Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA
Accepted May 16, 2001
![]() |
SUMMARY |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Cell fusion, Alae, Molt, Epidermis, GATA factor, C. elegans
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
When epidermal cells are born, they assemble into three rows on either side of the worm, corresponding to dorsal, lateral and ventral positions (Sulston et al., 1983). The dorsal, and the anterior and posterior ventral cells fuse to form several syncytia (Podbilewicz and White, 1994). Neither the P cells, the central cells in the ventral row, nor seam cells, the lateral cells, fuse during embryogenesis. The seam cells are particularly critical: they play an organizing role in embryonic and larval morphogenesis, contribute to larval growth by generating additional epidermal and nervous tissue post-embryonically, and regulate the body form during formation of the alternative larval form, the dauer larva (Singh and Sulston, 1978; Sulston and Horvitz, 1977; Wissmann et al., 1999; Wissmann et al., 1997). At hatching, there are ten bilateral pairs of seam cells, nearly all of which are blast cells that, during post-embryonic development, produce many progeny, including more seam cells, neurons and syncytial epidermis (Sulston and Horvitz, 1977). Late in the final (L4) larval stage, the seam cells undergo homotypic fusion to form the bilateral seam syncytia of adults (Podbilewicz and White, 1994).
Comprehensive genetic screens have shown that specification of the embryonic epidermis and its patterning into the three major types are genetically complex processes (Chanal and Labouesse, 1997; Terns et al., 1997). Most of the epidermis, including all of the seam and P cells, arises from the AB founder cell (Sulston et al., 1983). A combination of inductive interactions and asymmetric cell divisions in the early embryo (Gendreau et al., 1994; Hutter and Schnabel, 1994; Hutter and Schnabel, 1995; Kaletta et al., 1997; Lin et al., 1998; Mango et al., 1994; Mello et al., 1994; Moskowitz et al., 1994) dictates which early AB-derived blastomeres will ultimately produce epidermis. These early events restrict expression of the ELT-1 GATA transcription factor to precursors of the major AB-derived epidermal cells and their descendants. elt-1 is required to specify the major epidermal fate (Page et al., 1997); in elt-1(-) mutants, all cells that would normally become major epidermal cells instead adopt the fates of their closest non-epidermal relatives, such as muscle and neurons. LIN-26, a transcription factor expressed in non-neuronal ectodermal cell types (Labouesse et al., 1994) is a potential target of ELT-1. Epidermal cells degenerate or become neurons in lin-26 mutants. Another likely target of ELT-1 is ELT-3, a GATA factor expressed in all major epidermal cells except the seam cells (Gilleard et al., 1999). elt-3 null mutants show no obvious defects, suggesting that elt-3 may be functionally redundant with another gene (Gilleard and McGhee, 2001). The exclusion of ELT-3 specifically from seam cells suggests that it may play a role in distinguishing non-seam from seam epidermis.
Although little is known about how the epidermis is patterned into three distinct types and how fusion is regulated in the embryo, a good deal is known about the mechanisms that distinguish individual epidermal cells according to their anteroposterior position and developmental stage, particularly during post-embryonic development (for reviews, see Ambros, 1997; Kenyon et al., 1997). For example, two Hox genes, lin-39 and mab-5, interact to regulate fusion of the posterior daughters of some P cells in hermaphrodite and male larvae (Salser et al., 1993). In addition, in mab-5(-) male larvae, two posterior seam cells, V5 and V6, which normally produce the sensory rays, instead produce alae (Salser and Kenyon, 1996). Though several other genes (Wrischnik and Kenyon, 1997) are also known to determine the precise fate of particular seam and P cells based on positional or temporal (Bettinger et al., 1996) information, genes that regulate seam cell development per se have not been reported.
In the present study, we have sought to identify genes that impart the seam fate as opposed to the P or syncytial epidermal fates. As the ELT-1 GATA factor is required to specify all major epidermal cells, and the ELT-3 GATA factor is expressed in non-seam epidermis, we hypothesized that there may be another GATA factor that functions in the seam epidermis. Indeed, we report here that two GATA factors, ELT-5 and ELT-6, function in seam cell development. Removal of elt-5 and -6 function results in profound defects in many aspects of seam cell development, including fusion with neighboring epidermal syncytia, failure to express several seam-specific markers, and inappropriate expression of elt-3. elt-5 and -6 are expressed in seam cells and many other cells, under the control of separable, cell type-specific enhancer regions. elt-5 and -6 apparently form an operon, and appear to be transcribed both monocistronically and dicistronically, depending on the specific cell expressing them. Our findings demonstrate that elt-5 and -6 are required continuously for embryonic and post-embryonic seam cell development and for repression of epidermal cell fusion.
![]() |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The strain JR672 contains an integrated array (wIs54, made by M. Fukuyama and J. Kasmir in our laboratory) expressing a seam-specific GFP marker (SCM), a derivative of a construct described previously (Terns et al., 1997). The strain SU93 (jcIs1) contains an integrated array expressing a JAM-1::GFP fusion protein in adherens junctions (Mohler et al., 1998). (We use all upper cases to refer to translational fusions, and lower-case italics followed by upper cases, as in elt-3::GFP, to refer to transcriptional fusions.) Both JR672 and SU93 are available from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center. Strain JG5 (vpIs1), which carries elt-3::GFP on an integrated transgenic array (Gilleard et al., 1999), was obtained from J. Gilleard. The following strains carrying seam-specific reporters on extrachromosomal arrays were obtained from P. Sengupta (Miyabayashi et al., 1999): PY1215 (nhr-72::GFP), PY1269 (nhr-73::GFP), PY1267 (nhr-74::GFP), PY1214 (nhr-77::GFP), PY1282 (nhr-81::GFP), PY1324 (NHR-82::GFP) and PY1397 (nhr-89::GFP). JR1736 was created by co-injecting an nhr-75::GFP construct (a gift from P. Sengupta) and an unc-119(+) rescuing construct into unc-119(ed4) hermaphrodites.
