Body Building Exercises

PETER THOROGOOD AND JAMES HANKEN PATTERN FORMATION

Body building exercises In vertebrates, regional variation in mechanisms of axial segmentation may reflect sequential modular construction of the trunk and head during evolution.

-hition of the vertebrate buupkzn is a zoological prob- Segmentation within the nervous system is an integral lem of classic pedigree; it is an issue in which extreme, feature of vertebrate metamerism (for example, spinal and often contradictory, views have been maintained nerves). Typically, the first indication, often preceding even up to the present day. One of the most striking neuronal differentiation, is the appearance of periodic f~ti.lres of the body plan is its metamerism - the re- bulges in the early neural tube; these ‘neuromeres’ are peating ‘segmental’ nature of much of the anatomy, in- termed ‘rhombomeres’ in the rhombencephalon or hind- cluding components of the skeleton, musculature, vas- brain, and ‘myelomeres’ along the length of the trunk cukature and nervous system. For many years it was be- neural tube. There are fundamental region-specific dif- lieved that, as in the protochordate Ampbtius, verte- ferences in how this organization is created. Segmenta- brates are fundamentally segmented from anterior to pos- tion might be a primaty feature of the cephalic neural terior extremities. However, it was also assumed that seg- primordium as early as neural-plate stage, but trunk segmentation at the anterior end had become obscured by mentation, evidenced by the myelomeres, seems to be ac- the evolution of increasing head specialization (cephal- quired secondarily, Certainly the evidence for an inherent ization) and, within individual ontogenies, by the increas- metameric character in the hindbrain is well established; ing anatomical complexity that accompanies develop- rhombomeric organization reflects a metameric distribu- ment and maturation. This traditional view, encapsulated tion of proliferation centres in the neuroepithelium, the in the writings of Goodrich [ 11, is upheld by modem- rhombomere boundaries coincide not only with periodi- day anatomists such as Bjerring [2] who claim not only cally distributed cell lineage restrictions but also with the that virtually the entire head is segmented but that its anterior limits of expression of a number of homeobox- metamerism is identical and continuous with that of containing genes, and there is a segmental pattern of xhe trunk. neuron differentiation [4]. Over the years, various contraty views have been posited, but perhaps the most influential has been the evolutionary scenario postulated by Gans and Northcutt [3]. They propose that the appearance of the neural crest as a developmental ‘novelty’, together with a complex tran- sition in feeding mechanisms, underpinned the evolution of vertebrates from a primitive chordate ancestor and fa- cilitated their subsequent explosive evolution. Because the notochord extends to the anterior tip of the organ ism in Ampbioxus (unlike vertebrates, where its anterior- most limit is at approximately mid-brain level), and given that in vertebrates the most anterior part of the head is largely comprised of n.eural crest- and placode-derived Fig. 1. immunostained chick embryo, revealing the distribution cells, Cans and Northcutt reject any inherent segmenta- of En2, a nuclear protein found in posterior mid-brain and rhom- tion to the bulk of the head, at least to that part anterior bomere 1. (Photograph courtesy of C Stern.) to the notochord. This unsegmented and evolutionarily ‘younger’ part of the head is in this way viewed as an Two recent papers using chick embryos focus directly ‘add on’ module - an anatomical extension appended on these issues. The first adopts a classic experimental to the front of an Ampbioxuslike ancestor. embryology strategy - ectopic grafting of the primary These approaches utilizing descriptive morphology have ‘organizer’ (in amniotes, Henson’s node) - to induce heen insufficient to resolve the metamerism debate. a secondary axis, including a supernumerary neural pri- Molecular biology, however, may provide the tools with mordium. In the past, such work has relied largely on which to resolve this seemingly intractable problem. morphological criteria by which to identify the regions of Three advances make this possible: identification of ‘pe- the induced neural primordium. Interpretation of struc- riodic’ patterns of expression of Antennapedia class reg- tures as simply ‘neural’ has been acceptable but identih- ulatory genes; the exploitation of cell-type-specific differ- cation of discrete regions has often been subjective. But entiation markers; and the application of more rigorous by using spectic markers that characterize regions within and objective criteria for defining segmentation. Four re- normal neural primordia, interpretation can be precise cent studies provide dramatic new insights into the pat- and objective (Fig. 1). By grafting Henson’s nodes of dif- tern of axial segmentation in neural, mesodermal and ec- ferent ages into an extraembryonic site, different regions todermal components of the baupkan, and in doing so, of the neural primordium were induced ectopically [ 51. offer molecular evidence of fundamental ditferences in Younger nodes tended to elicit the formation of ante- segmental patterning mechanisms along the body axis. nor structures such as fore and mid brain, whereas older

