A common developmental mode employed by many embryos is a segmentation clock that oscillates within a posterior growth zone; with each cycle, a segment forms. This stratagem has evolved independently within the three major bilaterian clades (annelids, arthropods, and chordates) as well as in plants (Clark et al., 2019; Richmond and Oates, 2012; Chipman, 2010; Ten Tusscher, 2020; Balavoine, 2014). In chordates, a segmentation clock oscillates in the presomitic mesoderm (PSM); with each cycle, a pair of somites form flanking the neural tube (Pourquié, 2011; Hubaud and Pourquié, 2014). Somites differentiate into dermis, skeletal muscle, tendons, as well as the vertebral column, which retains the segmented attribute of the somites (Christ et al., 2007).

In vertebrates, genes with an oscillatory pattern within the PSM include those encoding components or targets of the FGF, WNT, and Notch signaling pathways (Hubaud and Pourquié, 2014; Krol et al., 2011; Dequéant et al., 2006). However, which individual genes oscillate differs among species, with the exception of the Notch-responsive HES/HER transcription factors, suggesting that Notch signaling is at the core of the somitogenesis clock (Krol et al., 2011). Supporting this idea, genetic and pharmacological manipulations demonstrate that Notch pathway oscillation in the mouse embryo is essential for somitogenesis (Ferjentsik et al., 2009). In the mouse, oscillatory waves of the Notch1 receptor and Delta-like 1 (Dll1) ligand expression, as well as the activated Notch receptor (cleaved Notch intracellular domain, NICD) sweep from the posterior to anterior, where oscillations arrest (Bone et al., 2014; Shimojo et al., 2016). These oscillations are established through negative-feedback loops of Notch components such as the transcriptional repressor, HES7 (Niwa et al., 2011), and the glycosyltransferase, LFNG (Morimoto et al., 2005), both of which are encoded by oscillating genes under Notch pathway regulation (Niwa et al., 2011). Notch oscillations arrest in the anterior PSM, where NICD cooperates with TBX6 to periodically activate Mesp2 expression (Oginuma et al., 2008). MESP2 then regulates formation of the nascent somite as well as its rostro-caudal patterning, which is essential for normal patterning of the subsequent vertebral column (Takahashi et al., 2000; Saga et al., 1997).

Mutations in nearly all of the aforementioned Notch pathway genes have been identified in human patients where defective somitogenesis is thought to be the cause of Segmentation Defects of the Vertebrae (SDV) (Eckalbar et al., 2012; Giampietro et al., 2009). For example, frequently recessive mutations in DLL3, HES7, MESP2 and LFNG and a dominant mutation in TBX6 (Sparrow et al., 2013; Lefebvre et al., 2017) have been identified in patients with spondylocostal dysostosis (SCDO), which is characterized by severe vertebral malformations that include hemivertebrae, vertebral loss and fusion along the length of the axis (Takeda et al., 2018). Whereas SCDO is relatively rare, congenital scoliosis (CS), defined as a lateral curvature of the spine exceeding 10%, is much more common, with a frequency of 1:1000, which is suspected to be an underestimation because asymptomatic individuals do not seek medical care (Giampietro et al., 2013). Mutated alleles of HES7, LFNG, MESP2, and TBX6 are all associated with CS (Lefebvre et al., 2017; Takeda et al., 2018; Giampietro et al., 2013; Sparrow et al., 2012).

The position in the anterior PSM where Notch oscillations arrest and Mesp2 expression establishes the future somite boundary is called the determination front (Morimoto et al., 2005; Saga et al., 1997; Dubrulle et al., 2001). This region is also the anterior limit of the wavefront in the classical clock-and-wavefront, a theoretical model proposed over 40 years ago to explain the precipitous and periodic formation of segments in the PSM (Cooke and Zeeman, 1976). In this model, wavefront activity prevents the PSM from responding to the segmentation clock; hence somites form only anteriorly, where the wavefront ends. In chick or zebrafish embryos, exogenously added FGF protein or pharmacological inhibition of FGF signaling will shift the determination front rostrally or caudally, respectively. In the mouse, Cre-mediated inactivation of Fgf4 and Fgf8 specifically in the PSM results in an initial expansion of Mesp2 expression, followed by the premature expression of somite markers throughout the PSM (Naiche et al., 2011). Canonical WNT signaling is also a wavefront candidate, mostly because ectopic activation of βcatenin in the PSM results in an expansion of this tissue and a rostral shift of Mesp2 expression (Aulehla et al., 2008; Dunty et al., 2008). However, this expansion observed in βcatenin ‘gain-of-function’ mutants requires FGF4 and FGF8 activity, suggesting that these FGF signals are synonymous with the wavefront (Naiche et al., 2011).

