1. Developmental Biology
Download icon

Cilia-mediated Hedgehog signaling controls form and function in the mammalian larynx

  1. Jacqueline M Tabler
  2. Maggie M Rigney
  3. Gordon J Berman
  4. Swetha Gopalakrishnan
  5. Eglantine Heude
  6. Hadeel A Al-Lami
  7. Basil Z Yannakoudakis
  8. Rebecca D Fitch
  9. Christopher M Carter
  10. Steven A Vokes
  11. Karen J Liu
  12. Shahragim Tajbakhsh
  13. SE Roian Egnor
  14. John B Wallingford  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Texas at Austin, United States
  2. Emory University, United States
  3. CNRS UMR3738, Institut Pasteur, France
  4. King's College London, United Kingdom
  5. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 31
  • Views 2,895
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e19153 doi: 10.7554/eLife.19153

Abstract

Acoustic communication is fundamental to social interactions among animals, including humans. In fact, deficits in voice impair the quality of life for a large and diverse population of patients. Understanding the molecular genetic mechanisms of development and function in the vocal apparatus is thus an important challenge with relevance both to the basic biology of animal communication and to biomedicine. However, surprisingly little is known about the developmental biology of the mammalian larynx. Here, we used genetic fate mapping to chart the embryological origins of the tissues in the mouse larynx, and we describe the developmental etiology of laryngeal defects in mice with disruptions in cilia-mediated Hedgehog signaling. In addition, we show that mild laryngeal defects correlate with changes in the acoustic structure of vocalizations. Together, these data provide key new insights in the molecular genetics of form and function in the mammalian vocal apparatus.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jacqueline M Tabler

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Maggie M Rigney

    Department of Molecular Biosciencesc, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gordon J Berman

    Department of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Swetha Gopalakrishnan

    Stem Cells and Development, CNRS UMR3738, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Eglantine Heude

    Stem Cells and Development, CNRS UMR3738, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hadeel A Al-Lami

    Department of Craniofacial Development and Stem Cell Biology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Basil Z Yannakoudakis

    Department of Craniofacial Development and Stem Cell Biology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Rebecca D Fitch

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Christopher M Carter

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Steven A Vokes

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Karen J Liu

    Department of Craniofacial Development and Stem Cell Biology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Shahragim Tajbakhsh

    Stem Cells and Development, CNRS UMR3738, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. SE Roian Egnor

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. John B Wallingford

    Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, United States
    For correspondence
    wallingford@austin.utexas.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6280-8625

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • SE Roian Egnor
  • John B Wallingford

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This work was performed by protocols approved by UT Austin (IACUC protocol # AUP-2015-00105) and by King's College London (Animal Use Protocol PPL 70/7441).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Didier YR Stainier, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Germany

Publication history

  1. Received: June 27, 2016
  2. Accepted: February 6, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 8, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: February 13, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: March 20, 2017 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: November 22, 2017 (version 4)

Copyright

© 2017, Tabler 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

  • 2,895
    Page views
  • 684
    Downloads
  • 31
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Evelien Eenjes et al.
    Research Article Updated

    SOX2 expression levels are crucial for the balance between maintenance and differentiation of airway progenitor cells during development and regeneration. Here, we describe patterning of the mouse proximal airway epithelium by SOX21, which coincides with high levels of SOX2 during development. Airway progenitor cells in this SOX2+/SOX21+ zone show differentiation to basal cells, specifying cells for the extrapulmonary airways. Loss of SOX21 showed an increased differentiation of SOX2+ progenitor cells to basal and ciliated cells during mouse lung development. We propose a mechanism where SOX21 inhibits differentiation of airway progenitors by antagonizing SOX2-induced expression of specific genes involved in airway differentiation. Additionally, in the adult tracheal epithelium, SOX21 inhibits basal to ciliated cell differentiation. This suppressing function of SOX21 on differentiation contrasts SOX2, which mainly drives differentiation of epithelial cells during development and regeneration after injury. Furthermore, using human fetal lung organoids and adult bronchial epithelial cells, we show that SOX2+/SOX21+ regionalization is conserved. Lastly, we show that the interplay between SOX2 and SOX21 is context and concentration dependent leading to regulation of differentiation of the airway epithelium.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Patricia Giselle Cipriani et al.
    Research Article Updated

    We describe MIP-1 and MIP-2, novel paralogous C. elegans germ granule components that interact with the intrinsically disordered MEG-3 protein. These proteins promote P granule condensation, form granules independently of MEG-3 in the postembryonic germ line, and balance each other in regulating P granule growth and localization. MIP-1 and MIP-2 each contain two LOTUS domains and intrinsically disordered regions and form homo- and heterodimers. They bind and anchor the Vasa homolog GLH-1 within P granules and are jointly required for coalescence of MEG-3, GLH-1, and PGL proteins. Animals lacking MIP-1 and MIP-2 show temperature-sensitive embryonic lethality, sterility, and mortal germ lines. Germline phenotypes include defects in stem cell self-renewal, meiotic progression, and gamete differentiation. We propose that these proteins serve as scaffolds and organizing centers for ribonucleoprotein networks within P granules that help recruit and balance essential RNA processing machinery to regulate key developmental transitions in the germ line.