Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development

  1. Felipe Mora-Bermúdez
  2. Farhath Badsha
  3. Sabina Kanton
  4. J Gray Camp
  5. Benjamin Vernot
  6. Kathrin Köhler
  7. Birger Voigt
  8. Keisuke Okita
  9. Tomislav Maricic
  10. Zhisong He
  11. Robert Lachmann
  12. Svante Pääbo  Is a corresponding author
  13. Barbara Treutlein  Is a corresponding author
  14. Wieland B Huttner  Is a corresponding author
  1. Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
  2. Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
  3. Kyoto University, Japan
  4. CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology, China
  5. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Abstract

Human neocortex expansion likely contributed to the remarkable cognitive abilities of humans. This expansion is thought to primarily reflect differences in proliferation versus differentiation of neural progenitors during cortical development. Here, we have searched for such differences by analysing cerebral organoids from human and chimpanzees using immunohistochemistry, live imaging, and single-cell transcriptomics. We find that the cytoarchitecture, cell type composition, and neurogenic gene expression programs of humans and chimpanzees are remarkably similar. Notably, however, live imaging of apical progenitor mitosis uncovered a lengthening of prometaphase-metaphase in humans compared to chimpanzees that is specific to proliferating progenitors and not observed in non-neural cells. Consistent with this, the small set of genes more highly expressed in human apical progenitors points to increased proliferative capacity, and the proportion of neurogenic basal progenitors is lower in humans. These subtle differences in cortical progenitors between humans and chimpanzees may have consequences for human neocortex evolution.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Felipe Mora-Bermúdez

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Farhath Badsha

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Sabina Kanton

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. J Gray Camp

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Benjamin Vernot

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Kathrin Köhler

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Birger Voigt

    Institute of Laboratory Animals, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Keisuke Okita

    Department of Reprogramming Science, Center for iPS Cell Research and Application, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Tomislav Maricic

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zhisong He

    CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Robert Lachmann

    Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Svante Pääbo

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    For correspondence
    paabo@eva.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4143-7201
  13. Barbara Treutlein

    Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
    For correspondence
    barbara_treutlein@eva.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Wieland B Huttner

    Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Dresden, Germany
    For correspondence
    huttner@mpi-cbg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4143-7201

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds

  • Sabina Kanton

Paul G. Allen Family Foundation

  • Svante Pääbo

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, SFB 655, A2)

  • Wieland B Huttner

European Research Council (ERC, 250197)

  • Wieland B Huttner

DFG-Funded Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden

  • Wieland B Huttner

Fonds der Chemischen Industrie

  • Wieland B Huttner

Max Planck Society

  • Svante Pääbo
  • Barbara Treutlein
  • Wieland B Huttner

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Andrea Musacchio, Max Planck Institute of Molecular Physiology, Germany

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Mice were kept pathogen-free at the Biomedical Services Facility of the MPI-CBG. All experiments using mice were performed according to the German Animal Welfare Legislation. In addition, research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics.

Human subjects: Human fetal brain tissue (11-13 weeks post conception (wpc)) was obtained with informed written maternal consent followed by elective pregnancy termination. Research involving human tissue was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of the Universitaetsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus of the Technische Universitaet Dresden. In addition, research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics.

Version history

  1. Received: June 9, 2016
  2. Accepted: September 22, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 26, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: September 26, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: November 15, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Mora-Bermúdez et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 60,583
    views
  • 2,333
    downloads
  • 198
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Felipe Mora-Bermúdez
  2. Farhath Badsha
  3. Sabina Kanton
  4. J Gray Camp
  5. Benjamin Vernot
  6. Kathrin Köhler
  7. Birger Voigt
  8. Keisuke Okita
  9. Tomislav Maricic
  10. Zhisong He
  11. Robert Lachmann
  12. Svante Pääbo
  13. Barbara Treutlein
  14. Wieland B Huttner
(2016)
Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development
eLife 5:e18683.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18683

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18683

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Timothy J Walker, Eduardo Reyes-Alvarez ... Lois M Mulligan
    Research Article

    Internalization from the cell membrane and endosomal trafficking of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are important regulators of signaling in normal cells that can frequently be disrupted in cancer. The adrenal tumor pheochromocytoma (PCC) can be caused by activating mutations of the rearranged during transfection (RET) receptor tyrosine kinase, or inactivation of TMEM127, a transmembrane tumor suppressor implicated in trafficking of endosomal cargos. However, the role of aberrant receptor trafficking in PCC is not well understood. Here, we show that loss of TMEM127 causes wildtype RET protein accumulation on the cell surface, where increased receptor density facilitates constitutive ligand-independent activity and downstream signaling, driving cell proliferation. Loss of TMEM127 altered normal cell membrane organization and recruitment and stabilization of membrane protein complexes, impaired assembly, and maturation of clathrin-coated pits, and reduced internalization and degradation of cell surface RET. In addition to RTKs, TMEM127 depletion also promoted surface accumulation of several other transmembrane proteins, suggesting it may cause global defects in surface protein activity and function. Together, our data identify TMEM127 as an important determinant of membrane organization including membrane protein diffusability and protein complex assembly and provide a novel paradigm for oncogenesis in PCC where altered membrane dynamics promotes cell surface accumulation and constitutive activity of growth factor receptors to drive aberrant signaling and promote transformation.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Julian JA Hoving, Elizabeth Harford-Wright ... Alison C Lloyd
    Research Article Updated

    Collective cell migration is fundamental for the development of organisms and in the adult for tissue regeneration and in pathological conditions such as cancer. Migration as a coherent group requires the maintenance of cell–cell interactions, while contact inhibition of locomotion (CIL), a local repulsive force, can propel the group forward. Here we show that the cell–cell interaction molecule, N-cadherin, regulates both adhesion and repulsion processes during Schwann cell (SC) collective migration, which is required for peripheral nerve regeneration. However, distinct from its role in cell–cell adhesion, the repulsion process is independent of N-cadherin trans-homodimerisation and the associated adherens junction complex. Rather, the extracellular domain of N-cadherin is required to present the repulsive Slit2/Slit3 signal at the cell surface. Inhibiting Slit2/Slit3 signalling inhibits CIL and subsequently collective SC migration, resulting in adherent, nonmigratory cell clusters. Moreover, analysis of ex vivo explants from mice following sciatic nerve injury showed that inhibition of Slit2 decreased SC collective migration and increased clustering of SCs within the nerve bridge. These findings provide insight into how opposing signals can mediate collective cell migration and how CIL pathways are promising targets for inhibiting pathological cell migration.