In addition to its role in preventing somite differentiation, FGF signaling is also implicated in the regulation of key Notch components of the segmentation clock. Several studies have demonstrated that pharmacological inhibition of FGF disrupts Notch oscillations (Wahl et al., 2007; Niwa et al., 2007). In mouse embryos with PSM-specific loss of FGF receptor one or both Fgf4 and Fgf8, Notch pathway genes such as Hes7, are downregulated, although this analysis can be complicated due to the loss of PSM tissue in these mutants (Naiche et al., 2011; Niwa et al., 2007). Here, we focus on FGF-Notch interactions by analyzing mouse mutants that lack only one of the wavefront Fgf genes, Fgf8 or Fgf4. An indispensable technique in our analysis is whole mount in situ hybridization chain reaction (HCR), which allows us to multiplex different gene expression domains and quantify mRNA levels within specific embryonic tissues (Choi et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2018; Trivedi et al., 2018). We demonstrate that, while Fgf8 is not required for somitogenesis, Fgf4 is required for normal Notch oscillatory patterns and patterning of the vertebral column.

We describe mutants with only Fgf4 or Fgf8 inactivated specifically in the primitive streak and PSM. In previous work, we reported that somites form in such mutants (Naiche et al., 2011; Perantoni et al., 2005); here we examine the patterning of these somites, the Notch pathway oscillations that control their formation, as well as the vertebral elements that they eventually form. We found that Fgf4 mutants display a range of cervical and thoracic vertebral defects that are caused by aberrant Notch oscillations during somitogenesis. In contrast, the vertebral columns of Fgf8 mutants are normally segmented, with about 30% displaying minor homeotic transformations; such alternations in vertebral identity are not likely due to defects in somitogenesis per se. Previously, a role for FGF signaling in wavefront activity in chick and zebrafish embryos was supported by pharmacological manipulation (Dubrulle et al., 2001; Sawada et al., 2001) and in mouse mutants where both Fgf4 and Fgf8 are simultaneously inactivated using the same TCre activity that we use in this study (Naiche et al., 2011). These double Fgf4/Fgf8 mutants as well as mutants with tissue-specific inactivation of Fgfr1 support a role for FGF signaling in clock oscillations, but these conclusions were complicated by a loss of PSM tissue due to potential wavefront defects (Oginuma et al., 2008; Naiche et al., 2011; Wahl et al., 2007; Niwa et al., 2007). Compared to these Fgf pathway mutants, the phenotype of Fgf4 mutants is relatively subtle, with no wavefront defect, as indicated by no loss of caudal vertebrae (Anderson et al., 2016a) and no quantitative change in wavefront gene markers (Figure 2). This lack of any overt axis extension defect allows us to unambiguously identify Fgf4 as an Fgf ligand gene required for a normal segmentation clock. This insight is supported by recently published work showing that FGF signaling regulates the dynamics of gene expression oscillations in PSM cells cultured in vitro (Diaz-Cuadros et al., 2020).

Our mutants model human Segmentation Defects of the Vertebrae (SDV); Fgf4 mutants resemble CS and the synergistic phenotype resulting from the additional removal of one Hes7 copy in these mutants resembles human SCDO. Both of these diseases are caused by mutations in Notch signaling components that we find are misexpressed in Fgf4 mutants, such as HES7, MESP2, and LFNG (Eckalbar et al., 2012; Giampietro et al., 2009). With regard to the human FGF pathway and SDV, a straightforward gene-disorder relationship has not been uncovered, probably because of the pleiotropic phenotypes of such putative mutations would preclude embryonic survival. Sparrow et al found that gestational hypoxia in mice results in an increase in the severity and penetrance of CS in Notch1, Mesp2, and Hes7 heterozygotes (Sparrow et al., 2012). Intriguingly, CS is more severe in children living at high altitudes (Hou et al., 2018), suggesting a similar environmental effect may affect human development. In mice, hypoxia was found to diminish FGF signaling components, but expression of Fgf8 was unchanged, and Fgf4 was unexamined (Sparrow et al., 2012). Our data suggest that FGF4 may be part of the system that is responsive to this environmental insult. However, if this is the case, reduced FGF4 activity cannot be the only response to reduced oxygen levels because gestational hypoxia reduces expression of the FGF target gene Spry4 in the PSM, whereas we found no change in expression in this or other such canonical FGF target genes in Fgf4 mutants.

Rather, as is the case for hypoxia-treated embryos (Sparrow et al., 2012), Hes7 expression is reduced in Fgf4 mutants and we propose that this leads to aberrant segmentation. An indispensable tool to this insight was the use of multiplex HCR imaging (Choi et al., 2014; Choi et al., 2018; Trivedi et al., 2018). The simultaneous fluorescent imaging of multiple mRNA domains with this technique is particularly useful in a complex embryonic process, such as somitogenesis, where many complex and dynamic gene expression patterns need to be analyzed. HCR is a relatively new tool for mutant embryo analysis, just beginning to be used to analyze mutant embryos (Lignell et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2019; Attardi et al., 2018; McKinney et al., 2016). We used HCR to examine the expression of multiple genes in a single tissue by combining it with Imaris image analysis software. This combination of HCR and Imaris-modeling is broadly applicable for in situ quantification of gene expression within any complex embryonic or clinical sample. With distinct molecular markers, one can use this approach to quantify gene expression in any cell population with a precision that heretofore was not possible and still retain the intact whole mount embryo or tissue. Here, we generated and analyzed Imaris-based volumetric models of the PSM, based on Tbx6 expression, and determined that Hes7 levels are reduced by about 40–50% specifically in the PSM of Fgf4 mutants during early somite stages when the progenitors of aberrant vertebrae are segmenting.

