Division of Biology and Medicine, MCB Department, Box G-J, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: Kristi_Wharton{at}Brown.edu)
Accepted July 25, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: gbb, dpp, BMP, Imaginal disk, Wing, Pattern formation, Drosophila
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The TGFß superfamily is comprised of more than 25 structurally related members that have been grouped into four families, TGFßs, bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), Activins and MIS. All of the members are produced as pro-protein dimers consisting of an N-terminal pro domain and a C-terminal ligand domain, the latter of which is cleaved from the pro region during secretion to release the biologically active ligand dimer. Studies in a number of systems have shown that the signaling potential of these ligands may be regulated in a number of different ways. For example, the ligands are subject to regulation by extracellular antagonists such as Chordin, Noggin and Follistatin, which act directly on the ligands thereby preventing their interaction with receptors (Piek et al., 1999). Ligand function can also be affected by the formation of heterodimers that may have properties distinct from their corresponding homodimers (Yu et al., 1987; Petraglia, 1989).
In Drosophila, as in vertebrates, there are multiple TGFß superfamily ligands and multiple receptors. The three characterized ligands, all members of the BMP family, are the BMP2/4 homolog dpp, the BMP5/6/7/8 homolog gbb, and the more distantly related screw (scw) (Padgett et al., 1987; Wharton et al., 1991; Arora et al., 1994). The BMP receptors include two Type I receptors, thick veins (tkv) and saxophone (sax), and a single Type II receptor, punt (put) (Nellen et al., 1994; Brummel et al., 1994; Letsou et al., 1995). dpp is a central figure in all characterized BMP signaling events in Drosophila, and has been implicated in numerous functions throughout the life cycle of the fly. In two of these functions, specifically, dorsal-ventral patterning in the embryo and anteroposterior (A/P) patterning in the wing disk, it has been proposed that dpp has morphogenetic properties in that multiple cell fates are specified as a function of different levels of dpp activity (Podos and Ferguson, 1999).
In the embryo, dpp acts in combination with scw to specify pattern elements in the dorsal epidermis through a gradient of BMP signaling whose high point lies along the dorsal midline (Ferguson and Anderson, 1992; Wharton et al., 1993; Neul and Ferguson, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1998). According to the current model, formation of this activity gradient depends on three features of the system: specificity of each ligand for a different receptor complex, strict dependency of Scw signaling on dpp, and antagonism of Scw activity by short gastrulation (sog), the Drosophila ortholog of Chordin. In brief, it is thought that Dpp signals uniformly throughout the dorsal 40% embryo (where the dpp RNA is expressed) through a receptor complex composed of Tkv and Put. Scw is thought to signal through a receptor complex composed of Sax and Put, and this signaling is limited to the dorsal regions of the embryo in two ways. First, Scw signaling is strictly dependent on Dpp signaling, and thus, while scw is expressed throughout the embryo, Scw signaling only occurs in the dorsal 40% of the embryo where dpp is expressed. Notably, this dependency does not require the formation of Scw:Dpp heterodimers, as restriction of scw expression to ventral cells does not compromise its ability to act in conjunction with Dpp signaling to generate a normal dorsal-to-ventral gradient. Second, Scw activity is negatively regulated by a gradient of Sog diffusing dorsally from its site of expression in the ventral ectoderm, such that Scw activity is highest along the dorsal midline and grades off ventrally. As Scw signaling acts to augment Dpp signaling, the highest levels of BMP signaling in the embryo lie along the dorsal midline, where Scw activity is highest, and the levels grade off ventrally (Podos and Ferguson, 1999).
In the wing disk, dpp has a number of developmentally and genetically separable functions. Throughout larval development, dpp is expressed in a narrow band of cells that lie just anterior to the A/P compartment boundary (Masucci, et al., 1990; Posakony et al., 1991). From this localized site of expression, dpp acts long range across the disk to promote disk proliferation, predominantly during early larval development (Spencer et al., 1982; Burke and Basler, 1996), and specification of vein territories during later larval development (deCelis et al., 1996; Sturtevant et al., 1997). It has been proposed that this stripe of expression serves as a localized source for a gradient of dpp activity that activates the expression of target genes spalt (sal) and optomotor blind (omb) with respect to different activity thresholds (Lecuit et al., 1996; Nellen et al., 1996). Mutations in the disk region of dpp (i.e. dppd alleles) affect these functions, and give rise to small disks in mutant larvae (Spencer et al., 1982), or, in adult viable combinations, to small wings that show loss of vein and intervein territories (Segal and Gelbart, 1985; deCelis, et al., 1996). Similar phenotypes have been observed by clonal analysis with null and dppd alleles (Posakony, et al., 1991), and, as mutant wings can be recovered showing phenotypes far from the site of the clone, these studies confirm that dpp acts non-autonomously (i.e. at a long range) from this focus along the A/P compartment boundary.
