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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Tanya T. Whitfield, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

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

Version history

  1. Received: November 25, 2017
  2. Accepted: April 4, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 6, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 21, 2018 (version 2)

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

  • 4,568
    views
  • 620
    downloads
  • 54
    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
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Zhuqing Wang, Yue Wang ... Wei Yan
    Research Article

    Despite rapid evolution across eutherian mammals, the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs are located in a region flanked by two highly conserved protein-coding genes (SLITRK2 and FMR1) on the X chromosome. Intriguingly, these miRNAs are predominantly expressed in the testis, suggesting a potential role in spermatogenesis and male fertility. Here, we report that the X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs were derived from the MER91C DNA transposons. Selective inactivation of individual miRNAs or clusters caused no discernible defects, but simultaneous ablation of five clusters containing 19 members of the MIR-506 family led to reduced male fertility in mice. Despite normal sperm counts, motility, and morphology, the KO sperm were less competitive than wild-type sperm when subjected to a polyandrous mating scheme. Transcriptomic and bioinformatic analyses revealed that these X-linked MIR-506 family miRNAs, in addition to targeting a set of conserved genes, have more targets that are critical for spermatogenesis and embryonic development during evolution. Our data suggest that the MIR-506 family miRNAs function to enhance sperm competitiveness and reproductive fitness of the male by finetuning gene expression during spermatogenesis.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.