Sequence analysis of elt-5 and -6 cDNAs and determination of the 5' end of elt-6 cDNA
The elt-5 and -6 cDNA sequences were determined by sequencing EST clones yk474 and yk113, respectively. (yk clones were generous gifts from Y. Kohara.) These sequences differ in several respects from the Worm Genome Consortiums predictions for the corresponding open reading frames (ORFs) F55A8.1 and F52C12.5 (C. elegans Sequencing Consortium, 1998). Most notably, the predicted ORF F55A8.1 does not include the last intron (3) and exon (4) of the elt-5 cDNA, and the predicted ORF F52C12.1 does not include exons 1 and 2, and introns 1 and 2 of the elt-6 cDNA. The elt-5 and -6 cDNA sequences have been reported to GenBank (Accession Numbers AF353302 and AF353303, respectively).
An elt-6-specific primer (5' GAAGCACGGCTTTCAGTTG 3') from Exon 3 was used to PCR-amplify the 5' end of the elt-6 gene from an embryonic cDNA pool prepared by J. Zhu (Zhu et al., 1997). The PCR products were cloned into vector pCR2.1 (Invitrogen). Nine clones, determined by PCR to be approximately the expected size or somewhat longer, were sequenced. Four of these were trans-spliced with SL1, and two carried 105-120 nucleotides of sequence upstream of the elt-6 trans-splice site. The remaining three sequences started a few bases after the trans-splice site, and did not provide useful data. A cDNA clone, yk391a6, also starts 120 bp upstream of the elt-6 trans-splice site.
Reporter constructs and transgenic lines
Molecular cloning procedures were performed according to standard methods (Sambrook et al., 1989). Expression constructs were made with PCR products containing tagged restriction sites amplified from genomic DNA (fragments C, D, E and G), the cosmid GGC8 (fragments A and B), or the cDNA clone yk113 (fragment F). The PCR fragments are as follows (the numbers in parentheses correspond to the base position relative to the base A of the elt-5 ATG; see Fig. 5 below).
|
B: 1.2 kb upstream of the elt-5 ATG (-1211, +4);
C: between the elt-5 ATG and poly(A) site (+8, +4398);
D: between the elt-5 ATG and the elt-6 ATG (+8, +4512);
E: between the elt-6 ATG and poly(A) site (+4518, +8158);
F: between the elt-6 ATG and poly(A) site (+4518, +8158);
G: 3.1 kb upstream of the elt-6 ATG (+1425, +4512).
The coding region of GFP (fragment H) was amplified from pGFPm5 (a gift from R. Zeller).
Translational fusions were made by inserting the coding region of GFP (fragment H) into the 5' end of elt-5 or elt-6 in frame shortly after the ATG. Three transcriptional fusions (pKK41, pKK44 and pKK7) and six translational fusions (pKK39, pKK52, pKK38, pKK47, pKK25 and pKK49) containing various combinations of PCR fragments were made as follows (numbers in parentheses refer to the concentrations of injected DNA in µg/ml).
pKK39: A, H, D and E in pPD96.04 (2);
pKK52: A, H and C in pBluescript (50);
pKK38: A, D, H and E in pPD96.04 (2);
pKK41: A and D in pPD96.04 (50);
pKK44: G in pPD95.67 (50);
pKK7: A in pPD96.62 (20);
pKK47: A, H and E in pPD96.04 (50);
pKK25: B, H and E in pPD96.04 (50);
pKK49: nhr-74 promoter, H and F in pBluescript (50).
The GFP and ß-galactosidase-coding regions in the vector pPD96.04 were replaced by PCR fragments in pKK39, pKK38, pKK47 and pKK25. The nhr-74 promoter in pKK49 was subcloned from the nhr-74::GFP construct obtained from P. Sengupta (Miyabayashi et al., 1999). All pPD constructs were gifts of A. Fire. Each reporter construct, as well as a mixture of two constructs, pKK25 and pKK49, was co-injected with pRF4 (rol-6D, 200 µg/ml) into N2 hermaphrodites or with pDP#MM016B (unc-119(+), 200 µg/ml) into unc-119(ed4) hermaphrodites. Strains containing pKK25, pKK47 or pKK49 were crossed with the unc-119(ed4);jsIs1 strain to obtain strains carrying each of the constructs and JAM-1::GFP.
The translational fusions proved to be somewhat toxic. It was difficult to obtain lines with pKK38 and pKK39, two constructs that contain both the elt-5 and -6 genes, owing to embryonic or larval lethality caused by these sequences. To circumvent this problem, these constructs were injected at low concentrations. The lines obtained showed low overall levels of expression. pKK52, an elt-5 reporter construct, and pKK41, an elt-6 reporter construct, contained the elt-5- but not the elt-6-coding region. We were able to obtain several lines with these constructs that gave relatively high expression levels. The expression patterns of the two elt-5 reporters containing 3.4 kb upstream and the entire elt-5 gene, pKK39 and pKK52, appeared identical except that pKK52, but not pKK39, showed low levels of expression in the descendants of the vulval precursor cells (K. K. and J. H. R., unpublished). In addition, two elt-6 reporters, pKK41 and pKK44, showed occasional expression in some larval and adult intestinal cells, which was not observed with any other reporter (not shown).
Antibody production and immunofluorescence
Anti-ELT-5 antibodies were raised against ELT-5-specific peptides, pep5A (EDPMDQDVKQEESERSDIPTC) and pep5B (TETRPESAEQQHHEC), and anti-ELT-6 antibodies were raised against ELT-6-specific peptides, pep6A (RKRKPTKESVNRHLEC) and pep6B (CLEQMSESGSEEKYP; custom synthesized by Sigma Genosys). The peptides were selected from regions of little or no homology to minimize potential crossreactivity. Two rabbits, UCSB47 and UCSB48, were immunized against the ELT-5-specific peptides (performed by Cocalico Biologicals). Sera from the two rabbits gave essentially the same staining pattern. Anti-ELT-5 sera were used directly, as affinity purification did not improve staining. Two additional rabbits, UCSB49 and UCSB50, were immunized against the ELT-6-specific peptides. Sera from UCSB49 were used after affinity purification using a peptide-coupled column (AminoLink Plus kit by Pierce), according to the manufacturers protocol. Sera from UCSB50 gave similar but slightly weaker staining.
