Building a body is complicated. Cells must organise themselves head-to-tail, belly-to-back, and inside-to-outside. They do this by laying down a chemical map, which is made up of gradients of molecular signals, high in some places and lower in others. The amount of signal each cell receives helps to decide which part of the body it will become.

One of the essential signals in developing vertebrates is Nodal. It helps cells to tell inside from outside and left from right. Cells detect Nodal using an activin receptor and co-receptor complex, which catch hold of passing Nodal proteins and transmit developmental signals into cells. An important model to study Nodal signals is the zebrafish embryo, but the identity of the activin receptors and their exact role in this organism has been unclear.

To find out more, Preiß, Kögler, Mörsdorf et al. studied the activin receptors Acvr1 and Acvr2 in zebrafish embryos. The experiments revealed that two putative Acvr1 and four Acvr2 receptors were present during early development. To better understand their roles, Preiß et al. eliminated them one at a time, and in combination. Losing single activin receptors had no effect. But losing both Acvr1 receptors together stopped Nodal signalling and changed the distribution of the Nodal gradient. Loss of all Acvr2 receptors also caused developmental problems, but they were partly independent of Nodal. This suggests that Acvr1s seem to be able to transmit signals and to shape the Nodal gradient, and that Acvr2s might have another, so far unknown, role.

Nodal signals guide the development of all vertebrates. Understanding how they work in a model species like zebrafish could shed light on their role in other species, including humans. A clearer picture could help to uncover what happens at a molecular level when development goes wrong.

The formation of the body plan during early embryogenesis depends on the interplay between evolutionarily conserved signaling pathways. The TGF-β superfamily member Nodal is one of the key regulators of vertebrate development and is required to specify mesoderm and endoderm (collectively termed mesendoderm) during germ layer formation (Schier, 2009). In the classical model, Nodal ligands signal through a receptor complex comprising Type I and Type II single-transmembrane serine/threonine kinase receptors (Attisano and Wrana, 2002; Shi and Massagué, 2003; Figure 1A). Unlike other members of the TGF-β superfamily, Nodal signaling additionally requires the presence of an EGF-CFC co-receptor to activate signaling. Our current understanding of Nodal signaling is that Nodal directly binds to Type II receptors and the EGF-CFC co-receptor Tdgf1, which in turn mediates the recruitment of the Type I receptors. Upon oligomerization of the receptor complex, Type II receptors phosphorylate the Type I receptors in their GS domains, leading to the recruitment and phosphorylation of the C-terminal SSXS motif of the receptor-regulated Smad (R-Smad) proteins Smad2 and Smad3 by the Type I receptor. The activated pSmad2/pSmad3 proteins associate with the co-factor Smad4 and translocate into the nucleus, where they activate target gene expression (Hill, 2018; Macías-Silva et al., 1996; Shi and Massagué, 2003; Yeo and Whitman, 2001; Figure 1A).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Source data for Figure 1.

https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/66397/elife-66397-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx

Download elife-66397-fig1-data1-v3.xlsx

In zebrafish, mesendoderm patterning depends on the two secreted Nodal signals Squint (Sqt) and Cyclops (Cyc) (Dougan et al., 2003; Rogers and Müller, 2019; Schier, 2009; Shen, 2007). Nodal expression begins in the yolk syncytial layer at the embryonic margin during the blastula stage and then spreads into the embryo, generating a Nodal signaling gradient. This gradient is translated into different mesendodermal cell fates depending on the signaling level and target gene induction kinetics (Dubrulle et al., 2015). Loss of Nodal signaling causes absence of endoderm as well as trunk and head mesoderm, which leads to cyclopia due to a failure to separate the eye fields, resulting in embryonic lethality (Dubrulle et al., 2015; Feldman et al., 1998; Gritsman et al., 1999). Nodal signaling is antagonized by the secreted long-range feedback inhibitor Lefty, which is also produced at the margin (Meno et al., 1999; Thisse and Thisse, 1999). Establishment and maintenance of a correct signaling range is crucial for correct development, as also excess Nodal signaling – for example in lefty mutants – can cause severe patterning defects and embryonic lethality (Almuedo-Castillo et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2017).

Measurements of active GFP-tagged fusions showed that Squint and Cyclops proteins have a lower effective diffusivity than their inhibitors Lefty1 (Lft1) and Lefty2 (Lft2) (Müller et al., 2012; Rogers and Müller, 2019). It has been proposed that this mobility difference is due to interactions between Nodal ligands and membrane-bound diffusion regulators, whereas Lefty proteins move more freely in the extracellular space (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013). Indeed, Nodal’s signaling range and distribution dramatically increase in the absence of the zebrafish Tdgf1 co-receptor homolog Oep (Lord et al., 2021), and single-molecule imaging has recently shown that the fraction of molecules in the bound state is larger for Nodal than for Lefty (Kuhn et al., 2022). Since Nodals strongly bind to the zebrafish Type II receptor Acvr2b-a in vivo (Wang et al., 2016), the main Nodal receptors themselves might also act as diffusion regulators. However, it is unclear whether this strong ligand-receptor interaction indeed influences Nodal dispersal, whether receptor binding affects Nodal diffusion or stability in the embryo, and what role other putative Type I and Type II Acvr receptors play in the propagation of Nodal signaling through the embryo.

The two mouse, frog and human Type I receptors Acvr1b (also known as Alk4/TARAM-A) and Acvr1c (also known as Alk7) and the two Type II receptors Acvr2a and Acvr2b were identified using in vitro binding and target induction assays, and cause developmental defects when mutated (Gritsman et al., 1999; Gu et al., 1998; Kosaki et al., 1999; Matzuk et al., 1995; Oh and Li, 1997; Reissmann et al., 2001). Surprisingly, except for the zebrafish co-receptor Oep (Gritsman et al., 1999), no zebrafish Nodal receptor mutants are known to recapitulate Nodal loss-of-function phenotypes; and although zebrafish are widely used to investigate Nodal signaling during development, it is unknown which of the receptor paralogs mediate endogenous Nodal signaling during germ layer formation.

To understand the role of the zebrafish receptor homologs in Nodal distribution and signaling, we generated several loss-of-function mutants and used them together with combinatorial morpholino knockdown and CRISPR F0 knockout (KO) approaches to assess compound loss-of-function phenotypes. Due to the severity of single receptor knock-outs in mice (Gu et al., 1998; Kosaki et al., 1999; Matzuk et al., 1995; Oh and Li, 1997; Reissmann et al., 2001), we expected phenotypes similar to Nodal loss-of-function mutants in zebrafish. Strikingly, loss of individual receptor function did not cause obvious patterning defects. Severe patterning phenotypes and embryonic lethality were observed with combinatorial loss of putative Type II Acvr receptors, but the defects were at least partly independently of Nodal signaling. Instead, only the combined loss of the Type I receptors acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b phenocopied known Nodal loss-of-function phenotypes (Dubrulle et al., 2015; Feldman et al., 1998; Gritsman et al., 1999), identifying these receptors as the main Type I receptors that mediate early Nodal signaling in zebrafish. Using quantitative imaging assays, we found that Type I receptor and co-receptor levels can modulate Nodal mobility and thereby directly influence the distribution of Nodal in the embryo, providing a mechanism for the spatial restriction of Nodal signaling during germ layer patterning.

The Nodal signaling pathway is a key regulator of vertebrate development and is important for human disease and regenerative medicine (Lee et al., 2010; Roessler et al., 2008; Schier, 2009; Tewary et al., 2019). Here, we systematically assessed putative Nodal Type I and Type II receptor homologs in zebrafish. We found that the transcripts of most of these putative Nodal receptors are maternally deposited and present during germ layer patterning, indicative of a potential role in early patterning. The Type I receptor Acvr1c (Alk7) is an exception and not expressed until 4 dpf, making it unlikely to be involved in germ layer formation. While single mutants of the Nodal co-receptor Oep and the signal transducer Smad2 display complete loss-of-function phenotypes (Dubrulle et al., 2015; Gritsman et al., 1999), the loss of individual Nodal ligands (Squint and Cyclops) only leads to partial defects (Dougan et al., 2003; Feldman et al., 1998; Rebagliati et al., 1998a; Rebagliati et al., 1998b; Sampath et al., 1998). This redundancy is mirrored in the function of the Type I and Type II receptors. For example, individual loss of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b activity did not induce Nodal-related defects, whereas combined loss-of-function conditions for both acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b led to a complete Nodal mutant phenotype, suggesting that these Type I receptors redundantly mediate Nodal signaling during early embryogenesis.