During pupal development, dpp ceases to be expressed along the A/P compartment boundary, and novel transcription of dpp is detected along the lengths of the presumptive veins (Yu, et al., 1996; deCelis, 1997). At this stage of development, dpp is thought to contribute to the process of vein promotion whereby vein and intervein tissues in the wing are defined and refined. Mutations in the shortvein region of dpp (i.e. dpps alleles) affect this function, and, in adult viable combinations show truncation of the distal tips of the longitudinal veins and loss of the crossveins (Segal and Gelbart, 1985). Based on clonal analyses with null and dpps alleles, it has been shown that the vein loss associated with the mutant clones respects the clone boundaries, indicating that, for this function, dpp acts more or less autonomously (Posakony et al., 1991; deCelis, 1997). Thus, in contrast to its long-range functions during larval development, dpp appears to act locally during pupal development to promote the vein fate.
The developmental events that require dpp during wing development do not involve scw, which is not expressed after the embryonic stages (Arora et al., 1994), but may involve gbb. gbb is broadly expressed in the wing disk (Khalsa et al., 1998), and gbb mutants show phenotypes that are to some extent similar to the wing phenotypes of dpp (Khalsa et al., 1998; Wharton et al., 1999). Despite these similarities, the nature of the relationship between dpp and gbb, and how these two BMPs interact to pattern the wing properly is not clearly understood. Indeed, while a previous study based on the overexpression of gbb and dpp in combination with dominant-negative receptor constructs suggested that the relationship between gbb and dpp in the wing was similar to that of scw and dpp in the embryo (Haerry et al., 1998), these results were not entirely consistent with corresponding loss-of-function data (Khalsa et al., 1998), and prompted a more detailed analysis of gbb function in wing development.
We present a detailed clonal analysis of gbb in the wing. Our results show that, like dpp, gbb has two different types of foci in the disk, local and long range, and these foci correlate both spatially and functionally with the local and long-range functions of dpp. This coincidence of the foci of gbb and dpp in the disk indicates that the two BMPs act from the same sites to regulate disk proliferation and vein specification in the larval imaginal disk, and vein promotion in the pupal wing. Function-by-function comparisons of the phenotypes of gbb mutants and null clones with the phenotypes of dpp and sax clones clearly demonstrates that the relationship between gbb and dpp in the wing is not only different from that proposed for dpp and scw in the embryo, but that the relationship between gbb and dpp depends on the developmental process they affect. These results provide evidence that there is not a single type of relationship between different BMPs that is co-opted into a variety of different developmental contexts, but rather that the BMPs have evolved relationships that are specific to the developmental context in which they act.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
For the rescue experiments with additional copies of dpp, recombinants were made directly between two dpp duplications, Dp(2;2)B16 and Dp(2;2)DTD48 (Wharton et al., 1993), and the pk cn gbb1 and b pr cn bw gbb4 chromosomes. For gbb mutant clones bearing additional copies of dpp, double recombinants were isolated directly from a cross of FRT-G13 shaIN bw gbb2 x FRT-G13 Dp(2;2)DTD48 to generate the stock FRT-G13 shaIN Dp(2;2)DTD48 bw gbb2. For gbb-null clones produced in a background carrying three copies of the dpp locus, Dp(2;2)DTD48 was recombined onto a chromosome carrying FRT-G13 shaIN to generate the FRT-G13 Dp(2;2)DTD48 which was, in turn, recombined with FRT-G13 M(2)53 to generate FRT-G13 Dp(2;2)DTD48 M(2)53.
For dpp clones, the dppH46 ck13 FRT-40A bw and Dp(2;2)B16 dp M-36F FRT-40A stocks were generated by recombination from the crosses dppH46 Sp cn bw X P[y+]25D ck13 FRT-40A (Bloomington) and Dp(2;2)B16 dp cl cn bw x 2
M FRT-40A (T. Xu), respectively.
All other strains are listed in FlyBase (http://fly.ebi.ac.uk:7081).
Clonal analysis
Clones were generated using the FLP/FRT technique (Xu and Rubin, 1993) in the progeny of the following crosses:
y w1118; FRT-G13 shaIN gbb1/SM6a X y w* hs-FLP1; FRT-G13 2M
w hs-FLP1; FRT-G13 M(2)53/CyO X y w1118; FRT-G13 shaIN gbb1/SM6a
w hs-FLP1; Dp(2;2)B16 dp M FRT-40A/CyO X dppH46 ck13 FRT-40A/CyO23,dpp+
w hsFLP1; FRT-G13 M(2)53/CyO X FRT-G13 shaIN Dp(2;2)DTD48 bw gbb2/SM6a
w hsFLP1; FRT-G13 Dp(2;2)DTD48/CyO X FRT-G13 shaIN gbb1/SM6a
w hsFLP1; FRT-G13 Dp(2;2)DTD48 M(2)53/CyO X FRT-G13 shaIN gbb1/SM6a
w hs-FLP1; FRT-G13 M(2)53/CyO X y w1118; FRT-G13 sax4 shaIN/SM6a
Crosses were made in bottles, brooded every 12 or 24 hours, aged for 24 hours, and then heat-shocked for 2 hours at 37°C. Wings of flies of appropriate genotype were mounted in DPX mountant (EM Sciences) and analyzed on a Nikon Microphot-FXA photomicroscope. Images were collected with a SPOT-RT color digital camera (Diagnostic Instruments). For each experiment, at least 500 clones were mapped and analyzed, and in some cases, for example, for the dpp clones affecting the posterior cross vein and the large sax clones occupying the anterior or posterior compartments, many more were scored for these particular characteristics.
