The Introduction of Xenopus Laevis Into Developmental Biology: of Empire, Pregnancy Testing and Ribosomal Genes
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Int. J. Dev. Biol. 44: 43-50 (2000) EGF, epithelium and Xenopus in developmental biology 43 The introduction of Xenopus laevis into developmental biology: of empire, pregnancy testing and ribosomal genes JOHN B. GURDON1* and NICK HOPWOOD2 1Wellcome CRC Institute and 2Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom Introduction Spemann in the 1930s, even Joseph Needham and colleagues’ biochemical analysis of the organizer used newts (Haraway, The ever greater concentration of biomedical research on fewer 1976). Only during and after World War II did Xenopus begin its and fewer species is a striking general feature of the postwar era. In rise to dominance. But developmental biologists in Europe and developmental biology, the South African clawed frog Xenopus North America did not choose an African frog after a detached and laevis is, with Drosophila, the mouse, the chick, C. elegans and the comprehensive survey of world fauna. It turns out that the intro- zebrafish, one of only half-a-dozen ‘model’ organisms used for the duction of Xenopus into developmental biology laboratories was vast majority of research. How did a species which occurs naturally more fortuitous, and is more interesting. Its eventual embryologi- only in Southern and Central Africa rise to such international promi- cal exploitation was made possible by specific histories of empire nence? Developmental biologists routinely answer this question by and of endocrinology which happen to have centred to a substan- listing the main reasons currently assembled for using Xenopus: tial extent in Britain; demand was ensured by a reorientation of ease of maintenance of a wholly aquatic vertebrate in the laboratory; embryology towards biochemical methods. Here we trace the exceptional resistance to disease; a life cycle that among Amphibia scientific domestication of the South African clawed frog, focusing is relatively short; large numbers and size of eggs suitable for especially on how, between the 1930s and the early 1960s, it was microsurgery; and above all its year-round reproductive response to introduced into European and North American laboratories, where commercial hormone preparations compared to the limited breeding not only developmental biologists but also converts from bio- seasons of other amphibians (Kay and Peng, 1991; Tinsley and chemistry took it up. Kobel, 1996). Another kind of answer is historical, and this is what we offer here. Natural history, anatomy and laboratory culture From the 1880s and the early work of Wilhelm Roux and others in Germany, experimental embryologists favoured Amphibia Xenopus laevis was first described by a French naturalist at the (Beetschen, 1996; Nieuwkoop, 1996), but they used the local beginning of the nineteenth century; at the turn of the twentieth a European and North American species, initially mostly of the frog British zoologist first reported culturing its embryos in the labora- Rana (Maienschein, 1991). By the early twentieth century urode- tory. European men of science took advantage of imperial explo- les were preferred; Hans Spemann (Hamburger, 1988; Fäßler, ration to define and domesticate this exotic species. They were 1997) experimented mainly on species of the newt Triton (now interested primarily in its natural history and in comparing the Triturus) and Ross Harrison on the axolotl Amblystoma. Following distinctive anatomy to that of other Amphibia. *Address for reprints: Wellcome CRC Institute, University of Cambridge, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QR, United Kingdom. FAX: 44 1223 334185. e-mail: [email protected] 0214-6282/2000/$20.00 © UBC Press Printed in Spain www.lg.ehu.es/ijdb 44 J.B. Gurdon and N. Hopwood François Marie Daudin’s Histoire naturelle des rainettes, des grenouilles, et des crapauds (‘Natural History of Tree-frogs, Frogs and Toads’; 1802/03) contained the briefest description of what he called Bufo laevis, or ‘Crapaud lisse’ (‘smooth toad’). Based on a single preserved specimen of unknown provenance in the Mu- seum of Natural History in Paris, his drawing (Fig. 1) is just sufficient for a modern zoologist to recognise it as Xenopus from the lateral line system and dorsal eyes. But, analysing a specimen from South Africa, the Museum’s great comparative anatomist, Georges Cuvier (1829, p. 107), was critical of Daudin’s efforts, not least his failure to show claws, and pointedly renamed the animal Dactylethra (or ‘finger thing’), a translation of Cuvier’s ‘dé à coudre’ (thimble). In the following decades, research on the taxonomy and anatomy of what appeared neither a typical frog nor a typical toad continued sporadically in the scientific centres of empire, especially London’s museums and zoo, as and when specimens were received from Africa. Albert Günther (1858), an assistant at the British Museum, refined the classification of this tongueless anuran; his superior, Keeper of Zoology