Similar to the Type I receptors, only combinatorial loss of the putative Type II receptors Acvr2a-a, Acvr2a-b, Acvr2b-a, and Acvr2b-b caused embryonic patterning defects. In contrast to the Type I receptors, however, the loss of the Acvr2 receptors did not phenocopy Nodal loss-of-function phenotypes, caused an elevation rather than a reduction of pSmad2/3, and, in MZoep embryos, led to patterning defects independent of Nodal (Figure 2; Figure 2—figure supplement 2). The phenotype observed upon quadruple acvr2 receptor KO partly resembles the mutant phenotype of pgy^dty40 (Mullins et al., 1996), a hypomorphic mutation of the smad5 gene (also called somitabun) with a weak antimorphic effect (Kramer et al., 2002), which could indicate an influence of the receptors on the BMP signaling pathway. In line with this hypothesis, quadruple acvr2 KO embryos showed a reduction in pSmad1/5/9 signal (Figure 2C). However, this reduction in BMP signaling was only visible at late gastrulation, a few hours after the embryos displayed an increase in pSmad2/3. Moreover, some of the morphological defects, most obviously the reduction in head and eye size, deviated from the classical BMP loss-of-function phenotype. It is currently unknown how the loss of Acvr2 receptors causes these effects and through what mechanisms and signals the receptors mediate embryonic patterning. It is tempting to speculate that receptor promiscuity might play a role. Acvr2b-a, for example, has been shown to be able to mediate both Activin and BMP signaling by recruiting the respective Type I receptor Acvr1b-a or Bmpr1a (Nagaso et al., 1999). Even a direct high-affinity interaction of Nodal with the BMP Type II receptor Bmpr2 has been shown in vitro (Aykul et al., 2015). Furthermore the Type I receptor TGFβr1 can phosphorylate and thereby activate the Type I receptor Acvr1, indicating that Type I receptors can function like Type II receptors under certain conditions (Ramachandran et al., 2018). Whether this dual function of Type I receptors affects endogenous Nodal signaling in zebrafish requires further investigation.

During germ layer patterning, Nodal is first expressed in the YSL, from which it spreads into the embryo to form a signaling gradient. There are currently two major models that can explain the propagation of Nodal signaling in this context. In the hindered diffusion model, Nodal is secreted from source cells and its free diffusion through the embryo is hindered by interactions with immobile diffusion regulators (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Rogers and Müller, 2019; Wang et al., 2016; Lord et al., 2021; Kuhn et al., 2022). In the second model, Nodal ligands only act in a juxtacrine fashion, and propagation of Nodal signaling to adjacent cells is mediated by a relay mechanism involving positive feedback of Nodal expression (Liu et al., 2022; Lord et al., 2021; Rogers and Müller, 2019; van Boxtel et al., 2015; van Boxtel et al., 2018). To distinguish between these models, we transplanted cells expressing endogenous Nodal signals into Nodal-mutant backgrounds that are devoid of relay mechanisms involving feedback on Nodal expression. Consistent with the known function of Nodals as short- to mid-range signals (Chen and Schier, 2001; Müller et al., 2012), we found that Nodals do not exclusively act in a juxtacrine manner and can signal to distant cells even in the absence of Nodal relay (Figure 6C and D). The importance of positive Nodal feedback as an additional mechanism to regulate Nodal signaling propagation is supported by the restriction of the Type I receptor Acvr1b-a and the co-receptor Oep to the marginal zone. This spatial restriction is mediated by Nodal ligands, which are also expressed at the margin (Bennett et al., 2007; Dubrulle et al., 2015; Feldman et al., 2002; Meno et al., 1999; Vopalensky et al., 2018), suggesting a role for positive feedback to limit Nodal signaling to the embryonic margin. Although our data support the idea that Nodals function as classical morphogens and act directly at a distance as master regulators of mesendoderm formation (Chen and Schier, 2001), complex germ layer patterning requires the interaction with other signaling molecules such as FGFs (Bennett et al., 2007; Dubrulle et al., 2015; van Boxtel et al., 2015; van Boxtel et al., 2018), which act as secondary downstream relay factors to induce mesendodermal gene expression at the correct time and place.

The action range of Nodals has been proposed to be restricted by extracellular interactions (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013). In this hindered diffusion model, Nodal’s free diffusivity of approximately 40 µm²/s (Müller et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016) would be slowed down by an order of magnitude through interactions with immobile diffusion regulators such as receptors (Wang et al., 2016) or heparin sulfate proteoglycans (Marjoram and Wright, 2011). Indeed, our recent single-molecule tracking experiments showed that individual Nodal molecules have binding times of tens of seconds in the extracellular space, leading to hindered diffusion on the nanometer to micrometer scale (Kuhn et al., 2022). Here, we directly assessed the influence of Nodal receptors on the dispersal of Nodal ligands at the tissue scale. We found that embryos with reduced receptor levels displayed broader Nodal gradients (Figure 5B–D; Figure 5—figure supplement 1B-D). To elucidate whether the Type I receptors Acvr1b-a and Acvr1b-b as well as the co-receptor Oep directly regulate Nodal diffusivity, we used FRAP assays to measure Nodal mobility in intact embryos with modulated receptor levels. Consistent with our gradient analyses, receptor and co-receptor had a large impact on Nodal diffusivity (Cohen’s d=1.03 and 1.4 with p=0.028 and 0.003, respectively; see Materials and methods), indicating their importance not only for Nodal signaling, but also as a diffusion regulators during early embryogenesis. In agreement with our findings, it has recently been shown that the Nodal co-receptor Oep restricts Nodal’s distribution and signaling (Lord et al., 2021) and can locally hinder Nodal diffusion by transient membrane trapping during zebrafish embryogenesis (Kuhn et al., 2022). Previous research has demonstrated that Oep is critical for Nodal signaling (Gritsman et al., 1999) and indicated that Oep mediates the interaction of Nodal with the Activin receptor complex (Bianco et al., 2002; Reissmann et al., 2001; Yan et al., 2002; Yeo and Whitman, 2001). Moreover, the Oep-Nodal interaction is crucial for the regulation of Nodal signaling, as chimeric Nodals that do not require Oep for signaling activity cannot be inhibited by Lefty (Cheng et al., 2004). In mouse models, Nodal has been shown to directly interact with the Oep homolog Cripto already before secretion and processing of the Nodal protein, and Oep was also found to regulate Nodal endocytosis and subsequent signaling (Blanchet et al., 2008a; Blanchet et al., 2008b). While the influence of Oep/Cripto and the Type II receptors on Nodal propagation could be explained by their direct interaction, the Type I receptor Acvr1b-a is thought to require the presence of the co-receptor Oep/Cripto to interact with Nodal (Reissmann et al., 2001). However, there is evidence that Nodal can also directly interact with Type I receptors (Calvanese et al., 2015; Reissmann et al., 2001). Alternatively, the observed impact of Type I receptor levels on Nodal dispersal might be due to a failure in assembling the full Nodal receptor complex, possibly affecting endocytosis of Nodal (Zhou et al., 2004) and causing Nodal to accumulate in the extracellular space resulting in a broader Nodal gradient (Bennett et al., 2007; Dubrulle et al., 2015; Feldman et al., 2002; Meno et al., 1999; Vopalensky et al., 2018).

In summary, we performed a systematic analysis of putative zebrafish Nodal receptors and found that the Type I receptors Acvr1b-a and Acvr1b-b as well as the co-receptor Oep can shape Nodal gradients during early embryogenesis by modulating ligand mobility and dispersal. In the future, it will be interesting to determine the function of receptor redundancy in Nodal signaling, to analyze the role of receptor and co-receptor feedback in robust embryogenesis (Stapornwongkul et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020) and to elucidate the mechanism through which the Acvr2 receptors pattern the early embryo.

Source data files containing the numerical data used to generate the figures have been provided.

1. 1. Collins JE
   2. Wali N
   3. Dooley CM
   4. Busch-Nentwich EM

   (2016) EBI

   ID PRJEB7244. Baseline_expression_from_transcriptional_profiling_of_zebrafish_developmental_stages.

   http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB7244

1. 1. Albertson RC
   2. Payne-Ferreira TL
   3. Postlethwait J
   4. Yelick PC

   (2005) Zebrafish acvr2a and acvr2b exhibit distinct roles in craniofacial development

   Developmental Dynamics 233:1405–1418.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.20480

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Almuedo-Castillo M
   2. Bläßle A
   3. Mörsdorf D
   4. Marcon L
   5. Soh GH
   6. Rogers KW
   7. Schier AF
   8. Müller P

   (2018) Scale-invariant patterning by size-dependent inhibition of Nodal signalling

   Nature Cell Biology 20:1032–1042.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0155-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Attisano L
   2. Wrana JL

   (2002) Signal transduction by the TGF-beta superfamily

   Science 296:1646–1647.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071809

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Aykul S
   2. Ni W
   3. Mutatu W
   4. Martinez-Hackert E

   (2015) Human cerberus prevents nodal-receptor binding, inhibits nodal signaling, and suppresses nodal-mediated phenotypes

   PLOS ONE 10:e0114954.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114954

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bennett JT
   2. Joubin K
   3. Cheng S
   4. Aanstad P
   5. Herwig R
   6. Clark M
   7. Lehrach H
   8. Schier AF

   (2007) Nodal signaling activates differentiation genes during zebrafish gastrulation

   Developmental Biology 304:525–540.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.01.012

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bianco C
   2. Adkins HB
   3. Wechselberger C
   4. Seno M
   5. Normanno N
   6. De Luca A
   7. Sun Y
   8. Khan N
   9. Kenney N
   10. Ebert A
   11. Williams KP
   12. Sanicola M
   13. Salomon DS

   (2002) Cripto-1 activates nodal- and ALK4-dependent and -independent signaling pathways in mammary epithelial cells

   Molecular and Cellular Biology 22:2586–2597.

   https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.8.2586-2597.2002

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Blanchet MH
   2. Le Good JA
   3. Mesnard D
   4. Oorschot V
   5. Baflast S
   6. Minchiotti G
   7. Klumperman J
   8. Constam DB