Rescue studies
For rescue of gbb1/gbb4 transheterozygotes, crosses of pk cn gbb1/SM6a, Dp(2;2)B16 dp cn gbb1/SM6a, Dp(2;2)DTD48 gbb1/SM6a to b pr cn bw gbb4/SM6a and a cross of Dp(2;2)B16 dp cn gbb1/SM6a to Dp(2;2)DTD48 bw gbb4/SM6a were scored for the presence of Cy+ progeny. The statistic percent of expected was calculated by dividing the total number of Cy+ progeny by half the total number of Cy progeny. Pharate and pupal lethals were scored 2 days after the last eclosed progeny were collected. For each cross more than 1000 progeny were scored from multiple broods. For rescue of gbb1 homozygotes crosses of pk cn gbb1/SM6a, Dp(2;2)B16 dp cn gbb1/SM6a, Dp(2;2)DTD48 gbb1/SM6a to bw gbb1/SM6a and a cross of Dp(2;2)B16 dp cn gbb1/SM6a to Dp(2;2)DTD48 gbb1/SM6a were scored.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
gbb is required locally for vein promotion in the posterior compartment
Double-sided gbb clones that encompass the entire posterior compartment show loss of the PCV as well as loss of the distal quarter of L5 (Fig. 2A), consistent with the phenotypes of gbb hypomorphs (compare with Fig. 1B). Smaller clones covering either just the PCV or just the distal tip of L5 also show loss of the corresponding vein (data not shown, Fig. 2E), indicating that these two foci are independent of one another.
|
For the distal tip of L5, double-sided clones that fall within the distal quarter of L5 show loss of the vein only within the mutant tissue with the vein stopping within two to three cells of the dorsoventral overlap of the clone (Fig. 2F). Paradoxically, the distal tip of L5 can also be lost in association with clones covering proximal L5, even if the distal quarter of the vein is wild type for gbb function on the ventral, dorsal or even both surfaces (Fig. 2G). Such clones imply a degree of long-range non-autonomy for the L5 focus. However, as clones of this type invariably cover part of the vein that is normally absent in larger clones covering all of L5, we would predict that such clones should be associated with a gap between the proximal boundary of the focus and the boundary of the dorsal-ventral overlap of the clone. It is possible that such short gaps in the middle of the vein interfere with the differentiation of vein tissue more distally, and consequently result in the deletion of the entire distal tip.
In addition to the loss of the PCV and the distal tip of L5, we have noted that hypomorphic gbb alleles also affect the distal tip of L4 (Fig. 1B), yet, gbb clones that occupy the entire posterior compartment have little or no effect on this vein (Fig. 2A). This difference is also a reflection of the local non-autonomy of gbb in the disk. While posterior clones show little or no effect on L4, we do observe loss of L4 when double-sided mutant tissue covers the regions both anterior and posterior to the vein (data not shown). As L4 lies just posterior to the A/P compartment boundary (Fig. 1A), L4 loss is only observed in the statistically rare instances when clones are induced in both the anterior and posterior compartments that happen to fall next to one another along the distal tip of L4. As such, the failure to lose L4 in posterior clones, though the vein is entirely within mutant tissue, is presumably due to wild-type gbb product diffusing locally from the anterior compartment to compensate for its loss in the posterior.
From these data, we conclude that there are three independent foci of gbb function in the posterior compartment, along the length of the PCV and the distal quarters of L4 and L5. The phenotypes associated with clones overlying these foci are confined to them, and have only short range effects on their respective veins. As such, they reflect local requirements for gbb, and most probably reflect a role for gbb in vein promotion.
gbb is required along the A/P compartment boundary for disk proliferation and to specify L5
The phenotypes of gbb hypomorphic mutations have little or no effect on the patterning of veins in the anterior compartment (Fig. 1B,C) (Khalsa et al., 1998; Wharton et al., 1999), and this is also true for null gbb clones. Double-sided clones covering the entire anterior compartment exhibit no defects in the costal vein or longitudinal veins L1, L2 or L3 (Fig. 3A). Thus, gbb is not required locally for promotion of veins in the anterior compartment. However, such clones are associated with a reduction in the overall size of the wing blade and loss of all but the most proximal region of L5 (Fig. 3A,B).
|
Large anterior gbb clones are also associated with a loss of most of L5. The truncation of L5 is mildly variable, and may or may not be accompanied by the loss of the PCV. In the most severe cases, as in Fig. 3A, L5 is truncated back beyond the point of its junction with the PCV, and in these instances the PCV is always absent. In weaker examples, L5 extends further distal and abruptly turns up to make a right angle junction with L4 (Fig. 3B). Such veins are presumably chimeras of L5 and the PCV. Notably, although most of L5 is absent in these wings, the intervein between L4 and L5 is still present.
