Some of the most common birth defects involve improper development of the head and face. One such birth defect is called craniosynostosis. Normally, an infant’s skull bones are not fully fused together. Instead, they are held together by soft tissue that allows the baby’s skull to more easily pass through the birth canal. This tissue also houses specialized cells called stem cells that allow the brain and skull to grow with the child. But in craniosynostosis these stem cells behave abnormally, which fuses the skull bones together and prevents the skull and brain from growing properly during childhood.

One form of craniosynostosis called Saethre-Chotzen syndrome is caused by mutations in one of two genes that ensure the proper separation of two bones in the roof of the skull. Mice with mutations in the mouse versions of these genes develop the same problem and are used to study this condition. Mouse studies have looked mostly at what happens after birth. Studies looking at what happens in embryos with these mutations could help scientists learn more. One way to do so would be to genetically engineer zebrafish with the equivalent mutations. This is because zebrafish embryos are transparent and grow outside their mother’s body, making it easier for scientists to watch them develop.

Now, Teng et al. have grown zebrafish with mutations in the zebrafish versions of the genes that cause Saethre-Chotzen syndrome. In the experiments, imaging tools were used to observe the live fish as they developed. This showed that the stem cells in their skulls become abnormal much earlier than previous studies had suggested. Teng et al. also showed that similar stem cells are responsible for growth of the skull in zebrafish and mice.

Babies with craniosynostosis often need multiple, risky surgeries to separate their skull bones and allow their brain and head to grow. Unfortunately, these bones often fuse again because they have abnormal stem cells. Teng et al. provide new information on what goes wrong in these stem cells. Hopefully, this new information will help scientists to one day correct the defective stem cells in babies with craniosynostosis, thus reducing the number of surgeries needed to correct the problem.

Craniofacial anomalies are among the most common congenital defects, encompassing cleft lip and palate, facial malformations, and abnormalities in the flat bones forming the top of the skull. Craniosynostosis involves the premature fusion of the skull bones at sutures, fibrous structures that join the bones. During normal development, cranial sutures hold bones of the skull in place while providing malleability required during childbirth. Cranial sutures also contain stem cells that allow for continued skull bone growth as the brain and head structure expands (Zhao et al., 2015). While human skull bones eventually fuse later in life, precocious bone fusion in craniosynostosis correlates with region-specific defects in bone growth that often negatively impact growth of the underlying brain. Genetic causes of craniosynostosis include mutations in genes that participate in developmental signaling pathways, including FGFRs 1, 2, and 3 (Hajihosseini, 2008), TGFBRs 1 and 2 (Loeys et al., 2005), and the Notch ligand JAGGED1 (Kamath et al., 2002). A central unanswered question is the extent to which defects in these pathways result in a failure to maintain postnatal stem cells once the sutures have formed, or whether these pathways have roles in the specification and maintenance of bone progenitors during earlier phases of bone growth preceding suture formation (Flaherty et al., 2016). Most studies have focused on the maintenance of postnatal sutural stem cells, as these stem cells have only been recently marked with a variety of reporters in mice, for example based on Gli1 (Zhao et al., 2015), Axin2 (Maruyama et al., 2016), and Prrx1 (Wilk et al., 2017). Less is known, however, about how potential defects in the embryonic progenitors that grow the skull bones may prefigure suture loss, although a few reports describe altered bone formation during embryonic stages in craniosynostosis mutants (Merrill et al., 2006). The ex utero development and transparency of zebrafish provide a unique opportunity to track the progenitors that form the skull bones, and to better understand how defects in the dynamics of bone growth relate to a later ability to form and maintain sutures once the bones come together (Quarto and Longaker, 2005; Laue et al., 2011; Kague et al., 2016; Topczewska et al., 2016).