Embryos were fixed and stained for immunofluorescence as described (Sulston and Hodgkin, 1988). Anti-ELT-5 sera and affinity-purified anti-ELT-6 antibodies were used at a 1:25 to 1:100 dilution. Monoclonal antibody (mAb) MH27, which recognizes epithelial adherens junctions (Priess and Hirsh, 1986; Waterston, 1988), was a generous gift of R. Waterston.
RNA-mediated interference (RNAi)
Two non-overlapping regions of elt-5, corresponding to amino acids 58-215 and 224-363, were amplified by PCR from the cDNA clone yk474 and served as the templates for elt-5 dsRNAs. dsRNAs directed to both elt-5 regions gave the same phenotypes. The region of elt-6 corresponding to amino acids 94-286 was PCR amplified from the cDNA clone yk113 and served as the template for elt-6 dsRNA. RNA was synthesized and purified using the MEGAscript kit (Ambion) according to the manufacturers protocol. elt-5 or -6 dsRNA, or a mixture of the two, was injected into young hermaphrodites as described (Fire et al., 1998). Progeny laid at least 10 hours after injection were analyzed.
To obtain strong embryonic effects, elt-5 RNA was injected at 2 mg/ml. To obtain weaker effects, which allowed us to observe post-embryonic phenotypes, elt-5 RNA was injected at 0.2 mg/ml. Throughout the paper, elt-5(RNAi) animals refers to animals treated with high levels of elt-5 dsRNA.
Microscopy and image acquisition
All Nomarski and some fluorescence images were acquired with an Optronics VI-470 camera on a Nikon Microphot SA microscope. Other fluorescence images were acquired with a BioRad 1024 Confocal Microscope.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
elt-5 and elt-6 are adjacent genes encoding single-finger GATA factors. Their encoded DNA binding domains are 76% identical and are 60% identical to those in other GATA factors (Fig. 1). As is typically the case for GATA factors, ELT-5 and -6 are not significantly similar to the other GATA factors outside the DNA-binding domains. However, the two proteins are 46% identical overall, implying that one of the genes arose by duplication of the other. The putative polyadenylation site of the upstream gene, elt-5, and the trans-splice site of the downstream gene, elt-6, are separated by only
130 base pairs, characteristic of genes that reside on the same operon (Blumenthal and Steward, 1997). However, attempts to determine whether the two genes indeed form an operon have not produced conclusive evidence. As most, if not all, downstream genes are trans-spliced to the SL2 leader (Spieth et al., 1993; Zorio et al., 1994), we looked for, but failed to find, evidence for SL2 trans-splicing of transcripts from the downstream gene, elt-6 (see Materials and Methods). All seven elt-6 cDNA clones examined were either trans-spliced to the SL1 leader or were not trans-spliced. This suggests that elt-6 is often transcribed from its own transcription initiation site near the SL1 splice site rather than co-transcribed with elt-5 as a dicistronic transcript. This interpretation is consistent with data obtained with a reporter construct (see below). However, based on the effects of elt-5 dsRNA on reporter constructs, it seems likely that at least a fraction of mature elt-6 message is generated from elt-5/elt-6 dicistronic transcripts (see below).
|
|
To investigate a possible post-embryonic role for elt-5, we injected hermaphrodites with lower levels of elt-5 dsRNA. Such injections resulted in a mixture of weakly and strongly affected progeny. Weakly affected larvae appeared normal at hatching; they were neither Lpy nor Unc, and their buccal capsules were properly attached. Many of these larvae, however, became lethargic and sickly at later stages, were molting defective, and arrested at various stages of larval development. A small fraction of the weakly affected larvae also showed other gross morphological abnormalities that were suggestive of epidermal defects, including Roller (Rol) and protruding vulva (Pvl) phenotypes (not shown). The post-embryonic developmental defects were examined in more detail, as described later. All elt-5(RNAi) animals described in the remainder of this paper were obtained from mothers injected with high levels of elt-5 dsRNA.
The gross phenotypes we observed suggested defects in epidermal structure and/or development. To characterize the epidermis in elt-5(RNAi) embryos, we visualized their epithelial adherens junctions with monoclonal antibody MH27 (Priess and Hirsh, 1986; Waterston, 1988). In a wild-type embryo, all epidermal cells, including the row of ten lateral seam cells on each side, are clearly outlined by MH27 staining (Fig. 2C). In contrast, although most of the epidermal pattern appeared normal in elt-5(RNAi) embryos, the rows of seam cells often showed gaps in MH27 staining (Fig. 2D). In addition, seam cells were occasionally displaced from the linear row of lateral cells. For example, Fig. 2F shows an elt-5(RNAi) embryo in which a seam cell, V1 (asterisk), is ventrally misplaced such that neighboring seam cells, H2 and V2, contact each other (compare with Fig. 2E). The misalignment and gaps in the pattern were never observed in P cells.
There are at least four possible explanations for the gaps in the seam rows seen in elt-5(RNAi): (1) seam cells are misspecified as non-epidermal cells at birth; (2) seam cells are misspecified as epidermal syncytial cells at birth, leading them to fuse with other syncytial epidermal cells; (3) seam cells, although correctly specified initially, lose their identity and later adopt a syncytial-type identity; or (4) seam cells retain their seam identity, but fusion is misregulated. (For simplicity, cells that normally become seam cells in wild-type will be called seam cells, irrespective of their ultimate identity in elt-5(RNAi) animals.) In an effort to distinguish between these possibilities, we examined the epidermal pattern over time using the JAM-1::GFP marker, which reveals the MH27 adherens junction pattern in living embryos (Mohler et al., 1998). These studies demonstrated that the gaps in the seam row probably result from fusion of existing seam cells with the surrounding epidermal syncytium. In wild-type embryos, most dorsal and ventral syncytial cells complete their fusion between the 1.5- and twofold stage of elongation (Podbilewicz and White, 1994). In elt-5(RNAi) embryos at the same stages, only occasional lateral cells lacked JAM-1::GFP expression. By hatching, however, many lateral cells (32%, n=61 larvae) lacked the adherens junction marker. This progressive disappearance of the adherens junction marker from the lateral row results from cell fusion; we were able to observe ongoing dissolution of the adherens junctions between individual lateral cells and the adjacent epidermal syncytium as they were caught in the act of fusion (see Fig. 4H, arrowhead). These ongoing fusions were observed in some cases as late as in newly hatched animals.
