1 MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QH, UK
2 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 701 West 168th Sreet, New York, NY 10032, USA
*Author for correspondence (e-mail: pal{at}mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk)
Accepted 11 March 2002
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Planar polarity, Morphogen, Compartment, Hh, omb, Wnt, Drosophila melanogaster
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Bonner (Bonner, 1947) first argued that, in Dictyostelium, amoebae are able to read the local slope of a concentration gradient, and experimental evidence in Hemiptera suggested that, in insects at least, this local slope (the vector) of a morphogen gradient specifies planar cell polarity (Lawrence, 1966
; Stumpf, 1966
). More recently it has been shown that single yeast cells, Dictyostelium cells and neutrophils are able to detect, and are polarised by, the vector of shallow gradients of substances (varying by only about 1% over the cell diameter) across a wide range of concentrations (Zigmond, 1974
; Segall, 1993
; Parent and Devreotes, 1999
; Drubin, 2000
). In this view, pattern formation in a developing field depends on a succession of events: first, gradients of morphogens are made that diffuse from localised sources and reach each cell. The concentration of a morphogen at each locale (the scalar) gives information of position that determines cell differentiation and thereby fixes pattern. The concentration landscape may also cause the graded production of other diffusible morphogens, creating secondary morphogen gradients. The vector of one of these secondary morphogens could specify planar polarity (Struhl et al., 1997a
). The initial reading of this vector is then progressively elaborated within cells as proteins are localised (compare the CRAC protein in Dictyostelium) (Parent et al., 1998
). One consequence of this is to place a cell hair in one part of the cell membrane this hair then grows out in a particular direction (Eaton et al., 1996
).
We use the abdomen of adult Drosophila because it is particularly well suited to study the global control of cell pattern and planar polarity. Most epidermal cells of the abdomen make a few hairs or a bristle, and these indicate the planar polarity. In addition, epidermal cells at different positions along the anteroposterior axis of each segment make characteristic types of cuticle to form a stratified pattern. Finally, the abdominal epidermis presents the primeval body plan of higher invertebrates, being a chain of anterior (A) and posterior (P) compartments that constitute parasegments (Martínez-Arias and Lawrence, 1985) and segments. Hedgehog (Hh), a morphogen produced by P compartment cells, is responsible for organizing both cell pattern and planar cell polarity in the neighbouring A compartments (Kopp and Duncan, 1997
; Struhl et al., 1997a
; Struhl et al., 1997b
; Lawrence et al., 1999a
).
Our main aim here is to research how polarity is determined within the context of pattern formation as a whole. We do not try to understand the mechanics of asymmetry within a single cell but instead ask how the cells of the whole epidermal segment know which way to point. For example, we do not know how the graded distribution of Hh is translated into the orientation of hairs and bristles. Hh is made in every P compartment and enters each A compartment from both anterior and posterior directions to form U-shaped concentration gradients (Struhl et al., 1997a; Struhl et al., 1997b
). We have shown that Hh somehow directs planar cell polarity throughout the A compartment, causing cells to make hairs and bristles that point posteriorly towards the source. Thus a clone of cells that make Hh ectopically will reorient surrounding cells, causing them to make hairs and bristles which point towards the centre of the clone. However, when the Hh pathway is activated in cells confined to a clone, the surrounding wild-type cells are also repolarised. We argued that this repolarisation was therefore not due to Hh itself (Struhl et al., 1997a
) but to something else emanating from the clone, possibly another morphogen. Here we confirm this with a new test.
Our working model is that a substance (X) is produced at the back of each A compartment in response to Hh and spreads anteriorly to set up a concentration landscape of X (Struhl et al., 1997a). We then conjecture that the polarity of a cell at any point in the A compartment is specified by the local vector in this gradient landscape, in this case like an arrow that points up the steepest slope of the concentration gradient (Lawrence, 1966
; Stumpf, 1966
; Struhl et al., 1997a
). Further, since nearly all hairs and bristles point backwards, any simple form of the model requires that the gradient of X be monotonic, decreasing consistently in one direction. We interpret all the results with respect to this hypothesis.
The model raises many questions that need to be answered by experiment. For example, which cells respond to Hh to produce X and how do they do so? How far does X move? What is the registration of the repeating X gradient relative to the chain of A and P compartments? Does X control polarity in both the A and P compartments? What is the molecular nature of X?
Our approach to these problems is to utilise those genes that have been implicated in the pathway of Hh action. We make genetically marked clones of cells in different parts of the segment that either lack a particular gene or overexpress it. We then describe the effects on polarity, both inside and outside the clone. At least within the A compartment, Hh appears to govern X production by inducing expression of optomotor blind (omb) and perhaps that of the extracellular signal Wingless (Wg) to generate a distribution of X that spreads forward. In an attempt to identify X we have tested the Decapentaplegic, Notch, EGF, FGF and, especially, the Wnt pathways, all without positive result. Hence, the identity of X remains unknown.
Another series of questions relates to the P compartment. The development of this compartment cannot be directly dependent on Hh because P cells are blind to Hh (reviewed by Lawrence and Struhl, 1996). Yet the P compartment is patterned and has oriented hairs. So what determines the scalar response in the P compartment, stratifying it into different types of cuticle? Similarly, what determines the vector, the orientation of its cells?