A striking feature of many forms of craniosynostosis is that only particular sutures are affected. For example, in Saethre-Chotzen syndrome, the second most common form of craniosynostosis, the coronal suture is selectively lost. The majority of Saethre-Chotzen patients harbor heterozygous loss-of-function mutations in TWIST1 or TCF12, which encode basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors (el Ghouzzi et al., 1997; Howard et al., 1997; Sharma et al., 2013). Similarly, mice lacking one copy of Twist1, or compound heterozygous for Twist1 and Tcf12, display loss of just the coronal suture (Sharma et al., 2013). Analysis of mouse models has led to an appreciation of proper cell migration (Yoshida et al., 2008; Ting et al., 2009; Roybal et al., 2010; Deckelbaum et al., 2012), segregation of osteogenic and non-osteogenic cells at the sutural boundary (Merrill et al., 2006; Ting et al., 2009; Yen et al., 2010), and maintenance of postnatal stem cells (Zhao et al., 2015) in suture patency. However, it remains unknown the extent to which defects in early progenitors versus postnatal stem cells account for suture loss. As fish are amenable to repeated live imaging of calvarial bone growth and suture development outside the mother, this model provides an opportunity to correlate early defects in osteoprogenitors and bone growth with later suture loss in individual mutants, particularly in cases where the synostosis phenotype is variably penetrant. However, a potential complication is that the coronal suture of zebrafish (Kague et al., 2012; Mongera et al., 2013), as well as those of some amphibians (Piekarski et al., 2014) and birds (Matsuoka et al., 2005), forms at a mesoderm/mesoderm boundary, contrasting with the mammalian coronal suture that forms at a unique interface between the neural-crest-derived frontal bone and the mesoderm-derived parietal bone (Ishii et al., 2015) (Figure 1A). Mammalian sutures may therefore not be considered evolutionarily homologous to the sutures of these other vertebrates, at least from a strict embryological perspective. Should the neural-crest/mesoderm boundary be a factor in coronal sensitivity, non-mammalian coronal sutures might not be susceptible to the same genetic perturbations that cause coronal-specific synostosis in mammals.

Figure 1 with 3 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

We report in this study the generation of a zebrafish model of Saethre-Chotzen syndrome that faithfully recapitulates the craniosynostosis phenotype seen in mice and humans with heterozygous mutations in TCF12 and TWIST1. The similarity in the genetic interaction between Twist1 and Tcf12 in mice, humans, and fish, despite differences in the cell lineages that give rise to the bones, suggests that the underlying processes of coronal suture development and craniosynostosis are deeply conserved. We demonstrate that in tcf12; twist1b mutant fish, the frontal and parietal bones grow abnormally. In mutants, skull bones initiate normally, yet early bone growth is accelerated across the skull. However, subsequent bone growth selectively stalls at the future coronal suture that is destined to fuse. Moreover, sequential live imaging of individual mutant fish shows that the degree of later bone stalling predicts which animals will lose the coronal suture. We observe a similar misregulation of bone growth in Tcf12^+/-; Twist1^+/- mutant mice, with tissue-specific removal of Twist1 resulting in selective overgrowth of the frontal or parietal bones. Further, Twist1 function must be perturbed within both neural crest- and mesoderm-derived bones, and not just the mesoderm-derived postnatal sutural mesenchyme, to prevent suture formation. At least in mice, we find that these altered bone growth dynamics may be due to changes in osteoblast proliferation and eventual depletion of Gli1⁺ and Gremlin1⁺ putative bone progenitors prior to the fusion of the bones. These findings demonstrate that Tcf12 and Twist1 have a conserved early function during skull bone growth to regulate the sustained production of osteoblasts, possibly through maintenance of osteoprogenitors, and that the coronal suture is particularly sensitive to defects in this process.

Discovery of a selective requirement for tcf12 and twist1b in coronal suture formation in zebrafish has allowed us to gain a better understanding of the developmental basis of suture loss in Saethre-Chotzen syndrome. The similarity of coronal suture defects from humans to mice to zebrafish is striking, although each species displays unique dosage sensitivities to loss of TWIST1 and TCF12. In humans, haploinsufficiency of TWIST1 or TCF12 can lead to suture loss. In mice, haploinsufficiency of Twist1 also results in coronal suture loss, yet haploinsufficiency of Tcf12 does not, despite enhancing the penetrance of suture defects in Twist1^+/- mice (Sharma et al., 2013). In zebrafish, only loss of one of two Twist1 homologs (twist1b) along with loss of tcf12 results in suture loss. It remains unclear why humans are more sensitive to Twist1 and Tcf12 dosage than mice and zebrafish, although a similar phenomenon has been observed with other synostosis genes (e.g. JAG1) (Teng et al., 2017).