|
Morphological observations indicated that seam development in elt-5(RNAi) animals is abnormal even in the seam cells that do not fuse. Seam cells normally produce the alae, bilateral ridges of specialized cuticle superjacent to the seam cells of L1 larvae, dauer larvae, and adults. Wild-type alae are clearly evident at the L1 stage as two parallel ridges running along the body on each side (Fig. 3A,E). We found that the alae in elt-5(RNAi) larvae were invariably missing or malformed: 86% of elt-5(RNAi) larvae showed no visible alae, and 14% had partial and/or defective alae (n=56). For example, Fig. 3B,F show an elt-5(RNAi) larva that lacks alae over most of its length and that contains a stretch of ala with several irregularly shaped branches. By correlating the position of missing alae with the JAM-1::GFP pattern, it was evident that seam cells failed to produce alae irrespective of whether or not they had fused (Fig. 3D).
|
|
These findings indicate that elt-5/6 is required to maintain the identity of seam cells. Its role in repressing cell fusion may reflect conversion to a syncytial epidermal fate in the absence of seam-specifying information.
elt-5 and -6 are expressed in seam cells
To assess the expression patterns of elt-5 and -6, we created several transcriptional and translational reporter constructs (Fig. 5). An elt-5 translational fusion construct (pKK52), in which the elt-5 promoter drives expression of a GFP::ELT-5 fusion protein, shows a complex and dynamic expression pattern that can be divided into three major components. First, pKK52 expression begins at the 28-cell stage in all four granddaughters and 16 great-great granddaughters of the MS and AB founder cells, respectively (Fig. 6A); this expression continues in many, possibly all, of their descendants until around the time of hatching. Second, expression becomes more pronounced in seam cells about 1 hour after their birth. This seam expression remains strong throughout embryonic and larval development (Fig. 6B), but becomes slightly reduced in adults. Third, robust expression is also seen in several cells in the head region, at least some of which are cells in the nervous system (neurons and/or support cells), beginning at approximately the comma stage (Fig. 6B) and continuing through adulthood. For simplicity, we will refer to this component of the expression pattern as nervous system expression, although we have not determined the precise identity of these cells.
|
To confirm the expression patterns obtained with the reporter constructs, we raised antibodies against peptides specific for ELT-5 and -6. For each protein, two peptides were selected from regions of little or no similarity between the two proteins. Anti-ELT-5 staining is readily detected in the nuclei of seam cells during mid- to late-embryogenesis (Fig. 6C,D). At these stages, many unidentified cells in the head region also stained, consistent with the pattern seen for the GFP reporters (Fig. 6B). This staining is eliminated in elt-5(RNAi) embryos (not shown). We have been unable to obtain consistent and reliable staining of early embryos, larvae and adults, and therefore have not confirmed the reporter expression pattern at these stages. Anti-ELT-6 staining is most readily seen in several cells in the head and is faint in seam cells (Fig. 6G,H), consistent with the GFP reporter data. elt-6 dsRNA eliminates all nuclear staining (not shown).
Monocistronic transcription of elt-6 messages and modularity of tissue-specific enhancers
As described above, despite the apparent operon-like organization of the elt-5 and -6 genes, we could not find evidence that elt-6 cDNA is trans-spliced to SL2. Previous studies have shown that some downstream genes in apparent operons are transcribed monocistronically under the control of their own promoters (Gilleard et al., 1997). To test whether elt-6 can be transcribed monocistronically, we constructed an elt-6 reporter (pKK44), which includes the unusually large (>2 kb) last intron and the last exon of elt-5 upstream of the elt-6 ATG (see Fig. 5). pKK44 is expressed strongly in some cells in the nervous system but is expressed in neither seam cells nor in early AB and MS descendants (not shown). Because pKK44 lacks the 5' end and the first three exons of elt-5, this result indicates that elt-6 messages can be transcribed alone.
The result with pKK44 also suggests that enhancer sequences for seam, AB and MS expression are separable from those for expression in the nervous system. Indeed, we found that an elt-5 transcriptional reporter (pKK7) that includes only the 3.4 kb sequences upstream of the elt-5 ATG (see Fig. 5) is expressed in the early AB and MS lineages and in seam cells, but is not expressed in the nervous system. This pattern is complementary to the expression pattern of pKK44, demonstrating that separable enhancer regions regulate elt-5 and -6 expression in different groups of cells. Whereas enhancers for seam, AB and MS are contained in the 3.4 kb region upstream of elt-5, those for the nervous system reside in the 3.1 kb region upstream of elt-6 (perhaps within the last, large intron of elt-5).
Efficacy of RNAi and evidence for tissue-specific monocistronic versus dicistronic transcription
To determine the effectiveness and specificity of the elt-5 and -6 dsRNAs, we injected them into strains carrying various elt-5 and -6 GFP reporter genes (Table 2). Expression of an elt-5 translational fusion (pKK39) was reduced to undetectable levels in elt-5(RNAi) embryos, suggesting that RNAi results in a strong loss-of-function or null phenotype. Furthermore, although elt-6 dsRNA did not cause an observable phenotype, we confirmed that elt-6 dsRNA was also effective; expression of an elt-6 translational fusion (pKK47) was eliminated by elt-6 dsRNA. In contrast, consistent with only moderate similarity between the two genes (60% identity overall), elt-5 dsRNA did not significantly affect expression of the elt-6 translational fusion, pKK47, which lacks the elt-5 coding region, and elt-6 dsRNA likewise did not alter expression of an elt-5 fusion (pKK39).