Fine mapping of this gbb focus indicates that the requirements for proliferation and specification of L5 map to the same region of the anterior compartment: just anterior to the A/P compartment boundary. Double-sided clones covering the region between longitudinal veins L1 and L3, show no effect on overall wing size, or on patterning of L5 (Fig. 4A,B). Similarly, double-sided clones that occupy only the region between L3 (but not including L3) and L4 are wild-type in size and pattern (Fig. 4E). By contrast, double-sided clones with an anterior border in the intervein between L2 and L3 and a posterior border running the length of the A/P compartment boundary show the mutant phenotypes associated with clones covering the entire anterior compartment (Fig. 4C,D). Thus, the anterior focus for gbb falls in a broad band of cells that lie just anterior to the A/P compartment boundary.
|
Coincidence of gbb and dpp foci in the wing
The four gbb foci we have mapped correspond in location and function with the established foci for dpp in the disk. We have shown that gbb is required locally for vein promotion at the distal tips of L4 and L5. Mutations in the shortvein region of dpp (i.e. dpps alleles) also result in loss of the distal tips of the longitudinal veins, though the phenotypes are more severe than what is observed for gbb. Weak dpps alleles show truncations of distal L4 and L5 to half their normal length, complete loss of the PCV, and loss of distal L2 in the anterior compartment (Fig. 5A) (Segal and Gelbart, 1985). Consistent with a previous clonal analysis, which showed that dpp was required for the distal half of L5 (Posakony, et al., 1991), we find that in dpp null clones, dpp is required locally along at least half the length of L4 and L5 (Fig. 5C,D). Thus, the gbb foci represent a subset of the regions of the longitudinal veins that require dpp. Moreover, as the sites of the gbb foci correspond to those regions of L4 and L5 most sensitive to the loss of dpp, we conclude that gbb is required to achieve maximal levels of BMP signaling at the distal tips of the veins.
|
The anterior focus of gbb is associated with two different functions, disk proliferation and L5 specification, and this focus coincides precisely with the major focus for dpp in the disk that has been implicated both in proliferation (Burke and Basler, 1996) and in specification of wing vein territories (deCelis et al., 1996; Sturtevant et al., 1997). Expression of dpp in this focus is regulated by cis-acting sequences in the disk region of the dpp gene (Blackman et al., 1991), and dpp alleles that affect this region (i.e. dppd alleles) exhibit phenotypes that can be related to those of our gbb clones. The most severe dppd alleles are pupal lethals (Spencer et al., 1982), and the mutant larvae have small disks very similar to those of gbb null larvae (Khalsa et al., 1998). Weaker dppd allelic combinations are adult viable, and the wings of these flies are also reduced in size. However, the dpp phenotypes are more severe than those associated with gbb clones. The weakest dppd heteroallelic combinations give rise to winglets that may be no more than one tenth the size of a normal wing (Spencer et al., 1982), and it is only in heteroallelic combinations of dppd and dpphr alleles that wings are produced of comparable size with those with null gbb clones (Fig. 5B) (Segal and Gelbart, 1985; deCelis, 1997). Thus, while it is clear that gbb and dpp both contribute to proliferation in the wing disk, dpp has a much more profound effect, suggesting that the role of gbb in this process may be facilitatory.
The specific loss of L5 associated with the anterior focus is the only gbb wing phenotype which cannot be correlated with a phenotype of dpp. That dpp is involved in the specification of vein territories has been clearly established (deCelis et al., 1996; Sturtevant et al., 1997). dpp function along the A/P compartment boundary is required for expression of the transcription factor sal (Lecuit et al., 1996; Nellen et al., 1996), and this gene is required for specification of L2 and the intervein between L4 and L5 (deCelis et al., 1996). Indeed, the phenotypes of weak dppd/dpphr combinations as well as clones of sal consist of a loss of L2 in the anterior compartment and loss of the intervein between L4 and L5 in the posterior compartment (Fig. 5B) (deCelis, 1997). However, as anterior clones of gbb affect neither of these structures, our data are not consistent with a role for gbb in contributing to the maximal levels of BMP signaling along the A/P compartment boundary. Rather, as the structures affected in gbb clones lie further away from the source than the domain of sal expression, it appears that gbb is required for the low points of BMP gradient at sites far from the A/P compartment boundary. As such, the gbb and dpp phenotypes are not the same because the dpp hypomorphs affect the high point of the gradient, and less so the low points, while gbb mutations affect the low points of the gradient and not the high point.
Duplications of dpp rescue phenotypes associated with gbb mutants and clones
To better understand the relationship between gbb and dpp in the disk, we tested for suppression of the gbb mutant phenotypes by additional doses of the dpp locus. As suggested above, one possible function for gbb may be to augment the levels of BMP signaling provided by Dpp. As such, we would expect that raising the level of dpp expression in the disk would compensate for the loss of gbb. That is, if we increase the levels of dpp activity at those sites where our clonal analysis indicates that gbb is active, we should be able to suppress the corresponding gbb mutant phenotypes. To do this, we took advantage of two duplications of the dpp locus, Dp(2;2)B16 and Dp(2;2)DTD48, to generate gbb mutant flies bearing three or four copies of the dpp locus (see Materials and Methods).
As the hypomorphic gbb mutations are to some degree sensitive to genetic background (Khalsa et al., 1998), it was necessary to demonstrate that any rescue associated with the Dp(dpp) gbb recombinants was due to the additional copies of dpp rather than other modifying factors on the chromosome. To show this, we tested for the ability of extra copies of the dpp gene to rescue the lethality associated with hypomorphic and amorphic gbb alleles and found that additional doses of dpp do show a dose-dependent rescue of gbb lethality (Fig. 6A,B). For gbb1/gbb4 transheterozygotes, 2% of expected are viable to adulthood, with three copies of dpp, 25% or 30% are viable, depending on which of the two duplications was used, and with four copies, 75%. Moreover, although four copies of dpp cannot rescue the lethality of gbb1 homozygotes, we did observe a dose-dependent rescue of the lethal phase from larval to pupal lethal. For gbb1 homozygotes, 10% of the expected class form pupae, with three copies of dpp, 30% or 60% depending on the duplication, and with four copies, 80% of expected form pupae. Thus, in both these assays we see a dose-dependent rescue of gbb phenotypes with additional copies of the dpp locus.