Repeated live imaging of individual mutant fish revealed a strong correlation between the extent of altered bone growth and later suture loss. Whereas the initiation of the frontal and parietal bones was largely unaffected in mutants, we observed increased proliferation and osteoblast production at the mutant bone fronts in both fish and mice. There were some subtle differences between fish and mice, with larger increases in proliferative osteoblasts in mutant fish than mice, which might reflect species-specific or staging differences. Nonetheless, mutants in both species displayed accelerated growth of both the frontal and parietal bones, which often resulted in abnormal shapes likely due to growth variations along individual bone fronts. In particular, we found that increased diagonal growth in mutants brought the parietal and frontal bones together at the prospective medial regions of the coronal suture much earlier than in wild type animals, which correlates with the medial region of the coronal suture being most commonly fused in mutants. This altered directional growth might be one reason why the coronal suture is preferentially affected in both zebrafish and mouse Twist1/Tcf12 mutants, despite the different origins of the coronal suture in these species.

Another prominent finding was a lack of continued bone growth at the future coronal but not other sutures in mutants, with the degree of bone stalling predicting synostosis in individuals. We identified Gli1/gli1 and Grem1/grem1a as conserved markers of putative osteoprogenitors in both the growing bone fronts and mature sutures of mice and zebrafish, although both genes display broader expression at early stages of calvarial bone development, including in some periosteal cells. Future lineage tracing experiments should help reveal the extent to which gli1 in fish and Grem1/grem1a in both species mark similar populations of embryonic osteoprogenitors and postnatal sutural stem cells. A previous study had observed reduced expression of Gli1 in the sutures of adult Twist1^+/- mice (Zhao et al., 2015). Here, we extend this finding to embryonic stages when the coronal suture is forming, and uncover the existence of Grem1+ cells in and around the bone fronts of the nascent coronal suture that become depleted in mutant mice. Whether similar osteoprogenitors become exhausted at the developing coronal suture of zebrafish remains to be determined, as it was difficult to precisely quantify the numbers of these progenitors by RNA expression alone. One possibility is that reduced Twist1 and Tcf12 function alters the balance between long-term sutural stem cells (i.e. those marked by Gli1) and proliferative osteoblasts and their immediate progenitors. In such a model, the early increase in osteoblast production would come at the expense of long-term progenitors, thus leading to a later failure of continued bone growth and a loss of the sutural stem cells that would normally separate the skull bones. In addition to further verifying this model, an important next step will be to determine why the fronts of the parietal and frontal bones abutting the future coronal suture are most sensitive to progenitor exhaustion in mutants. We did not observe preferential expression of tcf12 and twist1b at the coronal suture in fish, consistent with similarly broad sutural expression of Twist1 in mice (Rice et al., 2000). Instead, osteoprogenitors in the coronal zone could be fewer in number at initial stages and/or more sensitive to loss of Tcf12 and Twist1, for example due to compensation by related genes at other sutures.

Further support for suture defects arising from much earlier changes in bone growth come from our conditional Twist1 deletion experiments in mouse. Whereas the frontal bone arises from neural crest and the parietal bone from mesoderm, the mesenchyme within the postnatal coronal suture is largely mesoderm-derived (Yen et al., 2010). However, suture loss was only observed upon conditional deletion of one allele of Twist1 from both the embryonic mesoderm and neural crest. This finding is inconsistent with Twist1 functioning solely in the mesoderm-derived postnatal suture mesenchyme for suture patency, instead suggesting that misregulated growth of both the frontal and parietal bones is required to later disrupt the coronal suture in Twist1 mutants.

Our study highlights a selective role for Tcf12 in the later growth of the skull bones and patency of the coronal suture. In contrast to animals lacking Twist1 homologs, zebrafish lacking tcf12 do not display embryonic lethality or defects in ectomesenchyme and facial cartilage formation. Instead, loss of tcf12 partially suppresses the facial cartilage defects and lethality of twist1a; twist1b mutants. Suppression of embryonic defects could be due to loss of competition of Tcf12 with other Twist binding partners, such as Hand2 (Firulli et al., 2005). In this scenario, maternal Twist1a/b and/or other Twist family members (e.g. twist2 and twist3) could compensate for lack of zygotic Twist1a/b. Loss of tcf12 would then allow remaining Twist proteins to more effectively form homodimers or alternate heterodimers important for embryogenesis. Whereas a previous report indicates that Tcf12 and Twist1 can form heterodimers (Connerney et al., 2006), it is also possible that Tcf12 has Twist1-independent functions that antagonize Twist1 during embryogenesis. Future efforts to directly visualize Tcf12-Twist1 complexes will help to resolve how Tcf12 promotes Twist1 function during skull bone growth while counteracting it during embryonic neural crest development.