We present evidence that the P compartment is patterned by another morphogen that acts also through omb omb appears to be expressed and required in the anterior region of the P compartment. Our results suggest that this morphogen is a Wnt, probably Wg itself. We discuss how the P compartment might be polarised.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To save space and because there are many more landmarks, we have concentrated on the tergites, which are formed by the dorsal epidermis. However, all the clone types have also been studied ventrally in the sternites and pleura these results are given if they seem to be helpful. Unfortunately the pleura has few distinguishing marks so we could not easily determine the position of pleural clones relative to the compartmental subdivisions.
Mutations and gene constructs
The mutant alleles and transgenes used in this work are as follows (see also FlyBase, 1999; Lawrence et al., 1999a
).
Hh pathway
hh: hhAC, a deletion removing the start of the open reading frame. hh.Gal4: an enhancer trap insertion in the hedgehog gene which expresses Gal4 (gift from M. Calleja and G. Morata). hh.lacZ: hhP30. Pka: Pka-C1E95, an amorphic allele of the cAMP-dependent protein kinase 1 gene. ptc: ptc16, an amorphic patched allele caused by a premature stop codon before the first transmembrane domain. ptcS2: a hypomorphic allele. ptc18: an amorphic allele. ptc.Gal4: the insertion P{w+mW.hs=GawB}559.1, that expresses Gal4 in the ptc pattern. ptc.lacZ: Ecol\lacZptcAT96. tub.ptc: ptcTub84B.PCa. UAS.ptc
loop2: the open reading frame of a form of patched lacking most of the second large extracellular loop (Briscoe et al., 2001
).
Omb
omb: biomb3198, an amorphic bifid allele resulting from a premature stop codon. Kopp (Kopp and Duncan, 1997) isolated alleles of a gene (Scruffy, Scf) and suggested that this gene may act in parallel with omb. We have made omb clones in a Scf background, expecting them therefore to have a stronger phenotype, but they do not do so they behave as omb clones normally do (not shown). omb.Gal4: an enhancer trap insertion isolated by Y. H. Sun [omb-Gal42 according to Kopp et al. (Kopp et al., 1997)]. UAS.omb: FLP-out of biScer\FRT.Rnor\CD2.UAS.
Wnt pathway
arm: arm2, a strong armadillo allele resulting from a premature stop codon. UAS.arm*: armDelta.Scer\UAS.T:Ivir\HA1, a constitutively activated form of armadillo. arr: arr2, an amorphic arrow allele. Df(2L)RF: a deletion of the chromosomal region containing the genes Wnt4, Wnt6, Wnt10 and wg (Janson et al., 2001). sgg: sgg32, an amorphic shaggy allele. UAS.Wnt: The open reading frames of Wnt2, Wnt4 and Wnt5 as well as the putative Wnt6, 8 and 10 genes (FlyBase/BDGP annotated Drosophila genome sequence) (Adams et al., 2000
) were amplified and cloned into the pUAST vector (Brand and Perrimon, 1993
) using standard techniques, (see Llimargas and Lawrence, 2001
). Two independent insertions for each Wnt gene were tested. In some experiments a different Wnt4 construct, Wnt4Scer\UAS.cGa, was also used. Apart from Wnt10 all the UAS.Wnts were shown to be functional in different tests (Llimargas and Lawrence, 2001
). UAS.Nrt::wg: Nrt::wgScer\UAS.T:Ivir\HA1, the N terminus of wg is fused to the C terminus of the type II transmembrane protein Nrt. fz2.lacZ: the insertion P{w+mC=lacW}SB227 (P0013) which expresses ß-Gal in a fz2 pattern. (A. Sato and K. Saigo, personal communication).
EGFR, FGFR pathways
argos: argos7, a small deletion removing the 5' exon and the beginning of the major open reading frame. Egfr: Egfrf2, an amorphic allele of Epidermal growth factor receptor. UAS.Egfr*: Egfr::toract.Scer\UAS, an activated form of Egfr. rho: rhoP
5, a small deletion of the rhomboid gene. spi: spi1, a strong spitz allele. sty: styS73 strong allele of sprouty. vn: vnDeltaP25, an amorphic allele of vein originated from a P element imprecise excision. UAS.argos: argosScer\UAS.cHa. tub>f+y+>raf*: Hsap\RAF1
305.aTub84B.T:Myr1. UAS.CDC42V12: Cdc42V12.Scer\UAS. UAS.CDC42N17: Cdc42N17.Scer\UAS. UAS.Rac1V12: Rac1V12.Scer\UAS. UAS.Rac1N17: Rac1N17.Scer\UAS UAS.
-btl: btlScer\UAS.T:l\cIDD. UAS.
-htl: htlScer\UAS.T:l\cIDD.
Dpp pathway
tkv: tkv8. UAS.tkv*: tkvQ253D.Scer\UAS.cNb.
Notch pathway
N: NXK11, an amorphic allele of Notch.
Duplications and other transgenes
Dp-y+: Dp(1;2)sc19. Dp-sgg+: Dp(1;2)w+70h. Dp-pwn+: Dp(2;3)P32. Dp-N+: Dp(1;2)51b. tub.Gal4: Scer\GAL4Tub84B.PL, the S. cerevisiae Gal4 gene is expressed under the control of the
Tub84B promoter. abx/ubx>f+>Gal4-lacZ: Scer\GAL4Scer\FRT.Ubx. tub>Gal80-y+>Gal4: Similar to Scer\GAL4Scer\FRT.Rnor\CD2.
Tub84B with the CD2 sequence replaced with a Gal80-y+ cassette (Lee and Luo, 1999
). tub.Gal80: Scer\GAL80
Tub84B.PL, the Gal4 gene is expressed under the control of the
Tub84B promoter. lacZy+: Ecol\lacZScer\FRT.NLS.