   (2008a) Cripto recruits Furin and PACE4 and controls Nodal trafficking during proteolytic maturation

   The EMBO Journal 27:2580–2591.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.174

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Blanchet MH
   2. Le Good JA
   3. Oorschot V
   4. Baflast S
   5. Minchiotti G
   6. Klumperman J
   7. Constam DB

   (2008b) Cripto localizes Nodal at the limiting membrane of early endosomes

   Science Signaling 1:ra13.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.1165027

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bläßle A
   2. Müller P

   (2015) PyFDAP: automated analysis of fluorescence decay after photoconversion (FDAP) experiments

   Bioinformatics 31:972–974.

   https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu735

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bläßle A
    2. Soh G
    3. Braun T
    4. Mörsdorf D
    5. Preiß H
    6. Jordan BM
    7. Müller P

    (2018) Quantitative diffusion measurements using the open-source software PyFRAP

    Nature Communications 9:1582.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03975-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Calvanese L
    2. Sandomenico A
    3. Caporale A
    4. Focà A
    5. Focà G
    6. D’Auria G
    7. Falcigno L
    8. Ruvo M

    (2015) Conformational features and binding affinities to Cripto, ALK7 and ALK4 of Nodal synthetic fragments

    Journal of Peptide Science 21:283–293.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/psc.2733

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Chen Y
    2. Schier AF

    (2001) The zebrafish Nodal signal Squint functions as a morphogen

    Nature 411:607–610.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/35079121

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Cheng SK
    2. Olale F
    3. Brivanlou AH
    4. Schier AF

    (2004) Lefty blocks a subset of TGFbeta signals by antagonizing EGF-CFC coreceptors

    PLOS Biology 2:E30.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020030

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Ciruna B
    2. Weidinger G
    3. Knaut H
    4. Thisse B
    5. Thisse C
    6. Raz E
    7. Schier AF

    (2002) Production of maternal-zygotic mutant zebrafish by germ-line replacement

    PNAS 99:14919–14924.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.222459999

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. Conference

    1. Coe R

    (2002)

    It’s the effect size, stupid - What effect size is and why it is important

    Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association.

    • Google Scholar
16. Book

    1. Crank J

    (1979)

    The Mathematics of Diffusion

    Clarendon Press.

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. DaCosta Byfield S
    2. Major C
    3. Laping NJ
    4. Roberts AB

    (2004) SB-505124 is a selective inhibitor of transforming growth factor-beta type I receptors ALK4, ALK5, and ALK7

    Molecular Pharmacology 65:744–752.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.65.3.744

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Dogra D
    2. Ahuja S
    3. Kim HT
    4. Rasouli SJ
    5. Stainier DYR
    6. Reischauer S

    (2017) Opposite effects of Activin type 2 receptor ligands on cardiomyocyte proliferation during development and repair

    Nature Communications 8:1902.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01950-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Dougan ST
    2. Warga RM
    3. Kane DA
    4. Schier AF
    5. Talbot WS

    (2003) The role of the zebrafish nodal-related genes squint and cyclops in patterning of mesendoderm

    Development 130:1837–1851.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.00400

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Dubrulle J
    2. Jordan BM
    3. Akhmetova L
    4. Farrell JA
    5. Kim SH
    6. Solnica-Krezel L
    7. Schier AF

    (2015) Response to Nodal morphogen gradient is determined by the kinetics of target gene induction

    eLife 4:e05042.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05042

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. El-Brolosy MA
    2. Kontarakis Z
    3. Rossi A
    4. Kuenne C
    5. Günther S
    6. Fukuda N
    7. Kikhi K
    8. Boezio GLM
    9. Takacs CM
    10. Lai S-L
    11. Fukuda R
    12. Gerri C
    13. Giraldez AJ
    14. Stainier DYR

    (2019) Genetic compensation triggered by mutant mRNA degradation

    Nature 568:193–197.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1064-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Feldman B.
    2. Gates MA
    3. Egan ES
    4. Dougan ST
    5. Rennebeck G
    6. Sirotkin HI
    7. Schier AF
    8. Talbot WS

    (1998) Zebrafish organizer development and germ-layer formation require nodal-related signals

    Nature 395:181–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/26013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Feldman B
    2. Concha ML
    3. Saúde L
    4. Parsons MJ
    5. Adams RJ
    6. Wilson SW
    7. Stemple DL

    (2002) Lefty antagonism of Squint is essential for normal gastrulation

    Current Biology 12:2129–2135.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9822(02)01361-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Funkenstein B
    2. Krol E
    3. Esterin E
    4. Kim YS

    (2012) Structural and functional characterizations of activin type 2B receptor (acvr2b) ortholog from the marine fish, gilthead sea bream, Sparus aurata: evidence for gene duplication of acvr2b in fish

    Journal of Molecular Endocrinology 49:175–192.

    https://doi.org/10.1530/JME-12-0075

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Gagnon JA
    2. Valen E
    3. Thyme SB
    4. Huang P
    5. Akhmetova L
    6. Ahkmetova L
    7. Pauli A
    8. Montague TG
    9. Zimmerman S
    10. Richter C
    11. Schier AF

    (2014) Efficient mutagenesis by Cas9 protein-mediated oligonucleotide insertion and large-scale assessment of single-guide RNAs

    PLOS ONE 9:e98186.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098186

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Garg RR
    2. Bally-Cuif L
    3. Lee SE
    4. Gong Z
    5. Ni X
    6. Hew CL
    7. Peng C

    (1999) Cloning of zebrafish activin type IIB receptor (ActRIIB) cDNA and mRNA expression of ActRIIB in embryos and adult tissues

    Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 153:169–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0303-7207(99)00044-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Gregor T
    2. Tank DW
    3. Wieschaus EF
    4. Bialek W

    (2007) Probing the limits to positional information

    Cell 130:153–164.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2007.05.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Gritsman K
    2. Zhang J
    3. Cheng S
    4. Heckscher E
    5. Talbot WS
    6. Schier AF

    (1999) The EGF-CFC protein one-eyed pinhead is essential for nodal signaling

    Cell 97:121–132.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80720-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gu Z
    2. Nomura M
    3. Simpson BB
    4. Lei H
    5. Feijen A
    6. van den Eijnden-van Raaij J
    7. Donahoe PK
    8. Li E

    (1998) The type I activin receptor ActRIB is required for egg cylinder organization and gastrulation in the mouse

    Genes & Development 12:844–857.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.12.6.844

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Hill JT
    2. Demarest BL
    3. Bisgrove BW
    4. Su YC
    5. Smith M
    6. Yost HJ

    (2014) Poly peak parser: method and software for identification of unknown indels using Sanger sequencing of polymerase chain reaction products

    Developmental Dynamics 243:1632–1636.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.24183

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Hill CS

    (2018) Spatial and temporal control of NODAL signaling

    Current Opinion in Cell Biology 51:50–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceb.2017.10.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hwang WY
    2. Fu Y
    3. Reyon D
    4. Maeder ML
    5. Tsai SQ
    6. Sander JD
    7. Peterson RT
    8. Yeh JRJ
    9. Joung JK

    (2013) Efficient genome editing in zebrafish using a CRISPR-Cas system

    Nature Biotechnology 31:227–229.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2501

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Jazwińska A
    2. Badakov R
    3. Keating MT

    (2007) Activin-betaA signaling is required for zebrafish fin regeneration

    Current Biology 17:1390–1395.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.07.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Kent WJ

    (2002) BLAT -- the BLAST-like alignment tool

    Genome Research 12:656–664.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.229202

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Kishimoto Y
    2. Lee KH
    3. Zon L
    4. Hammerschmidt M
    5. Schulte-Merker S

    (1997) The molecular nature of zebrafish swirl: BMP2 function is essential during early dorsoventral patterning

    Development 124:4457–4466.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.124.22.4457

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kosaki R
    2. Gebbia M
    3. Kosaki K
    4. Lewin M
    5. Bowers P
    6. Towbin JA
    7. Casey B

    (1999) Left-Right axis malformations associated with mutations in ACVR2B, the gene for human activin receptor type IIB

    American Journal of Medical Genetics 82:70–76.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19990101)82:1<70::aid-ajmg14>3.0.co;2-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kramer C
    2. Mayr T
    3. Nowak M
    4. Schumacher J
    5. Runke G
    6. Bauer H
    7. Wagner DS
    8. Schmid B
    9. Imai Y
    10. Talbot WS
    11. Mullins MC
    12. Hammerschmidt M

    (2002) Maternally supplied Smad5 is required for ventral specification in zebrafish embryos prior to zygotic BMP signaling

    Developmental Biology 250:263–279.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.2002.0805

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Kroll F
    2. Powell GT
    3. Ghosh M
    4. Gestri G
    5. Antinucci P
    6. Hearn TJ
    7. Tunbak H
    8. Lim S
    9. Dennis HW
    10. Fernandez JM
    11. Whitmore D
    12. Dreosti E
    13. Wilson SW
    14. Hoffman EJ
    15. Rihel J

    (2021) A simple and effective F0 knockout method for rapid screening of behaviour and other complex phenotypes

    eLife 10:e59683.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59683

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Kuhn T
    2. Landge AN
    3. Mörsdorf D
    4. Coßmann J
    5. Gerstenecker J
    6. Čapek D
    7. Müller P
    8. Gebhardt JCM

