Human axial progenitors generate trunk neural crest cells in vitro

  1. Thomas J R Frith
  2. Ilaria Granata
  3. Matthew Wind
  4. Erin Stout
  5. Oliver Thompson
  6. Katrin Neumann
  7. Dylan Stavish
  8. Paul R Heath
  9. Daniel Ortmann
  10. James O S Hackland
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis
  12. Mina Gouti
  13. James Briscoe
  14. Valerie Wilson
  15. Stuart L Johnson
  16. Marysia Placzek
  17. Mario R Guarracino
  18. Peter W Andrews
  19. Anestis Tsakiridis  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Sheffield, United Kingdom
  2. High Performance Computing and Networking Institute (ICAR), National Research Council of Italy (CNR), Italy
  3. Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
  4. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  5. Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Germany
  6. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  7. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Abstract

The neural crest (NC) is a multipotent embryonic cell population that generates distinct cell types in an axial position-dependent manner. The production of NC cells from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) is a valuable approach to study human NC biology. However, the origin of human trunk NC remains undefined and current in vitro differentiation strategies induce only a modest yield of trunk NC cells. Here we show that hPSC-derived axial progenitors, the posteriorly-located drivers of embryonic axis elongation, give rise to trunk NC cells and their derivatives. Moreover, we define the molecular signatures associated with the emergence of human NC cells of distinct axial identities in vitro. Collectively, our findings indicate that there are two routes toward a human post-cranial NC state: the birth of cardiac and vagal NC is facilitated by retinoic acid-induced posteriorisation of an anterior precursor whereas trunk NC arises within a pool of posterior axial progenitors.

Data availability

The microarray and RNAseq data have been deposited to GEO (GSE109267 and GSE110608).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Thomas J R Frith

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6078-5466
  2. Ilaria Granata

    Computational and Data Science Laboratory (CDS-LAB), High Performance Computing and Networking Institute (ICAR), National Research Council of Italy (CNR), Napoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Matthew Wind

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Erin Stout

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Oliver Thompson

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Katrin Neumann

    Stem Cell Engineering, Biotechnology Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Dylan Stavish

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Paul R Heath

    Sheffield Institute for Translational Neuroscience, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Daniel Ortmann

    Anne McLaren Laboratory, Wellcome Trust-MRC Stem Cell Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. James O S Hackland

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7087-9995
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis

    Stem Cell Engineering, Biotechnology Center, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9814-0559
  12. Mina Gouti

    Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. James Briscoe

    Developmental Dynamics Lab, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1020-5240
  14. Valerie Wilson

    MRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4182-5159
  15. Stuart L Johnson

    Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Marysia Placzek

    Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffied, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Mario R Guarracino

    Computational and Data Science Laboratory (CDS-LAB), High Performance Computing and Networking Institute (ICAR), National Research Council of Italy (CNR), Napoli, Italy
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Peter W Andrews

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Anestis Tsakiridis

    Centre for Stem Cell Biology, Department of Biomedical Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    a.tsakiridis@sheffield.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2184-2990

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P000444/1)

  • Mina Gouti
  • Anestis Tsakiridis

Medical Research Council (Mr/K011200/1)

  • James Briscoe
  • Valerie Wilson

Royal Society (RG160249)

  • Anestis Tsakiridis

Cancer Research UK (FC001051)

  • James Briscoe

Wellcome (FC001051)

  • James Briscoe

Seventh Framework Programme (Plurimes)

  • Konstantinos Anastassiadis
  • Peter W Andrews

Royal Society

  • Stuart L Johnson

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/J015539/1)

  • Mina Gouti
  • Anestis Tsakiridis

Medical Research Council (FC001051)

  • James Briscoe
  • Valerie Wilson

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

Copyright

© 2018, Frith 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

  • 8,489
    views
  • 951
    downloads
  • 92
    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. Thomas J R Frith
  2. Ilaria Granata
  3. Matthew Wind
  4. Erin Stout
  5. Oliver Thompson
  6. Katrin Neumann
  7. Dylan Stavish
  8. Paul R Heath
  9. Daniel Ortmann
  10. James O S Hackland
  11. Konstantinos Anastassiadis
  12. Mina Gouti
  13. James Briscoe
  14. Valerie Wilson
  15. Stuart L Johnson
  16. Marysia Placzek
  17. Mario R Guarracino
  18. Peter W Andrews
  19. Anestis Tsakiridis
(2018)
Human axial progenitors generate trunk neural crest cells in vitro
eLife 7:e35786.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35786

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35786

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Hope M Healey, Hayden B Penn ... William A Cresko
    Research Article

    Seahorses, pipefishes, and seadragons are fishes from the family Syngnathidae that have evolved extraordinary traits including male pregnancy, elongated snouts, loss of teeth, and dermal bony armor. The developmental genetic and cellular changes that led to the evolution of these traits are largely unknown. Recent syngnathid genome assemblies revealed suggestive gene content differences and provided the opportunity for detailed genetic analyses. We created a single-cell RNA sequencing atlas of Gulf pipefish embryos to understand the developmental basis of four traits: derived head shape, toothlessness, dermal armor, and male pregnancy. We completed marker gene analyses, built genetic networks, and examined the spatial expression of select genes. We identified osteochondrogenic mesenchymal cells in the elongating face that express regulatory genes bmp4, sfrp1a, and prdm16. We found no evidence for tooth primordia cells, and we observed re-deployment of osteoblast genetic networks in developing dermal armor. Finally, we found that epidermal cells expressed nutrient processing and environmental sensing genes, potentially relevant for the brooding environment. The examined pipefish evolutionary innovations are composed of recognizable cell types, suggesting that derived features originate from changes within existing gene networks. Future work addressing syngnathid gene networks across multiple stages and species is essential for understanding how the novelties of these fish evolved.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Mehul Vora, Jonathan Dietz ... Cathy Savage-Dunn
    Research Article

    Smads and their transcription factor partners mediate the transcriptional responses of target cells to secreted ligands of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) family, including those of the conserved bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) family, yet only a small number of direct target genes have been well characterized. In C. elegans, the BMP2/4 ortholog DBL-1 regulates multiple biological functions, including body size, via a canonical receptor-Smad signaling cascade. Here, we identify functional binding sites for SMA-3/Smad and its transcriptional partner SMA-9/Schnurri based on ChIP-seq peaks (identified by modEncode) and expression differences of nearby genes identified from RNA-seq analysis of corresponding mutants. We found that SMA-3 and SMA-9 have both overlapping and unique target genes. At a genome-wide scale, SMA-3/Smad acts as a transcriptional activator, whereas SMA-9/Schnurri direct targets include both activated and repressed genes. Mutations in sma-9 partially suppress the small body size phenotype of sma-3, suggesting some level of antagonism between these factors and challenging the prevailing model for Schnurri function. Functional analysis of target genes revealed a novel role in body size for genes involved in one-carbon metabolism and in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) secretory pathway, including the disulfide reductase dpy-11. Our findings indicate that Smads and SMA-9/Schnurri have previously unappreciated complex genetic and genomic regulatory interactions that in turn regulate the secretion of extracellular components like collagen into the cuticle to mediate body size regulation.