|
ELT-6 can rescue the lethality of elt-5(RNAi) animals, revealing an apparently continuous post-embryonic requirement for elt-5
Given the strong similarity of the ELT-5 and -6 proteins, we explored the possibility that they are functionally interchangeable. To test whether elt-6 can rescue the absence of elt-5, we created a GFP::ELT-6 fusion, driven by the 3.4 kb upstream region of elt-5 (pKK47, Fig. 5), which allowed us to drive expression of ELT-6 in seam cells and AB and MS descendants even in the presence of elt-5 dsRNA. Most elt-5(RNAi) animals expressing pKK47 (52 of 57 animals carrying the construct, as assessed by GFP expression) appeared wild type at hatching, and many (48/57) grew up to be viable adults. These rescued animals appeared to develop normally with the exception that many of them lacked a vulva (not shown), as will be described in more depth in a separate publication. These results demonstrate that elt-5 and -6 are functionally interchangeable through most of development and that expression of ELT-6 in seam cells and in AB and MS descendants is sufficient to rescue elt-5(RNAi) animals to viability.
We next asked whether the elt-5(RNAi) phenotypes we observed were attributable to the activity of the gene in seam cells, in AB and MS descendants, or both. Because all seam cells are derived from the AB lineage, it is not possible to completely separate the two components. We therefore created two rescuing constructs, pKK25 and pKK49, with partially overlapping, but largely complementary expression patterns (Fig. 5). In construct pKK25, expression of a GFP::ELT-6 translational fusion is driven by the 1.2 kb upstream promoter of elt-5. This construct is expressed in AB and MS descendants from early embryogenesis until about the time of hatching and is expressed in seam cells during embryogenesis only as part of the broad AB expression pattern. By the late L1 stage, however, no GFP is detectable. We created another construct, pKK49, in which the GFP::ELT-6 fusion protein is driven by the nhr-74 promoter. This promoter, which is expressed only in seam cells from about the comma stage through adulthood (Miyabayashi et al., 1999), was chosen because it is not significantly affected by elt-5 dsRNA (Table 1). The sum of the expression patterns of the two constructs closely resembles that of pKK47, the GFP::ELT-6 fusion construct containing the 3.4 kb elt-5 promoter. Indeed, we found that most (31/44) elt-5(RNAi) embryos carrying both pKK25 and pKK49 were rescued and grew up to become fertile adults.
While each of these constructs alone was not sufficient for viability, they allowed us to assess the temporal and tissue requirements for elt-5/6. All (n=54) elt-5(RNAi) animals expressing GFP::ELT-6 only in seam cells (from construct pKK49) arrested as embryos or larvae by the early L1 stage, the stage at which elt-5(RNAi) animals normally arrest. The arrested animals showed the Pun phenotype (Fig. 7A), which is presumably the cause of lethality. However, the alae defects normally seen in elt-5(RNAi) larvae were rescued (31/33 larvae showed normal alae; Fig. 7B), implying a cell-autonomous function of elt-5/6 in alae formation. In addition, the Lpy phenotype was partially rescued: the animals were only slightly lumpy, indicating that elt-5/6 activity in seam cells contributes to proper morphogenesis.
|
Taken together, the results obtained with these two rescuing constructs (pKK49 and pKK25) imply that elt-5/6 activity in seam cells is essential for proper alae formation, suppression of seam fusion and molting. They further suggest that early L1 lethality is attributable either to elt-5/6 activity in AB and MS descendants or to expression in very early seam cells, before pKK49 gives robust expression in seam cells 2 hours after their birth. Finally, they reveal an apparently continuous requirement for elt-5/6 in maintaining seam identity and/or repression of their fusion throughout post-embryonic development.
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
One of the conspicuous defects in elt-5(RNAi) animals is the inappropriate fusion of seam cells with the epidermal syncytia. Cell fusion occurs in many cell types in a tightly regulated fashion in C. elegans (Podbilewicz and White, 1994); however, its function is not well understood and only a small number of genes that regulate it have been found (Alper and Kenyon, 2001; Clark et al., 1993; Kenyon, 1986; Wang et al., 1993). Our results demonstrate that elt-5/6 plays a major role in repressing both embryonic and larval epidermal cell fusion. The later fusion of the seam cells into a single lateral syncytium at the L4 molt (Podbilewicz and White, 1994) must involve a mechanism that bypasses the fusion-repressive function of ELT-5/6. However, this repressive function presumably remains active in L4 larvae and adults, as the seam cells, while fusing with each other, remain separate from the other epidermal syncytia. Thus, the homotypic fusion of seam cells appears to involve a regulatory process distinct from that controlling fusion with the epidermal (hyp) syncytia.
Several findings suggest that the inappropriate fusion of seam cells with the epidermal syncytia is not simply the result of a failure to repress fusion per se. In particular, the failure of seam cells to express several seam-specific markers and the observation that elt-3::GFP is inappropriately expressed in unfused seam cells imply a (partial) loss of seam identity. Our finding that some seam-specific markers are largely unaffected, however, suggests that a combination of regulatory inputs from elt-5/6 and at least one other factor is required to specify and maintain the entire identity of seam cells. Such a factor might simply act redundantly with ELT-5/6, or it may activate a unique set of target genes that, together with the ELT-5/6 targets, contribute to the full suite of genes that define seam cell identity. It is noteworthy that the ELT-1 protein is present in major epidermal cells after their epidermal cell fate is specified, and that ELT-1 expression is stronger in seam cells than in syncytial or P cells (Page et al., 1997). One interesting possibility is that ELT-1 may function in seam cell specification or differentiation as well as in general epidermal cell specification. Alternatively, elt-5/6 may be essential for all aspects of seam cell specification and the residual seam characteristics observed in elt-5(RNAi) animals might be the result of incomplete inactivation of the elt-5/6 function. Although we have shown that ELT-5/6 expression is undetectable, based on both GFP reporter expression or immunostaining, it is possible that undetectably low levels of ELT-5/6 can provide partial function in elt-5(RNAi) animals.
