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.
  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.

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.

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

  • 61,354
    views
  • 2,381
    downloads
  • 212
    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
    Kourosh Hayatigolkhatmi, Chiara Soriani ... Simona Rodighiero
    Tools and Resources

    Understanding the cell cycle at the single-cell level is crucial for cellular biology and cancer research. While current methods using fluorescent markers have improved the study of adherent cells, non-adherent cells remain challenging. In this study, we addressed this gap by combining a specialized surface to enhance cell attachment, the FUCCI(CA)2 sensor, an automated image analysis pipeline, and a custom machine learning algorithm. This approach enabled precise measurement of cell cycle phase durations in non-adherent cells. This method was validated in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines NB4 and Kasumi-1, which have unique cell cycle characteristics, and we tested the impact of cell cycle-modulating drugs on NB4 cells. Our cell cycle analysis system, which is also compatible with adherent cells, is fully automated and freely available, providing detailed insights from hundreds of cells under various conditions. This report presents a valuable tool for advancing cancer research and drug development by enabling comprehensive, automated cell cycle analysis in both adherent and non-adherent cells.

    1. Cell Biology
    Fatima Tleiss, Martina Montanari ... C Leopold Kurz
    Research Article

    Multiple gut antimicrobial mechanisms are coordinated in space and time to efficiently fight foodborne pathogens. In Drosophila melanogaster, production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) together with intestinal cell renewal play a key role in eliminating gut microbes. A complementary mechanism would be to isolate and treat pathogenic bacteria while allowing colonization by commensals. Using real-time imaging to follow the fate of ingested bacteria, we demonstrate that while commensal Lactiplantibacillus plantarum freely circulate within the intestinal lumen, pathogenic strains such as Erwinia carotovora or Bacillus thuringiensis, are blocked in the anterior midgut where they are rapidly eliminated by antimicrobial peptides. This sequestration of pathogenic bacteria in the anterior midgut requires the Duox enzyme in enterocytes, and both TrpA1 and Dh31 in enteroendocrine cells. Supplementing larval food with hCGRP, the human homolog of Dh31, is sufficient to block the bacteria, suggesting the existence of a conserved mechanism. While the immune deficiency (IMD) pathway is essential for eliminating the trapped bacteria, it is dispensable for the blockage. Genetic manipulations impairing bacterial compartmentalization result in abnormal colonization of posterior midgut regions by pathogenic bacteria. Despite a functional IMD pathway, this ectopic colonization leads to bacterial proliferation and larval death, demonstrating the critical role of bacteria anterior sequestration in larval defense. Our study reveals a temporal orchestration during which pathogenic bacteria, but not innocuous, are confined in the anterior part of the midgut in which they are eliminated in an IMD-pathway-dependent manner.