We propose that this reduction in Hes7 levels is the primary defect in Fgf4 mutants, and subsequently causes an irregular activated Notch (NICD) pattern, misexpression of Mesp2, and ultimately leads to vertebral defects. A reduction in Hes7 levels, due to heterozygosity or hypomorphic mutations, has been shown to cause vertebral defects (Sparrow et al., 2012; Fujimuro et al., 2015; Stauber et al., 2009). The concept that Hes7 is generally regulated by FGF signaling is supported by numerous studies (Naiche et al., 2011; Niwa et al., 2007; Harima and Kageyama, 2013). Future work will determine whether Hes7 is a direct FGF4 signaling target, possibly through putative ETS binding sites in the Hes7 promoter (González et al., 2013). Alternatively, FGF4 may indirectly regulate Hes7 transcription by affecting the activity of TBX6, NICD or MESOGENIN, all shown to regulate Hes7 expression in the PSM (González et al., 2013; Hayashi et al., 2018). If so, we speculate such regulation would be post-transcriptional because we find no significant difference in levels of the genes encoding these factors. Additionally, it is possible that FGF4 signaling is interfacing with WNT signaling, which also has been shown to regulate Hes7 Aulehla et al., 2008; Dunty et al., 2008; González et al., 2013. Given the molecular feedbacks during genetic oscillations in the PSM, we considered whether FGF4 might have a primary role on Lfng expression, whose pattern is abnormal in our mutants. However, we suggest this is not the case, because, although embryos completely lacking Lfng also display aberrant Hes7 oscillations (Niwa et al., 2007; Stauber et al., 2009), overall Hes7 mRNA levels are not reduced (Ferjentsik et al., 2009), unlike the case in our Fgf4 mutants.

We support our proposal that the observed 50% reduction in Hes7 is the cause of the Fgf4 mutant with the synergistic worsening of the vertebral segmentation defect that occurs when we further reduce Hes7 levels by removal of one wildtype allele. Notably, such synergy in defects does not occur when a copy of Hes7 is removed from Fgf8 mutants (Figure 7—figure supplement 1). From another perspective, the mild CS caused by loss of one Hes7 allele in a wildtype background (Sparrow et al., 2012) is worsened 9-fold by removing Fgf4 (Figure 7). Therefore, Fgf4 is a robustness-conferring gene that buffers somitogenesis against a perturbation in Hes7 gene dosage (Félix and Barkoulas, 2015).

We observed that in Fgf4 mutants Hes7 mRNA levels are reduced during rostral somitogenesis at E8.5 (5–6 somite stages), when defective somitogenesis occurs. At about E9.5 (24–26 somite stages), Hes7 levels are unaffected, and the Fgf4 mutant embryo is beginning to generate correctly patterned somites that will differentiate into normally patterned vertebrae. Tam, 1981 showed that between these two stages of mouse development, somites more than double in size. Such an increase in segment size can be due to a slower segmentation clock and/or faster regression of the determination front (Oates et al., 2012). Gomez et al., 2008 found that the caudal movement of the wavefront does not significantly change at these stages, suggesting a slowing clock between E8.5 and E9.5. Consistent with a slower clock, we observed at least 2 and frequently 3 bands of Hes7 expression at the Fgf4-sensitive stages (5–6 somite stages; Figures 4 and 5), but only 1 to 2 bands when Fgf4 loss has no effect on Hes7 expression (24–26 somite stages; Figure 5—figure supplement 5). In future experiments, we will test this hypothesis directly by measuring the clock rate, using recently generated fluorescent transgenic reporters of Hes7 (Yoshioka-Kobayashi et al., 2020). Thus, it appears that FGF4 activity is required to maintain Hes7 mRNA levels above a certain threshold when the segmentation clock is faster; when Notch oscillations slow, they may become FGF-independent, or other FGFs may be at play. If this is the case in all vertebrates, we might expect embryos with faster segmentation clocks, such as snakes (Gomez et al., 2008), to have a longer window of FGF4-dependence for normal somitogenesis.

This study and past work indicate that FGF4 and FGF8 have both shared and unique roles in the vertebrate embryo’s posterior growth zone. They redundantly encode wavefront activities, preventing PSM differentiation (Naiche et al., 2011; Boulet and Capecchi, 2012). In this capacity, when signaling together, they activate downstream canonical FGF target genes, such as Spry2, Spry4, and Etv4 (Naiche et al., 2011). Here, we show the role that FGF4 signals play in maintaining Hes7 mRNA levels cannot be replaced by FGF8. Future efforts will explore how the signaling machinery within the PSM discriminates between these two FGF ligands. For example, our work argues for a reassessment of FGFR function in the PSM; prior work, in which the same Cre driver used here (TCre) inactivates Fgfr1 (Wahl et al., 2007), thought to be the only FGF receptor gene expressed in the PSM, does not exactly phenocopy the defects due to TCre-mediated loss of either Fgf4 (this study) or Fgf4/Fgf8 (Naiche et al., 2011).