A model for seam epidermal development in the C. elegans embryo is presented in Fig. 8. elt-1 is required to specify all major epidermal cells, which then adopt one of three fates: seam, P or syncytial. Our present results suggest that elt-5/6, together with an unknown factor (Factor X in Fig. 8), may direct seam cells to adopt their appropriate identity. We have found that a transcriptional elt-5::GFP reporter is expressed in many cells in elt-1(-) mutants (K. K. and J. H. R., unpublished), suggesting that at least the widespread AB and MS expression of the reporter does not require ELT-1; however, it seems likely that elt-5/6 expression in seam cells per se requires ELT-1. Although we have not tested this possibility directly, their respective mutant phenotypes support the hypothesis that elt-1 functions upstream of elt-5/6 in seam cells. (As suggested above, elt-1 may also function in parallel with elt-5/6 in seam cells.) Given its expression pattern, elt-3 may function in syncytial and P cell specification or differentiation. However, deletion of elt-3 does not produce any noticeable phenotype, suggesting pervasive functional redundancy of this gene (Gilleard and McGhee, 2001). ELT-3 and another factor (Factor Y in Fig. 8) may specify a general non-seam fate, and other factors may then apportion syncytial and P cell identities to the appropriate cells.
|
ELT-5/6 is apparently required continuously for post-embryonic development of seam cells and molting
We observed post-embryonic developmental defects when low doses of elt-5 dsRNA were used or when the embryonic defects seen at high doses were rescued by forced expression of ELT-6 in selected cells under a partial elt-5 promoter. Under the latter condition, almost all seam cells fuse with the surrounding syncytium during larval development, suggesting that ELT-5/6 may be continuously and non-redundantly required to specify or maintain the identity of seam cells post-embryonically.
We also found that elt-5(RNAi) animals rescued for embryonic or early L1-stage lethality by expression of ELT-6 under a partial elt-5 promoter had difficulty completing molting and arrested before reaching adulthood. These defects were rescued by additional, seam-specific expression of ELT-6. These results suggest that seam cells play an essential role in molting. Previous studies have identified two genes essential for proper molting. lrp-1 loss-of-function mutant larvae show molting problems similar to those we observed in elt-5(RNAi) larvae (Yochem et al., 1999). LRP-1 is similar to gp330/megalin, a member of the low-density lipoprotein receptor family. LRP-1 is expressed on the apical surface of the main body epidermal syncytium, hyp7, and genetic mosaic analysis has indicated that it is required in hyp7. RNAi of another gene, nhr-23, which encodes CHR3 (a nuclear hormone receptor), causes similar problems in molting (Kostrouchova et al., 1998). CHR3 is highly similar to Drosophila DHR3, which is induced by ecdysone, a molting hormone and plays an essential role in metamorphosis. CHR3 is expressed in all epidermal cells including seam cells during late embryogenesis and larval stages. It seems likely that the molting process in C. elegans larvae is regulated by a network of genes that acts in both seam and syncytial cells. It will be interesting to learn how elt-5 and -6 act in such a network and if any of the many known seam-specific nuclear hormone receptors also participate in the regulation of molting.
elt-5 and -6 may be transcribed both monocistronically and dicistronically in a tissue-dependent manner
elt-5 and -6 are spaced 130 bp apart and are organized in an apparent operon; however, our results suggest that they do not form a typical operon. We could not find evidence that elt-6 messages are trans-spliced to SL2 or to other non-SL1 leaders. Most downstream genes in operons are trans-spliced to SL2 exclusively or to a mixture of SL1 and SL2 (Spieth et al., 1993; Zorio et al., 1994). A few exceptions in which the downstream genes are trans-spliced exclusively to SL1 involve pairs of genes with no intercistronic sequences (Williams et al., 1999). Further evidence that elt-6 need not be transcribed as part of a polycistronic transcript comes from our identification of an apparent transcription initiation site
120 bp upstream of the elt-6 trans-splice site. Nevertheless, it seems likely that a fraction of elt-6 messages are transcribed dicistronically. In support of this possibility, we found that elt-5 dsRNA inhibited expression of reporters for both elt-5 and -6 in seam cells, and AB and MS descendants (elt-6 dsRNA did not affect elt-5 reporter expression). Recent evidence suggests that for certain dicistronic genes, RNAi targeted against one gene can interfere with both (Bosher et al., 1999). Accumulation of dicistronic elt-5 and -6 pre-mRNA may allow elt-5 dsRNA to inhibit elt-6 gene activity. (The reason elt-6 dsRNA does not inhibit elt-5 gene activity may be because a substantial portion of elt-5 is transcribed monocistronically.) Intriguingly, such an effect would appear to be tissue specific: while elt-6 messages may be co-transcribed with elt-5 messages in seam cells and descendants of AB and MS, allowing elt-5 dsRNA to interfere with them, this does not appear to be the case in the nervous system. As ELT-6 is most strongly expressed in the nervous system, our inability to detect SL2 trans-splicing on elt-6 cDNAs may simply reflect the relative abundance of monocistronic versus dicistronic elt-6 transcripts; monocistronic transcripts may be the predominant form in the nervous system.
elt-5 and -6 are functionally interchangeable and may perform additional functions
We found that the elt-5(RNAi) defects can be rescued by expression of elt-6, implying that the two gene products can function interchangeably. In addition, we have found that widespread expression of either ELT-5 or -6 can result in an excess of cells expressing a seam-specific marker (SCM; K. K. and J. H. M., unpublished), suggesting that either elt-5 or -6 alone may be sufficient to initiate seam differentiation in non-seam cells. It is unclear, however, if the two genes in fact perform redundant functions under normal conditions. The low level of elt-6 expression in seam cells and descendants of AB and MS may be insufficient to provide the essential functions in those cells. Although the two genes can apparently function interchangeably, they may be responsible for different activities depending on where they are most abundantly expressed, which might account for the preservation of both genes during evolution.