To examine the effects of additional doses of dpp on the phenotypes associated with specific gbb foci, we have generated clones that are both null for gbb and carry four copies of the dpp gene (see Materials and Methods). Duplications of dpp are able to rescue the distal tip of L5 in posterior clones (Fig. 6C,D), and while we cannot use clonal analysis to assay the effects of additional doses of dpp on the distal tip of L4, we do see rescue of this phenotype in gbb1/gbb4 transheterozygotes bearing four copies of dpp (data not shown). Thus, for the L4 and L5 vein promotion foci, additional doses of dpp are able to rescue the gbb mutant phenotypes. By contrast, we never observe rescue of the PCV by dpp duplications in either gbb mutants or clones (Fig. 6C). This result suggests that either gbb and dpp act independently at this focus, or that the four doses of dpp are not sufficient to compensate for the loss of gbb. In favor of the latter hypothesis, it is worth noting that the PCV is the wing structure that is most sensitive to loss of gbb, and it is not clear that this is the case for dpp. As such, it is possible that the relationship between gbb and dpp is reversed in this case, and gbb is the central figure in PCV promotion while the role of dpp is secondary.
The truncation of L5 associated with the anterior focus can also be rescued with additional doses of dpp (Fig. 6E). Given that this function of gbb seems to reflect a requirement in extending the range of BMP signaling in the disk, we can account for this result in two possible ways. On the one hand, gbb may simply act to augment the levels of dpp signaling at the low points of the dpp gradient. As such, the additional doses of dpp increase these levels and compensate for the loss of gbb. Alternatively, gbb may be required for signaling in regions beyond the normal limit of the spread of dpp across the disk. In this case, the rescue by dpp would reflect an increase in the spread of dpp, owing to the higher levels of dpp at the source along the A/P compartment boundary.
In the above clonal experiments, while it is possible to confine the clones carrying four copies of dpp to the known sites of gbb foci in the wing, because of the method employed to make the clones, the wing cells outside the clone carry three copies of dpp rather than the wild-type two copies. As such, it is possible that the rescue of gbb phenotypes we observe is due to this additional copy of dpp in the background and not the four copies within the clones. This is a particularly relevant issue with regard to the long-range anterior focus for which the responding cells in the posterior compartment all carry three copies of dpp. To control for this, we performed the reciprocal experiment to the one above and generated gbb null clones that carry the wild-type two copies of dpp in a background that carries three copies. We found that, in all cases, three copies of dpp outside of the clones could not rescue either local or long-range phenotypes associated with gbb clones (data not shown). For the anterior focus, this result demonstrates that the rescue of L5 that we observed in the clones carrying four copies of dpp is strictly due to the additional copies of dpp within the focus along the A/P compartment boundary. Moreover, as this focus corresponds to the early stripe expression of dpp in the disk, the result provides further evidence that the loss of L5 in gbb mutants and clones identifies a vein specification function associated with the global patterning functions of dpp, and not a vein promotion function.
sax does not transduce gbb-dependent signals in the wing disk
In the embryo, cooperative signaling by dpp and scw are required for elaboration of the pattern in the dorsal ectoderm (Neul and Ferguson, 1998; Nguyen et al., 1998). According to the current model, this cooperation is achieved by dpp and scw signaling through different receptor complexes composed of tkv and put, and sax and put, respectively. Given that many of the relationships we observe between dpp and gbb are similar to the relationships between dpp and scw in the embryo, we were interested in determining if the gbb-dependent signals we had characterized in the wing were also transduced by sax. In a previous clonal analysis, it has been shown that large sax null clones resulted in reduced wing size, blunting of the wing tip, ectopic venation and mis-patterning of the anterior wing margin (Singer et al., 1997). However, as many of these phenotypes appeared to be associated with the creation of discontinuities in the BMP gradient, we were interested in establishing the phenotype of null sax clones occupying the entire anterior or posterior compartments, and comparing these phenotypes with those of our gbb clones. We have found that large sax null clones that occupy the entire anterior or posterior compartment give rise to essentially normal wings (Fig. 7A,C), though anterior clones are associated with a slight reduction in wing size. Notably, the ectopic vein and margin bristle phenotypes that have been described previously (Singer et al., 1997) are not observed in clones that encompass an entire compartment, but only when the clone boundary subdivides a compartment (Fig. 7B), indicating that it is not the loss of sax, per se, but the discontinuity between sax+ and sax cells that results in this phenotype. Given these results, we conclude that the gbb signals that we have characterized in the wing are not transduced by sax.