    (2022) Single-molecule tracking of Nodal and Lefty in live zebrafish embryos supports hindered diffusion model

    Nature Communications 13:6101.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33704-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Lee C-C
    2. Jan H-J
    3. Lai J-H
    4. Ma H-I
    5. Hueng D-Y
    6. Lee Y-CG
    7. Cheng Y-Y
    8. Liu L-W
    9. Wei H-W
    10. Lee H-M

    (2010) Nodal promotes growth and invasion in human gliomas

    Oncogene 29:3110–3123.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.55

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Leerberg DM
    2. Hopton RE
    3. Draper BW

    (2019) Fibroblast growth factor receptors function redundantly during zebrafish embryonic development

    Genetics 212:1301–1319.

    https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.119.302345

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Li Y-F
    2. Canário AVM
    3. Power DM
    4. Campinho MA

    (2019) Ioxynil and diethylstilbestrol disrupt vascular and heart development in zebrafish

    Environment International 124:511–520.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.01.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Little SC
    2. Mullins MC

    (2009) Bone morphogenetic protein heterodimers assemble heteromeric type I receptor complexes to pattern the dorsoventral axis

    Nature Cell Biology 11:637–643.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb1870

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Liu L
    2. Nemashkalo A
    3. Rezende L
    4. Jung JY
    5. Chhabra S
    6. Guerra MC
    7. Heemskerk I
    8. Warmflash A

    (2022) Nodal is a short-range morphogen with activity that spreads through a relay mechanism in human gastruloids

    Nature Communications 13:497.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28149-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Lord ND
    2. Carte AN
    3. Abitua PB
    4. Schier AF

    (2021) The pattern of nodal morphogen signaling is shaped by co-receptor expression

    eLife 10:e54894.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54894

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Macías-Silva M
    2. Abdollah S
    3. Hoodless PA
    4. Pirone R
    5. Attisano L
    6. Wrana JL

    (1996) MADR2 is a substrate of the TGFbeta receptor and its phosphorylation is required for nuclear accumulation and signaling

    Cell 87:1215–1224.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81817-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Madeira F
    2. Park YM
    3. Lee J
    4. Buso N
    5. Gur T
    6. Madhusoodanan N
    7. Basutkar P
    8. Tivey ARN
    9. Potter SC
    10. Finn RD
    11. Lopez R

    (2019) The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019

    Nucleic Acids Research 47:W636–W641.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz268

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Marjoram L
    2. Wright C

    (2011) Rapid differential transport of Nodal and Lefty on sulfated proteoglycan-rich extracellular matrix regulates left-right asymmetry in Xenopus

    Development 138:475–485.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.056010

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Matzuk MM
    2. Kumar TR
    3. Bradley A

    (1995) Different phenotypes for mice deficient in either activins or activin receptor type II

    Nature 374:356–360.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/374356a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Meeker ND
    2. Hutchinson SA
    3. Ho L
    4. Trede NS

    (2007) Method for isolation of PCR-ready genomic DNA from zebrafish tissues

    BioTechniques 43:610, 612, 614.

    https://doi.org/10.2144/000112619

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Meno C
    2. Gritsman K
    3. Ohishi S
    4. Ohfuji Y
    5. Heckscher E
    6. Mochida K
    7. Shimono A
    8. Kondoh H
    9. Talbot WS
    10. Robertson EJ
    11. Schier AF
    12. Hamada H

    (1999) Mouse Lefty2 and zebrafish antivin are feedback inhibitors of nodal signaling during vertebrate gastrulation

    Molecular Cell 4:287–298.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80331-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Meyer A
    2. Van de Peer Y

    (2005) From 2R to 3R: evidence for a fish-specific genome duplication (FSGD)

    BioEssays 27:937–945.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20293

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Miura T
    2. Hartmann D
    3. Kinboshi M
    4. Komada M
    5. Ishibashi M
    6. Shiota K

    (2009) The cyst-branch difference in developing chick lung results from a different morphogen diffusion coefficient

    Mechanisms of Development 126:160–172.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mod.2008.11.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Montague TG
    2. Cruz JM
    3. Gagnon JA
    4. Church GM
    5. Valen E

    (2014) CHOPCHOP: a CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN web tool for genome editing

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:W401–W407.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku410

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Mörsdorf D
    2. Müller P

    (2019) Tuning protein diffusivity with membrane tethers

    Biochemistry 58:177–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.8b01150

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Müller P
    2. Rogers KW
    3. Jordan BM
    4. Lee JS
    5. Robson D
    6. Ramanathan S
    7. Schier AF

    (2012) Differential diffusivity of Nodal and Lefty underlies a reaction-diffusion patterning system

    Science 336:721–724.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1221920

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Müller P
    2. Rogers KW
    3. Yu SR
    4. Brand M
    5. Schier AF

    (2013) Morphogen transport

    Development 140:1621–1638.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.083519

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Mullins MC
    2. Hammerschmidt M
    3. Kane DA
    4. Odenthal J
    5. Brand M
    6. van Eeden FJ
    7. Furutani-Seiki M
    8. Granato M
    9. Haffter P
    10. Heisenberg CP
    11. Jiang YJ
    12. Kelsh RN
    13. Nüsslein-Volhard C

    (1996) Genes establishing dorsoventral pattern formation in the zebrafish embryo: the ventral specifying genes

    Development 123:81–93.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.123.1.81

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Nagaso H
    2. Suzuki A
    3. Tada M
    4. Ueno N

    (1999) Dual specificity of activin type II receptor ActRIIb in dorso-ventral patterning during zebrafish embryogenesis

    Development, Growth & Differentiation 41:119–133.

    https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-169x.1999.00418.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Oh SP
    2. Li E

    (1997) The signaling pathway mediated by the type IIB activin receptor controls axial patterning and lateral asymmetry in the mouse

    Genes & Development 11:1812–1826.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.11.14.1812

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Pauls S
    2. Geldmacher-Voss B
    3. Campos-Ortega JA

    (2001) A zebrafish histone variant H2A.F/Z and A transgenic H2A.F/Z:GFP fusion protein for in vivo studies of embryonic development

    Development Genes and Evolution 211:603–610.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00427-001-0196-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Pomreinke AP
    2. Soh GH
    3. Rogers KW
    4. Bergmann JK
    5. Bläßle AJ
    6. Müller P

    (2017) Dynamics of BMP signaling and distribution during zebrafish dorsal-ventral patterning

    eLife 6:e25861.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25861

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Ramachandran A
    2. Vizán P
    3. Das D
    4. Chakravarty P
    5. Vogt J
    6. Rogers KW
    7. Müller P
    8. Hinck AP
    9. Sapkota GP
    10. Hill CS

    (2018) TGF-β uses a novel mode of receptor activation to phosphorylate Smad1/5 and induce epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition

    eLife 7:e31756.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31756

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. Software

    1. R Development Core Team

    (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing

    R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

    https://www.R-project.org
65. 1. Rebagliati MR
    2. Toyama R
    3. Fricke C
    4. Haffter P
    5. Dawid IB

    (1998a) Zebrafish nodal-related genes are implicated in axial patterning and establishing left-right asymmetry

    Developmental Biology 199:261–272.

    https://doi.org/10.1006/dbio.1998.8935

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Rebagliati MR
    2. Toyama R
    3. Haffter P
    4. Dawid IB

    (1998b) Cyclops encodes a nodal-related factor involved in midline signaling

    PNAS 95:9932–9937.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.17.9932

    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Reissmann E
    2. Jörnvall H
    3. Blokzijl A
    4. Andersson O
    5. Chang C
    6. Minchiotti G
    7. Persico MG
    8. Ibáñez CF
    9. Brivanlou AH

    (2001) The orphan receptor ALK7 and the activin receptor ALK4 mediate signaling by Nodal proteins during vertebrate development

    Genes & Development 15:2010–2022.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.201801

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Renucci A
    2. Lemarchandel V
    3. Rosa F

    (1996) An activated form of type I serine/threonine kinase receptor TARAM-A reveals a specific signalling pathway involved in fish head organiser formation

    Development 122:3735–3743.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.122.12.3735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Rodaway A
    2. Takeda H
    3. Koshida S
    4. Broadbent J
    5. Price B
    6. Smith JC
    7. Patient R
    8. Holder N

    (1999) Induction of the mesendoderm in the zebrafish germ ring by yolk cell-derived TGF-beta family signals and discrimination of mesoderm and endoderm by FGF

    Development 126:3067–3078.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.126.14.3067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Roessler E
    2. Ouspenskaia MV
    3. Karkera JD
    4. Vélez JI
    5. Kantipong A
    6. Lacbawan F
    7. Bowers P
    8. Belmont JW
    9. Towbin JA
    10. Goldmuntz E
    11. Feldman B
    12. Muenke M

    (2008) Reduced NODAL signaling strength via mutation of several pathway members including FOXH1 is linked to human heart defects and holoprosencephaly

    American Journal of Human Genetics 83:18–29.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.05.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Rogers KW
    2. Schier AF

    (2011) Morphogen gradients: from generation to interpretation

    Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 27:377–407.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-092910-154148

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Rogers KW
    2. Blässle A
    3. Schier AF
    4. Müller P

    (2015) Measuring protein stability in living zebrafish embryos using fluorescence decay after photoconversion (FDAP)

    Journal of Visualized Experiments 52266:52266.