Our insights regarding the roles of FGF4 and FGF8 in the caudal embryonic axis are intriguing in the context of the evolution of the vertebrate body plan. Vertebrates, together with Cephalochordates and Urochordates make up the phylum Chordata (Putnam et al., 2008). Somitogenesis predates vertebrate evolution as it occurs in Cephalochordata, the most basal living chordates (Holland and Onai, 2012). In both Cephalochordates and Urochordates, the FGF essential for embryonic axis extension is an Fgf8 ortholog (Bertrand et al., 2015; Pasini et al., 2012), suggesting that this Fgf (‘Fgf8/17/18’) may be the ancestral gene in this process. However, Fgf8/17/18 activity in these invertebrate chordates does not control gene oscillations as these embryos apparently lack a segmentation clock (Bertrand et al., 2015; Onai et al., 2015). Therefore, we speculate that the recruitment of an Fgf4 role during the evolution of vertebrate axis extension may have coincided with the development of gene oscillations that control somitogenesis.

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

1. 1. Anderson MJ
   2. Southon E
   3. Tessarollo L
   4. Lewandoski M

   (2016a) Fgf3-Fgf4-cis: a new mouse line for studying fgf functions during mouse development

   Genesis 54:91–98.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/dvg.22913

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Anderson MJ
   2. Schimmang T
   3. Lewandoski M

   (2016b) An FGF3-BMP signaling Axis regulates caudal neural tube closure, neural crest specification and Anterior-Posterior Axis extension

   PLOS Genetics 12:e1006018.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006018

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Attardi A
   2. Fulton T
   3. Florescu M
   4. Shah G
   5. Muresan L
   6. Lenz MO
   7. Lancaster C
   8. Huisken J
   9. van Oudenaarden A
   10. Steventon B

   (2018) Neuromesodermal progenitors are a conserved source of spinal cord with divergent growth dynamics

   Development 145:dev166728.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.166728

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Aulehla A
   2. Wiegraebe W
   3. Baubet V
   4. Wahl MB
   5. Deng C
   6. Taketo M
   7. Lewandoski M
   8. Pourquié O

   (2008) A β-catenin gradient links the clock and wavefront systems in mouse embryo segmentation

   Nature Cell Biology 10:186–193.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1679

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Balavoine G

   (2014) Segment formation in Annelids: patterns, processes and evolution

   The International Journal of Developmental Biology 58:469–483.

   https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.140148gb

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bertrand S
   2. Aldea D
   3. Oulion S
   4. Subirana L
   5. de Lera AR
   6. Somorjai I
   7. Escriva H

   (2015) Evolution of the Role of RA and FGF Signals in the Control of Somitogenesis in Chordates

   PLOS ONE 10:e0136587.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136587

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bessho Y

   (2001) Dynamic expression and essential functions of Hes7 in somite segmentation

   Genes & Development 15:2642–2647.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.930601

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bessho Y
   2. Hirata H
   3. Masamizu Y
   4. Kageyama R

   (2003) Periodic repression by the bHLH factor Hes7 is an essential mechanism for the somite segmentation clock

   Genes & Development 17:1451–1456.

   https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1092303

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bone RA
   2. Bailey CSL
   3. Wiedermann G
   4. Ferjentsik Z
   5. Appleton PL
   6. Murray PJ
   7. Maroto M
   8. Dale JK

   (2014) Spatiotemporal oscillations of Notch1, Dll1 and NICD are coordinated across the mouse PSM

   Development 141:4806–4816.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.115535

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Boulet AM
    2. Capecchi MR

    (2012) Signaling by FGF4 and FGF8 is required for axial elongation of the mouse embryo

    Developmental Biology 371:235–245.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.08.017

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Chalamalasetty RB
    2. Dunty WC
    3. Biris KK
    4. Ajima R
    5. Iacovino M
    6. Beisaw A
    7. Feigenbaum L
    8. Chapman DL
    9. Yoon JK
    10. Kyba M
    11. Yamaguchi TP

    (2011) The Wnt3a/β-catenin target gene Mesogenin1 controls the segmentation clock by activating a Notch signalling program

    Nature Communications 2:390.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1381

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chapman DL
    2. Agulnik I
    3. Hancock S
    4. Silver LM
    5. Papaioannou VE

    (1996) Tbx6, a mouse T-Box gene implicated in paraxial mesoderm formation at Gastrulation

    Developmental Biology 180:534–542.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.1996.0326

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Chapman DL
    2. Papaioannou VE

    (1998) Three neural tubes in mouse embryos with mutations in the T-box gene Tbx6

    Nature 391:695–697.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35624

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Chen J
    2. Kang L
    3. Zhang N

    (2005) Negative feedback loop formed by Lunatic fringe and Hes7 controls their oscillatory expression during somitogenesis

    Genesis 43:196–204.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/gene.20171

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Chipman AD

    (2010) Parallel evolution of segmentation by co-option of ancestral gene regulatory networks

    BioEssays 32:60–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.200900130

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Choi HM
    2. Beck VA
    3. Pierce NA

    (2014) Next-generation in situ hybridization chain reaction: higher gain, lower cost, greater durability

    ACS Nano 8:4284–4294.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/nn405717p

