Developmental, Cell and Molecular Biology Group, Box 91000, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA
* Present address: California Institute of Technology, Division of Biology 156-29, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
Author for correspondence (e-mail: dmcclay{at}duke.edu)
Accepted March 29, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Sea urchin, Notch signaling, LvNotch, Boundaries, Ectoderm, Endoderm
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Embryological studies have suggested that cell-cell interactions play an important role in specifying the boundary between the ectoderm and endoderm. Lineage studies have revealed that the ectoderm-endoderm border does not correlate with early cleavage divisions, suggesting instead that cell-cell interactions establish this boundary (Logan and McClay, 1997; Ransick and Davidson, 1998). Supporting this notion, blastomere isolation experiments have shown that interactions between animal blastomeres suppress endoderm forming potential in presumptive ectoderm cells (Henry et al., 1989). In addition, blastomere removal and transplantation studies have indicated that the micromeres, the vegetal-most cells in the 16-cell stage embryo, initiate a vegetal-to-animal wave of inductive signaling required for both normal overlying secondary mesenchyme cell (SMC) specification in the early blastula, and endoderm specification in the late blastula to early gastrula stage (Horstadius, 1973; Khaner and Wilt, 1991; Ransick and Davidson, 1993; Ransick and Davidson, 1995; Ransick and Davidson, 1998; Sweet et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000).
Recent work has begun to reveal the molecular mechanisms that regulate the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. A sea urchin BMP2/4 homolog is expressed in presumptive ectoderm in the blastula embryo, and appears to influence ectoderm-endoderm boundary position by suppressing endoderm formation within presumptive ectoderm cells (Angerer et al., 2000). In addition, ß-catenin, a component of the Wnt signaling pathway (reviewed in Wodarz and Nusse, 1998), may also have a role in mediating the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. Nuclear ß-catenin signaling is required for several early aspects of endo-mesodermal specification in cleavage stage embryos (Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Logan et al., 1999; Huang et al., 2000; McClay et al., 2000; Vonica et al., 2000). At the late mesenchyme blastula stage, nuclear ß-catenin is present specifically within the nuclei of presumptive endoderm cells bordering the presumptive ectoderm (D. R. Sherwood, PhD thesis, Duke University, Durham, NC, 1997) (Logan et al., 1999), suggesting a possible later function in regulating the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary.
The sea urchin homolog of the Notch receptor, LvNotch, may also have a role in mediating the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. LvNotch signaling is activated within presumptive SMCs by underlying micromeres during early development, (Sherwood and McClay, 1999; Sweet et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000), suggesting that LvNotch may be a component of the micromere-initiated vegetal-to-animal cascade of inductive signaling that influences the formation of endoderm. In addition, LvNotch protein is expressed dynamically within both presumptive ectoderm and endoderm cells in the blastula embryo (Sherwood and McClay, 1997), indicating that LvNotch could also function in these tissues to regulate the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. While the Notch pathway has not yet been implicated in establishing germ-layer boundaries in other organisms, Notch signaling has been shown to mediate the formation of other types of boundaries, such as in Drosophila limb development and vertebrate somite formation (Irvine, 1999; Rawls et al., 2000). It is thus important to understand the possible role of LvNotch signaling in positioning the ectoderm-endoderm boundary in the sea urchin, both to gain a broader understanding of how Notch signaling is used for establishing boundaries, as well as elucidating the molecular mechanisms that pattern the sea urchin A-V axis.
In this study, we have investigated the role of LvNotch in mediating the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary using activated and dominant-negative forms of the receptor combined with lineage and mosaic analyses. We first demonstrate that activation of LvNotch signaling throughout the embryo shifts the ectoderm-endoderm boundary more animally along the A-V axis, whereas a loss or reduction of LvNotch signaling moves the boundary vegetally. Mosaic analyses of LvNotch function further show that LvNotch signaling has at least two distinct roles in specifying the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. LvNotch signaling appears to function cell autonomously in the animal region of the embryo to promote endoderm formation more animally, while LvNotch signaling in cells vegetal to the ectoderm-endoderm border regulates a cell non-autonomous signal(s) that also establishes the endoderm higher along the A-V axis. Finally, we show that vegetal LvNotch signaling cell non-autonomously regulates nuclear ß-catenin localization at the boundary, suggesting that vegetal LvNotch signaling may control the position of the boundary through the regulation of the Wnt pathway.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
mRNA preparation and injection into zygotes
All LvNotch DNA constructs have been described (Sherwood and McClay, 1999), and were used as templates to generate in vitro transcribed 5' capped mRNAs using the T3 mMessage mMachine kit (Ambion). mRNAs were passed through Microspin G-50 columns (Pharmacia) to remove free nucleotides, precipitated and resuspended in double distilled H2O. mRNA concentrations were determined, then mixed with glycerol (40% v/v) and injected into fertilized eggs (2.0-6.0 pg/zygote) as described (Mao et al., 1996; Sherwood and McClay, 1999).
