L. D. (1966). The role of a `germinal plasm' in the formation of primordial germ cells in Rana pipiens.Dev. Biol. 14,330 -347.[Medline]
Spengel, J. W. (1893). Die Enteropneusten des Golfes von Neapel. Napoli: Fauna Flora Golfes con Neapel Monogr.
Stoner, D. S. and Weissman, I. L. (1996).
Somatic and germ cell parasitism in a colonial ascidian: possible role for a
highly polymorphic allorecognition system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 93,15254
-15259.
Strome, S. and Wood, W. B. (1982). Immunofluorescence visualization of germ-line-specific cytoplasmic granules in embryos, larvae, and adults of Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79,1558 -1562.[Abstract]
Sutasurya, L. A. and Nieuwkoop, P. D. (1974). The induction of the primordial germ cells in the urodeles. Wilhelm Roux' Archiv. Entwick. Org. 175,199 -220.
Swift, C. H. (1914). Origin and early history of the primordial germ-cells of the chick. Am. J. Anat. 483-516.
Takamura, K., Fujimura, M. and Yamaguchi, Y. (2002). Primordial germ cells originate from the endodermal strand cells in the ascidian Ciona intestinalis. Dev. Genes Evol. 212,11 -18.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tam, P. P. and Zhou, S. X. (1996). The allocation of epiblast cells to ectodermal and germ-line lineages is influenced by the position of the cells in the gastrulating mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. 178,124 -132.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tamarelle, M. (1979). Recherches ultrastructurales sur la ségregation et le développement de la lignée germinale chez les embryons de quatre collemboles (Insecta: Apterygota). Int. J. Insect Morphol. Embryol. 8, 95-111.[CrossRef]
Tanabe, K. and Kotani, M. (1974). Relationship
between the amount of the germinal plasm
and the number of
primordial germ cells in Xenopus laevis. J. Embryol. Exp.
Morphol. 31,89
-98.[Medline]
Technau, G. M. and Campos-Ortega, J. A. (1986). Lineage analysis of transplanted individual cells in embryos of Drosophila melanogaster Part III. Commitment and proliferative capabilities of pole cells and midgut progenitors. Roux's Arch. Dev. Biol. 195,489 -498.
Telford, M. J. and Holland, P. W. (1993). The phylogenetic affinities of the Chaetognaths: a molecular analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10,660 -676.[Abstract]
Telford, M. J., Lockyer, A. E., Cartwright-Finch, C. and Littlewood, D. T. J. (2003). Combined large and small subunit ribosomal RNA phylogenies support a basal position of the acoelomorph flatworms. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 270,1077 -1083.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tomioka, M., Miya, T. and Nishida, H. (2002). Repression of zygotic gene expression in the putative germline cells in ascidian embryos. Zool. Sci. 19, 49-55.[Medline]
Toyooka, Y., Tsunekawa, N., Takahashi, Y., Matsui, Y., Satoh, M. and Noce, T. (2000). Expression and intracellular localization of mouse Vasa-homologue protein during germ cell development. Mech. Dev. 93,139 -149.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tsang, T. E., Khoo, P. L., Jamieson, R. V., Zhou, S. X., Ang, S. L., Behringer, R. and Tam, P. P. (2001). The allocation and differentiation of mouse primordial germ cells. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 45,549 -555.[Medline]
Tsunekawa, N., Naito, M., Sakai, Y., Nishida, T. and Noce,
T. (2000). Isolation of chicken vasa homolog gene
and tracing the origin of primordial germ cells.
Development 127,2741
-2750.
Ullmann, S. L., Shaw, G., Alcorn, G. T. and Renfree, M. B. (1997). Migration of primordial germ cells to the developing gonadal ridges in the tammar wallaby Macropus eugenii. J. Reprod. Fertil. 110,135 -143.[Abstract]
Verdonk, N. H. (1973). Cytoplasmic localization in Bithynia tentaculata and its influence on development. Malacol. Rev. 6,57 .
Walker, C. and Streisinger, G. (1983).
Induction of Mutations by Gamma Rays in Pre-gonial Germ Cells of Zebrafish
Embryos. Genetics 103,125
-136.
Walvig, F. (1963). The Gonads and the Formation of the Sexual Cells. In The Biology of Myxine (ed. A. Brodal and R. Fange), pp. 530-580. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Whitington, P. M. and Dixon, K. E. (1975). Quantitative studies of germ plasm and germ cells during early embryogenesis of Xenopus laevis. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 33, 57-74.[Medline]
Williamson, A. and Lehmann, R. (1996). Germ Cell Development in Drosophila. Ann. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 12,365 -391.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wolff, E. (1964). L'origine de la lignée germinale chez les vertebrés et chez quelques groupes d'invertebrés. Paris: Hermann.
Wolpert, L. (1998). Principles of development. London/Oxford: Current Biology/Oxford University Press.
Woods, F. H. (1931). History of the germ cells in Sphaerium striatinum (Lam.). J. Morphol. Physiol. 51,545 -595.
Woods, F. H. (1932). Keimbahn determinants and continuity of the germ cells in Sphaerium striatinum (Lam.). J. Morphol. 53,345 -365.
Wylie, C. (2000). Germ cells. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 10,410 -413.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ying, Y. and Zhao, G. Q. (2001). Cooperation of endoderm-derived BMP2 and extraembryonic ectoderm-derived BMP4 in primordial germ cell generation in the mouse. Dev. Biol. 232,484 -492.[CrossRef][Medline]
Ying, Y., Liu, X. M., Marble, A., Lawson, K. A. and Zhao, G.
Q. (2000). Requirement of Bmp8b for the generation
of primordial germ cells in the mouse. Mol.
Endocrinol. 14,1053
-1063.
Yoon, C., Kawakami, K. and Hopkins, N. (1997).
Zebrafish vasa homologue RNA is localized to the cleavage planes of
2- and 4-cell-stage embryos and is expressed in the primordial germ cells.
Development 124,3157
-3166.
Zhou, Y. and King, M. L. (1996). Localization
of Xcat-2 RNA, a putative germ plasm component, to the mitochondrial
cloud in Xenopus stage I oocytes. Development
122,2947
-2953.
Züst, B. and Dixon, K. E. (1975). The effect of U.V. irradiation of the vegetal pole of Xenopus laevis eggs on the presumptive primordial germ cells. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 34,209 -220.[Medline]