Volume 2 Number 2 1992 83 nodes elicited progressively more posterior central ner- within each region, vertebrae display shapes character- vous system (CNS) structures. It is important to remem- istic of each axial level. Kessel and Gruss [7] analyse ber that Henson’s node, like its homologue in amphib- metamerism of the paraxial mesoderm and establishment ians, the dorsal lip, is a dynamic structure whose cellu- of trunk segment identity by perturbation of this system. lar composition changes as gastrulation of presumptive Treatment of embryos with retinoids such as retinoic acid mesoderm progresses. Accordingly, the authors conclude (known as a teratogen but recently recognized as a mor- that normal regionalization of the CNS is the result of dif- phogen or mimic of a morphogen) results in transforma- ferent signals emanating from the mesoderm, and they tion of vertebrae. These changes are not simply random even raise the question of how many signals might be alterations or chaotic dysmorphology but constitute pre- necessary to elicit the formation of a full length CNS from cise and actual homeotic transformations into other iden- the overlying ectoderm. tifiable vertebral forms that vary according to stage of de- This result essentially confirms previous work but also velopment at the time of exposure (Fig. 2). Because each extends it signi6cantly because interpretation is based on pre-vertebra normally has a precise Hex gene combina the use of region-specific markers. It is consistent with tion according to axial level, and because retinoic acid the idea that d&rent signals may underlie the induction effects transformation from one vertebral form into an- of head and trunk CNS regions and even that different other, it is logical to ask if this Hox ‘code’ changes accord- signals elicit the differentiation of the various regions of ingly. In fact, it is altered- a code is expressed appropri- the brain itself. IIt is not yet clear, however, if this lind- ate to the new vertebral form. This relationship between ing reflects a qualitative difference or a gradient in some the expression of a particular combination of regulatory quantitative intluence, with threshold effects eliciting genes and a particular morphogenesis of a segment sug- multiple differentiation pathways. gests a causal role for Hox genes in the establishment of regional axial identity along the trunk. A second paper from the same laboratory compares the nature and origin of the myelomeres of the trunk neu- I ral tube with the rhombomeres of the hindbrain, and shows a number of fundamental differences [6]. The use of a mitotic inhibitor revealed that myelomeres are not the consequence of local proliferative centres in the neuroepithelium of the trunk neural tube. Furthermore, there is no evidence for any inherent segmental differentiation of motor neurons; the earliest detectable spinal cord neurons djfierentiate at apparently random inter- vals along the anterior-posterior axis. The authors conclude that there is no inherent segmentation of the trunk neural tube, at lkast according to the rigorous criteria by which metamerism in the hindbrain is recognized. Instead, metamerism of the spinal cord primordium in birds seems to be secondarily acquired from surround- ing tissues. The authors suggest that one of the simplest, yet nevertheless important, influences may be mechanical moulding by somites formed as segmentation proceeds Fig. 2. Vertebral patterns in wild-type (above) and retinoic acid- in the adjacent, or paraxial mesoderm. treated (below) mice; note transformation from 13 to 15 thoracic The two remaining papers both use homeobox-contair- vertebrae and associated ribs. (Photographs courtesy of M Kessel ing genes of the Antennupediu class to investigate seg- and P Gruss, reproduced with permission from Cell 171.) mental organization in the mouse. In the mouse embryo, The fourth paper, by Hunt et al. [8] examines whether the Antenmped~h class homeobox genes are located in a comparable Hox code is detectable in the embry- four chromosomal clusters related by duplication and di- onic mouse head. In the head, mesoderm-derived mes- vergence from a common ancestral gene complex. Be- enchyme is sparse and largely replaced by the neural cause of their common origin, genes related by virtue of crest. Furthermore, only part of the head - the hind their sequence homology are found in equivalent posi- brain and brat-&al arches - is obviously metameric tions within the four clusters. Such related genes are re- in its organization. (Segmental organization of cranial ferred to as ‘paralogues’ and the sub-families so recog- paraxial mesoderm, in the form of pre-somitic somito- nized, as ‘paralogous’ genes. In the trunk mesoderm, an- meres, has been claimed for many taxa [9] but these terior limits of expression of the Hox genes align with claims remain to be assessed by the rigorous criteria ap- somite interfaces, such that each gene has an anterior plied to the CNS.) In fact, there is no periodic expres- limit of expression that coincides with the anterior face sion of regulatory genes detected so far in head meso- of a particular samite pair. Moving from anterior to poste- den-n and Hox gene expression in this tissue is only seen rior along the axis, one finds a progression in the combi- secondarily, after these regions have been colonized by nation of HO.Xgenes expressed such that small groups of the neural crest migrating from the hindbrain. Work from somites (and thus their respective axial levels) are char- several laboratories, most notably those of Robb Krum- acterized by the expression of a unique combination of lauf and David Wilkinson, has demonstrated not only that Hox genes. the rhombomeres display a neuromere-spectic