mRNA/fluorescein dextran injection into eight-cell-stage embryos
Preparation of eight-cell stage embryos for injection into single blastomeres was identical to that described above, except that eggs were fertilized in 5 mM p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA), which was washed out immediately after fertilization. Treatment with PABA softened the fertilization membrane, allowing the embryos to be freed from the membranes, which adhered to the injection dish. To lineage and identify injected blastomeres, fluorescein dextran (Mr 40x103, Molecular Probes) was added to the mRNA/glycerol mixture at a concentration of 1.5 mg/ml. All mRNAs were injected at approximately 0.4-0.8 pg/blastomere at the eight-cell stage. Western analysis, whole-mount immunofluorescence, and the phenotypes of injected zygotes all indicated that fluorescein dextran did not affect the translation of injected mRNAs nor the phenotypes produced (see Fig. 7; data not shown). Similar to Lytechinus pictus embryos (see Henry et al., 1989), we noted that in Lytechinus variegatus, the third cleavage plane was usually slightly subequatorial. Thus, for consistency, we only injected blastomeres in eight-cell-stage embryos from batches of eggs producing embryos with slightly subequatorial third cleavage divisions. After injection, embryos were transferred to 50 mm petri dish lids coated with 1% agar, and analyzed under fluorescence at the 16-cell stage for embryos with healthy mesomere/mesomere or macromere/micromere pairs containing the mRNA/fluorescein dextran mix. These 16-cell-stage embryos were either labeled with DiI (below), or transferred to individual wells (coated with 1% agar) in a 96-well plate for culturing.
|
Animal cap isolation
To target LvNact mRNA into animal halves, eggs were fertilized in 5 mM PABA and injected with LvNact mRNA as described above. Following injection, PABA was washed out of the injection plate and embryos were cultured until the eight-cell stage. The embryos were then transferred to a 1% agar-coated dish containing hyaline extraction media (Fink and McClay, 1985). After a 2 minute incubation, embryos were transferred to an agar-coated dish containing Ca2+-free seawater, where animal and vegetal halves of embryos were separated using a fine glass needle. Animal halves were identified by the distinctive pattern of mesomere cleavage divisions, and cultured in 96-well plates containing ASW. Embryoids resulting from these animal caps were fixed with methanol after 48 hours of development as described (Sherwood and McClay, 1999), and stained with the Endo1 monoclonal antibody (Wessel and McClay, 1985).
Immunolocalization, cell counts and image analysis
Late mesenchyme blastula embryos injected with LvNactANK5 and LvNact were fixed with 2% paraformaldehyde in ASW, followed by rapid permeabilization with 100% methanol as described (Sherwood and McClay, 1999). To identify the LvNact or LvNact
ANK5 proteins, embryos were stained with the intracellular directed LvNotch polyclonal antibody, rabbit anti-ANK at 1:1000 dilution (Sherwood and McClay, 1997), which revealed the overexpressed intracellular domain of LvNotch, but not endogenous LvNotch. The number of cells expressing LvNact or LvNact
ANK5 was determined by optically sectioning stained embryos with a Zeiss 510 laser-scanning confocal microscope and counting the total number of nuclei containing these proteins. Nuclear ß-catenin was visualized with a guinea pig anti-ß-catenin polyclonal antibody as previously described (Logan et al., 1999). LvNact/ß-catenin double stained images were obtained by sequential confocal sectioning of double-labeled embryos, and these images were overlaid using Adobe Photoshop.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To assess whether LvNotch signaling affects the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary, we combined lineage analysis of individually labeled mesomeres at the 16-cell stage with injection of LvNact and LvNneg mRNA (Fig. 1A). The fate of mesomeres is a sensitive indicator of the position of the ectoderm-endoderm border. Lineage studies have indicated that the 16-cell stage mesomeres are usually positioned slightly animally to the ectoderm-endoderm boundary and give rise solely to ectoderm (Logan and McClay 1997). However, the mesomeres are close enough to the boundary such that approximately 16% of these cells randomly contribute progeny to both the ectoderm and the endoderm (the gut tissue in pluteus larvae). A shift in the ectoderm-endoderm boundary animally would thus be expected to increase and a vegetal shift of the border to decrease the number of mesomeres that contribute progeny to the gut.