Development of homologous structures often employs ancestrally conserved gene regulatory networks. For example, a requirement for Pax6 genes in eye development in a wide range of animals has been used to argue for deep homology of eye structures (Gehring and Ikeo, 1999). Here, we show remarkably specific loss of a single anatomical structure, the coronal suture, in zebrafish and mice lacking Tcf12 and Twist1, despite this suture occurring at a mesoderm/mesoderm interface in zebrafish and a neural-crest/mesoderm interface in mice. Hence, sensitivity of the coronal suture in Saethre-Chotzen syndrome is unlikely to be due to its location at a unique neural-crest/mesoderm interface. In addition, there are several other sutures occurring at a neural-crest/mesoderm interface in mice and fish that are not affected by loss of Tcf12 and Twist1. There has been on-going debate, given these distinct tissue boundaries, as to whether coronal sutures are truly homologous across vertebrates (Maddin et al., 2016). Our data indicate that the conserved genetic dependence of the coronal suture in fish and mammals likely reflects a similar sensitivity to early bone growth changes, perhaps owing to similar developmental and anatomical constraints irrespective of the embryonic origins of the bones flanking this suture.

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

1. 1. Askary A
   2. Xu P
   3. Barske L
   4. Bay M
   5. Bump P
   6. Balczerski B
   7. Bonaguidi MA
   8. Crump JG

   (2017) Genome-wide analysis of facial skeletal regionalization in zebrafish

   Development 144:2994–3005.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.151712

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Bildsoe H
   2. Loebel DA
   3. Jones VJ
   4. Chen YT
   5. Behringer RR
   6. Tam PP

   (2009) Requirement for Twist1 in frontonasal and skull vault development in the mouse embryo

   Developmental Biology 331:176–188.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.04.034

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Chen ZF
   2. Behringer RR

   (1995) twist is required in head mesenchyme for cranial neural tube morphogenesis

   Genes & Development 9:686–699.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.9.6.686

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Connerney J
   2. Andreeva V
   3. Leshem Y
   4. Muentener C
   5. Mercado MA
   6. Spicer DB

   (2006) Twist1 dimer selection regulates cranial suture patterning and fusion

   Developmental Dynamics 235:1334–1346.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.20717

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cox SG
   2. Kim H
   3. Garnett AT
   4. Medeiros DM
   5. An W
   6. Crump JG

   (2012) An essential role of variant histone H3.3 for ectomesenchyme potential of the cranial neural crest

   PLoS Genetics 8:e1002938.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002938

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Danielian PS
   2. Muccino D
   3. Rowitch DH
   4. Michael SK
   5. McMahon AP

   (1998) Modification of gene activity in mouse embryos in utero by a tamoxifen-inducible form of Cre recombinase

   Current Biology 8:1323–S2.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(07)00562-3

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Das A
   2. Crump JG

   (2012) Bmps and id2a act upstream of Twist1 to restrict ectomesenchyme potential of the cranial neural crest

   PLoS Genetics 8:e1002710.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002710

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Deckelbaum RA
   2. Holmes G
   3. Zhao Z
   4. Tong C
   5. Basilico C
   6. Loomis CA

   (2012) Regulation of cranial morphogenesis and cell fate at the neural crest-mesoderm boundary by engrailed 1

   Development 139:1346–1358.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.076729

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. el Ghouzzi V
   2. Le Merrer M
   3. Perrin-Schmitt F
   4. Lajeunie E
   5. Benit P
   6. Renier D
   7. Bourgeois P
   8. Bolcato-Bellemin AL
   9. Munnich A
   10. Bonaventure J

   (1997) Mutations of the TWIST gene in the Saethre-Chotzen syndrome

   Nature Genetics 15:42–46.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0197-42

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Firulli BA
    2. Krawchuk D
    3. Centonze VE
    4. Vargesson N
    5. Virshup DM
    6. Conway SJ
    7. Cserjesi P
    8. Laufer E
    9. Firulli AB

    (2005) Altered Twist1 and Hand2 dimerization is associated with Saethre-Chotzen syndrome and limb abnormalities

    Nature Genetics 37:373–381.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1525

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Flaherty K
    2. Singh N
    3. Richtsmeier JT

    (2016) Understanding craniosynostosis as a growth disorder

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Developmental Biology 5:429–459.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.227