    https://doi.org/10.3791/52266

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Rogers KW
    2. Lord ND
    3. Gagnon JA
    4. Pauli A
    5. Zimmerman S
    6. Aksel DC
    7. Reyon D
    8. Tsai SQ
    9. Joung JK
    10. Schier AF

    (2017) Nodal patterning without Lefty inhibitory feedback is functional but fragile

    eLife 6:e28785.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28785

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Rogers KW
    2. Müller P

    (2019) Nodal and BMP dispersal during early zebrafish development

    Developmental Biology 447:14–23.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.04.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Rogers KW
    2. ElGamacy M
    3. Jordan BM
    4. Müller P

    (2020) Optogenetic investigation of BMP target gene expression diversity

    eLife 9:e58641.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58641

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Rossi A
    2. Kontarakis Z
    3. Gerri C
    4. Nolte H
    5. Hölper S
    6. Krüger M
    7. Stainier DYR

    (2015) Genetic compensation induced by deleterious mutations but not gene knockdowns

    Nature 524:230–233.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14580

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Sampath K
    2. Rubinstein AL
    3. Cheng AM
    4. Liang JO
    5. Fekany K
    6. Solnica-Krezel L
    7. Korzh V
    8. Halpern ME
    9. Wright CV

    (1998) Induction of the zebrafish ventral brain and floorplate requires cyclops/nodal signalling

    Nature 395:185–189.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/26020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Schier AF
    2. Neuhauss SC
    3. Harvey M
    4. Malicki J
    5. Solnica-Krezel L
    6. Stainier DY
    7. Zwartkruis F
    8. Abdelilah S
    9. Stemple DL
    10. Rangini Z
    11. Yang H
    12. Driever W

    (1996) Mutations affecting the development of the embryonic zebrafish brain

    Development 123:165–178.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.123.1.165

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Schier AF

    (2009) Nodal morphogens

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 1:a003459.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a003459

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 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

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Shen MM

    (2007) Nodal signaling: developmental roles and regulation

    Development 134:1023–1034.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.000166

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Shi Y
    2. Massagué J

    (2003) Mechanisms of TGF-beta signaling from cell membrane to the nucleus

    Cell 113:685–700.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(03)00432-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Soh GH
    2. Müller P

    (2018) FRAP analysis of extracellular diffusion in zebrafish embryos

    Methods in Molecular Biology 1863:107–124.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8772-6_6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Soh GH
    2. Pomreinke AP
    3. Müller P

    (2020) Integration of Nodal and BMP signaling by mutual signaling effector antagonism

    Cell Reports 31:107487.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2020.03.051

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Soh GH
    2. Kögler AC
    3. Müller P

    (2021) A simple and effective transplantation device for zebrafish embryos

    Journal of Visualized Experiments 10:3791.

    https://doi.org/10.3791/62767

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Stapornwongkul KS
    2. de Gennes M
    3. Cocconi L
    4. Salbreux G
    5. Vincent J-P

    (2020) Patterning and growth control in vivo by an engineered GFP gradient

    Science 370:321–327.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb8205

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Tewary M
    2. Dziedzicka D
    3. Ostblom J
    4. Prochazka L
    5. Shakiba N
    6. Heydari T
    7. Aguilar-Hidalgo D
    8. Woodford C
    9. Piccinini E
    10. Becerra-Alonso D
    11. Vickers A
    12. Louis B
    13. Rahman N
    14. Danovi D
    15. Geens M
    16. Watt FM
    17. Zandstra PW

    (2019) High-Throughput micropatterning platform reveals Nodal-dependent bisection of peri-gastrulation-associated versus preneurulation-associated fate patterning

    PLOS Biology 17:e3000081.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000081

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Thisse C
    2. Thisse B

    (1999) Antivin, a novel and divergent member of the TGFbeta superfamily, negatively regulates mesoderm induction

    Development 126:229–240.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.126.2.229

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Thisse C
    2. Thisse B

    (2008) High-Resolution in situ hybridization to whole-mount zebrafish embryos

    Nature Protocols 3:59–69.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.514

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Tinevez JY
    2. Perry N
    3. Schindelin J
    4. Hoopes GM
    5. Reynolds GD
    6. Laplantine E
    7. Bednarek SY
    8. Shorte SL
    9. Eliceiri KW

    (2017) TrackMate: an open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking

    Methods 115:80–90.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.09.016

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. Software

    1. Tosi S

    (2020) DeStripe2, version 1.0

    GitHub.

    https://github.com/SebastienTs/deStripe/blob/master/deStripe2.ijm
92. 1. van Boxtel AL
    2. Chesebro JE
    3. Heliot C
    4. Ramel M-C
    5. Stone RK
    6. Hill CS

    (2015) A temporal window for signal activation dictates the dimensions of a nodal signaling domain

    Developmental Cell 35:175–185.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2015.09.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. van Boxtel AL
    2. Economou AD
    3. Heliot C
    4. Hill CS

    (2018) Long-range signaling activation and local inhibition separate the mesoderm and endoderm lineages

    Developmental Cell 44:179–191.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.11.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Vopalensky P
    2. Pralow S
    3. Vastenhouw NL

    (2018) Reduced expression of the Nodal co-receptor Oep causes loss of mesendodermal competence in zebrafish

    Development 145:dev158832.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.158832

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Wang Y
    2. Wang X
    3. Wohland T
    4. Sampath K

    (2016) Extracellular interactions and ligand degradation shape the nodal morphogen gradient

    eLife 5:e13879.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13879

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Waterhouse AM
    2. Procter JB
    3. Martin DMA
    4. Clamp M
    5. Barton GJ

    (2009) Jalview version 2 -- a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench

    Bioinformatics 25:1189–1191.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. White RJ
    2. Collins JE
    3. Sealy IM
    4. Wali N
    5. Dooley CM
    6. Digby Z
    7. Stemple DL
    8. Murphy DN
    9. Billis K
    10. Hourlier T
    11. Füllgrabe A
    12. Davis MP
    13. Enright AJ
    14. Busch-Nentwich EM

    (2017) A high-resolution mRNA expression time course of embryonic development in zebrafish

    eLife 6:e30860.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30860

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Yan YT
    2. Liu JJ
    3. Luo Y
    4. Chaosu E
    5. Haltiwanger RS
    6. Abate-Shen C
    7. Shen MM

    (2002) Dual roles of Cripto as a ligand and coreceptor in the nodal signaling pathway

    Molecular and Cellular Biology 22:4439–4449.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.22.13.4439-4449.2002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Yeo C
    2. Whitman M

    (2001) Nodal signals to Smads through Cripto-dependent and Cripto-independent mechanisms

    Molecular Cell 7:949–957.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s1097-2765(01)00249-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Zhang J
     2. Talbot WS
     3. Schier AF

     (1998) Positional cloning identifies zebrafish one-eyed pinhead as a permissive EGF-related ligand required during gastrulation

     Cell 92:241–251.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80918-6

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Zhou Y
     2. Scolavino S
     3. Funderburk SF
     4. Ficociello LF
     5. Zhang X
     6. Klibanski A

     (2004) Receptor internalization-independent activation of Smad2 in activin signaling

     Molecular Endocrinology 18:1818–1826.

     https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2004-0079

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Zhu Y
     2. Qiu Y
     3. Chen W
     4. Nie Q
     5. Lander AD

     (2020) Scaling a DPP morphogen gradient through feedback control of receptors and co-receptors

     Developmental Cell 53:724–739.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2020.05.029

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Decision letter after peer review:

Thank you for sending your article entitled "Regulation of Nodal signaling propagation by receptor interactions and positive feedback" for peer review at eLife. Your article is being evaluated by 3 peer reviewers, and the evaluation is being overseen by a Reviewing Editor and Marianne Bronner as the Senior Editor.

The major concerns of reviewers include:

1. The heavy reliance on morpholinos for loss-of-function studies. The reviewers thought that generation of acvr1b-b mutant and analyses of acvr1b-a/b double mutant would significantly strengthen the conclusion. Likewise, they wondered that while the authors generated or obtained mutant lines for 3 of the 4 type II receptors, redundancy of these genes was not tested by generating double and triple mutants, but by simultaneously knocking down all 4 paralogous genes using MOs. Mutations should be generated for acvr1b-b and acvr2b-b, which should then be tested in combination with other receptor mutations. This is especially important for the type II receptors, because the severe but non-specific phenotypes of quadruple morphant embryos are so difficult to interpret (Figure 3).

2. Overexpression of fluorescently tagged Nodal ligand is not a reliable method for determining signaling range. To make any interpretation of these data, the authors would need to measure how the levels of the injected Nodal compare with endogenous levels and to see how the results vary when varying doses of Nodal are injected,

3. Referring to Figure 6B – the Reviewers wondered how do the timescales for binding and unbinding to receptors compare to that for diffusion? The FRAP dataset requires a clear model for its interpretation.