Tub84B. CD2y+: Rnor\CD2hs.PJ. PSy2: Psn
Tub84B.PS. UAS.lacZJ312: Ecol\lacZScer\UAS.T:SV40\nls2.
Clonal analysis
Unless stated otherwise clones were induced by heat shocking at 34 or 37.5°C for 60 minutes. Either embryos at blastoderm stage or third instar larvae of the following genotypes were used.
ptcS2 hh: y w hs.FLP; FRT42D pwn ptc/FRT42D pwn ptcS2; FRT82B Dp-pwn+ tub.ptc/FRT82B hh.
omb: (i) y w omb sn FRT19A/FRT19A; hs.FLP/+; hh.lacZ/+. (ii) y w omb sn FRT19A/FRT19A; hs.FLP/ptc.lacZ. (iii) y w omb sn FRT19A/w hs.FLP tub.Gal80 FRT19A; tub.Gal4/UAS.nlslacZ.
omb ptc: y omb sn FRT19A/y w (tub.ptc)x2 PSy2 FRT19A; ptc/ptc18 hs.FLP.
arr: w omb.Gal4/y w hs.FLP; FRT42D pwn arr/FRT42D CD2y+; UAS.lacZJ312/+.
sgg (or arm): (i) y sgg (or arm) FRT101/w hs.FLP FRT101; ptc.lacZ/+. (ii) y sgg hs.FLP; Dp-y+ Dp-sgg+ FRT39/stc FRT39.
Pka: hs.FLP; Pka FRT39/CD2y+ FRT39.
Pka Df(2L)RF: hs.FLP; Df(2L)RF Pka FRT39/CD2y+ FRT39.
ptcloop2: y w UAS.ptc
loop2/y w hs.FLP; FRT42D pwn ptc/FRT42D Tub.Gal80 CD2y+; tub.Gal4/+.
N: y N hs.FLP; FRT42D Dp-N+/FRT42D pwn.
Egfr: y w hs.FLP; FRT42D pwn Egfr/FRT42D CD2y+.
argos: y w hs.FLP; argos FRT80B/lacZy+ FRT80B.
rho: y w hs.FLP; rho FRT80B/lacZy+ FRT80B.
spi: y w hs.FLP; stc spi FRT40A/FRT40A.
sty: y w hs.FLP; sty FRT80B/lacZy+ FRT80B.
vn: y hs.FLP; vn FRT80B/lacZy+ FRT80B.
tkv: y w hs.FLP; tkv stc FRT39/CD2y+ FRT39.
UAS.argos, UAS.omb, UAS.Egfr* and UAS.tkv*: y w hs.FLP f36a; abx/ubx>f+>Gal4-lacZ/UAS.argos. y w hs.FLP f36a; abx/ubx>f+>Gal4-lacZ/+; UAS.omb/+. y w hs.FLP f[36a]; abx/ubx>f[+]>Gal4-lacZ/UAS.Egfr[*]. y w hs.FLP f36a; abx/ubx>f+>Gal4-lacZ/+; UAS.tkv*/+.
tub.raf*: y w hs.FLP; tub>f+y+>raf*/+.
UAS.Wnt4: y w hs.FLP tub.Gal4; (UAS.Wnt4)x2/+; CD2y+ trc ri FRT2A/tub.Gal80 FRT2A (flies reared at 29°C after clone induction).
Clones with other UAS constructs: y w hs.FLP; tub>Gal80-y+>Gal4/ (where
represents a particular UAS construct).
Dissection and mounting of abdominal cuticles as well as detection of ß-Gal4 activity were carried out according to the method of Lawrence et al. (Lawrence et al., 1999a). Images were captured using Auto-Montage (Syncroscopy, Cambridge, UK).
![]() |
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
With regard to polarity, the clones confined to the anterior and middle part of the A compartment are normal. However, clones just behind the middle of the A compartment usually show reversal at the front, with normal polarisation at the back. More strikingly, clones confined to the very back of the A compartment, in the a6, a5 and a4 domains can be largely or entirely reversed (Kopp and Duncan, 1997) and this reversal usually extends anterior (Fig. 2, Fig. 3B,E) to the clone.
To explain these polarity changes, we suggest that Hh induces X production through the agency of Omb. It follows that little or no X can be produced within omb clones and therefore that the polarities of cells in or near such clones depend on X produced outside. Clones in the middle of the A compartment behave normally because most X is produced behind them and the gradients of X concentration are little changed. Clones located a little further back will have peaks of X both behind and in front and this can cause localised reversal at the front of the clone (Fig. 2, Fig. 4C). For a clone extending back to the AP boundary, the only source of X will be anterior to the clone, presumably because omb+ cells there will see Hh protein that has passed through the clone. These cells should make X that spreads backwards into the clone, setting up a gradient of reversed polarity (Fig. 4B). There is corroborating evidence: in some clones there is dark pigmentation and large bristles anterior to the clone (Fig. 3C-E), confirming that Hh has indeed been received there. However, many omb clones are associated with anterior repolarizations that occur even where there is no dark pigmentation anterior to the clone (Fig. 3B), suggesting that the level of Hh required to stimulate some X production anterior to the clone is less than that needed to make a4 pigment. It follows that, in normal flies, some X is produced by cells anterior to the a4 pigmented zone. Finally, we find that some clones, which extend nearly to the back of A, show reversed territory behind the clone (Fig. 3D), perhaps due to the domination of the X source that is anterior to the clone over any production of X behind it.