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Choi HMT
    2. Schwarzkopf M
    3. Fornace ME
    4. Acharya A
    5. Artavanis G
    6. Stegmaier J
    7. Cunha A
    8. Pierce NA

    (2018) Third-generation in situ hybridization chain reaction: multiplexed, quantitative, sensitive, versatile, robust

    Development 145:dev165753.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.165753

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Christ B
    2. Huang R
    3. Scaal M

    (2007) Amniote somite derivatives

    Developmental Dynamics 236:2382–2396.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.21189

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Clark E
    2. Peel AD
    3. Akam M

    (2019) Arthropod segmentation

    Development 146:dev170480.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.170480

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cooke J
    2. Zeeman EC

    (1976) A clock and wavefront model for control of the number of repeated structures during animal morphogenesis

    Journal of Theoretical Biology 58:455–476.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(76)80131-2

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Dale JK
    2. Maroto M
    3. Dequeant ML
    4. Malapert P
    5. McGrew M
    6. Pourquie O

    (2003) Periodic notch inhibition by lunatic fringe underlies the chick segmentation clock

    Nature 421:275–278.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01244

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Dequéant ML
    2. Glynn E
    3. Gaudenz K
    4. Wahl M
    5. Chen J
    6. Mushegian A
    7. Pourquié O

    (2006) A complex oscillating network of signaling genes underlies the mouse segmentation clock

    Science 314:1595–1598.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133141

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Diaz-Cuadros M
    2. Wagner DE
    3. Budjan C
    4. Hubaud A
    5. Tarazona OA
    6. Donelly S
    7. Michaut A
    8. Al Tanoury Z
    9. Yoshioka-Kobayashi K
    10. Niino Y
    11. Kageyama R
    12. Miyawaki A
    13. Touboul J
    14. Pourquié O

    (2020) In vitro characterization of the human segmentation clock

    Nature 580:113–118.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1885-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Dubrulle J
    2. McGrew MJ
    3. Pourquié O

    (2001) FGF signaling controls somite boundary position and regulates segmentation clock control of spatiotemporal hox gene activation

    Cell 106:219–232.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(01)00437-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Dunty WC
    2. Biris KK
    3. Chalamalasetty RB
    4. Taketo MM
    5. Lewandoski M
    6. Yamaguchi TP

    (2008) Wnt3a/beta-catenin signaling controls posterior body development by coordinating mesoderm formation and segmentation

    Development 135:85–94.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.009266

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Eckalbar WL
    2. Fisher RE
    3. Rawls A
    4. Kusumi K

    (2012) Scoliosis and segmentation defects of the vertebrae

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Developmental Biology 1:401–423.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.34

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Félix MA
    2. Barkoulas M

    (2015) Pervasive robustness in biological systems

    Nature Reviews Genetics 16:483–496.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3949

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Ferjentsik Z
    2. Hayashi S
    3. Dale JK
    4. Bessho Y
    5. Herreman A
    6. De Strooper B
    7. del Monte G
    8. de la Pompa JL
    9. Maroto M

    (2009) Notch is a critical component of the mouse somitogenesis oscillator and is essential for the formation of the somites

    PLOS Genetics 5:e1000662.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000662

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Fujimuro T
    2. Matsui T
    3. Nitanda Y
    4. Matta T
    5. Sakumura Y
    6. Saito M
    7. Kohno K
    8. Nakahata Y
    9. Bessho Y

    (2015) Hes7 3′UTR is required for somite segmentation function

    Scientific Reports 4:6462.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06462

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Geffers I
    2. Serth K
    3. Chapman G
    4. Jaekel R
    5. Schuster-Gossler K
    6. Cordes R
    7. Sparrow DB
    8. Kremmer E
    9. Dunwoodie SL
    10. Klein T
    11. Gossler A

    (2007) Divergent functions and distinct localization of the notch ligands DLL1 and DLL3 in vivo

    Journal of Cell Biology 178:465–476.

    https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200702009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Giampietro PF
    2. Dunwoodie SL
    3. Kusumi K
    4. Pourquié O
    5. Tassy O
    6. Offiah AC
    7. Cornier AS
    8. Alman BA
    9. Blank RD
    10. Raggio CL
    11. Glurich I
    12. Turnpenny PD

    (2009) Progress in the understanding of the genetic etiology of vertebral segmentation disorders in humans

    Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1151:38–67.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2008.03452.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Giampietro PF
    2. Raggio CL
    3. Blank RD
    4. McCarty C
    5. Broeckel U
    6. Pickart MA

    (2013) Clinical, genetic and environmental factors associated with congenital vertebral malformations

    Molecular Syndromology 4:94–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000345329

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Gomez C
    2. Ozbudak EM
    3. Wunderlich J
    4. Baumann D
    5. Lewis J
    6. Pourquié O

    (2008) Control of segment number in vertebrate embryos

    Nature 454:335–339.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. González A
    2. Manosalva I
    3. Liu T
    4. Kageyama R

    (2013) Control of Hes7 expression by Tbx6, the wnt pathway and the chemical Gsk3 inhibitor LiCl in the mouse segmentation clock

    PLOS ONE 8:e53323.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053323

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Harima Y
    2. Takashima Y
    3. Ueda Y
    4. Ohtsuka T
    5. Kageyama R