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
We have noted that mutant phenotypes are observed only in gbb clones when the mutant tissue encompasses the entirety of the focus on both the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the wing. For example, clones that occupy the dorsal-anterior quadrant of the wing exhibit no defects in the patterning or size of the wing, while clones that occupy both the dorsal-anterior and ventral-anterior quadrants affect both these aspects of wing development (see Fig. 3). One explanation for this phenomenon is that Gbb exhibits long-range non-autonomy in the disk, and, in fact, there is some evidence for this, as we have found that small patches of wild-type cells along the A/P compartment boundary in the context of a large mutant clone are able to rescue loss of L5 completely in the posterior compartment (data not shown). However, gbb clearly does not act in a broadly non-autonomous fashion in all of its functions: gbb clones that cover the PCV or distal L5 exhibit vein defects that respect the clone boundaries indicating that the presumptive vein cells within the clone cannot be rescued by the wild-type Gbb present in the adjacent cells (see Fig. 2). For these functions, the rescue observed in single-sided clones implies pattern regulation occurring between the two wing surfaces. Indeed, it has long been asserted that there are signaling events between the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the wing as it has been shown for several genes that loss of veins on one surface can be compensated for by the wild-type pattern in the opposing surface (Garcia-Bellido and de Celis, 1992). The requirement for dorsal-ventral overlap that we have observed with gbb mutant clones is indicative of such a signaling mechanism, and given these results, as well as those from previous studies that have shown a requirement for dorsal-ventral overlap in clones of dpp and sog (Posakony et al., 1991; Yu et al., 1996; deCelis, 1997), it is plausible that the BMPs themselves might be responsible for mediating these signaling processes.
Gbb activity is localized to specific foci
Perhaps the most striking result from our clonal analysis is that the requirements for gbb in the wing disk are localized even though the gene is widely expressed. This result implies that Gbb activity is in some way restricted post-transcriptionally. Two models seem the most likely to account for this effect. First, as we have shown that all gbb foci are coincident with sites of dpp expression in the disk, it is possible that Gbb and Dpp form heterodimers, and that Gbb is only active in this form. Heterodimer formation has been documented for a number of different TGFß superfamily members, and in some cases heterodimers and homodimers have been shown to have distinct properties. For example, heterodimers of BMP2 or BMP4 and BMP7 are much more potent in the induction of ventral mesoderm and bone induction than their respective homodimers (Isreal et al., 1996; Nishimatsu and Thompsen, 1998). Activins and Inhibins illustrate a different relationship: the homodimeric Activins having the opposite biological effects of the heteromeric Inhibins (Yu et al., 1987; Petraglia, 1989).
An alternative model is that the restriction of gbb function in the disk is achieved through local activation of Gbb homodimers, which may be achieved by specific agonists expressed within the foci or antagonists expressed everywhere else. Possible agonists include the Drosophila BMP-1 homologs tolloid and tolkin (Shimell et al., 1991; Nguyen et al., 1994; Finelli et al., 1995), or Drosophila homologs of the subtilisin-like proprotein convertases or furins, that are thought to be involved in the cleavage of BMP pro-proteins into the active ligand (Cui et al., 1998; Constam and Robertson, 1999). In addition, the recently characterized secreted protein crossveinless 2 (cv-2) may act as an agonist of BMP signaling specifically in the presumptive crossveins (Conley et al., 2000) (see below). The antagonist sog is a likely candidate for restricting BMP activity during pupal development (i.e. for vein promotion functions) as it has been shown to be expressed in all intervein cells at this time (Yu et al., 1996). Moreover, there is some evidence that sog function in the wing may specifically antagonize gbb (Yu et al., 2000), and thus may very well account for the restriction of gbb function to the presumptive veins.
Different functions employ different relationships between BMPs
Our clonal analysis has identified four processes that require gbb during wing development, disk proliferation, specification of the L5 vein territory, promotion of the PCV and promotion of the longitudinal veins L4 and L5. Based on the criteria of comparisons of gbb clone phenotypes with dpp and sax phenotypes, the ability for the gbb mutant phenotypes to be rescued by additional copies of dpp, and the spatial requirements for gbb during wing development, it is clear that each of these functions employs a different relationship between dpp and gbb, and each of these relationships is distinct from that which has been established for dpp and scw in the embryo (Table 1).
|
We have also observed distinctions in the relationships between dpp and gbb in different wing functions. Comparing the specification of the L5 territory and promotion of the distal tips of L4 and L5, gbb acts differently to modulate the activity of dpp. In the case of the vein promotion functions, gbb is required for maximal levels of BMP signaling at the distal tips of L4 and L5 which is similar to what has been described for scw and dpp in the embryo. By contrast, for the specification of L5 during larval development, gbb is required for the specification of fates at the low points of the BMP gradient. Indeed, as the gbb clone phenotypes do not reflect the phenotypes of the dpp target gene sal (which requires maximal levels of BMP signaling for its expression), it follows that the expression of this gene, and thus the high point of the BMP gradient, is normal in wings bearing gbb null clones in the anterior compartment. This relationship is quite distinct from that of dpp and scw in the embryo.