|
omb ptc clones
If the production of X depends at least in part on omb, then ptc clones, in which the Hh pathway has been constitutively activated, should produce little or no X if they also lack omb. To test this we made clones that were both ptc and omb; these clones form a6 cuticle as ptc clones do. However, in the middle of the A compartment and unlike ptc clones in that position (Lawrence et al., 1999a) they fail to repolarise behind, but reverse polarity in front (Fig. 5A) as omb cells do (Fig. 2, Fig. 4B). Similarly, omb ptc clones situated at the back of the A compartment behave like omb clones, the whole being reversed in polarity (and not like ptc clones in the same location, which have normal polarity). Thus in terms of the type of the cuticle (the scalar), omb ptc behave as ptc clones, but in terms of the vector they behave as omb clones. These results confirm that Hh induces X production through the action of omb.
|
(ii) smoothened
smoothened (smo), is an essential component of Hh transduction; without it the cells cannot see Hh protein (Alcedo et al., 1996; Chen and Struhl, 1996
; van den Heuvel and Ingham, 1996
). As regards polarity one would expect neither omb nor smo clones to produce X and for their phenotype to be the same. Although this is generally the case (Struhl et al., 1997a
), the effects of smo and omb differ for clones located at the back of the A compartment. Polarity within these omb clones is completely reversed, consistent with the model (Fig. 4C), whereas the corresponding smo clones are reversed only within the anterior portion of the clone, polarity returning to normal at the very back of the A compartment [see Fig. 7 in Struhl et al. (Struhl et al., 1997a
)]. Our preferred explanation for this discrepancy is that Smo protein perdures in smo clones, allowing partial rescue of the smo mutant phenotype, particularly at the back of the A compartment, where Hh is most abundant. This rescue could allow production of X, enough to restore normal polarity at the back of the clone, but not enough to specify a4 cuticle or to upregulate ptc.lacZ. For both smo and omb clones, some Hh would be expected to move forwards across the clone and induce an ectopic peak of X production in more anterior, wild-type cells, accounting for the polarity reversals that are observed in both cases
.
|
What is X?
We have conjectured that X is diffusible and produced in a graded fashion, peaking at the back of A and declining progressively towards the front of A. We first round up the usual suspects: these are signals transduced by the Notch, EGF, FGF, Dpp and Wnt pathways. Briefly, we have discarded all of these except for the Wnt pathway, because we find that removing or overexpressing key elements of each pathway in clones fail to perturb polarity, either inside the clone or nearby.
(1) We removed the Notch gene itself, and although clones of this genotype fail to contribute to bristle forming (proneural) portions of the adult epidermis (the a3, a4 and a5 regions), they survive elsewhere (such as p3, a6 and a2) where they show normal polarity.
(2) We removed the EGF receptor from clones; such clones do alter the distribution of bristles, but the polarity is normal (cf. Diaz-Benjumea and Garcia-Bellido, 1990). We also made clones that remove spitz, vein, rhomboid, argos and sprouty as well as clones that overexpress Argos and activated Egfr, Raf, Cdc42 and Rac. None of these clones showed any consistent alterations of normal polarity.
(3) We expressed activated forms of the Breathless and Heartless receptor for FGF in clones, without any effect on polarity.
(4) We removed thickveins (tkv), the receptor for Dpp, or overexpressed activated Tkv. These clones had no effects on polarity in the tergites.
There is already circumstantial evidence suggesting that X might be a Wnt (Adler et al., 1997; Struhl et al., 1997a
; Shulman et al., 1998
). In particular, Wg can be transduced by either of two Wnt receptors (Bhanot et al., 1996
; Bhanot et al., 1999
; Chen and Struhl, 1999
), Frizzled and Frizzled2 (Fz, Fz2), and Fz is somehow involved in polarity (Gubb and Garcia-Bellido, 1982
; Vinson and Adler, 1987
). Also, Wg is expressed as a gradient as we imagine for X. However, we had shown earlier (Struhl et al., 1997a
) that Pka clones that are also mutant for wg can repolarize neighbouring cells, indicating that they can still serve as ectopic sources of X. Consequently, a simple model in which Wg is X is not tenable. Nevertheless, more complicated scenarios remain. For example, X might be another Wnt, or perhaps, several Wnts might act redundantly as X. We have subjected this hypothesis to several tests.
(1) Removing Wnt genes
wg, Wnt 4, 6, and 10 are all elided by the deficiency, Df(2L)RF, (FlyBase, 1999; Janson et al., 2001
). We therefore made marked clones that are homozygous for Df(2L)RF and Pka. These clones appear to reverse the polarity of wild-type cells as well as Pka controls do (Fig. 6A,B), implying that they are still sources of X, in spite of lacking all four Wnt genes. Of the remaining Wnt genes, Wnt2, 5 and 8, we have been able to examine only the effects of removing Wnt2, as mutations that reduce or abolish Wnt5 and 8 activity are not available. Flies with null mutations for Wnt2 (we studied Wnt2EMSO, Wnt299 and Df(2R)11) are viable and have normal abdomens.
|
Wnt4 also failed to cause any consistent changes of polarity in the abdomen when expressed either in clones or under ptc.Gal4 control. However, we did find that expressing Wnt4 at high temperature under ptc.Gal4 control (Gieseler et al., 2001) occasionally altered wing patterning. Further we observed effects on polarity when Wnt4 was driven in the P compartment of the wing with an en.Gal4 driver: within the A compartment the hairs posterior to vein II tended to turn clockwise to point posteriorly, as if they were aiming towards an ectopic source of the Wnt4 protein emanating from P behind them. However in what ought to be a better test, marked clones expressing Wnt4, driven by tub.Gal4, failed to affect wing polarity. Note that the results with ectopic Wnt4 expression in the wing are equivocal and run counter both to the results of the same experiments in the abdomen, and to experiments in which the gene is eliminated from Pka clones (see above). Hence, we tentatively discard Wnt4 as a candidate.
