The Hox transcription factor Ubx stabilizes lineage commitment by suppressing cellular plasticity in Drosophila

  1. Katrin Domsch
  2. Julie Carnesecchi
  3. Vanessa Disela
  4. Jana Friedrich
  5. Nils Trost
  6. Olga Ermakova
  7. Maria Polychronidou
  8. Ingrid Lohmann  Is a corresponding author
  1. Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Germany
  2. EMBO, Germany

Abstract

During development cells become restricted in their differentiation potential by repressing alternative cell fates, and the Polycomb complex plays a crucial role in this process. However, how alternative fate genes are lineage-specifically silenced is unclear. We studied Ultrabithorax, a multi-lineage transcription factor of the Hox class, in two tissue lineages using sorted nuclei and interfered with Ubx in mesodermal cells. We find that depletion of Ubx leads to the de-repression of genes normally expressed in other lineages. Ubx silences expression of alternative fate genes by retaining the Polycomb Group protein Pleiohomeotic at Ubx targeted genomic regions, thereby stabilizing repressive chromatin marks in a lineage-dependent manner. Our study demonstrates that Ubx stabilizes lineage choice by suppressing the multipotency encoded in the genome via its interaction with Pho. This mechanism may explain why the Hox code is maintained throughout the lifecycle, since it could set a block to transdifferentiation in adult cells.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO: GSE121754 (all), GSE121670 (RNA-Seq) & GSE121752 (ChIP-Seq).

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katrin Domsch

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Julie Carnesecchi

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Vanessa Disela

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jana Friedrich

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nils Trost

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5171-018X
  6. Olga Ermakova

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Maria Polychronidou

    Molecular Systems Biology, EMBO, Heidelberg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ingrid Lohmann

    Developmental Biology, Centre for Organismal Studies, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
    For correspondence
    ingrid.lohmann@cos.uni-heidelberg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0918-2758

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (LO 844 8/1)

  • Ingrid Lohmann

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

Copyright

© 2019, Domsch 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

  • 3,278
    views
  • 489
    downloads
  • 23
    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. Katrin Domsch
  2. Julie Carnesecchi
  3. Vanessa Disela
  4. Jana Friedrich
  5. Nils Trost
  6. Olga Ermakova
  7. Maria Polychronidou
  8. Ingrid Lohmann
(2019)
The Hox transcription factor Ubx stabilizes lineage commitment by suppressing cellular plasticity in Drosophila
eLife 8:e42675.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42675

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42675

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Developmental Biology
    Pavan K Nayak, Arul Subramanian, Thomas F Schilling
    Research Article

    Mechanical forces play a critical role in tendon development and function, influencing cell behavior through mechanotransduction signaling pathways and subsequent extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling. Here we investigate the molecular mechanisms by which tenocytes in developing zebrafish embryos respond to muscle contraction forces during the onset of swimming and cranial muscle activity. Using genome-wide bulk RNA sequencing of FAC-sorted tenocytes we identify novel tenocyte markers and genes involved in tendon mechanotransduction. Embryonic tendons show dramatic changes in expression of matrix remodeling associated 5b (mxra5b), matrilin1 (matn1), and the transcription factor kruppel-like factor 2a (klf2a), as muscles start to contract. Using embryos paralyzed either by loss of muscle contractility or neuromuscular stimulation we confirm that muscle contractile forces influence the spatial and temporal expression patterns of all three genes. Quantification of these gene expression changes across tenocytes at multiple tendon entheses and myotendinous junctions reveals that their responses depend on force intensity, duration and tissue stiffness. These force-dependent feedback mechanisms in tendons, particularly in the ECM, have important implications for improved treatments of tendon injuries and atrophy.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Alexander S Campbell, Martin Minařík ... Clare VH Baker
    Research Article Updated

    The lateral line system enables fishes and aquatic-stage amphibians to detect local water movement via mechanosensory hair cells in neuromasts, and many species to detect weak electric fields via electroreceptors (modified hair cells) in ampullary organs. Both neuromasts and ampullary organs develop from lateral line placodes, but the molecular mechanisms underpinning ampullary organ formation are understudied relative to neuromasts. This is because the ancestral lineages of zebrafish (teleosts) and Xenopus (frogs) independently lost electroreception. We identified Bmp5 as a promising candidate via differential RNA-seq in an electroreceptive ray-finned fish, the Mississippi paddlefish (Polyodon spathula; Modrell et al., 2017, eLife 6: e24197). In an experimentally tractable relative, the sterlet sturgeon (Acipenser ruthenus), we found that Bmp5 and four other Bmp pathway genes are expressed in the developing lateral line, and that Bmp signalling is active. Furthermore, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis targeting Bmp5 in G0-injected sterlet embryos resulted in fewer ampullary organs. Conversely, when Bmp signalling was inhibited by DMH1 treatment shortly before the formation of ampullary organ primordia, supernumerary ampullary organs developed. These data suggest that Bmp5 promotes ampullary organ development, whereas Bmp signalling via another ligand(s) prevents their overproduction. Taken together, this demonstrates opposing roles for Bmp signalling during ampullary organ formation.