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Gehring WJ
    2. Ikeo K

    (1999) Pax 6: mastering eye morphogenesis and eye evolution

    Trends in Genetics 15:371–377.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(99)01776-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Haffter P
    2. Granato M
    3. Brand M
    4. Mullins MC
    5. Hammerschmidt M
    6. Kane DA
    7. Odenthal J
    8. van Eeden FJ
    9. Jiang YJ
    10. Heisenberg CP
    11. Kelsh RN
    12. Furutani-Seiki M
    13. Vogelsang E
    14. Beuchle D
    15. Schach U
    16. Fabian C
    17. Nüsslein-Volhard C

    (1996)

    The identification of genes with unique and essential functions in the development of the zebrafish, Danio rerio

    Development 123:1–36.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Hajihosseini MK

    (2008) Fibroblast growth factor signaling in cranial suture development and pathogenesis

    Frontiers of Oral Biology 12:160–177.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000115037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Howard TD
    2. Paznekas WA
    3. Green ED
    4. Chiang LC
    5. Ma N
    6. Ortiz de Luna RI
    7. Garcia Delgado C
    8. Gonzalez-Ramos M
    9. Kline AD
    10. Jabs EW

    (1997) Mutations in TWIST, a basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, in Saethre-Chotzen syndrome

    Nature Genetics 15:36–41.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0197-36

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Ishii M
    2. Sun J
    3. Ting MC
    4. Maxson RE

    (2015) The development of the calvarial bones and sutures and the pathophysiology of craniosynostosis

    Current Topics in Developmental Biology 115:.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.07.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Kague E
    2. Gallagher M
    3. Burke S
    4. Parsons M
    5. Franz-Odendaal T
    6. Fisher S

    (2012) Skeletogenic fate of zebrafish cranial and trunk neural crest

    PLoS One 7:e47394.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047394

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Kague E
    2. Roy P
    3. Asselin G
    4. Hu G
    5. Simonet J
    6. Stanley A
    7. Albertson C
    8. Fisher S

    (2016) Osterix/Sp7 limits cranial bone initiation sites and is required for formation of sutures

    Developmental Biology 413:160–172.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.03.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Kamath BM
    2. Stolle C
    3. Bason L
    4. Colliton RP
    5. Piccoli DA
    6. Spinner NB
    7. Krantz ID

    (2002) Craniosynostosis in Alagille syndrome

    American Journal of Medical Genetics 112:176–180.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.10608

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Laue K
    2. Pogoda HM
    3. Daniel PB
    4. van Haeringen A
    5. Alanay Y
    6. von Ameln S
    7. Rachwalski M
    8. Morgan T
    9. Gray MJ
    10. Breuning MH
    11. Sawyer GM
    12. Sutherland-Smith AJ
    13. Nikkels PG
    14. Kubisch C
    15. Bloch W
    16. Wollnik B
    17. Hammerschmidt M
    18. Robertson SP

    (2011) Craniosynostosis and multiple skeletal anomalies in humans and zebrafish result from a defect in the localized degradation of retinoic acid

    The American Journal of Human Genetics 89:595–606.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.09.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Loeys BL
    2. Chen J
    3. Neptune ER
    4. Judge DP
    5. Podowski M
    6. Holm T
    7. Meyers J
    8. Leitch CC
    9. Katsanis N
    10. Sharifi N
    11. Xu FL
    12. Myers LA
    13. Spevak PJ
    14. Cameron DE
    15. De Backer J
    16. Hellemans J
    17. Chen Y
    18. Davis EC
    19. Webb CL
    20. Kress W
    21. Coucke P
    22. Rifkin DB
    23. De Paepe AM
    24. Dietz HC

    (2005) A syndrome of altered cardiovascular, craniofacial, neurocognitive and skeletal development caused by mutations in TGFBR1 or TGFBR2

    Nature Genetics 37:275–281.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1511

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Maddin HC
    2. Piekarski N
    3. Sefton EM
    4. Hanken J

    (2016) Homology of the cranial vault in birds: new insights based on embryonic fate-mapping and character analysis

    Royal Society Open Science 3:160356.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160356

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Maruyama T
    2. Jeong J
    3. Sheu TJ
    4. Hsu W

    (2016) Stem cells of the suture mesenchyme in craniofacial bone development, repair and regeneration

    Nature Communications 7:10526.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10526