|
|
LvNotch has distinct functions in the vegetal and animal portions of the embryo in mediating ectoderm-endoderm boundary position
Several possible mechanisms exist by which LvNotch may regulate the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. Previous work has demonstrated that the vegetal-most cells, the micromeres, initiate a sequential vegetal-to-animal wave of inductive signaling at the 16-cell stage that specifies overlying SMCs and endoderm during early development (reviewed in Davidson et al., 1998). Recent studies indicating that micromere signaling induces overlying SMC fate by activating LvNotch in adjacent presumptive SMCs (Sweet et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000), suggests the possibility that LvNotch signaling within the presumptive SMCs is a component of the inductive signaling wave. Alternatively, LvNotch signaling could function cell autonomously within the presumptive endoderm cells to establish the ectoderm-endoderm boundary more animally. LvNotch protein is expressed at high levels along the apical domain of presumptive endoderm cells in the late blastula embryo (Sherwood and McClay, 1997), coincident with the time that the ectoderm-endoderm boundary is thought to be established (Davidson et al., 1998; Logan and McClay, 1998). Finally, it is possible that LvNotch signaling could act cell non-autonomously within the ectoderm to position the boundary. LvNotch is expressed at low levels throughout the presumptive ectoderm (Sherwood and McClay, 1997), and molecular and cellular studies have suggested that the ectoderm also has an important role in positioning the boundary (Henry et al., 1989; Angerer et al., 2000). Based on these possible distinct signaling functions for LvNotch, a mosaic analysis was performed to elucidate the mechanism(s) by which LvNotch signaling regulates the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary.
Vegetal LvNotch signaling mediates the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary cell non-autonomously
To address whether vegetal LvNotch signaling influences the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary by controlling another inductive signal, the lineage of uninjected mesomeres overlying LvNact- and LvNneg-injected macromere/micromere pairs was determined (Fig. 2A). mRNAs were co-injected with the lineage marker fluorescein dextran into single blastomeres at the eight-cell stage, the last stage at which we found consistent mRNA injection into single blastomeres technically possible. Injected embryos were then followed to the 16-cell stage when the asymmetric fourth cleavage division allowed embryos with injected macromere/micromere pairs to be identified. Individual mesomeres overlying injected macromeres were then labeled with DiI to follow the fate of their descendants (Fig. 2A). If vegetal LvNotch signaling regulates another inductive signal that positions the ectoderm-endoderm boundary, mesomeres overlying macromeres with increased levels of LvNotch signaling (LvNact injected) would be expected to contribute to gut tissue at a higher frequency than controls. Conversely, mesomeres overlying macromeres with reduced LvNotch signaling (LvNneg injected) would be predicted to contribute to the gut less frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
As a direct test of whether LvNotch signaling can function cell autonomously within mesomeres to promote endoderm formation, we isolated animal caps from untreated and LvNact-injected embryos (Fig. 6A). In untreated embryos, isolated animal caps form ciliated epithelial embryoids that are devoid of endoderm (Fig. 6B; Horstadius, 1973). Animal halves from embryos injected with LvNact, however, formed endoderm tissue in 51% of the cases examined (n=18/35): invagination of archenteron tissue was observed by 24 hours of development, and this tissue expressed the hindgut/midgut marker, Endo1, by 48 hours of development (Fig. 6C-E). Together with the lineage experiments, these animal cap isolation results are indicative of a cell-autonomous role for LvNotch signaling within the animal region of the embryo in promoting endoderm formation.