4. The Reviewers questioned why the quantification of nodal signaling in acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function and rescue experiments is measured as the number of tiers of cells (distance from ligand source) of pSmad2/3? Instead, for a more accurate measure of signaling level, the amount of pSmad2/3 (fluorescence intensity) should be measured in discreet regions of the embryo.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

While the essential roles of Nodal signaling during early development are well described, the precise function of different zebrafish Nodal receptor paralogs had not been determined. Here, the authors identify 7 genes encoding type I and type II Nodal receptors in zebrafish, 6 of which are maternally deposited and expressed during germ layer specification. Loss-of-function analysis reveals that none of these Nodal receptors is strictly necessary for development, and that loss of both Acvr1b type I receptors is required to yield a Nodal-deficient phenotype. This double loss-of-function was achieved by injecting acvr1b-b morpholino oligonucleotide (MOs) into acvr1b-a mutant embryos, raising the question, why didn't the authors generate mutations in both genes to examine double mutant phenotypes? And while the authors generated or obtained mutant lines for 3 of the 4 type II receptors, they tested for redundancy of these genes not by generating double and triple mutants, but by simultaneously knocking down all 4 paralogous genes using MOs. Because such high doses of MO cause pleiotropic and non-specific defects, the phenotypes of these embryos are difficult to interpret.

Nodal signaling is largely restricted to the margin of pre-gastrulation zebrafish embryos, a gradient that is thought to form through interactions of highly diffusible extracellular Lefty antagonists and less diffusible Nodal ligands. It was recently shown (Lord et al., 2019) that the Oep/Tdgf1 co-receptor restricts Nodal signaling range, and here the authors hypothesized that Nodal type I and II receptors slow the diffusion of Nodal ligands to limit their signaling range. They directly demonstrate that fluorescently tagged Nodal ligands diffuse farther in the absence of both Acvr1b type I receptors and in oep-/- mutants. Using Fluorescence Decay After Photoconversion (FDAP) and Fluorescent Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP), they determine that Nodal receptors limit ligand range by slowing their diffusion and not through ligand clearance or relay signaling. Namely, FRAP-detected ligand diffusion was found to increase upon loss of type I receptors but remained unchanged upon overexpression of type II receptors, suggesting that type I receptors may play a larger role in ligand distribution (despite the fact that type II receptors are thought to directly and strongly bind Nodal ligands). FDAP experiments revealed no effect on ligand clearance type II receptor overexpression, but it was not examined whether loss of type I receptors alters ligand clearance as it alters ligand diffusion.

Together, these results identify redundancy in Nodal receptor function during early zebrafish development and propose a creative, seemingly paradoxical model in which feed-forward Nodal signaling actually decreases signaling range by boosting expression of receptors that limit ligand diffusion.

1. The authors conclude that, because neither genetic mutations nor translation blocking MOs targeting Nodal receptors produce phenotypes, no genetic compensation is occurring. It would be more convincing to show by qRT-PCR that expression levels of paralogous genes are not altered upon mutation of a receptor gene.

2. Because homozygous loss of any Nodal receptor gene is not lethal, it should be straightforward to generate double mutant embryos and bypass the use of MOs to determine functional redundancy. Mutations should be generated for acvr1b-b and acvr2b-b, which should then be tested in combination with other receptor mutations. This is especially important for the type II receptors, because the severe but non-specific phenotypes of quadruple morphant embryos are so difficult to interpret (Figure 3).

3. The authors state that embryos lacking acvr1b-a or -b alone "had a Nodal signaling range very similar to untreated WT embryos" (line 214), but in Figure 4A these conditions look quite different from one another. Particularly, the pSmad2 signal at the (presumed) dorsal midline looks similar to WT, but appears much dimmer at other positions around the margin of acvr1b LOF embryos. Were the measurement in Figure 4B taken from a single, dorsal region of the margin, which could explain the normal number of pSmad2+ nuclei despite the abnormal appearance of these embryos? Or are these images not representative of the embryos quantified?

4. In figure 5B, it would be nice to see images of Nodal ligand diffusion upon loss of Nodal receptors in addition to loss of oep.

5. Given that type II receptors are reported to interact directly and strongly with Nodal ligands, it is surprising that altering levels of type I receptors affected ligand diffusion while type II levels did not. To test this further, I would like to see measurements of ligand clearance / diffusion upon both loss and gain of function of both type I and type II receptors (rather than only loss of type I and only gain of type II). Because acvr1b mutants exhibit increased diffusion (Figure 6B), I would be interested to know if ligand clearance (stability) is also affected in these mutants? This would help determine if ligand clearance does not actually regulate signaling in this system, or if acvr2b overexpression simply doesn't cause phenotypes (Figures 6A-B).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Preiß et al., investigate how Nodal receptors regulate Nodal signaling. They first discover several possible new Type I and Type II receptors based on homology to mammalian sequences. They show combined loss of two type I receptors results in a phenotype indicative of loss of nodal signaling. They then perform experiments to suggest that the range of Nodal signaling is regulated by the expression of the type I receptor. The discovery of additional type I receptors is certainly useful, and the phenotype of removing two of them is clear, however, several other claims are not justified by the data. I detail my concerns below.

1. The authors state that Figure 1F shows that inhibition of nodal signaling reduces expression of acvr1b-a, however, I do not see this in the figure where there still appears to be signal in the in situ. If anything, the range of signal appears expanded over the animal pole of the embryo.

2. In Figure 3, the authors show that combining MO against acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b produces a "pinhead" phenotype. Can they speculate why this phenotype is not seen in Figure 3C when knockout of acvr1a-a is combined with MO against acvr1a-b?

3. Figure 3 – in the absence of functional data to support the role of the newly identified type II receptors, given that the loss of function yielded no phenotype, the authors should avoid making a strong claim that these receptors play a role in Nodal signaling.

4. In Figure 4a there seems to be a clear difference in signal intensity between the wildtype and acvr1b-a mutant in the uninflected case. In the mutant much of the margin appears to have reduced or no signal for pSmad2. This should be noted.

5. Figure 5 – results based on overexpression of fluorescently tagged Nodal ligand is not a reliable method for determining signaling range. It is clear from the current study as well as several other that the stoichometry of ligand and receptors will influence the result and so no faith can be put in the results of overexpression. To make any interpretation of this data at all, the authors would need to measure how the levels of the injected Nodal compare with endogenous levels and to see how the results vary when varying doses of Nodal are injected, however, even in this case, much caution is required when drawing conclusions about the range of Nodal in general.

6. Figure 5 – the results shown in C,D are not consistent with what would be expected if binding to the receptor restricted the range of Nodal. In that case, when the receptor is downregulated and Nodal can diffuse more freely, one would expect lower levels near the source but a broader distribution. In this case, there is simply more Nodal everywhere which indicates either the receptor is somehow post-translationally regulating the expression of Nodal or else these embryos simply had more Nodal mRNA injected. Also, quantification is shown for receptor loss of function but not images are shown in B, these should be included.

7. Figure 6 A, B – the authors should show the data from the photoconversion and FRAP experiments and the fit to these curves and then the parameters that were extracted from this.

8. Figure 6A – loss of function for the receptor should be performed as well. If most of the Nodal is already bound, overexpressing the receptor would not be expected to have an effect but loss of function might.

9. Figure 6B – I do not understand the model for diffusion the authors are proposing. How do the timescales for binding and unbinding to receptors compare to that for diffusion? If they are slow, then one expects that the receptor binding would show up in an immobile fraction in the experiment rather than in lowering the diffusion constant. Or are the authors suggesting that the receptor bound Nodal diffuses within the plasma membrane, but more slowly, in which case the data would need to be fit to a two component model. In any event, this FRAP data requires a clear model for its interpretation.

10. Figure 6C, D – quantification is essential for these experiments including quantifying the number of donor cells as well as the induced gradient on pSmad2 in the host.

11. Figure 6C, D – in both cases there only appears to be active signaling immediately adjacent to the graft. This is not consistent with the authors investigation of "medium-range" Nodal signaling. This is important because the authors are trying to investigate whether a relay is essential for this medium range signal, however, if there is no signaling at a distance in the wildtype transplant then it is impossible to draw any conclusion from the transplant into the knockout.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The nodal signaling pathway plays essential roles in germ-layer induction and patterning during development. While the ligands and co-receptor responsible for nodal activation during zebrafish development have been previously identified, it is still unclear which receptors are required for early zebrafish nodal signaling. Based on loss of function analysis, the authors identify two type I receptors that are redundantly required for nodal signaling during early development. The authors also perform experiments to suggest nodal ligand interactions with the type I receptor can affect ligand diffusion and help shape the nodal signaling gradient.

Strengths:

The identification and characterization of all seven receptors predicted to mediate nodal signaling serves as a nice reference for future studies of this pathway. The genetic loss of function of five of these supports a model where each of the five individually are not required for signaling. The combined loss of function of two type I receptors produces a nodal loss of function phenotype, suggesting that these two function redundantly during early zebrafish development.

The authors present a novel finding that the type I receptor normally functions to limit the diffusion of ligand, which in turn shapes the nodal gradient. This builds upon previous work showing that the nodal co-receptor oep and the nodal antagonist lefty influence the nodal gradient.

The authors show that endogenous levels of nodal ligand can directly activate signaling in cells several cell diameters away without a secondary relay system, which is an important aspect of our understanding of how nodal ligands function in a morphogenetic gradient.

Weaknesses:

Much of the combinatorial receptor loss of function data relies on the use of morpholinos. Given the lack of phenotype of single mutants, the absence of phenotypes in combinatorial loss of function using morpholinos may indicate that those particular receptors are dispensable, or rather that the morpholinos are not efficiently knocking down the gene product, and thus prevents definitive conclusions from being drawn regarding those particular experiments. However the distinctive nodal loss of function phenotype observed in the particular loss of function combination of acvr1b-a (genetic loss of function) and acvr1b-b (morpholino loss of function) provides strong support that these two receptors act redundantly during in zebrafish nodal signaling. These two genes are the central focus of the paper.

