Cell and molecular transitions during efficient dedifferentiation

  1. John ME Nichols
  2. Vlatka Antolovic
  3. Jacob D Reich
  4. Sophie Brameyer
  5. Peggy Paschke
  6. Jonathan R Chubb  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Germany
  3. Beatson Institute, United Kingdom

Abstract

Dedifferentiation is a critical response to tissue damage, yet is not well understood, even at a basic phenomenological level. Developing Dictyostelium cells undergo highly efficient dedifferentiation, completed by most cells within 24 hours. We use this rapid response to investigate the control features of dedifferentiation, combining single cell imaging with high temporal resolution transcriptomics. Gene expression during dedifferentiation was predominantly a simple reversal of developmental changes, with expression changes not following this pattern primarily associated with ribosome biogenesis. Mutation of genes induced early in dedifferentiation did not strongly perturb the reversal of development. This apparent robustness may arise from adaptability of cells: the relative temporal ordering of cell and molecular events was not absolute, suggesting cell programmes reach the same end using different mechanisms. In addition, although cells start from different fates, they rapidly converged on a single expression trajectory. These regulatory features may contribute to dedifferentiation responses during regeneration.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited to GEO under the accession number GSE144892

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. John ME Nichols

    Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Vlatka Antolovic

    Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jacob D Reich

    Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sophie Brameyer

    Microbiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6779-2343
  5. Peggy Paschke

    Beatson Institute, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jonathan R Chubb

    Laboratory for Molecular Cell Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    j.chubb@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6898-9765

Funding

Wellcome (202867/Z/16/Z)

  • Jonathan R Chubb

Medical Research Council (MC_U12266B)

  • Jonathan R Chubb

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

Copyright

© 2020, Nichols 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

  • 3,188
    views
  • 388
    downloads
  • 25
    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. John ME Nichols
  2. Vlatka Antolovic
  3. Jacob D Reich
  4. Sophie Brameyer
  5. Peggy Paschke
  6. Jonathan R Chubb
(2020)
Cell and molecular transitions during efficient dedifferentiation
eLife 9:e55435.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55435

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55435

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Pénélope Tignard, Karen Pottin ... Marie Anne Breau
    Research Article

    Despite recent progress, the complex roles played by the extracellular matrix in development and disease are still far from being fully understood. Here, we took advantage of the zebrafish sly mutation which affects Laminin γ1, a major component of basement membranes, to explore its role in the development of the olfactory system. Following a detailed characterisation of Laminin distribution in the developing olfactory circuit, we analysed basement membrane integrity, olfactory placode and brain morphogenesis, and olfactory axon development in sly mutants, using a combination of immunochemistry, electron microscopy and quantitative live imaging of cell movements and axon behaviours. Our results point to an original and dual contribution of Laminin γ1-dependent basement membranes in organising the border between the olfactory placode and the adjacent brain: they maintain placode shape and position in the face of major brain morphogenetic movements, they establish a robust physical barrier between the two tissues while at the same time allowing the local entry of the sensory axons into the brain and their navigation towards the olfactory bulb. This work thus identifies key roles of Laminin γ1-dependent basement membranes in neuronal tissue morphogenesis and axon development in vivo.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Natsuko Emura, Florence DM Wavreil ... Mamiko Yajima
    Research Article

    The evolutionary introduction of asymmetric cell division (ACD) into the developmental program facilitates the formation of a new cell type, contributing to developmental diversity and, eventually, species diversification. The micromere of the sea urchin embryo may serve as one of those examples: an ACD at the 16-cell stage forms micromeres unique to echinoids among echinoderms. We previously reported that a polarity factor, activator of G-protein signaling (AGS), plays a crucial role in micromere formation. However, AGS and its associated ACD factors are present in all echinoderms and across most metazoans. This raises the question of what evolutionary modifications of AGS protein or its surrounding molecular environment contributed to the evolutionary acquisition of micromeres only in echinoids. In this study, we learned that the GoLoco motifs at the AGS C-terminus play critical roles in regulating micromere formation in sea urchin embryos. Further, other echinoderms’ AGS or chimeric AGS that contain the C-terminus of AGS orthologs from various organisms showed varied localization and function in micromere formation. In contrast, the sea star or the pencil urchin orthologs of other ACD factors were consistently localized at the vegetal cortex in the sea urchin embryo, suggesting that AGS may be a unique variable factor that facilitates ACD diversity among echinoderms. Consistently, sea urchin AGS appears to facilitate micromere-like cell formation and accelerate the enrichment timing of the germline factor Vasa during early embryogenesis of the pencil urchin, an ancestral type of sea urchin. Based on these observations, we propose that the molecular evolution of a single polarity factor facilitates ACD diversity while preserving the core ACD machinery among echinoderms and beyond during evolution.