    (2013) Accelerating the tempo of the segmentation clock by reducing the number of introns in the Hes7 gene

    Cell Reports 3:1–7.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2012.11.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Harima Y
    2. Kageyama R

    (2013) Oscillatory links of fgf signaling and Hes7 in the segmentation clock

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 23:484–490.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2013.02.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Hayashi S
    2. Nakahata Y
    3. Kohno K
    4. Matsui T
    5. Bessho Y

    (2018) Presomitic mesoderm-specific expression of the transcriptional repressor Hes7 is controlled by E-box, T-box, and notch signaling pathways

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 293:12167–12176.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.003728

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Holland LZ
    2. Onai T

    (2012) Early development of cephalochordates (amphioxus)

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Developmental Biology 1:167–183.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.11

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Hou D
    2. Kang N
    3. Yin P
    4. Hai Y

    (2018) Abnormalities associated with congenital scoliosis in high-altitude geographic regions

    International Orthopaedics 42:575–581.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3805-2

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Hubaud A
    2. Pourquié O

    (2014) Signalling dynamics in vertebrate segmentation

    Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 15:709–721.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3891

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Huppert SS
    2. Ilagan MX
    3. De Strooper B
    4. Kopan R

    (2005) Analysis of notch function in Presomitic mesoderm suggests a gamma-secretase-independent role for presenilins in somite differentiation

    Developmental Cell 8:677–688.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2005.02.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Kageyama R
    2. Niwa Y
    3. Isomura A
    4. González A
    5. Harima Y

    (2012) Oscillatory gene expression and somitogenesis

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Developmental Biology 1:629–641.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.46

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Kim HS
    2. Neugebauer J
    3. McKnite A
    4. Tilak A
    5. Christian JL

    (2019) BMP7 functions predominantly as a heterodimer with BMP2 or BMP4 during mammalian embryogenesis

    eLife 8:e48872.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48872

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Krol AJ
    2. Roellig D
    3. Dequéant ML
    4. Tassy O
    5. Glynn E
    6. Hattem G
    7. Mushegian A
    8. Oates AC
    9. Pourquié O

    (2011) Evolutionary plasticity of segmentation clock networks

    Development 138:2783–2792.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.063834

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lefebvre M
    2. Duffourd Y
    3. Jouan T
    4. Poe C
    5. Jean-Marçais N
    6. Verloes A
    7. St-Onge J
    8. Riviere JB
    9. Petit F
    10. Pierquin G
    11. Demeer B
    12. Callier P
    13. Thauvin-Robinet C
    14. Faivre L
    15. Thevenon J

    (2017) Autosomal recessive variations of TBX6, from congenital scoliosis to spondylocostal dysostosis

    Clinical Genetics 91:908–912.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12918

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Li W
    2. Germain RN
    3. Gerner MY

    (2017) Multiplex, quantitativ_e cellular analysis in larg_e tissu_e volumes with clearing-enhanced 3D microscopy (C_e3D)

    PNAS 114:E7321–E7330.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708981114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Lignell A
    2. Kerosuo L
    3. Streichan SJ
    4. Cai L
    5. Bronner ME

    (2017) Identification of a neural crest stem cell niche by Spatial Genomic Analysis

    Nature Communications 8:1830.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01561-w

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Mansouri A
    2. Yokota Y
    3. Wehr R
    4. Copeland NG
    5. Jenkins NA
    6. Gruss P

    (1997) Paired-related murine homeobox gene expressed in the developing sclerotome, kidney, and nervous system

    Developmental Dynamics 210:53–65.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0177(199709)210:1<53::AID-AJA6>3.0.CO;2-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. McKinney MC
    2. McLennan R
    3. Kulesa PM

    (2016) Angiopoietin 2 signaling plays a critical role in neural crest cell migration

    BMC Biology 14:111.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-016-0323-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Meyers EN
    2. Lewandoski M
    3. Martin GR

    (1998) An Fgf8 mutant allelic series generated by Cre- and Flp-mediated recombination

    Nature Genetics 18:136–141.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng0298-136

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Model MA

    (2006) Intensity calibration and shading correction for fluorescence microscopes

    Current Protocols in Cytometry 14:cy1014s37.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142956.cy1014s37

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Morimoto M
    2. Takahashi Y
    3. Endo M
    4. Saga Y

    (2005) The Mesp2 transcription factor establishes segmental borders by suppressing Notch activity

    Nature 435:354–359.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03591

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Naiche LA
    2. Holder N
    3. Lewandoski M

    (2011) FGF4 and FGF8 comprise the wavefront activity that controls somitogenesis

    PNAS 108:4018–4023.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007417108

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Neidhardt LM
    2. Kispert A
    3. Herrmann BG

    (1997) A mouse gene of the paired-related homeobox class expressed in the caudal somite compartment and in the developing vertebral column, kidney and nervous system

    Development Genes and Evolution 207:330–339.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s004270050120

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Niwa Y
    2. Masamizu Y
    3. Liu T
    4. Nakayama R
    5. Deng CX
    6. Kageyama R