The manuscript would be strengthened by adding images for embryos where there are nodal loss or gain of function phenotypes. Although example images of phenotypes are provided, it is not clear what the manipulation was that generated them. In particular there should be images of the acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b combined loss of function phenotype.

The conclusion that acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b function maternally during early zebrafish development needs to be further supported by confirming that the acvr1b-b splice blocking morpholino disrupts splicing of the zygotic transcript.

Suggestions for authors:

Although example images were presented for phenotype classification, it is important to show an example image of the nodal loss of function phenotype generated specifically from the acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b dual loss of function embryos (perhaps in a supplemental figure).

The authors conclude that the maternal transcripts of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b are critical for nodal signaling based on the strong nodal loss of function phenotype using the acvr1b-b translation blocking MO, and lack of phenotype from the acvr1b-b splice blocking MO. In order to make this conclusion though the authors need to show that the splice blocking MO is actually disrupting the acvr1b-b transcript, as opposed to the lack of phenotype being due to the MO not effectively inhibiting splicing (or causing an in-frame cryptic splice site usage).

Regarding the previous point, something that seems to suggest that the splice blocking acvr1b-b MO is not inhibiting acvr1b-b function is that there is no zygotic nodal loss of function phenotype in the splice-blocking acvr1b-b MO injected acvr1b-a MZ mutants (figure 3C).

It is not clear to me why the quantification of nodal signaling in acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function and rescue experiments is measured as the number of tiers of cells (distance from ligand source) of pSmad2/3? The ligand distribution should either not be changed or perhaps increased based on receptor loss. Instead, for a more accurate measure of signaling level, the amount of pSmad2/3 (fluorescence intensity) should be measured in discreet regions of the embryo. In the images shown, it appears that the acvr1b-a mutant alone has weaker staining compared to wild-type, which may indicate lower signaling activity even in the absence of a morphological phenotype.

In the FRAP experiment in figure 6B, the example image of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function seems to have worse fluorescence recovery than the wild-type embryos, which is opposite of the general trend in the graph of all of the data. When I went to look at the source data to clarify, I just see the final diffusion coefficient numbers that were used to generate the plot. It would be helpful to have the raw fluorescence intensity measurements in this data set.

The major concerns of reviewers include:

1. The heavy reliance on morpholinos for loss-of-function studies. The reviewers thought that generation of acvr1b-b mutant and analyses of acvr1b-a/b double mutant would significantly strengthen the conclusion. Likewise, they wondered that while the authors generated or obtained mutant lines for 3 of the 4 type II receptors, redundancy of these genes was not tested by generating double and triple mutants, but by simultaneously knocking down all 4 paralogous genes using MOs. Mutations should be generated for acvr1b-b and acvr2b-b, which should then be tested in combination with other receptor mutations. This is especially important for the type II receptors, because the severe but non-specific phenotypes of quadruple morphant embryos are so difficult to interpret (Figure 3).

We agree that additional mutants would strengthen our study. As proposed in our revision action plan, we have used a CRISPR knockout strategy to generate combinatorial mutations disrupting both acvr1 homologs and all four acvr2 genes. This strategy, recently published by Jason Rihel and colleagues in a breakthrough paper in eLife, is “[…] capable of converting >90% of injected embryos directly into F0 biallelic knockouts” and “[…] sufficiently robust to knockout multiple genes in the same animal […]” (https://elifesciences.org/articles/59683, Kroll et al., 2021).

For the Type I receptors Acvr1b-a and Acvr1b-b, the new CRISPR knockouts validated the specificity of our previous experiments, showing that the receptors redundantly mediate Nodal signaling (new Figure 3). Using the same approach, we found that Acvr2 receptors function partly redundantly to pattern the early zebrafish embryo, do not fulfill the function of classical Type II Nodal receptors and act at least partially independently of Nodal (new Figure 2, new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2).

In the revised manuscript, we have now used a total of three different methods to generate combinatorial loss-of-function conditions for acvr1b-a/acvr1b-b and acvr2a-a/acvr2a-b/acvr2b-a/acvr2b-b: (1) Morpholino-mediated knockdown, (2) CRISPR knockouts and (3) stable mutants in combination with the former two techniques. Using these different methods we obtained the same results, strengthening our conclusions. For example, the phenotypes observed upon quadruple acvr2 gene knockout (new Figure 2A,B) were recapitulated by both the quadruple knockdown and the knockout of acvr2b-b in triple mutants homozygous for acvr2a-a^-/-, acvr2a-b^-/- and acvr2b-a^-/- (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2A-C).

2. Overexpression of fluorescently tagged Nodal ligand is not a reliable method for determining signaling range. To make any interpretation of these data, the authors would need to measure how the levels of the injected Nodal compare with endogenous levels and to see how the results vary when varying doses of Nodal are injected,

We agree that it is important to ensure that endogenous receptors are not saturated by ectopic fluorescently tagged Nodal in gradient formation assays. Unfortunately, endogenous Nodal levels are unknown and currently impossible to determine precisely due to the lack of appropriate antibodies and transgenic lines. In order to visualize the distribution of Nodal signals in zebrafish embryos, expression of fluorescently tagged proteins by mRNA injection is currently the best approach and well recapitulates the endogenous signaling range and dynamics (e.g. Müller et al., 2012; Soh et al., 2020; Kuhn et al., 2022; also see Stapornwongkul and Briscoe 2022). Fluorescently tagged Nodal ligands expressed from localized ectopic sources can even induce the formation of a full secondary axis in zebrafish embryos, demonstrating that these fusion proteins have full biological activity and relevant signaling ranges to orchestrate complex morphogenetic processes (Soh et al., 2020). In our gradient formation assays (new Figure 5, New Figure 5 —figure supplement 1), we observe clear differences in the distribution of Nodal-GFP in receptor mutants compared to wild-type embryos, indicating that Nodal-GFP expression does not lead to saturation of endogenous Nodal receptors.

To further validate the physiological relevance of the Nodal-GFP levels in our gradient formation assays, we have now performed additional experiments and injected different amounts of mRNA encoding Nodal-GFP into maternal-zygotic squint;cyclops mutants devoid of any endogenous Nodal source (new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1E). Importantly, the amount of mRNA that we had used in the YSL gradient formation assay rescued the mutant squint;cyclops phenotype the best, suggesting that the amount of Nodal-GFP in our gradient formation experiments is near physiological levels.

3. Referring to Figure 6B – the Reviewers wondered how do the timescales for binding and unbinding to receptors compare to that for diffusion? The FRAP dataset requires a clear model for its interpretation.

We assume rapid binding and relatively slow unbinding of Nodal ligands and receptors, and in the revised manuscript we now refer to our previous theoretical and experimental studies that provide detailed models (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019; Kuhn et al., 2022). Specifically, in our recent single-molecule tracking experiments (Kuhn et al., 2022), we have measured binding times of 16 s for fluorescently tagged Cyclops and 11 s for fluorescently tagged Squint in zebrafish embryos on a nanometer-to-micrometer scale. These experimental measurements are in remarkable agreement with our previous FRAP-based tissue-scale binding time predictions of 18 s and 4 s for Cyclops-GFP and Squint-GFP, respectively (Müller et al., 2012). Importantly, these binding times can directly explain how the effective diffusion timescale of Nodal in FRAP experiments arises from local interactions with immobile receptors (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019; Kuhn et al., 2022).

4. The Reviewers questioned why the quantification of nodal signaling in acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function and rescue experiments is measured as the number of tiers of cells (distance from ligand source) of pSmad2/3? Instead, for a more accurate measure of signaling level, the amount of pSmad2/3 (fluorescence intensity) should be measured in discreet regions of the embryo.

Thank you for the suggestion. We originally performed the quantification of pSmad2/3 signal as a function of cell tiers from the margin since the number of pSmad2/3-positive nuclei can be easily manually counted and the approach is well accepted in the field (e.g. van Boxtel et al., 2015). To corroborate our findings, we have now complemented our analyses with the suggested measurements of pSmad2/3 fluorescence intensities in discrete regions of the embryo. Specifically, we performed line-average measurements of pSmad2/3 distributions in lateral and dorsal domains, and the resulting quantifications confirmed our previous conclusions (new Figure 4 —figure supplement 1, Figure 4).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

While the essential roles of Nodal signaling during early development are well described, the precise function of different zebrafish Nodal receptor paralogs had not been determined. Here, the authors identify 7 genes encoding type I and type II Nodal receptors in zebrafish, 6 of which are maternally deposited and expressed during germ layer specification. Loss-of-function analysis reveals that none of these Nodal receptors is strictly necessary for development, and that loss of both Acvr1b type I receptors is required to yield a Nodal-deficient phenotype. This double loss-of-function was achieved by injecting acvr1b-b morpholino oligonucleotide (MOs) into acvr1b-a mutant embryos, raising the question, why didn't the authors generate mutations in both genes to examine double mutant phenotypes? And while the authors generated or obtained mutant lines for 3 of the 4 type II receptors, they tested for redundancy of these genes not by generating double and triple mutants, but by simultaneously knocking down all 4 paralogous genes using MOs. Because such high doses of MO cause pleiotropic and non-specific defects, the phenotypes of these embryos are difficult to interpret.

