Notochord vacuoles absorb compressive bone growth during zebrafish spine formation

  1. Jennifer Bagwell
  2. James Norman
  3. Kathryn L Ellis
  4. Brianna Peskin
  5. James Hwang
  6. Xiaoyan Ge
  7. Stacy Nguyen
  8. Sarah K McMenamin
  9. Didier YR Stainier
  10. Michel Bagnat  Is a corresponding author
  1. Duke University, United States
  2. University of California, San Francisco, United States
  3. Boston College, United States
  4. Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Germany

Abstract

The vertebral column or spine assembles around the notochord rod which contains a core made of large vacuolated cells. Each vacuolated cell possesses a single fluid-filled vacuole, and loss or fragmentation of these vacuoles in zebrafish leads to spine kinking. Here, we identified a mutation in the kinase gene dstyk that causes fragmentation of notochord vacuoles and a severe congenital scoliosis-like phenotype in zebrafish. Live imaging revealed that Dstyk regulates fusion of membranes with the vacuole. We find that localized disruption of notochord vacuoles causes vertebral malformation and curving of the spine axis at those sites. Accordingly, in dstyk mutants the spine curves increasingly over time as vertebral bone formation compresses the notochord asymmetrically, causing vertebral malformations and kinking of the axis. Together, our data show that notochord vacuoles function as a hydrostatic scaffold that guides symmetrical growth of vertebrae and spine formation.

Data availability

All data generated or analyses during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data files have been provided as indicated. Data has been deposited to Dryad, under the DOI: 10.5061/dryad.73n5tb2tb. Due to their large size, raw image files can be accessed upon request.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jennifer Bagwell

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. James Norman

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Kathryn L Ellis

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Brianna Peskin

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. James Hwang

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Xiaoyan Ge

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Stacy Nguyen

    Department of Biology, Boston College, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2641-3984
  8. Sarah K McMenamin

    Department of Biology, Boston College, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Didier YR Stainier

    Department of Developmental Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany
    Competing interests
    Didier YR Stainier, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0382-0026
  10. Michel Bagnat

    Department of Cell Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    For correspondence
    michel.bagnat@duke.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3829-0168

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01AR065439)

  • Michel Bagnat

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Faculty Scholars)

  • Michel Bagnat

National Institutes of Health (R01HL54737)

  • Didier YR Stainier

National Institutes of Health (R00GM105874 and R03HD091634)

  • Sarah K McMenamin

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Zebrafish (Danio rerio) were used in accordance with Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) guidelines and approved under our animal protocol A089-17-04

Copyright

© 2020, Bagwell 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

  • 5,536
    views
  • 726
    downloads
  • 46
    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. Jennifer Bagwell
  2. James Norman
  3. Kathryn L Ellis
  4. Brianna Peskin
  5. James Hwang
  6. Xiaoyan Ge
  7. Stacy Nguyen
  8. Sarah K McMenamin
  9. Didier YR Stainier
  10. Michel Bagnat
(2020)
Notochord vacuoles absorb compressive bone growth during zebrafish spine formation
eLife 9:e51221.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51221

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.51221

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    Tamás Visnovitz, Dorina Lenzinger ... Edit I Buzas
    Short Report

    Recent studies showed an unexpected complexity of extracellular vesicle (EV) biogenesis pathways. We previously found evidence that human colorectal cancer cells in vivo release large multivesicular body-like structures en bloc. Here, we tested whether this large EV type is unique to colorectal cancer cells. We found that all cell types we studied (including different cell lines and cells in their original tissue environment) released multivesicular large EVs (MV-lEVs). We also demonstrated that upon spontaneous rupture of the limiting membrane of the MV-lEVs, their intraluminal vesicles (ILVs) escaped to the extracellular environment by a ‘torn bag mechanism’. We proved that the MV-lEVs were released by ectocytosis of amphisomes (hence, we termed them amphiectosomes). Both ILVs of amphiectosomes and small EVs separated from conditioned media were either exclusively CD63 or LC3B positive. According to our model, upon fusion of multivesicular bodies with autophagosomes, fragments of the autophagosomal inner membrane curl up to form LC3B positive ILVs of amphisomes, while CD63 positive small EVs are of multivesicular body origin. Our data suggest a novel common release mechanism for small EVs, distinct from the exocytosis of multivesicular bodies or amphisomes, as well as the small ectosome release pathway.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Adam D Longhurst, Kyle Wang ... David P Toczyski
    Tools and Resources

    Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.