Flies carrying clones expressing Wnt2 did not emerge from the puparium and ptc.Gal4 UAS.Wnt2 flies were lethal. However, we examined the abdomens of pharate adults carrying numerous clones expressing Wnt2 and they had undisturbed polarity.
All of these tests argue that neither wg nor any of the other Wnts is X. However, they do not eliminate the possibilities that some combination of Wnts might function together to constitute X, or that X might be a broadly expressed Wnt that is converted from an inert to an active form after transcription.
(3) Activating the Wnt pathway
In apparent contrast to the above results, activating the Wnt pathway, rather than the Wnts themselves, did produce effects on polarity; however, these could also be attributed to unintended effects on the Hh pathway. Clones of cells mutant for the gene shaggy (sgg) constitutively activate the Wg pathway (Wodarz and Nusse, 1998). In the tergites, sgg clones are abnormally round in shape and have higher than normal bristle densities. In addition, they cause polarity reversals similar to those associated with Pka clones: hairs and bristles at the back of these clones are reversed (Fig. 6C). However, we also observed that sgg clones stain blue when the flies carry ptc.lacZ, indicating that the loss of Sgg leads to ectopic activation of the Hh pathway (Fig. 6C). Under our model this would suffice to cause ectopic production of X in the sgg clones, which would reverse hairs behind, regardless of whether or not X is a Wnt.
Less easy to understand is the observation that sgg clones can transform a1 cuticle into a3 cuticle (Fig. 6D) this appears to be a change of cell identity from the anterior to the posterior subdomain of the A compartment (Lawrence et al., 1999a), perhaps implicating Wg in the definition or determination of these two subdomains.
(4) Blocking the Wnt pathway
We made clones that were mutant for arm or arrow: the Wg pathway in these two types of clones should be blocked (Peifer and Wieschaus, 1990; Wodarz and Nusse, 1998
; Wehrli et al., 2000
). There were two effects.
The first is that clones in the dorsal epidermis differentiated cuticle characteristic of the ventral epidermis: they made pleural hairs, and patches of sternite with bristles (Fig. 6F). Clones in all portions of the tergite, in both the A and P compartments, were so transformed, indicating a general requirement for Wnt signalling to specify dorsal as opposed to ventral structures. Thus, in the wild type, all dorsal cells are probably exposed to at least low levels of Wg or some other Wnt protein.
The second is that such clones affect polarity: in the tergites, the mutant clones were normal at the rear of the clone but reversed in the front, with reversal extending outside the clone (Fig. 6F). One explanation for these polarity changes could be that, in the tergites, Wg normally acts to enhance the production of X. Thus cells deficient in the Wnt pathway would produce less X than normal, giving a dip in the concentration landscape for X, causing reversed polarity at the front of the clone. In the eye, both arm and arrow clones cause equivalent polarity reversals and a similar resolution has been offered: it was suggested that Wg might regulate the production of a secondary polarising factor also dubbed X (Wehrli and Tomlinson, 1998
).
Thus, we propose that Wg helps to produce X, but that Wg itself is not X. If Wg were X, both arm and arrow clones should not be able to transduce it, and hence, should have random polarity within the clone. Moreover, the effects on polarity should be cell autonomous. Yet, as we have seen, these clones behave as if they have caused an altered distribution of X, rather than any failure to transduce X. Similar arguments apply to sgg clones. In this case, the Wg pathway should be constitutively activated in all cells within the clone, preventing them from detecting a gradient of Wg protein. However such clones are not randomly polarized, indicating that they can still respond to graded X activity.
It is useful to compare the roles of Omb and Wg on X production. Omb is apparently essential for X production: omb clones at the back of A show reversed polarity that extends all the way to the posterior edge of the compartment (Fig. 3B,C). By contrast, in arm and arrow clones, reversal occurs only in the anterior portions of such clones. Thus, we infer that arm and arrow cells located at the back of A can produce some X, even though they cannot activate the canonical Wnt pathway. Thus, it could be that Hh drives X production mainly through Omb, but also adds to the level of X produced through the induction and action of Wg. The combination of both Omb and Wg activity might extend the reach of the X gradient to encompass the whole A compartment, and possibly also further forwards into the neighbouring P compartment.
Downstream genes in the Hedgehog pathway the P compartment
None of our previous studies has helped us understand how the P compartment is patterned or how its cells are polarised. smo clones have no phenotype in the P compartment, confirming that Hh has no function there. In the embryo and imaginal discs, Hh crossing over from the P compartment induces the expression of Wg and Dpp in line sources along the back of A. Both proteins then spread back into the P compartment where they act as gradient morphogens to control P growth and pattern (reviewed by Lawrence and Struhl, 1996). Wg and Dpp are also produced at the back of the A compartment in each abdominal segment (albeit in distinct dorsal and ventral domains). Hence, by analogy with the embryo and imaginal discs, these morphogens seem to be the most likely candidates to pattern the P compartment here as well. If so, we would suppose that in the tergites, Hh induces Wg (Kopp et al., 1999
; Struhl et al., 1997b
) and this Wg moves posteriorly across the AP compartment boundary into the P compartment where it activates expression of omb, thus specifying the zone of hairy cuticle (p3) and distinguishing it from p2 cuticle, which is bald. We have tested this hypothesis in the following experiments.