|
|
We first asked whether LvNotch signaling regulates the localization of nuclear ß-catenin at the ectoderm-endoderm boundary by determining ß-catenin distribution in embryos injected with LvNact and LvNneg. Paralleling the effects on ectoderm-endoderm position, injection of LvNact shifted nuclear localized ß-catenin more animally along the A-V axis, leading to an approximate 50% increase in the volume of the embryo vegetal to nuclear ß-catenin, compared with untreated controls (Fig. 8A,B,D). Furthermore, injection of LvNneg shifted nuclear ß-catenin localization lower such that the volume of the embryo vegetal to nuclear ß-catenin decreased by approximately 30% (Fig. 8C,D). These results demonstrate that LvNotch signaling regulates the nuclear localization of ß-catenin, and suggest that LvNotch may at least in part mediate the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary through the control of ß-catenin localization at the border.
|
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Vegetal LvNotch signaling regulates ectoderm-endoderm boundary position cell non-autonomously
Our mosaic studies showed that LvNotch signaling acts in cells vegetal to the ectoderm-endoderm boundary to cell non-autonomously promote the position of endoderm more animally in overlying cells. Although our analysis could not precisely indicate which vegetal cells use LvNotch to send the cell non-autonomous signal, a likely possibility is the presumptive SMCs. Embryological experiments have shown that the vegetally localized micromeres initiate a sequential vegetal-to-animal cascade of inductive signaling necessary for the specification of SMCs and endoderm (Ransick and Davidson, 1995; Sweet et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000). Significantly, micromeres appear to activate LvNotch signaling in the overlying SMC precursors to specify the SMC fate in the early blastula stage (Sweet et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000). Thus, activation of LvNotch within the SMC precursors may couple SMC specification and the expression of a cell non-autonomous signal(s) that helps to define the animal boundary of the endoderm. Consistent with this idea, constitutive activation of LvNotch in vegetal cells converted most of these cells into SMCs and increased the non-autonomous signal; whereas inhibition of LvNotch reduced or eliminated SMC specification, and appeared to diminish or abolish the non-autonomous signal within vegetal cells (Fig. 2B-E; Table 2).
These mosaic studies also revealed one of the molecular targets of vegetal LvNotch signaling: the localization of nuclear ß-catenin at the ectoderm-endoderm boundary in the late blastula embryo. Vegetal overexpression of activated LvNotch specifically shifted both the ectoderm-endoderm boundary and nuclear ß-catenin localization more animally into overlying uninjected cells. Previous studies have demonstrated that vegetal nuclear ß-catenin signaling is dynamic and required for several early aspects of endo-mesodermal specification (Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Logan et al., 1999; McClay et al., 2000). It is therefore possible that a later function of nuclear ß-catenin within endoderm cells bordering the ectoderm is to mediate the recruitment of the animal-most endoderm cells. Supporting this notion, blocking entry of nuclear ß-catenin within mesomeres, which normally give rise to ectoderm and sometimes endoderm cells at the boundary, prevents mesomere descendants from ever contributing cells to the endoderm (M. Ferkowicz and D. M., unpublished). Vegetal LvNotch signaling may therefore regulate the ectoderm-endoderm boundary through its effects on ß-catenin localization at the border. Given that translocation of ß-catenin to the nucleus is a downstream consequence of Wnt signaling (Wodarz and Nusse, 1998), one candidate for the cell non-autonomous signal regulated by vegetal LvNotch is a Wnt ligand. The isolation of several Wnt homologs expressed during early sea urchin development is consistent with this possibility (Ferkowicz et al., 1998), and it will be important in the future to determine which, if any, are regulated by vegetal LvNotch signaling.
LvNotch signaling has a distinct, cell autonomous function within the animal region of the embryo in promoting endoderm formation more animally
Our mosaic studies further revealed that LvNotch signaling within animal cells also promotes the formation of endoderm more animally. Unlike vegetal LvNotch signaling, however, these effects appeared to be confined to the cells that contain altered LvNotch signaling. No cell non-autonomous effects on the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary were detected in untreated cells neighboring mesomere descendants in which LvNotch signaling was perturbed. Furthermore, ectopic endoderm tissue induced by expressing constitutively activated LvNotch in animal cells consisted solely of cells containing activated LvNotch. Animal caps, which in untreated embryos form ectodermal vesicles devoid of endoderm (Horstadius, 1973), were also induced (in approximately 50% of cases) to form endoderm derivatives by expression of constitutively activated LvNotch. Taken together, these observations offer compelling evidence that LvNotch signaling functions via a distinct, cell-autonomous mechanism in the animal region of the embryo to promote endoderm formation.