The promotion of the PCV, while similar in many ways to the longitudinal vein promotion functions, is distinct in that it is one gbb function in the wing that cannot be rescued by additional copies of the dpp gene. It is relevant here that hypomorphic mutations of gbb and dpp show distinct phenotypes with regard to PCV promotion. For gbb, it is clear that the PCV is the structure most sensitive to a reduction in gbb activity as the weakest alleles show specific loss of it. By contrast, weak shortvein alleles show truncations of the distal tips of the L2, L4 and L5, but the PCV is intact (Segal and Gelbart, 1985). This suggests that for PCV promotion the relationship between dpp and gbb may be reversed, and gbb may play the more central role. This notion is supported by analysis of the distribution of the phosphorylated from of the Smad protein Mad (pMad), which can be detected in the presumptive PCV before the localized expression of dpp is detected at this site by in situ hybridization (Conley et al., 2000). Conley et al. have suggested that the localized expression of cv-2 in the presumptive PCV cells may account for the early appearance of pMad in this vein. It is tempting to speculate that cv-2 may localize the activity of gbb to the presumptive PCV, which results in the subsequent activation of dpp expression.
Given these different functions and the different relationships between BMP ligands specific to each, it is evident that there is not a canonical relationship between BMP2/4- and BMP5/6/7/8-like molecules that is co-opted like a cassette into different developmental contexts. Rather, it seems that specific relationships have evolved between the two types of ligands that fulfill particular functional requirements during development. Moreover, as many of the distinctions appear to be occurring at the level of ligand activation, distribution, and ligand-receptor interactions, it follows that extracellular modulation of BMP ligands plays a major role in the establishment of these particular relationships. Identifying and understanding the roles of such extracellular factors will be key to understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying these different signaling events.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Arora, K., Levine, M. and OConnor, M. (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]
Blackman, R. K., Sanicola, M., Raftery, L. A., Gillevet, T. and Gelbart, W. M. (1991). An extensive 3' cis-regulatory region directs the imaginal disk expression of decapentaplegic, a member of the TGF-ß family in Drosophila. Development 111, 657-665.[Abstract]
Brummel, T. J., Twombly, V., Marqués, G., Wrana, J. L., Newfeld, S. J., Attisano, L., Massagué, J., OConnor, M. B. and Gelbart, W. M. (1994). Characterization and relationship of dpp receptors encoded by the saxophone and thick veins genes in Drosophila. Cell 78, 251-261.[Medline]
Burke, R. and Basler, K. (1996). Dpp receptors are autonomously required for cell proliferation in the entire developing Drosophila wing. Development 122, 2261-2269.
Conley, C. A., Silburn, R., Singer, M. A., Ralston, A., Rohwer-Nutter, D., Olson, D. J., Gelbart, W. M. and Blair, S. S. (2000). crossveinless-2 contains cysteine-rich domains and is required for high levels of BMP-like activity during the formation of the cross veins in Drosophila. Development 127, 3947-3959.
Constam, D. B. and Robertson, E. J. (1999). Regulation of bone morphogenetic protein activity by pro domains and proprotein convertases. J. Cell Biology 144, 139-149.
Cui, Y., Jean, F., Thomas, G. and Christian, J. L. (1998). BMP-4 is proteolytically activated by furin and/or PC6 during vertebrate embryonic development. EMBO J. 17, 4735-4743.
deCelis, J., Barrio, R. and Kafatos, F. (1996). A gene complex acting downstream of dpp in Drosophila wing morphogenesis. Nature 381, 421-424.[Medline]
deCelis, J. F. (1997). Expression and function of decapentaplegic and thick veins during the differentiation of the veins in the Drosophila wing. Development 124, 1007-1018.
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]
Finelli, A. L., Xie, T., Bossie, C. A., Blackman, R. K. and Padgett, R. W. (1995). The tolkin gene is a tolloid/BMP-1 homologue that is essential for Drosophila development. Genetics 141, 271-281.
Garcia-Bellido, A. and de Celis, J. F. (1992). Developmental genetics of the venation pattern of Drosophila. Annu. Rev. Genet. 26, 277-304.[Medline]
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.
Hogan, B. L. M. (1996). Bone morphogenetic proteins: multifunctional regulators of vertebrate development. Genes Dev. 10, 1580-1594.[Medline]
Isreal, D. I., Nove, J., Kerns, K. M., Kaufman, R. J., Rosen, V., Cox, K. A. and Wozney, J. M. (1996). Heterodimeric bone morphogenetic proteins show enhanced activity in vitro and in vivo. Growth Factors 13, 291-300.[Medline]
Khalsa, O., Yoon, J.-w., Schumann-Torres, S. and Wharton, K. (1998). TGF-ß/BMP superfamily members, Gbb-60A and Dpp, cooperate to provide pattern information and establish cell identity in the Drosophila wing. Development 125, 2723-2734.