(1) Omb
Kopp (Kopp and Duncan, 1997) found that loss-of-function omb mutants tend to lose the hairy, unpigmented cuticle characteristic of both posterior A (a6) and anterior P (p3) regions, whereas gain-of-function mutations tend to acquire it. Since we have observed that omb clones in the A compartment are able to make a6 cuticle, it seems likely that Omb is required specifically for the hairy, unpigmented cuticle (p3) that normally forms at the front of the P compartment. If so, one might expect omb clones at the front of the P compartment to transform the anterior type of cuticle (p3) into that found more posteriorly (p2). Although most omb clones were normal in this region, about one third of p3 clones lost some, but not all, of the hairs within the clone (n=94 of which 36 clones had noticeable reduction of hairs) (Fig. 7A). We wondered whether this might be an artefact due, for example to our method of detecting these clones which uses the tub.Gal4 driver to activate UAS.lacZ expression, but control clones (n=47) in sister flies always gave normal hair patterns. Thus it appears that omb may be required in the p3 territory, as it is in the a5 and a4 territories, to specify the type of cuticle secreted.
(2) The Wnt pathway
If Wg activates omb in anterior regions of the P compartment, blocking the Wnt pathway in cells in the P compartment should block expression of omb. We therefore monitored expression of omb in arrow clones. This experiment proved difficult to do, but we found that omb was sometimes, but not always, turned off autonomously in the clone (Fig. 7B,C). Conversely, ectopic activation of the Wnt pathway should transform bald cuticle (p2) at the back of P into hairy cuticle (p3) normally found at the front of P. Indeed, some clones lacking the sgg gene become hairy if situated in the bald areas of P, apparently causing a transformation from p2 to p3 cuticle (Fig. 6E). But, clones expressing either tethered Wg or activated Arm, which should behave similarly, had no clear effects. Even so the positive results with arrow and sgg give support to the hypothesis that Wg stratifies the P compartment by working through Omb.
(3) fz2.lacZ
We looked at the pattern of fz2.lacZ, because fz2 is thought to be repressed in cells receiving the Wnt signal (Cadigan et al., 1998). Expression is weak all over the A compartment, with a slight tendency to be stronger at the front of A. However, expression is strong at the rear of the P compartment and is graded downwards and anteriorly. Expression is not detected at the front of the P compartment. This pattern is consistent with a gradient of Wnt activity that is high at the front and low at the back of the P compartment.
We are still left with the question: what polarises cells of the P compartment? There are several possibilities. A simple one (see Fig. 8) is that X could extend anteriorly from the A compartment into the adjacent P compartment, forming a monotonic gradient that governs polarity throughout the entire parasegment.
|
![]() |
CONCLUSIONS AND SPECULATIONS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Although we propose that X is a long range morphogen, our results do not exclude models in which polarity depends on short range interactions between cells. Recent models for planar polarity concentrate mostly on this aspect of how cells become polarized, particularly on how proteins within cells become asymmetrically localized (Usui et al., 1999; Axelrod, 2001
; Bellaiche et al., 2001
; Strutt, 2001
; Winter et al., 2001
), and how such molecular polarity might propagate from cell to cell by localised recruitment of other proteins at the abutting cell membranes (Usui et al., 1999
; Strutt, 2001
). These models can provide explanations for the local, non-autonomous perturbations of polarity which occur along the borders of mutant clones, but they do not readily explain the longer range effects of such clones nor how polarity is determined globally in the wild-type fly this is what we are trying to do.
The model for X can be further elaborated, for example, polarity could depend on two cooperating morphogens, each operating in different directions. While X could emanate forwards from the back of the A compartment, another polarising gradient, Y could be sourced from the front, or from the P compartment, and move backwards. Hairs would be subject to two separate and mutually supportive influences, pointing up the gradient of X and down the gradient of Y. More complex hypotheses of this sort have two main appeals: they might help explain how the polarity is determined across the AP border and they also might help us understand why removal of genes needed for polarity, such as fz or four-jointed still gives near-normal flies with much of their polarity unscathed (Shulman et al., 1998; Usui et al., 1999
; Strutt, 2001
).
Clearly, it is necessary to identify the polarising factors. We have attempted, albeit unsuccessfully, to identify X, and have evidence against most of the common signalling ligands such as those operating through the Notch, Dpp, EGF and FGF pathways, as well as all of the seven known Drosophila Wnts none of these experiments are proofs, but they are the best we could do with the available techniques and mutations. Nevertheless, Wnt signalling does appear to be needed for the normal generation of X; hence, it may be that Wnts augment the production or activity of X induced by Hh.
Many other studies on planar polarity have used the wing. The main axes differ between the wing and the abdomen: in the wing, the hairs do not point towards the source of Hh and Dpp, but point distally. Thus, none of these two factors is likely to be directly responsible for inducing the wing equivalent of X. Similarly, omb expression in the wing is controlled directly by Dpp signaling, suggesting that it, too, is unlikely to be involved in inducing factor X. Nevertheless downstream components such as Fz are needed in the wing, eye and abdomen (Vinson and Adler, 1987; Zheng et al., 1995
) (P. A. L., J. C. and G. S., unpublished) indicating that the process of polarizing cells in response to X, and possibly X itself, may be the same in all systems.