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Matsuoka T
    2. Ahlberg PE
    3. Kessaris N
    4. Iannarelli P
    5. Dennehy U
    6. Richardson WD
    7. McMahon AP
    8. Koentges G

    (2005) Neural crest origins of the neck and shoulder

    Nature 436:347–355.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03837

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Merrill AE
    2. Bochukova EG
    3. Brugger SM
    4. Ishii M
    5. Pilz DT
    6. Wall SA
    7. Lyons KM
    8. Wilkie AO
    9. Maxson RE

    (2006) Cell mixing at a neural crest-mesoderm boundary and deficient ephrin-Eph signaling in the pathogenesis of craniosynostosis

    Human Molecular Genetics 15:1319–1328.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddl052

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Mongera A
    2. Singh AP
    3. Levesque MP
    4. Chen YY
    5. Konstantinidis P
    6. Nüsslein-Volhard C

    (2013) Genetic lineage labeling in zebrafish uncovers novel neural crest contributions to the head, including gill pillar cells

    Development 140:916–925.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.091066

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Oram KF
    2. Gridley T

    (2005) Mutations in snail family genes enhance craniosynostosis of Twist1 haplo-insufficient mice: implications for Saethre-Chotzen Syndrome

    Genetics 170:971–974.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.041277

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Piekarski N
    2. Gross JB
    3. Hanken J

    (2014) Evolutionary innovation and conservation in the embryonic derivation of the vertebrate skull

    Nature Communications 5:5661.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6661

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Quarto N
    2. Longaker MT

    (2005) The zebrafish (Danio rerio): a model system for cranial suture patterning

    Cells Tissues Organs 181:109–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000091100

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Rice DP
    2. Aberg T
    3. Chan Y
    4. Tang Z
    5. Kettunen PJ
    6. Pakarinen L
    7. Maxson RE
    8. Thesleff I

    (2000)

    Integration of FGF and TWIST in calvarial bone and suture development

    Development 127:1845–1855.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Roybal PG
    2. Wu NL
    3. Sun J
    4. Ting MC
    5. Schafer CA
    6. Maxson RE

    (2010) Inactivation of Msx1 and Msx2 in neural crest reveals an unexpected role in suppressing heterotopic bone formation in the head

    Developmental Biology 343:28–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.04.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Saga Y
    2. Miyagawa-Tomita S
    3. Takagi A
    4. Kitajima S
    5. Miyazaki J
    6. Inoue T

    (1999)

    MesP1 is expressed in the heart precursor cells and required for the formation of a single heart tube

    Development 126:3437–3447.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Sanjana NE
    2. Cong L
    3. Zhou Y
    4. Cunniff MM
    5. Feng G
    6. Zhang F

    (2012) A transcription activator-like effector toolbox for genome engineering

    Nature Protocols 7:171–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2011.431

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Sharma VP
    2. Fenwick AL
    3. Brockop MS
    4. McGowan SJ
    5. Goos JA
    6. Hoogeboom AJ
    7. Brady AF
    8. Jeelani NO
    9. Lynch SA
    10. Mulliken JB
    11. Murray DJ
    12. Phipps JM
    13. Sweeney E
    14. Tomkins SE
    15. Wilson LC
    16. Bennett S
    17. Cornall RJ
    18. Broxholme J
    19. Kanapin A
    20. Johnson D
    21. Wall SA
    22. van der Spek PJ
    23. Mathijssen IM
    24. Maxson RE
    25. Twigg SR
    26. Wilkie AO
    27. 500 Whole-Genome Sequences (WGS500) Consortium

    (2013) Mutations in TCF12, encoding a basic helix-loop-helix partner of TWIST1, are a frequent cause of coronal craniosynostosis

    Nature Genetics 45:304–307.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2531

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Teng CS
    2. Yen HY
    3. Barske L
    4. Smith B
    5. Llamas J
    6. Segil N
    7. Go J
    8. Sanchez-Lara PA
    9. Maxson RE
    10. Crump JG

    (2017) Requirement for Jagged1-Notch2 signaling in patterning the bones of the mouse and human middle ear

    Scientific Reports 7:2497.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02574-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Ting MC
    2. Wu NL
    3. Roybal PG
    4. Sun J
    5. Liu L
    6. Yen Y
    7. Maxson RE

    (2009) EphA4 as an effector of Twist1 in the guidance of osteogenic precursor cells during calvarial bone growth and in craniosynostosis