The cell autonomous nature of the effects of perturbing LvNotch signaling on endoderm formation suggests that LvNotch signaling probably functions within the presumptive endoderm in mesomere descendants. Consistent with this possibility, endogenous LvNotch is specifically expressed at high levels at the adherens junctions and along the apical domain of presumptive endoderm cells at the mesenchyme blastula stage (Sherwood and McClay, 1997), placing it in a position to interact with classical transmembrane ligands for Notch (reviewed in Kimble and Simpson, 1997) or a soluble processed ligand (Qi et al., 1999). It is important to note, however, that overexpression of dominant negative LvNotch did not eliminate endoderm formation, but rather shifted it more vegetally (see Fig. 1; Fig. 2D,E; Sherwood and McClay, 1999). Thus, cell autonomous LvNotch signaling may only be required within the more animal regions of the presumptive endoderm (i.e. close to the ectoderm-endoderm boundary). Furthermore, activation of LvNotch throughout the embryo did not extend endoderm tissue to the animal pole, suggesting that additional factors may confer or actively restrict the ability of LvNotch signaling to cell autonomously promote endoderm formation in the animal region. This could also explain why some isolated animal cap embryoids and injected mesomere pairs failed to form endoderm in response to constitutive activation of LvNotch signaling. For example, other endoderm specification factors required in cells for LvNotch to promote endoderm formation might not always have been present within the mesomere descendants. In support of this possibility, mesomere isolation experiments have indicated that there is considerable variability between different embryos and different batches of embryos in whether maternal vegetal determinants extend into mesomeres (Henry et al., 1989).
Another indication that the animal and vegetal signaling functions of LvNotch act distinctly in influencing the position of the ectoderm-endoderm boundary was the observation that unlike vegetal LvNotch signaling, activation of LvNotch within the animal region did not influence nuclear ß-catenin localization at the boundary. These findings are consistent with both signaling functions of LvNotch working independently to promote endoderm formation more animally. Alternatively, it is possible that ß-catenin localization at the boundary could mediate an interaction between both signaling functions of LvNotch. For example, nuclear-localized ß-catenin could regulate the presentation of a ligand that activates LvNotch signaling directly at the border. The observation that activation of LvNotch within mesomeres fails to stimulate nuclear entry of ß-catenin also implies that LvNotch signaling near the ectoderm-endoderm boundary promotes endoderm formation through a ß-catenin-independent signaling mechanism. This is not unprecedented, as micromeres transplanted to the animal pole also induce endoderm without stimulating nuclear ß-catenin entry (Logan and McClay, 1999).
This study provides the first undertaking of a mosaic analysis that examines the molecular mechanisms guiding ectoderm-endoderm boundary positioning in the sea urchin embryo, and contributes to our understanding of the signaling pathways that are likely to coordinately regulate the positioning of this boundary (summarized in Fig. 10B). It will be important in the future to develop more refined techniques to perturb Notch signaling, in order to better define when and where LvNotch functions, and to further address how LvNotch signaling is coordinated with other signaling pathways (e.g. BMP and Wnt) to position the ectoderm-endoderm boundary. Nevertheless, these experiments offer important new approaches to extend our understanding of ectoderm-endoderm boundary positioning in the sea urchin embryo, and in the case of LvNotch signaling, clearly demonstrate distinct functions for LvNotch in the animal and vegetal regions of the embryo in positioning this boundary.
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Angerer, L. M., Oleksyn, D. W., Logan, C. A., McClay, D. R., Dale, L. and Angerer, R. C. (2000). A BMP pathway regulates cell fate allocation along the sea urchin animal-vegetal axis. Development 127, 1105-1114.
Angerer, L. M. and Angerer, R. C. (2000). Animal-vegetal axis patterning mechanisms in the early sea urchin embryo. Dev. Biol. 218, 1-12.[Medline]
Carlesso, N., Aster, J. C., Sklar, J. and Scadden, D. T. (1999). Notch1-induced delay of human hematopoietic progenitor cell differentiation is associated with altered cell cycle kinetics. Blood 93, 838-48.