Lecuit, T., Brook, W., Ng, M., Calleja, M., Sun, H. and Cohen, S. (1996). Two distinct mechanisms for long-range patterning by decapentaplegic in the Drosophila wing. Nature 381, 387-393.[Medline]
Letsou, A., Arora, K., Wrana, J. L., Simin, K., Twombly, V., Jamal, J., Staehling-Hampton, D., Hoffmann, F. M., Gelbart, W. M., Massague, J. et al. (1995). Drosophila dpp signaling is mediated by the punt gene product: a dual ligand-binding type II receptor of the TGFß receptor family. Cell 80, 899-908.[Medline]
Massagué, J. (1998). TGF-ß signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 67, 753-791.[Medline]
Masucci, J. D., Miltenberger, R. J. and Hoffmann, F. M. (1990). Pattern-specific expression of the Drosophila decapentaplegic gene in imaginal disks is regulated by 3' cis-regulatory elements. Genes Dev. 4, 2011-2023.[Abstract]
Moghal, N. and Sternberg, P. W. (1999). Multiple positive and negative regulators of signaling by the EGF-receptor. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 11, 190-196.[Medline]
Nellen, D., Affolter, M. and Basler, K. (1994). Receptor serine/threonine kinase implicated in the control of Drosophila body pattern by decapentaplegic. Cell 78, 225-237.[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. I. and Ferguson, E. L. (1998). Spatially restricted activation of the SAX receptor by SCW modulates DPP/TKV signaling in Drosophila dorsal-ventral patterning. Cell 95, 483-494.[Medline]
Nguyen, M., Park, S., Marques, G. and Arora, K. (1998). Interpretation of a BMP activity gradient in Drosophila embryos depends on synergistic signaling by two type I receptors, SAX and TKV. Cell 95, 495-506.[Medline]
Nguyen, T., Joumana, M., Shimell, J., Arora, K. and OConnor, M. B. (1994). Characterization of tolloid-related-1: a BMP-1-like product that is required during larval and pupal stages of Drosophila development. Dev. Biol. 166.
Nishimatsu, S. and Thompsen, G. H. (1998). Ventral mesoderm induction and patterning by bone morphogenetic protein heterodimers in Xenopus embryos. Mech. Dev. 74, 75-88.[Medline]
Padgett, R., St. Johnston, R. and Gelbart, W. (1987). A transcript from a Drosophila pattern gene predicts a protein homologous to the transforming growth factor-ß family. Nature 325, 81-84.[Medline]
Petraglia, F., Vaughan, J. and Vale, W. (1989). Inhibin and activin modulate the release of gonadotropin-releasing hormone, human chrorionic gonadotropin, and progesterone from cultured human placenta. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 86, 5114-5117.[Abstract]
Piek, E., Heldin, C.-H. and Dijke, P. T. (1999). Specificity, diversity, and regulation in TGF-ß superfamily signaling. FASEB J. 13, 2105-2124.
Podos, S. D. and Ferguson, E. L. (1999). Morphogen gradients: new insights from Dpp. Trends Genet. 15, 396-401.[Medline]
Posakony, L. G., Raftery, L. A. and Gelbart, W. M. (1991). Wing formation in Drosophila melanogaster requires decapentaplegic gene function along the anterior-posterior compartment boundary. Mech. Dev. 33, 69-82.
Segal, D. and Gelbart, W. M. (1985). Shortvein, a new component of the decapentaplegic gene complex in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 109, 119-143.
Shimell, M. J., Ferguson, E. L., Childs, S. R. and OConnor, M. B. (1991). The Drosophila dorsal-ventral patterning gene tolloid is related to human bone morphogenetic protein 1. Cell 67, 469-481.[Medline]
Singer, M. A., Penton, A., Twombly, V., Hoffmann, F. M. and Gelbart, W. M. (1997). Signaling through both type I DPP receptors is required for anterior-posterior patterning of the entire Drosophila wing. Development 124, 79-89.
Spencer, F. A., Hoffmann, F. M. and Gelbart, W. M. (1982). decapentaplegic: a gene complex affecting morphogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell 28, 451-461.[Medline]
Sturtevant, M. A., Biehs, B., Marin, E. and Bier, E. (1997). The spalt gene links the A/P compartment boundary to a linear adult structure in the Drosophila wing. Development 124, 21-32.
Wells, A. (1999). EGF receptor. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 31, 637-643.[Medline]
Wharton, K. A., Thomsen, G. H. and Gelbart, W. M. (1991). Drosophila 60A gene, another transforming growth factor ß family member, is closely related to human bone morphogenetic proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88, 9214-9218.[Abstract]
Wharton, K. A., Ray, R. P. and Gelbart, W. M. (1993). An activity gradient of decapentaplegic is necessary for the specification of dorsal pattern elements in the Drosophila embryo. Development 117, 807-822.
Wharton, K. A., Cook, J., Torres-Schumann, S., deCastro, K., Borod, E. and Phillips, D. A. (1999). Genetic analysis of the Bone Morphogenetic protein-related gene, gbb, identifies multiple requirements during Drosophila development. Genetics 152, 629-640.
Xu, T. and Rubin, G. M. (1993). Analysis of genetic mosaics in developing and adult Drosophila tissues. Development 117, 1223-1237.
Yu, J., Shaw, L., Lemas, A. L., Yu, J., Vaughan, J., Rivier, J. and Vale, W. (1987). Importance of FSH-releasing protein and inhibin on erythrodifferentiation. Nature 330, 765-767.[Medline]
Yu, K., Srinivasan, S., Shimmi, O., Biehs, B., Rashka, K. E., Kimelman, D., OConnor, M. B. and Bier, E. (2000). Processing of the Drosophila Sog protein creates a novel BMP inhibitory activity. Development 127, 2143-2154.
Yu, K., Sturtevant, M. A., Biehs, B., Francois, V., Padgett, R. W., Blackman, R. K. and Bier, E. (1996). The Drosophila decapentaplegic and short gastrulation genes function antagonistically during adult wing vein development. Development 122, 4033-4044.