    (2007) The initiation and propagation of Hes7 oscillation are cooperatively regulated by fgf and notch signaling in the somite segmentation clock

    Developmental Cell 13:298–304.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2007.07.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Niwa Y
    2. Shimojo H
    3. Isomura A
    4. González A
    5. Miyachi H
    6. Kageyama R

    (2011) Different types of oscillations in notch and fgf signaling regulate the spatiotemporal periodicity of somitogenesis

    Genes & Development 25:1115–1120.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.2035311

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Nowotschin S
    2. Ferrer-Vaquer A
    3. Concepcion D
    4. Papaioannou VE
    5. Hadjantonakis AK

    (2012) Interaction of Wnt3a, Msgn1 and Tbx6 in neural versus paraxial mesoderm lineage commitment and paraxial mesoderm differentiation in the mouse embryo

    Developmental Biology 367:1–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2012.04.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Oates AC
    2. Morelli LG
    3. Ares S

    (2012) Patterning embryos with oscillations: structure, function and dynamics of the vertebrate segmentation clock

    Development 139:625–639.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.063735

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Oginuma M
    2. Niwa Y
    3. Chapman DL
    4. Saga Y

    (2008) Mesp2 and Tbx6 cooperatively create periodic patterns coupled with the clock machinery during mouse somitogenesis

    Development 135:2555–2562.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.019877

    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Okubo Y
    2. Sugawara T
    3. Abe-Koduka N
    4. Kanno J
    5. Kimura A
    6. Saga Y

    (2012) Lfng regulates the synchronized oscillation of the mouse segmentation clock via trans-repression of notch signalling

    Nature Communications 3:1141.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2133

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Onai T
    2. Aramaki T
    3. Inomata H
    4. Hirai T
    5. Kuratani S

    (2015) On the origin of vertebrate somites

    Zoological Letters 1:33.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s40851-015-0033-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Panin VM
    2. Shao L
    3. Lei L
    4. Moloney DJ
    5. Irvine KD
    6. Haltiwanger RS

    (2002) Notch ligands are substrates for protein O-fucosyltransferase-1 and fringe

    The Journal of Biological Chemistry 277:29945–29952.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M204445200

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Pasini A
    2. Manenti R
    3. Rothbächer U
    4. Lemaire P

    (2012) Antagonizing retinoic acid and FGF/MAPK pathways control posterior body patterning in the invertebrate chordate Ciona intestinalis

    PLOS ONE 7:e46193.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046193

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Perantoni AO
    2. Timofeeva O
    3. Naillat F
    4. Richman C
    5. Pajni-Underwood S
    6. Wilson C
    7. Vainio S
    8. Dove LF
    9. Lewandoski M

    (2005) Inactivation of FGF8 in early mesoderm reveals an essential role in kidney development

    Development 132:3859–3871.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.01945

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Pourquié O

    (2011) Vertebrate segmentation: from cyclic gene networks to scoliosis

    Cell 145:650–663.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.05.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Pourquié O
    2. Tam PP

    (2001) A nomenclature for prospective somites and phases of cyclic gene expression in the presomitic mesoderm

    Developmental Cell 1:619–620.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-5807(01)00082-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Putnam NH
    2. Butts T
    3. Ferrier DE
    4. Furlong RF
    5. Hellsten U
    6. Kawashima T
    7. Robinson-Rechavi M
    8. Shoguchi E
    9. Terry A
    10. Yu JK
    11. Benito-Gutiérrez EL
    12. Dubchak I
    13. Garcia-Fernàndez J
    14. Gibson-Brown JJ
    15. Grigoriev IV
    16. Horton AC
    17. de Jong PJ
    18. Jurka J
    19. Kapitonov VV
    20. Kohara Y
    21. Kuroki Y
    22. Lindquist E
    23. Lucas S
    24. Osoegawa K
    25. Pennacchio LA
    26. Salamov AA
    27. Satou Y
    28. Sauka-Spengler T
    29. Schmutz J
    30. Shin-I T
    31. Toyoda A
    32. Bronner-Fraser M
    33. Fujiyama A
    34. Holland LZ
    35. Holland PW
    36. Satoh N
    37. Rokhsar DS

    (2008) The amphioxus genome and the evolution of the chordate karyotype

    Nature 453:1064–1071.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06967

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Richmond DL
    2. Oates AC

    (2012) The segmentation clock: inherited trait or universal design principle?

    Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 22:600–606.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2012.10.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Saga Y
    2. Hata N
    3. Koseki H
    4. Taketo MM

    (1997) Mesp2: a novel mouse gene expressed in the presegmented mesoderm and essential for segmentation initiation

    Genes & Development 11:1827–1839.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.14.1827

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Sawada A
    2. Shinya M
    3. Jiang YJ
    4. Kawakami A
    5. Kuroiwa A
    6. Takeda H

    (2001)

    Fgf/MAPK signalling is a crucial positional cue in somite boundary formation

    Development 128:4873–4880.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Schindelin J
    2. Arganda-Carreras I
    3. Frise E
    4. Kaynig V
    5. Longair M
    6. Pietzsch T
    7. Preibisch S
    8. Rueden C
    9. Saalfeld S
    10. Schmid B
    11. Tinevez J-Y
    12. White DJ
    13. Hartenstein V
    14. Eliceiri K
    15. Tomancak P
    16. Cardona A