expres- The vertebral column comprises a small number of dis- sion of the Antennapedia class genes but also that the crete anatomical regions (for example, cervical, thoracic); neural crest migrating from them retains the same axial a4 @ 1992 Current Biology &%j&;i@& c Pa ttem of gene expression [lo]. These re- of double branchial bars developing in the absence of jpecially significant in the light of the putative a neural crest, whereas jawed fishes typically have 6 gill ed ‘to the crest in patterning the branchial arch clefts and tetrapods have 4 or 5 gill pouches! Although >&Hox code might be a means of implement- the Amphioxus condition is clearly a specialization for $fer of positional information from the hind- filter feeding, it raises a number of questions about its &iphera.l head structures such as the arches. relation with the branchial region in vertebrates. ‘&&ant thalt no wozc genes are expressed in Despite such reservations, one general message emerges de (whether crest- or mesoderm-derived) in from these studies: segmentation is displayed in differ- $part of the: embryonic head. ent tissues and specified by genes operating in different ‘&se laboratories have examined the relation- ways along the body axis. Given that the vertebrate body #&en the various regulatory genes involved, to plan, especially the head, probably evolved sequentially f&&j is any resemblance between the manner in and possibly in a modular fashion, perhaps it is not sur- ;&ey~+ deployed in mesodermal cells of the trunk prising that disparate developmental strategies have been &@$iced by the Hox code, and the combinato- adopted at critical points in our evolutionary past. Fur- &&&i~ti in the hindbrain neuroepithelium and the thermore, it is probably simplistic to think in terms of ,@@~$roduces. A striking difference emerges. It head versus trunk. The body axis probably comprises at Kessel and Gruss ‘Hox code’ [7] that least three regions - trunk, hi.ndbrain, anterior head - sion of paralogues are not necessarily definable with respect to several key aspects of segmenta e trunk. Thus, part of the specificity of tion. IS metamerism present? If so, in which germ layer is apparently the consequence of offset in it first expressed, and precisely how are regulatory genes ts (that is, paralogues have different ante- used to specify regional identity? &+&$o~, limits). In marked contrast, Hunt et al. &2&:*th.=>:::c1 the exception of the labial cluster, off- References spdogous members of the remaining three 1. GOODUICHES: Studies on the Structure and Development of ,&@,>,occur in the head tissues. In fact par- Vertebrates London: Macmillan, 1930. #+.‘jdentical expression limits amongst the 2. BJERRING HC: Major anatomicalsteps toward craniotedness: a &!&t3d the neural crest that is derived from heterodox view based largely on embryological data. J Vert @%%Tcode concept is applicable to the seg- Paleontol 1984, 417-29. &I,? of the head, then clearly the head code is GANS C, NORTHCKJTI RG: Neural crest and the origin of ver- &&d.iJTerent from that of the trunk. Not only is tebrates: a new head. Science 1983, 220:268-274. :‘Ssedin a ditTerent germ layer (mesoderm LUMSDEN A: The cellular basis of segmentation in the devel- &&cMerm in head) but the Antennapedia oping hindbrain. Trenak Neurosci 1990, 13:329-335. “$&nes me combinatorially deployed in a STOREY KG, CROSSLEY JM, DE ROBERTIS EM, NORRIS WE, STERN : .~. CD: Neural induction and regionalisation in the chick em- ? bryo. Development 1992, in press. & use these studies to formulate a gen- 6. LIM T-M, JAQLIES KF, STERN CD, KEYNES RJ: An evaluation of t&f segmentation of the body axis in verte- myelomeres and segmentation of the chick embryo spinal &$&, control and its morphogenetic imple- cord. Develqment 1991, 113~227-238. &$ such model would be incomplete and 7. KESSEL M, GRUSS P: Homeotic transformations of murine vertebrae and concomitant alteration of Hox codes induced by &tic at this time. First, it is likely that O@ retinoic acid. CeEl 1991, 67:89-104. $$$$latory genes involved have been iden- 8. HUNT P, GUUSANO M, COOK M, SHAM M-H, FAIEL~A A, WILKINSON @%s and gene clusters undoubtedly remain D, BONCINELU E, KRUMIAUF k A distinct Hox code for &&$$+n from these model systems. Second, the branchial region of the vertebrate head. Nature 1991, Y,s@n if the mechanisms of segmentation 353B61-864. ‘@use - both amniotes - are represen- 9. JACOBSON AG: Somitomeres: mesodermal segments of verte- @@ion mechanisms in vertebrates gener- brate embryos. Development 1988, 104 (suppl):2W220. :9gerstand how the head evolved and 10. HUNT P, WILKINSON D, KRUML4UF RI Patterning the vertebrate ,__ ,, __.xyte evolution possible, then we must head: murine Hox 2 genes mark distinct subpopulations of premigratory and migrating cranial neural crest. Development @&$@ate taxa and this means analysing the 1991, 112:43-50. %@fi$is specification in fishes, amphibians 11. EISEN JS, MYERS PZ, WESTERFIELD M: pathway selection by ~$+~xa.mples illustrate this dramatically. growth cones of identified motoneurones in live zebra fish ral nibe in teleost fishes, unlike that of am- embryos. Nature 1986, 320:269-271. $$$$ti from rhe earliest stage, as evidenced *riCz*;.. differentiation of the motor neurons W# -moulding by somites seems unneces- Peter Thorogood, Department of Oral Biology, Insti- ation. Might this represent tute of Dental Surgery, Eastman Dental Hospital, 256, Irate condition? And consider Gray’s Inn Road, London WClX 8LD, UK. James Hanken, nphioxus. It is usually consid- Department of Environmental, Population and Organis- ith the bran&al arch appara- mic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado ~ioxus has more than 90 pairs 80309-0334, USA.

Q.ber 2 1992 85