Davidson, E. H., Cameron, R. A. and Ransick, A. (1998). Specification of cell fate in the sea urchin embryo: summary and some proposed mechanisms. Development 125, 3269-3290.
de Celis, J. F. and Bray, S. (1997). Feed-back mechanisms affecting Notch activation at the dorsoventral boundary in the Drosophila wing. Development 124, 3241-3251.
Diaz-Benjumea, F. J. and Cohen, S. M. (1995). Serrate signals through Notch to establish a Wingless-dependent organizer at the dorsal-ventral compartment boundary of the Drosophila wing. Development 121, 4215-4225.
Ettensohn, C. and Malinda, K. M. (1993). Size regulation and morphogenesis: a cellular analysis of skeletogenesis in the sea urchin embryo. Development 119, 155-167.
Ettensohn, C. A. and Sweet, H. C. (2000). Patterning the early sea urchin embryo. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 50, 1-44.[Medline]
Ferkowicz, M. J., Stander, M. C. and Raff, R. A. (1998). Phylogenetic relationships and developmental expression of three sea urchin Wnt genes. Mol. Biol. Evol. 15, 809-819.[Abstract]
Fink, R. D. and McClay, D. R. (1985). Three cell recognition changes accompany the ingression of sea urchin primary mesenchyme cells. Dev. Biol. 107, 66-74.[Medline]
Go, M. J., Eastman, D. S. and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. (1998). Cell proliferation control by Notch signaling in Drosophila development. Development 125, 2031-2040.
Hardin, J., Coffman, J. A., Black, S. D. and McClay, D. R. (1992). Commitment along the dorsoventral axis of the sea urchin embryo is altered in response to NiCl2. Development 116, 671-85.
Henry, J. J., Amemiya, S., Wray, G. A. and Raff, R. A. (1989). Early inductive interactions are involved in restricting cell fates of mesomeres in sea urchin embryos. Dev. Biol. 136, 140-153.[Medline]
Hodor, P. G. and Ettensohn, C. A. (1998). The dynamics and regulation of mesenchymal cell fusion in the sea urchin embryo. Dev. Biol. 199, 111-124.[Medline]
Horstadius, S. (1973). Experimental Embryology of Echinoderms. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Huang, L., Li, X., Dayal, H., Wikramanayake, A. H. and Klein, W. H. (2000). Involvement of Tcf/Lef in establishing cell types along the animal-vegetal axis of sea urchins. Dev. Genes Evol. 210, 73-81.[Medline]
Irvine, K. D. (1999). Fringe, Notch, and making developmental boundaries. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 9, 434-441.[Medline]
Johnston, L. A. and Edgar, B. A. (1998). Wingless and Notch regulate cell-cycle arrest in the developing Drosophila wing. Nature 394, 82-84.[Medline]
Khaner, O. and Wilt, F. (1991). Interactions of different vegetal cells with mesomeres during early stages of sea urchin development. Development 112, 881-890.[Abstract]
Kimble, J. and Simpson, P. (1997). The LIN-12/Notch signaling pathway and its regulation. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 13, 333-61.[Medline]
Logan, C. Y. and McClay, D. R. (1997). The allocation of early blastomeres to the ectoderm and endoderm is variable in the sea urchin embryo. Development 124, 2213-2223.
Logan, C. Y. and McClay, D. R. (1998). The lineages that give rise to the endoderm and mesoderm in the sea urchin embryo. In Cell Fate and Lineage Determination (ed. S. Moody), pp. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Logan, C. Y., Miller, J. R., Ferkowicz, M. J. and McClay, D. R. (1999). Nuclear ß-catenin is required to specify vegetal cell fates in the sea urchin embryo. Development 126, 345-357.
Mao, C. A., Wikramanayake, A. H., Gan, L., Chuang, C. K., Summers, R. G. and Klein, W. H. (1996). Altering cell fates in sea urchin embryos by overexpressing SpOtx, an orthodenticle-related protein. Development 122, 1489-98.
McClay, D. R., Peterson, R., Range, R., Winter-Vann, A. and Ferkowicz, M. (2000). A micromere induction signal is activated by ß-catenin and acts through Notch to initiate specification of secondary mesenchyme cells in the sea urchin embryo. Development 127, 5113-5122.