    (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis

    Nature Methods 9:676–682.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2019

    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Serth K
    2. Schuster-Gossler K
    3. Kremmer E
    4. Hansen B
    5. Marohn-Köhn B
    6. Gossler A

    (2015) O-fucosylation of DLL3 is required for its function during somitogenesis

    PLOS ONE 10:e0123776.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123776

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Shimojo H
    2. Isomura A
    3. Ohtsuka T
    4. Kori H
    5. Miyachi H
    6. Kageyama R

    (2016) Oscillatory control of Delta-like1 in cell interactions regulates dynamic gene expression and tissue morphogenesis

    Genes & Development 30:102–116.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.270785.115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Sparrow DB
    2. Chapman G
    3. Smith AJ
    4. Mattar MZ
    5. Major JA
    6. O'Reilly VC
    7. Saga Y
    8. Zackai EH
    9. Dormans JP
    10. Alman BA
    11. McGregor L
    12. Kageyama R
    13. Kusumi K
    14. Dunwoodie SL

    (2012) A mechanism for gene-environment interaction in the etiology of congenital scoliosis

    Cell 149:295–306.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.054

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Sparrow DB
    2. McInerney-Leo A
    3. Gucev ZS
    4. Gardiner B
    5. Marshall M
    6. Leo PJ
    7. Chapman DL
    8. Tasic V
    9. Shishko A
    10. Brown MA
    11. Duncan EL
    12. Dunwoodie SL

    (2013) Autosomal dominant spondylocostal dysostosis is caused by mutation in TBX6

    Human Molecular Genetics 22:1625–1631.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddt012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Spörle R
    2. Schughart K

    (1997) System to identify individual somites and their derivatives in the developing mouse embryo

    Developmental Dynamics 210:216–226.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0177(199711)210:3<216::AID-AJA3>3.0.CO;2-J

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Stauber M
    2. Sachidanandan C
    3. Morgenstern C
    4. Ish-Horowicz D

    (2009) Differential axial requirements for lunatic fringe and Hes7 transcription during mouse somitogenesis

    PLOS ONE 4:e7996.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007996

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Sun X
    2. Lewandoski M
    3. Meyers EN
    4. Liu YH
    5. Maxson RE
    6. Martin GR

    (2000) Conditional inactivation of Fgf4 reveals complexity of signalling during limb bud development

    Nature Genetics 25:83–86.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/75644

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Takahashi Y
    2. Koizumi K
    3. Takagi A
    4. Kitajima S
    5. Inoue T
    6. Koseki H
    7. Saga Y

    (2000) Mesp2 initiates somite segmentation through the notch signalling pathway

    Nature Genetics 25:390–396.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/78062

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Takeda K
    2. Kou I
    3. Mizumoto S
    4. Yamada S
    5. Kawakami N
    6. Nakajima M
    7. Otomo N
    8. Ogura Y
    9. Miyake N
    10. Matsumoto N
    11. Kotani T
    12. Sudo H
    13. Yonezawa I
    14. Uno K
    15. Taneichi H
    16. Watanabe K
    17. Shigematsu H
    18. Sugawara R
    19. Taniguchi Y
    20. Minami S
    21. Nakamura M
    22. Matsumoto M
    23. Watanabe K
    24. Ikegawa S
    25. Japan Early Onset Scoliosis Research Group

    (2018) Screening of known disease genes in congenital scoliosis

    Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine 6:966–974.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.466

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Tam PP

    (1981)

    The control of somitogenesis in mouse embryos

    Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 65 Suppl:103–128.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Ten Tusscher K

    (2020) Of mice and plants: comparative developmental systems biology

    Developmental Biology 460:32–39.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.10.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Trivedi V
    2. Choi HMT
    3. Fraser SE
    4. Pierce NA

    (2018) Multidimensional quantitative analysis of mRNA expression within intact vertebrate embryos

    Development 145:dev156869.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.156869

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Wahl MB
    2. Deng C
    3. Lewandoski M
    4. Pourquié O

    (2007) FGF signaling acts upstream of the NOTCH and WNT signaling pathways to control segmentation clock oscillations in mouse somitogenesis

    Development 134:4033–4041.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.009167

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Yoshioka-Kobayashi K
    2. Matsumiya M
    3. Niino Y
    4. Isomura A
    5. Kori H
    6. Miyawaki A
    7. Kageyama R

    (2020) Coupling delay controls synchronized oscillation in the segmentation clock

    Nature 580:119–123.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1882-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Matthew J Anderson

   Genetics of Vertebrate Development Section, Cancer and Developmental Biology Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9387-5743

2. Valentin Magidson

   Optical Microscopy and Analysis Laboratory, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, United States

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Ryoichiro Kageyama

   Institute for Frontier Life and Medical Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan

   Contribution

   Resources, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

4. Mark Lewandoski

   Genetics of Vertebrate Development Section, Cancer and Developmental Biology Laboratory, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   lewandom@mail.nih.gov

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1066-3735

• 3,458

  views

• 411

  downloads

• 41

  citations

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