Although our focus has been on how Hh organizes both pattern (scalar) and polarity (vector) throughout the abdominal epidermis, growth must also be tightly regulated. If the postulated X gradient spans the parasegment, as diagrammed in Fig. 8, then perhaps X might also be a candidate for the factor controlling size. As argued elsewhere, proliferation and cell death might depend on a cells perception of the slope of the gradient responsible for polarity. In the abdomen, it is X and not Hh or Wg that conveys vectorial information, raising the possibility that the X gradient also carries information about dimension (Day and Lawrence, 2000).
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
In the pleura but not in the sternites, Hh induces Dpp rather than Wg (Struhl et al., 1997b
; Kopp et al., 1999
). We imagine that in the pleura, Dpp replaces Wg and, like Wg in the tergites, enhances the production of X.
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A., Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A., Galle, R. F. et al. (2000). The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287, 2185-2195.
Adler, P. N., Krasnow, R. E. and Liu, J. (1997). Tissue polarity points from cells that have higher Frizzled levels towards cells that have lower Frizzled levels. Curr. Biol. 7, 940-949.[Medline]
Alcedo, J., Ayzenzon, M., Von Ohlen, T., Noll, M. and Hooper, J. E. (1996). The Drosophila smoothened gene encodes a seven-pass membrane protein, a putative receptor for the Hedgehog signal. Cell 86, 221-232.[Medline]
Axelrod, J. D. (2001). Unipolar membrane association of Dishevelled mediates Frizzled planar cell polarity signaling. Genes Dev. 15, 1182-1187.
Bellaiche, Y., Gho, M., Kaltschmidt, J. A., Brand, A. H. and Schweisguth, F. (2001). Frizzled regulates localization of cell-fate determinants and mitotic spindle rotation during asymmetric cell division. Nature Cell Biol. 3, 50-57.[Medline]
Bhanot, P., Brink, M., Samos, C. H., Hsieh, J. C., Wang, Y., Macke, J. P., Andrew, D., Nathans, J. and Nusse, R. (1996). A new member of the Frizzled family from Drosophila functions as a Wingless receptor. Nature 382, 225-230.[Medline]
Bhanot, P., Fish, M., Jemison, J. A., Nusse, R., Nathans, J. and Cadigan, K. M. (1999). Frizzled and Dfrizzled-2 function as redundant receptors for Wingless during Drosophila embryonic development. Development 126, 4175-4186.
Bonner, J. T. (1947). Evidence for the formation of cell aggregates by chemotaxis in the development of the slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum. J. Exp. Zool. 106, 1-21.
Brand, A. H. and Perrimon, N. (1993). Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118, 401-415.
Bretscher, M. S. (1984). Endocytosis: relation to capping and cell locomotion. Science 224, 681-686.[Medline]
Briscoe, J., Chen, Y., Jessell, T. M. and Struhl, G. (2001). A Hedgehog-insensitive form of Patched provides evidence for direct long-range morphogen activity of sonic hedgehog in the neural tube. Mol. Cell 7, 1279-1291.[Medline]
Cadigan, K. M., Fish, M. P., Rulifson, E. J. and Nusse, R. (1998). Wingless repression of Drosophila frizzled 2 expression shapes the Wingless morphogen gradient in the wing. Cell 93, 767-777.[Medline]
Chen, C. M. and Struhl, G. (1999). Wingless transduction by the Frizzled and Frizzled 2 proteins of Drosophila. Development 126, 5441-5452.
Chen, Y. and Struhl, G. (1996). Dual roles for Patched in sequestering and transducing Hedgehog. Cell 87, 553-563.[Medline]
Day, S. J. and Lawrence, P. A. (2000). Measuring dimensions: the regulation of size and shape. Development 127, 2977-2987.
Diaz-Benjumea, F. J. and Garcia-Bellido, A. (1990). Behaviour of cells mutant for an EGF receptor homologue of Drosophila in genetic mosaics. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 242, 36-44.[Medline]
Drubin, D. (2000). Cell Polarity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eaton, S., Wepf, R. and Simons, K. (1996). Roles for Rac1 and Cdc42 in planar polarization and hair outgrowth in the wing of Drosophila. J. Cell Biol. 135, 1277-1289.[Abstract]
Fischer, J. A., Giniger, E., Maniatis, T. and Ptashne, M. (1988). GAL4 activates transcription in Drosophila. Nature 332, 853-856.[Medline]
FlyBase (1999). The FlyBase database of the Drosophila genome projects and community literature. http://flybase.bio.indiana.edu. Nucleic Acids Res. 27, 85-88.
Gieseler, K., Wilder, E., Mariol, M. C., Buratovitch, M., Berenger, H., Graba, Y. and Pradel, J. (2001). DWnt4 and Wingless elicit similar cellular responses during imaginal development. Dev. Biol. 232, 339-350.[Medline]
Golic, K. G. (1991). Site-specific recombination between homologous chromosomes in Drosophila. Science 252, 958-961.[Medline]
Gubb, D. and Garcia-Bellido, A. (1982). A genetic analysis of the determination of cuticular polarity during development in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Embryol. Exp. Morph. 68, 37-57.[Medline]
Janson, K., Cohen, E. D. and Wilder, E. L. (2001). Expression of DWnt6, DWnt10, and DFz4 during Drosophila development. Mech. Dev. 103, 117-120.[Medline]
Kopp, A., Blackman, R. K. and Duncan, I. (1999). Wingless, Decapentaplegic and EGF receptor signaling pathways interact to specify dorso-ventral pattern in the adult abdomen of Drosophila. Development 126, 3495-3507.
Kopp, A. and Duncan, I. (1997). Control of cell fate and polarity in the adult abdominal segments of Drosophila by optomotor-blind. Development 124, 3715-3726.