Micchelli, C. A., Rulifson, E. J. and Blair, S. S. (1997). The function and regulation of cut expression on the wing margin of Drosophila: Notch, Wingless and a dominant negative role for Delta and Serrate. Development 124, 1485-1495.
Neumann, C. J. and Cohen, S. M. (1996). A hierarchy of cross-regulation involving Notch, wingless, vestigial and cut organizes the dorsal/ventral axis of the Drosophila wing. Development 122, 3477-3485.
Qi, H., Rand, M. D., Wu, X., Sestan, N., Wang, W., Rakic, P., Xu, T. and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. (1999). Processing of the Notch ligand Delta by the metalloprotease Kuzbanian. Science 283, 91-94.
Ransick, A. and Davidson, E. H. (1993). A complete second gut induced by transplanted micromeres in the sea urchin embryo. Science 259, 1134-1138.[Medline]
Ransick, A. and Davidson, E. H. (1995). Micromeres are required for normal vegetal plate specification in sea urchin embryos. Development 121, 3215-3222.
Ransick, A. and Davidson, E. H. (1998). Late specification of veg1 lineages to endodermal fate in the sea urchin embryo. Dev. Biol. 195, 38-48.[Medline]
Rawls, A., Wilson-Rawls, J. and Olson, E. N. (2000). Genetic regulation of somite formation. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 47, 131-154.[Medline]
Rebay, I., Fleming, R. J., Fehon, R. G., Cherbas, L., Cherbas, P. and Artavanis-Tsakonas, S. (1991). Specific EGF repeats of Notch mediate interactions with Delta and Serrate: implications for Notch as a multifunctional receptor. Cell 67, 687-699.[Medline]
Reynolds, S. D., Angerer, L. M., Palis, J., Nasir, A. and Angerer, R. C. (1992). Early mRNAs, spatially restricted along the animal-vegetal axis of sea urchin embryos, include one encoding a protein related to tolloid and BMP-1. Development 114, 769-786.[Abstract]
Ruffins, S. W. and Ettensohn, C. A. (1996). A fate map of the vegetal plate of the sea urchin (Lytechinus variegatus) mesenchyme blastula. Development 122, 253-263.
Rulifson, E. J. and Blair, S. S. (1995). Notch regulates wingless expression and is not required for reception of the paracrine wingless signal during wing margin neurogenesis in Drosophila. Development 121, 2813-2824.
Sherwood, D. R. and McClay, D. R. (1997). Identification and localization of a sea urchin Notch homologue: insights into vegetal plate regionalization and Notch receptor regulation. Development 124, 3363-3374.
Sherwood, D. R. and McClay, D. R. (1999). LvNotch signaling mediates secondary mesenchyme specification in the sea urchin embryo. Development 126, 1703-1713.
Sweet, H. C., Hodor, P. G. and Ettensohn, C. A. (1999). The role of micromere signaling in Notch activation and mesoderm specification during sea urchin embryogenesis. Development 126, 5255-5265.
Vonica, A., Weng, W., Gumbiner, B. G. and Venuti, J. M. (2000). Tcf is the nuclear effector of the ß-catenin signal that patterns the sea urchin animal-vegetal axis. Dev. Biol. 217, 230-243.[Medline]
Walker, L., Lynch, M., Silverman, S., Fraser, J., Boulter, J., Weinmaster, G. and Gasson, J. C. (1999). The Notch/Jagged pathway inhibits proliferation of human hematopoietic progenitors in vitro. Stem Cells 17, 162-171.
Wesley, C. S. (1999). Notch and Wingless regulate expression of cuticle patterning genes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 5743-5758.
Wessel, G. M. and McClay, D. R. (1985). Sequential expression of germ-layer specific molecules in the sea urchin embryo. 111, 451-463.
Wessel, G. M. and Wikramanayake, A. (1999). How to grow a gut: ontogeny of the endoderm in the sea urchin embryo. BioEssays 21, 459-471.[Medline]
Wikramanayake, A. H., Huang, L. and Klein, W. (1998). ß-Catenin is essential for patterning the maternally specified animal-vegetal axis in the sea urchin embryo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, 9343-9348.
Wodarz, A. and Nusse, R. (1998). Mechanisms of Wnt signaling in development. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 14, 59-88.[Medline]