    Development 136:855–864.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.028605

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Topczewska JM
    2. Shoela RA
    3. Tomaszewski JP
    4. Mirmira RB
    5. Gosain AK

    (2016) The Morphogenesis of Cranial Sutures in Zebrafish

    PLoS One 11:e0165775.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165775

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Walker MB
    2. Kimmel CB

    (2007) A two-color acid-free cartilage and bone stain for zebrafish larvae

    Biotechnic & Histochemistry 82:23–28.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/10520290701333558

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. Book

    1. Westerfield M

    (2007)

    THE ZEBRAFISH BOOK: A Guide for the Laboratory Use of zebrafish(Danio Rerio)

    Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Press.

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. White RM
    2. Sessa A
    3. Burke C
    4. Bowman T
    5. LeBlanc J
    6. Ceol C
    7. Bourque C
    8. Dovey M
    9. Goessling W
    10. Burns CE
    11. Zon LI

    (2008) Transparent adult zebrafish as a tool for in vivo transplantation analysis

    Cell Stem Cell 2:183–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2007.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Wilk K
    2. Yeh SA
    3. Mortensen LJ
    4. Ghaffarigarakani S
    5. Lombardo CM
    6. Bassir SH
    7. Aldawood ZA
    8. Lin CP
    9. Intini G

    (2017) Postnatal Calvarial Skeletal Stem Cells Expressing PRX1 Reside Exclusively in the Calvarial Sutures and Are Required for Bone Regeneration

    Stem Cell Reports 8:933–946.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.03.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Wojciechowski J
    2. Lai A
    3. Kondo M
    4. Zhuang Y

    (2007) E2A and HEB are required to block thymocyte proliferation prior to pre-TCR expression

    The Journal of Immunology 178:5717–5726.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.178.9.5717

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Worthley DL
    2. Churchill M
    3. Compton JT
    4. Tailor Y
    5. Rao M
    6. Si Y
    7. Levin D
    8. Schwartz MG
    9. Uygur A
    10. Hayakawa Y
    11. Gross S
    12. Renz BW
    13. Setlik W
    14. Martinez AN
    15. Chen X
    16. Nizami S
    17. Lee HG
    18. Kang HP
    19. Caldwell JM
    20. Asfaha S
    21. Westphalen CB
    22. Graham T
    23. Jin G
    24. Nagar K
    25. Wang H
    26. Kheirbek MA
    27. Kolhe A
    28. Carpenter J
    29. Glaire M
    30. Nair A
    31. Renders S
    32. Manieri N
    33. Muthupalani S
    34. Fox JG
    35. Reichert M
    36. Giraud AS
    37. Schwabe RF
    38. Pradere JP
    39. Walton K
    40. Prakash A
    41. Gumucio D
    42. Rustgi AK
    43. Stappenbeck TS
    44. Friedman RA
    45. Gershon MD
    46. Sims P
    47. Grikscheit T
    48. Lee FY
    49. Karsenty G
    50. Mukherjee S
    51. Wang TC

    (2015) Gremlin 1 identifies a skeletal stem cell with bone, cartilage, and reticular stromal potential

    Cell 160:269–284.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.11.042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Yen HY
    2. Ting MC
    3. Maxson RE

    (2010) Jagged1 functions downstream of Twist1 in the specification of the coronal suture and the formation of a boundary between osteogenic and non-osteogenic cells

    Developmental Biology 347:258–270.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.08.010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Yoshida T
    2. Vivatbutsiri P
    3. Morriss-Kay G
    4. Saga Y
    5. Iseki S

    (2008) Cell lineage in mammalian craniofacial mesenchyme

    Mechanisms of Development 125:797–808.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2008.06.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Zhao H
    2. Feng J
    3. Ho TV
    4. Grimes W
    5. Urata M
    6. Chai Y

    (2015) The suture provides a niche for mesenchymal stem cells of craniofacial bones

    Nature Cell Biology 17:386–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3139

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Camilla S Teng

   1. Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
   2. Department of Biochemistry, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

2. Man-chun Ting

   Department of Biochemistry, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Formal analysis, Investigation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. D'Juan T Farmer

   Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Mia Brockop

   Department of Biochemistry, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Robert E Maxson

   Department of Biochemistry, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   maxson@usc.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. J Gage Crump

   Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   gcrump@usc.edu

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3209-0026

• 2,859

  views

• 302

  downloads

• 51

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.