Although we have focused on the role of elt-5/6 in seam cell development, several findings indicate that these genes may have additional functions in other cell types. First, they are expressed in several different cell types. Second, we observed a vulvaless phenotype in elt-5(RNAi) animals rescued by GFP::ELT-6 (as will be described in a subsequent report). Third, seam-specific expression of GFP::ELT-6 using the nhr-74 promoter did not rescue all embryonic defects in elt-5(RNAi) animals. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that earlier expression of ELT-6 in seam cells than that directed by the nhr-74 promoter might fully rescue the embryonic elt-5(RNAi) defects, a plausible interpretation is that elt-5/6 performs an unknown essential function in early AB and MS descendants. It will be interesting to investigate whether elt-5/6 performs distinct functions in different types of cells, and if so, how specificity for particular cell types is achieved.
Note added in proof
We have recently found that elt-5 corresponds to the previously identified gene egl-18 (K. K., C. G. Wood and J. H. R., unpublished).
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Alper, S. and Kenyon, C. (2001). REF-1, a protein with two bHLH domains, alters the pattern of cell fusion in C. elegans by regulating Hox protein activity. Development 128, 1793-1804.
Ambros, V. (1997). Heterochronic Genes. In C. elegans II (ed. D. L. Riddle, T. Blumenthal, B. J. Meyer and J. R. Priess), pp. 501-518. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Bettinger, J. C., Lee, K. and Rougvie, A. E. (1996). Stage-specific accumulation of the terminal differentiation factor LIN-29 during Caenorhabditis elegans development. Development 122, 2517-2527.
Blumenthal, T. and Steward, K. (1997). RNA Processing and Gene Structure. In C. elegans II (ed. D. L. Riddle, T. Blumenthal, B. J. Meyer and J. R. Priess), pp. 117-145. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Bosher, J., Dufourcq, P., Sookhareea, S. and Labouesse, M. (1999). RNA interference can target pre-mRNA: consequences for gene expression in a Caenorhabditis elegans operon. Genetics 153, 1245-1256.
Brenner, S. (1974). The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 77, 71-94.
C. elegans Sequencing Consortium (1998). Genome sequence of the nematode C. elegans: a platform for investigating biology. Science 282, 2012-2018.
Chanal, P. and Labouesse, M. (1997). A screen for genetic loci required for hypodermal cell and glial-like cell development during Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis. Genetics 146, 207-226.
Clark, S. G., Chisholm, A. D. and Horvitz, H. R. (1993). Control of cell fates in the central body region of C. elegans by the homeobox gene lin-39. Cell 74, 43-55.[Medline]
Fire, A., Xu, S., Montgomery, M. K., Kostas, S. A., Driver, S. E. and Mello, C. C. (1998). Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 391, 806-811.[Medline]
Fukushige, T., Hawkins, M. G. and McGhee, J. D. (1998). The GATA-factor elt-2 is essential for formation of the Caenorhabditis elegans intestine. Dev. Biol. 198, 286-302.[Medline]
Gendreau, S. B., Moskowitz, I. P., Terns, R. M. and Rothman, J. H. (1994). The potential to differentiate epidermis is unequally distributed in the AB lineage during early embryonic development in C. elegans. Dev. Biol. 166, 770-781.[Medline]
Gilleard, J. S. and McGhee, J. D. (2001). Activation of hypodermal differentiation in the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo by GATA transcription factors ELT-1 and ELT-3. Mol. Cell. Biol. 21, 2533-2544.
Gilleard, J. S., Barry, J. D. and Johnstone, I. L. (1997). cis regulatory requirements for hypodermal cell-specific expression of the Caenorhabditis elegans cuticle collagen gene dpy-7. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17, 2301-2311.[Abstract]
Gilleard, J. S., Shafi, Y., Barry, J. D. and McGhee, J. D. (1999). ELT-3: A Caenorhabditis elegans GATA factor expressed in the embryonic epidermis during morphogenesis. Dev. Biol. 208, 265-280.[Medline]
Guo, S. and Kemphues, K. J. (1995). par-1, a gene required for establishing polarity in C. elegans embryos, encodes a putative Ser/Thr kinase that is asymmetrically distributed. Cell 81, 611-620.[Medline]
Hedgecock, E. M., Culotti, J. G., Hall, D. H. and Stern, B. D. (1987). Genetics of cell and axon migrations in Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 100, 365-382.[Abstract]
Hutter, H. and Schnabel, R. (1994). glp-1 and inductions establishing embryonic axes in C. elegans. Development 120, 2051-2064.
Hutter, H. and Schnabel, R. (1995). Establishment of left-right asymmetry in the Caenorhabditis elegans embryo: a multistep process involving a series of inductive events. Development 121, 3417-3424.
Kaletta, T., Schnabel, H. and Schnabel, R. (1997). Binary specification of the embryonic lineage in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 390, 294-298.[Medline]
Kenyon, C. (1986). A gene involved in the development of the posterior body region of C. elegans. Cell 46, 477-487.[Medline]
Kenyon, C. J., Austin, J., Costa, M., Cowing, D. W., Harris, J. M., Honigberg, L., Hunter, C. P., Maloof, J. N., Muller-Immergluck, M. M., Salser, S. J. et al. (1997). The dance of the Hox genes: patterning the anteroposterior body axis of Caenorhabditis elegans. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 62, 293-305.[Medline]
Kostrouchova, M., Krause, M., Kostrouch, Z. and Rall, J. E. (1998). CHR3: a Caenorhabditis elegans orphan nuclear hormone receptor required for proper epidermal development and molting. Development 125, 1617-1626.
Labouesse, M., Snookhare, S. and Horvitz, H. R. (1994). The Caenorhabditis elegans gene lin-26 is required to specify the fates of hypodermal cells and encodes a presumptive zinc-finger transcription factor. Development 120, 2359-2368.
Lin, R., Hill, R. J. and Priess, J. R. (1998). POP-1 and anterior-posterior fate decisions in C. elegans embryos. Cell 92, 229-239.[Medline]
Maduro, M. F., Meneghini, M. D., Bowerman, B., Broitman-Maduro, G. and Rothman, J. H. (2001). Restriction of mesendoderm to a single blastomere by the combined action of SKN-1 and a GSK-3ß homolog is mediated by MED-1 and -2 in C. elegans. Mol. Cell 7, 475-485.[Medline]
Mango, S. E., Thorpe, C. J., Martin, P. R., Chamberlain, S. H. and Bowerman, B. (1994). Two maternal genes, apx-1 and pie-1, are required to distinguish the fates of equivalent blastomeres in the early Caenorhabditis elegans embryo. Development 120, 2305-2315.