John Edward Gray (1864), published the first description and figure of a larva, based on fixed specimens sent via Liverpool from Lagos, Nigeria. William Kitchen Parker, Hunterian professor of comparative anatomy at the Royal College of Sur- geons and a man ‘once known to speak for four hours continuously on the lower jawbone of the raven without saying anything that was other than valuable’ (Prosser, 1895-96, p. 292), used larvae from the same bottle as Gray to include Dactylethra in two truly massive Fig. 2. The first published pictures of Xenopus laevis larvae and descriptions of the development of the batrachian skull (Parker, embryos. (A) Tadpole of Dactylethra (subsequently Xenopus laevis), from 1876, 1881). By studying lower vertebrates he amassed evidence Gray (1864). (B-E) A.K. Maxwell’s drawings of eggs and embryos of against Richard Owen’s vertebral theory of the skull and in favour Xenopus laevis, from Bles (1905). (B) Unfertilized egg; (C) mid-blastula; (D) of the views of his friend and Owen’s arch-enemy T.H. Huxley. In neurula; (E) feeding tadpole. Reproduced by permission of the Syndics of a note from the South African Cape, J.M. Leslie (1890) gave the Cambridge University Library. earliest account of the breeding habits in swamps and ponds of what he called Xenopus laevis, a name proposed by Wagler Evers Beddard, prosector of the Zoological Society of London, (1827), and one which has stuck (see Deuchar, 1975). Leslie noted reported (1894) the natural spawning in the Gardens of the Society that the natural spawning season in South Africa is spring (August). of some animals newly arrived from Zanzibar. This first account of Around this time living specimens began to be imported, and Frank Xenopus breeding outside Africa showed drawings of larvae of 5 mm and up (Fig. 2A). Meanwhile, in the hands of the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel and the Cambridge morphologist Francis Maitland Balfour, Darwin’s theory of evolution had greatly stimulated comparative embryol- ogy, not least of colonial fauna (MacLeod, 1994). A couple of years after Beddard, Edward J. Bles, a zoologist formerly of Owens College in Manchester and then in Cambridge, began an extended study of Xenopus development. Obtaining four adults from a dealer in 1896, he maintained them for two years on a diet of earthworms and strips of liver, and then arranged a space in a corner of the tropical lily tank in the Cambridge University Botanic Garden (Bles, 1901). In February 1899 he achieved a natural spawning, at a temperature of 22-24°C, and noted the black nuptial pads on the forearms of the males. In 1905, now an assistant (i.e. lecturer) in the Department of Zoology at Glasgow University, Bles published a fine article, which not only contains A.K. Maxwell’s exquisitely drawn figures from the unfertilised egg right through to the late feeding larva (Fig. 2B-E), but also meticulously describes condi- tions for the ovulation, fertilisation and rearing of Xenopus in the Fig. 1. The first published picture of Bufo laevis, from Daudin (1802/03). laboratory. Bles kept the animals in a bell-jar over a Bunsen burner The species was eventually re-named Xenopus laevis. Reproduced by (Fig. 3), a set-up designed by John Samuel Budgett, a ‘Balfour permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library. Student’ at Cambridge (Shipley, 1907; MacLeod, 1994). Bles EGF, epithelium and Xenopus in developmental biology 45 brought the Xenopus to 22°C several days before coupling, and changed the water just before egg-laying. He found that it helped to allow them to hibernate before attempting to induce egg-laying; apparently, the same female lived for a decade and spawned spontaneously for at least three consecutive years. Endocrinology and the Xenopus pregnancy test During the early twentieth century, Xenopus continued to be imported occasionally for research, and increasingly also for hobby aquaria in Europe. At first it was only among the scientific colonists in South Africa that Xenopus was bound up in a more general shift from comparative work, which might require only a few museum specimens, to anatomical and, increasingly, physiological studies which demanded large numbers of animals of the same species (Clarke, 1987). In South Africa the ‘Plathander’, ‘Platanna’, or ‘Platie’ as Xenopus was known for short, was a readily available substitute for that ‘old martyr of science’, the frog (Holmes, 1993). Xenopus was used both as a ‘type’ animal in school and university teaching, and by the 1920s also in physiological research (Dreyer, 1913, p. 341; Zwarenstein et al., 1946, Preface and pp. 2-5; Deuchar, 1975, p. 2). But only from the 1930s did it become a Fig. 3. The ‘Tropical Aquarium’ devised by J.S. Budgett and used by E.J. Bles (1905) to obtain spawning of Xenopus laevis. A bell-jar of 20 inches regular inhabitant of European and North American laboratories. diameter is supported on a tripod in contact with a galvanised iron tank The establishment of laboratory colonies of Xenopus outside heated by a Zeiss micro-burner.