Lawrence, P. A. (1966). Gradients in the insect segment: The orientation of hairs in the milkweed bug Oncopeltus fasciatus. J. Exp. Biol. 44, 607-620.
Lawrence, P. A., Casal, J. and Struhl, G. (1999a). hedgehog and engrailed: pattern formation and polarity in the Drosophila abdomen. Development 126, 2431-2439.
Lawrence, P. A., Casal, J. and Struhl, G. (1999b). The Hedgehog morphogen and gradients of cell affinity in the abdomen of Drosophila. Development 126, 2441-2449.
Lawrence, P. A. and Struhl, G. (1996). Morphogens, compartments, and pattern: lessons from Drosophila? Cell 85, 951-961.[Medline]
Lecuit, T., Brook, W. J., Ng, M., Calleja, M., Sun, H. and Cohen, S. M. (1996). Two distinct mechanisms for long-range patterning by decapentaplegic in the Drosophila wing. Nature 381, 387-393.[Medline]
Lee, T. and Luo, L. (1999). Mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker for studies of gene function in neuronal morphogenesis. Neuron 22, 451-461.[Medline]
Llimargas, M. and Lawrence, P. A. (2001). Why seven Wnt homologues in Drosophila? A case study of the developing tracheae. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14487-14492.
Martínez-Arias, A. and Lawrence, P. A. (1985). Parasegments and compartments in the Drosophila embryo. Nature 313, 639-642.[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]
Nübler-Jung, K., Bonitz, R. and Sonnenschein, M. (1987). Cell polarity during wound healing in an insect epidermis. Development 100, 163-170.[Abstract]
Parent, C. A., Blacklock, B. J., Froehlich, W. M., Murphy, D. B. and Devreotes, P. N. (1998). G protein signaling events are activated at the leading edge of chemotactic cells. Cell 95, 81-91.[Medline]
Parent, C. A. and Devreotes, P. N. (1999). A cells sense of direction. Science 284, 765-770.
Peifer, M. and Wieschaus, E. (1990). The segment polarity gene armadillo encodes a functionally modular protein that is the Drosophila homolog of human plakoglobin. Cell 63, 1167-1176.[Medline]
Segall, J. E. (1993). Polarization of yeast cells in spatial gradients of alpha mating factor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 90, 8332-8336.
Shirras, A. D. and Couso, J. P. (1996). Cell fates in the adult abdomen of Drosophila are determined by wingless during pupal development. Dev. Biol. 175, 24-36.[Medline]
Shulman, J. M., Perrimon, N. and Axelrod, J. D. (1998). Frizzled signaling and the developmental control of cell polarity. Trends Genet. 14, 452-458.[Medline]
Struhl, G., Barbash, D. A. and Lawrence, P. A. (1997a). Hedgehog acts by distinct gradient and signal relay mechanisms to organise cell type and cell polarity in the Drosophila abdomen. Development 124, 2155-2165.
Struhl, G., Barbash, D. A. and Lawrence, P. A. (1997b). Hedgehog organises the pattern and polarity of epidermal cells in the Drosophila abdomen. Development 124, 2143-2154.
Struhl, G. and Basler, K. (1993). Organizing activity of wingless protein in Drosophila. Cell 72, 527-540.[Medline]
Strutt, D. I. (2001). Asymmetric localization of Frizzled and the establishment of cell polarity in the Drosophila wing. Mol. Cell 7, 367-375.[Medline]
Stumpf, H. F. (1966). Mechanism by which cells estimate their location within the body. Nature 212, 430-431.[Medline]
Usui, T., Shima, Y., Shimada, Y., Hirano, S., Burgess, R. W., Schwarz, T. L., Takeichi, M. and Uemura, T. (1999). Flamingo, a seven-pass transmembrane cadherin, regulates planar cell polarity under the control of Frizzled. Cell 98, 585-595.[Medline]
van den Heuvel, M. and Ingham, P. W. (1996). smoothened encodes a receptor-like serpentine protein required for Hedgehog signalling. Nature 382, 547-551.[Medline]
Vinson, C. R. and Adler, P. N. (1987). Directional non-cell autonomy and the transmission of polarity information by the frizzled gene of Drosophila. Nature 329, 549-551.[Medline]
Wehrli, M., Dougan, S. T., Caldwell, K., OKeefe, L., Schwartz, S., Vaizel-Ohayon, D., Schejter, E., Tomlinson, A. and DiNardo, S. (2000). arrow encodes an LDL-receptor-related protein essential for Wingless signalling. Nature 407, 527-530.[Medline]
Wehrli, M. and Tomlinson, A. (1998). Independent regulation of anterior/posterior and equatorial/polar polarity in the Drosophila eye; evidence for the involvement of Wnt signaling in the equatorial/polar axis. Development 125, 1421-1432.
Winter, C. G., Wang, B., Ballew, A., Royou, A., Karess, R., Axelrod, J. D. and Luo, L. (2001). Drosophila Rho-associated kinase (Drok) links Frizzled-mediated planar cell polarity signaling to the actin cytoskeleton. Cell 105, 81-91.[Medline]
Wodarz, A. and Nusse, R. (1998). Mechanisms of Wnt signaling in development. Ann. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 14, 59-88.[Medline]
Zheng, L., Zhang, J. and Carthew, R. W. (1995). frizzled regulates mirror-symmetric pattern formation in the Drosophila eye. Development 121, 3045-3055.
Zigmond, S. H. (1974). Mechanisms of sensing chemical gradients by polymorphonuclear leukocytes. Nature 249, 450-452.[Medline]