Mello, C. C., Draper, B. W. and Priess, J. R. (1994). The maternal genes apx-1 and glp-1 and establishment of dorsal-ventral polarity in the early C. elegans embryo. Cell 77, 95-106.[Medline]
Miyabayashi, T., Palfreyman, M. T., Sluder, A. E., Slack, F. and Sengupta, P. (1999). Expression and function of members of a divergent nuclear receptor family in Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 215, 314-331.[Medline]
Mohler, W. A., Simske, J. S., Williams-Masson, E. M., Hardin, J. D. and White, J. G. (1998). Dynamics and ultrastructure of developmental cell fusions in the Caenorhabditis elegans hypodermis. Curr. Biol. 8, 1087-1090.[Medline]
Moskowitz, I. P., Gendreau, S. B. and Rothman, J. H. (1994). Combinatorial specification of blastomere identity by glp-1-dependent cellular interactions in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Development 120, 3325-3338.
Page, B. D., Zhang, W., Steward, K., Blumenthal, T. and Priess, J. R. (1997). ELT-1, a GATA-like transcription factor, is required for epidermal cell fates in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. Genes Dev. 11, 1651-1661.[Abstract]
Podbilewicz, B. and White, J. G. (1994). Cell fusions in the developing epithelia of C. elegans. Dev. Biol. 161, 408-424.[Medline]
Priess, J. R. and Hirsh, D. I. (1986). Caenorhabditis elegans morphogenesis: the role of the cytoskeleton in elongation of the embryo. Dev. Biol. 117, 156-173.[Medline]
Salser, S. J. and Kenyon, C. (1996). A C. elegans Hox gene switches on, off, on and off again to regulate proliferation, differentiation and morphogenesis. Development 122, 1651-1661.
Salser, S. J., Loer, C. M. and Kenyon, C. (1993). Multiple HOM-C gene interactions specify cell fates in the nematode central nervous system. Genes Dev. 7, 1714-1724.[Abstract]
Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F. and Maniatis, T. (1989). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Singh, R. N. and Sulston, J. E. (1978). Some observations on moulting in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nematologica 24, 63-71.
Spieth, J., Brooke, G., Kuersten, S., Lea, K. and Blumenthal, T. (1993). Operons in C. elegans: polycistronic mRNA precursors are processed by trans-splicing of SL2 to downstream coding regions. Cell 73, 521-532.[Medline]
Sulston, J. and Hodgkin, J. (1988). Methods. In The nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (ed. W. B. Wood), pp. 587-606. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Press.
Sulston, J. E. and Horvitz, H. R. (1977). Post-embryonic cell lineages of the nematode, Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 56, 110-156.[Medline]
Sulston, J. E., Schierenberg, E., White, J. G. and Thomson, J. N. (1983). The embryonic cell lineage of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Dev. Biol. 100, 64-119.[Medline]
Tavernarakis, N., Wang, S. L., Dorovkov, M., Ryazanov, A. and Driscoll, M. (2000). Heritable and inducible genetic interference by double-stranded DNA encoded by transgenes. Nat. Genet. 24, 180-183.[Medline]
Terns, R. M., Kroll-Conner, P., Zhu, J., Chung, S. and Rothman, J. H. (1997). A deficiency screen for zygotic loci required for establishment and patterning of the epidermis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 146, 185-206.
Wang, B. B., Muller-Immergluck, M. M., Austin, J., Robinson, N. T., Chisholm, A. and Kenyon, C. (1993). A homeotic gene cluster patterns the anteroposterior body axis of C. elegans. Cell 74, 29-42.[Medline]
Waterston, R. H. (1988). Muscle. In The Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, (ed. W. B. Wood), pp. 281-335. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
White, J. G. (1988). The anatomy. In The Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (ed. W. B. Wood), pp. 81-122. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Williams, C., Xu, L. and Blumenthal, T. (1999). SL1 trans splicing and 3'-end formation in a novel class of Caenorhabditis elegans operon. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19, 376-383.
Wissmann, A., Ingles, J., McGhee, J. D. and Mains, P. E. (1997). Caenorhabditis elegans LET-502 is related to Rho-binding kinases and human myotonic dystrophy kinase and interacts genetically with a homolog of the regulatory subunit of smooth muscle myosin phosphatase to affect cell shape. Genes Dev. 11, 409-422.[Abstract]
Wissmann, A., Ingles, J. and Mains, P. E. (1999). The Caenorhabditis elegans mel-11 myosin phosphatase regulatory subunit affects tissue contraction in the somatic gonad and the embryonic epidermis and genetically interacts with the Rac signaling pathway. Dev. Biol. 209, 111-127.[Medline]
Wright, K. A. and Thomson, J. N. (1981). The buccal capsule of C. elegans (Nematoda: Rhabditoidea): an ultrastructural study. Can. J. Zool. 59, 1952-1961.
Wrischnik, L. A. and Kenyon, C. J. (1997). The role of lin-22, a hairy/Enhancer of split homolog, in patterning the peripheral nervous system of C. elegans. Development 124, 2875-2888.
Yochem, J., Tuck, S., Greenwald, I. and Han, M. (1999). A gp330/megalin-related protein is required in the major epidermis of Caenorhabditis elegans for completion of molting. Development 126, 597-606.
Zhu, J., Hill, R. J., Heid, P. J., Fukuyama, M., Sugimoto, A., Priess, J. R. and Rothman, J. H. (1997). end-1 encodes an apparent GATA factor that specifies the endoderm precursor in Caenorhabditis elegans embryos. Genes Dev. 11, 2883-2896.
Zorio, D. A., Cheng, N. N., Blumenthal, T. and Spieth, J. (1994). Operons as a common form of chromosomal organization in C. elegans. Nature 372, 270-272.[Medline]