Branching morphogenesis in the developing kidney is not impacted by nephron formation or integration

  1. Kieran M Short
  2. Alexander Combes
  3. Valerie Lisnyak
  4. James Lefevre
  5. Lynelle Jones
  6. Melissa H Little
  7. Nicholas Hamilton
  8. Ian Macleod Smyth  Is a corresponding author
  1. Monash University, Australia
  2. Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia
  3. University of Queensland, Australia

Abstract

Branching morphogenesis of the ureteric bud is integral to kidney development; establishing the collecting ducts of the adult organ and driving organ expansion via peripheral interactions with nephron progenitor cells. A recent study suggested that termination of tip branching within the developing kidney involved stochastic exhaustion in response to nephron formation, with such a termination event representing a unifying developmental process evident in many organs. To examine this possibility we have profiled the impact of nephron formation and maturation on elaboration of the ureteric bud during mouse kidney development. We find a distinct absence of random branch termination events within the kidney or evidence that nephrogenesis impacts the branching program or cell proliferation in either tip or progenitor cell niches. Instead, organogenesis proceeds in a manner indifferent to the development of these structures. Hence stochastic cessation of branching is not a unifying developmental feature in all branching organs.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kieran M Short

    Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Alexander Combes

    Developmental Nephrology, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Valerie Lisnyak

    Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. James Lefevre

    Division of Genomics and Development of Disease, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Lynelle Jones

    Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Melissa H Little

    Kidney Development, Disease and Regeneration, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    Melissa H Little, has consulted for and received research funding from Organovo Inc..
  7. Nicholas Hamilton

    Division of Genomics and Development of Disease, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Ian Macleod Smyth

    Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    ian.smyth@monash.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1727-7829

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council (1002748)

  • Melissa H Little

Australian Research Council (DP160103100)

  • Nicholas Hamilton
  • Ian Macleod Smyth

Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0039/2011)

  • Melissa H Little
  • Ian Macleod Smyth

National Health and Medical Research Council (1063696)

  • Melissa H Little

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal experiments in this study were assessed and approved by Monash University or the Murdoch Children's Research Institute Animal Ethics Committees (MARP/2016/144) and were conducted under applicable Australian laws governing the care and use of animals for scientific purposes.

Copyright

© 2018, Short 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.

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. Kieran M Short
  2. Alexander Combes
  3. Valerie Lisnyak
  4. James Lefevre
  5. Lynelle Jones
  6. Melissa H Little
  7. Nicholas Hamilton
  8. Ian Macleod Smyth
(2018)
Branching morphogenesis in the developing kidney is not impacted by nephron formation or integration
eLife 7:e38992.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38992

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38992

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Elise S Bruguera, Jacob P Mahoney, William I Weis
    Research Article

    Wnt/β-catenin signaling directs animal development and tissue renewal in a tightly controlled, cell- and tissue-specific manner. In the mammalian central nervous system, the atypical ligand Norrin controls angiogenesis and maintenance of the blood-brain barrier and blood-retina barrier through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway. Like Wnt, Norrin activates signaling by binding and heterodimerizing the receptors Frizzled (Fzd) and low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 or 6 (LRP5/6), leading to membrane recruitment of the intracellular transducer Dishevelled (Dvl) and ultimately stabilizing the transcriptional coactivator β-catenin. Unlike Wnt, the cystine knot ligand Norrin only signals through Fzd4 and additionally requires the co-receptor Tetraspanin12 (Tspan12); however, the mechanism underlying Tspan12-mediated signal enhancement is unclear. It has been proposed that Tspan12 integrates into the Norrin-Fzd4 complex to enhance Norrin-Fzd4 affinity or otherwise allosterically modulate Fzd4 signaling. Here, we measure direct, high-affinity binding between purified Norrin and Tspan12 in a lipid environment and use AlphaFold models to interrogate this interaction interface. We find that Tspan12 and Fzd4 can simultaneously bind Norrin and that a pre-formed Tspan12/Fzd4 heterodimer, as well as cells co-expressing Tspan12 and Fzd4, more efficiently capture low concentrations of Norrin than Fzd4 alone. We also show that Tspan12 competes with both heparan sulfate proteoglycans and LRP6 for Norrin binding and that Tspan12 does not impact Fzd4-Dvl affinity in the presence or absence of Norrin. Our findings suggest that Tspan12 does not allosterically enhance Fzd4 binding to Norrin or Dvl, but instead functions to directly capture Norrin upstream of signaling.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Pablo Sanchez Bosch, Bomsoo Cho, Jeffrey D Axelrod
    Research Article

    The growth and survival of cells with different fitness, such as those with a proliferative advantage or a deleterious mutation, is controlled through cell competition. During development, cell competition enables healthy cells to eliminate less fit cells that could jeopardize tissue integrity, and facilitates the elimination of pre-malignant cells by healthy cells as a surveillance mechanism to prevent oncogenesis. Malignant cells also benefit from cell competition to promote their expansion. Despite its ubiquitous presence, the mechanisms governing cell competition, particularly those common to developmental competition and tumorigenesis, are poorly understood. Here, we show that in Drosophila, the planar cell polarity (PCP) protein Flamingo (Fmi) is required by winners to maintain their status during cell competition in malignant tumors to overtake healthy tissue, in early pre-malignant cells when they overproliferate among wildtype cells, in healthy cells when they later eliminate pre-malignant cells, and by supercompetitors as they compete to occupy excessive territory within wildtype tissues. ‘Would-be’ winners that lack Fmi are unable to overproliferate, and instead become losers. We demonstrate that the role of Fmi in cell competition is independent of PCP, and that it uses a distinct mechanism that may more closely resemble one used in other less well-defined functions of Fmi.