Segmentation of the zebrafish axial skeleton relies on notochord sheath cells and not on the segmentation clock

  1. Laura LLeras Forero
  2. Rachna Narayanan
  3. Leonie F A Huitema
  4. Maaike VanBergen
  5. Alexander Apschner
  6. Josi Peterson-Maduro
  7. Ive Logister
  8. Guillaume Valentin
  9. Luis G Morelli
  10. Andrew Oates  Is a corresponding author
  11. Stefan Schulte-Merker  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Münster, Germany
  2. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  3. Hubrecht Institute, Netherlands
  4. University College London, United Kingdom
  5. Instituto de Investigación en Biomedicina de Buenos Aires, Argentina

Abstract

Segmentation of the axial skeleton in amniotes depends on the segmentation clock which patterns the paraxial mesoderm and the sclerotome. While the segmentation clock clearly operates in teleosts, the role of the sclerotome in establishing the axial skeleton is unclear. We severely disrupt zebrafish paraxial segmentation, yet observe a largely normal segmentation process of the chordacentra. We demonstrate that axial entpd5+ notochord sheath cells are responsible for chordacentrum mineralization, and serve as a marker for axial segmentation. While autonomous within the notochord sheath, entpd5 expression and centrum formation show some plasticity and can respond to myotome pattern. These observations reveal for the first time the dynamics of notochord segmentation in a teleost, and are consistent with an autonomous patterning mechanism that is influenced, but not determined by adjacent paraxial mesoderm. This behavior is not consistent with a clock-type mechanism in the notochord.

Data availability

Modelling films and images for the virtual time lapse have been uploaded to a public server from the university of Münster.The code in order to reproduce the model has been submitted to E-life directly

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Laura LLeras Forero

    Institute for Cardiovascular Organogenesis and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Rachna Narayanan

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Leonie F A Huitema

    Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Maaike VanBergen

    Institute for Cardiovascular Organogenesis and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Alexander Apschner

    Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Josi Peterson-Maduro

    Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ive Logister

    Hubrecht Institute, Utrecht, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Guillaume Valentin

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Luis G Morelli

    Instituto de Investigación en Biomedicina de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Andrew Oates

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    andrew.oates@epfl.ch
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3015-3978
  11. Stefan Schulte-Merker

    Institute for Cardiovascular Organogenesis and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
    For correspondence
    Stefan.Schulte-Merker@ukmuenster.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3617-8807

Funding

Cancer Research UK

  • Rachna Narayanan
  • Andrew Oates

Medical Research Council

  • Rachna Narayanan
  • Andrew Oates

Wellcome

  • Guillaume Valentin
  • Andrew Oates

Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica

  • Luis G Morelli

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Laura LLeras Forero
  • Stefan Schulte-Merker

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Animal experiments were approved by the Animal Experimentation Committee (DEC) of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and by the UK Home Office under PPL 70/7675

Copyright

© 2018, LLeras Forero 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

  • 4,781
    views
  • 632
    downloads
  • 73
    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. Laura LLeras Forero
  2. Rachna Narayanan
  3. Leonie F A Huitema
  4. Maaike VanBergen
  5. Alexander Apschner
  6. Josi Peterson-Maduro
  7. Ive Logister
  8. Guillaume Valentin
  9. Luis G Morelli
  10. Andrew Oates
  11. Stefan Schulte-Merker
(2018)
Segmentation of the zebrafish axial skeleton relies on notochord sheath cells and not on the segmentation clock
eLife 7:e33843.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33843

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.33843

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Alexandra V Bruter, Ekaterina A Varlamova ... Victor V Tatarskiy
    Research Article

    CDK8 and CDK19 paralogs are regulatory kinases associated with the transcriptional Mediator complex. We have generated mice with the systemic inducible Cdk8 knockout on the background of Cdk19 constitutive knockout. Cdk8/19 double knockout (iDKO) males, but not single Cdk8 or Cdk19 KO, had an atrophic reproductive system and were infertile. The iDKO males lacked postmeiotic spermatids and spermatocytes after meiosis I pachytene. Testosterone levels were decreased whereas the amounts of the luteinizing hormone were unchanged. Single-cell RNA sequencing showed marked differences in the expression of steroidogenic genes (such as Cyp17a1, Star, and Fads) in Leydig cells concomitant with alterations in Sertoli cells and spermatocytes, and were likely associated with an impaired synthesis of steroids. Star and Fads were also downregulated in cultured Leydig cells after iDKO. The treatment of primary Leydig cell culture with a CDK8/19 inhibitor did not induce the same changes in gene expression as iDKO, and a prolonged treatment of mice with a CDK8/19 inhibitor did not affect the size of testes. iDKO, in contrast to the single knockouts or treatment with a CDK8/19 kinase inhibitor, led to depletion of cyclin C (CCNC), the binding partner of CDK8/19 that has been implicated in CDK8/19-independent functions. This suggests that the observed phenotype was likely mediated through kinase-independent activities of CDK8/19, such as CCNC stabilization.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Thomas A Bos, Elizaveta Polyakova ... Monique RM Jongbloed
    Research Article Updated

    Human autonomic neuronal cell models are emerging as tools for modeling diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias. In this systematic review, we compared 33 articles applying 14 different protocols to generate sympathetic neurons and 3 different procedures to produce parasympathetic neurons. All methods involved the differentiation of human pluripotent stem cells, and none employed permanent or reversible cell immortalization. Almost all protocols were reproduced in multiple pluripotent stem cell lines, and over half showed evidence of neural firing capacity. Common limitations in the field are a lack of three-dimensional models and models that include multiple cell types. Sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols largely mirrored embryonic development, with the notable absence of migration, axon extension, and target-specificity cues. Parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocols may be improved by including several embryonic cues promoting cell survival, cell maturation, or ion channel expression. Moreover, additional markers to define parasympathetic neurons in vitro may support the validity of these protocols. Nonetheless, four sympathetic neuron differentiation protocols and one parasympathetic neuron differentiation protocol reported more than two-thirds of cells expressing autonomic neuron markers. Altogether, these protocols promise to open new research avenues of human autonomic neuron development and disease modeling.