We agree that additional mutants would strengthen our study. As proposed in our revision action plan, we have used a CRISPR knockout strategy to generate combinatorial mutations disrupting both acvr1 homologs and all four acvr2 genes. This strategy, recently published by Jason Rihel and colleagues in a breakthrough paper in eLife, is “[…] capable of converting >90% of injected embryos directly into F0 biallelic knockouts” and “[…] sufficiently robust to knockout multiple genes in the same animal […]” (https://elifesciences.org/articles/59683, Kroll et al., 2021).

For the Type I receptors Acvr1b-a and Acvr1b-b, the new CRISPR knockouts validated the specificity of our previous experiments, showing that the receptors redundantly mediate Nodal signaling (new Figure 3). Using the same approach, we found that Acvr2 receptors function partly redundantly to pattern the early zebrafish embryo, do not fulfill the function of classical Type II Nodal receptors and act at least partially independently of Nodal (new Figure 2, new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2).

In the revised manuscript, we have now used a total of three different methods to generate combinatorial loss-of-function conditions for acvr1b-a/acvr1b-b and acvr2a-a/acvr2a-b/acvr2b-a/acvr2b-b: (1) Morpholino-mediated knockdown, (2) CRISPR knockouts and (3) stable mutants in combination with the former two techniques. Using these different methods we obtained the same results, strengthening our conclusions. For example, the phenotypes observed upon quadruple acvr2 gene knockout (new Figure 2A,B) were recapitulated by both the quadruple knockdown and the knockout of acvr2b-b in triple mutants homozygous for acvr2a-a^-/-, acvr2a-b^-/- and acvr2b-a^-/- (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2A-C).

Nodal signaling is largely restricted to the margin of pre-gastrulation zebrafish embryos, a gradient that is thought to form through interactions of highly diffusible extracellular Lefty antagonists and less diffusible Nodal ligands. It was recently shown (Lord et al., 2019) that the Oep/Tdgf1 co-receptor restricts Nodal signaling range, and here the authors hypothesized that Nodal type I and II receptors slow the diffusion of Nodal ligands to limit their signaling range. They directly demonstrate that fluorescently tagged Nodal ligands diffuse farther in the absence of both Acvr1b type I receptors and in oep-/- mutants. Using Fluorescence Decay After Photoconversion (FDAP) and Fluorescent Recovery After Photobleaching (FRAP), they determine that Nodal receptors limit ligand range by slowing their diffusion and not through ligand clearance or relay signaling. Namely, FRAP-detected ligand diffusion was found to increase upon loss of type I receptors but remained unchanged upon overexpression of type II receptors, suggesting that type I receptors may play a larger role in ligand distribution (despite the fact that type II receptors are thought to directly and strongly bind Nodal ligands). FDAP experiments revealed no effect on ligand clearance type II receptor overexpression, but it was not examined whether loss of type I receptors alters ligand clearance as it alters ligand diffusion.

In the revised manuscript, we now include FDAP measurements in acvr1b-a;acvr1b-b loss-of-function conditions (Figure 6A). We found that the absence of the Type I receptors does not cause a decrease in the clearance rate of Squint-GFP or Cyclops-GFP, showing that the broadening of the gradients (new Figure 5, new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1) cannot be explained through increased protein stability.

Together, these results identify redundancy in Nodal receptor function during early zebrafish development and propose a creative, seemingly paradoxical model in which feed-forward Nodal signaling actually decreases signaling range by boosting expression of receptors that limit ligand diffusion.

1. The authors conclude that, because neither genetic mutations nor translation blocking MOs targeting Nodal receptors produce phenotypes, no genetic compensation is occurring. It would be more convincing to show by qRT-PCR that expression levels of paralogous genes are not altered upon mutation of a receptor gene.

We apologize for the confusion. We did not want to claim that no genetic compensation is occurring, but argue that morpholino-mediated knockdown on the mRNA level could help to reveal effects masked by genetic compensation in the mutants. As suggested, we have now included qRT-PCR experiments in the revised manuscript (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 1E,F and new Figure 3 —figure supplement 1D). The results suggest that in some instances genetic compensation might indeed occur. We now refer to these new results in the main text to more clearly motivate the use of morpholinos as tools that may reveal phenotypes that could be masked by genetic compensation.

2. Because homozygous loss of any Nodal receptor gene is not lethal, it should be straightforward to generate double mutant embryos and bypass the use of MOs to determine functional redundancy. Mutations should be generated for acvr1b-b and acvr2b-b, which should then be tested in combination with other receptor mutations. This is especially important for the type II receptors, because the severe but non-specific phenotypes of quadruple morphant embryos are so difficult to interpret (Figure 3).

As detailed above, we have executed the suggested experiments to corroborate our findings.

3. The authors state that embryos lacking acvr1b-a or -b alone "had a Nodal signaling range very similar to untreated WT embryos" (line 214), but in Figure 4A these conditions look quite different from one another. Particularly, the pSmad2 signal at the (presumed) dorsal midline looks similar to WT, but appears much dimmer at other positions around the margin of acvr1b LOF embryos. Were the measurement in Figure 4B taken from a single, dorsal region of the margin, which could explain the normal number of pSmad2+ nuclei despite the abnormal appearance of these embryos? Or are these images not representative of the embryos quantified?

In Figure 4B, we indeed measured Nodal signaling range on the dorsal side. We have now stated this more clearly in the figure legend and in the main text of the revised manuscript. Moreover, we have complemented our analyses with pSmad2/3 intensity quantifications in dorsal and lateral regions (new Figure 4 —figure supplement 1). These new analyses confirmed that embryos lacking Acvr1b-a or Acvr1b-b have a similar Nodal signaling range as wild-type embryos in dorsal regions. In lateral domains, at a distance of more than 30 µm from the margin, the pSmad2/3 intensities are slightly lower in acvr1b-a^-/- compared to wild-type embryos (new Figure 4 —figure supplement 1). We have noted this in the text and selected example images better representing these results.

4. In figure 5B, it would be nice to see images of Nodal ligand diffusion upon loss of Nodal receptors in addition to loss of oep.

Thank you, we have included these images in the revised manuscript (new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1D).

5. Given that type II receptors are reported to interact directly and strongly with Nodal ligands, it is surprising that altering levels of type I receptors affected ligand diffusion while type II levels did not. To test this further, I would like to see measurements of ligand clearance / diffusion upon both loss and gain of function of both type I and type II receptors (rather than only loss of type I and only gain of type II). Because acvr1b mutants exhibit increased diffusion (Figure 6B), I would be interested to know if ligand clearance (stability) is also affected in these mutants? This would help determine if ligand clearance does not actually regulate signaling in this system, or if acvr2b overexpression simply doesn't cause phenotypes (Figures 6A-B).

We have included FDAP measurements for Squint-Dendra2 and Cyclops-Dendra2 in Acvr1 loss-of-function embryos in our revised manuscript (new Figure 6A). Our results show that the broadening of the Nodal gradient observed upon loss of the Type I receptors (Figure 5) cannot be explained by increased stability of the Nodal proteins (new Figure 6A).

For Acvr2, the new combinatorial knockout experiments suggest that the receptors function partly redundantly and at least partially independently of Nodal (new Figure 2, new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2), requiring a set of additional experiments beyond the scope of the present work. We will therefore elucidate the mechanism-of-action and precise function of Acvr2 receptors in a follow-up study.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Preiß et al., investigate how Nodal receptors regulate Nodal signaling. They first discover several possible new Type I and Type II receptors based on homology to mammalian sequences. They show combined loss of two type I receptors results in a phenotype indicative of loss of nodal signaling. They then perform experiments to suggest that the range of Nodal signaling is regulated by the expression of the type I receptor. The discovery of additional type I receptors is certainly useful, and the phenotype of removing two of them is clear, however, several other claims are not justified by the data. I detail my concerns below.

1. The authors state that Figure 1F shows that inhibition of nodal signaling reduces expression of acvr1b-a, however, I do not see this in the figure where there still appears to be signal in the in situ. If anything, the range of signal appears expanded over the animal pole of the embryo.

We apologize for the poor quality of the staining in the previous picture, where the apparent background signal likely resulted from overstaining. To corroborate our findings, we have now carefully repeated the in situ staining and replaced the respective image in Figure 1F. The new image demonstrates the lack of signal more clearly, recapitulating the strong downregulation of acvr1b-a upon Nodal signaling inhibition determined by qRT-PCR (Figure 1E).

2. In Figure 3, the authors show that combining MO against acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b produces a "pinhead" phenotype. Can they speculate why this phenotype is not seen in Figure 3C when knockout of acvr1a-a is combined with MO against acvr1a-b?

The pinhead phenotype in acvr1b-a;acvr1b-b morphants is reminiscent of the phenotype in zygotic oep mutants, whereas the full Nodal loss-of-function phenotype in acvr1b-a mutants injected with acvr1b-b morpholino is similar to the phenotype in maternal-zygotic oep mutants (Gritsman et al., 1999). This suggests that the acvr1b-a morpholino does not fully abolish Acvr1b-a activity. We have included this speculation in the revised manuscript as follows:

“Morpholino mediated double knockdown of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b resulted in a clear loss of head mesoderm at 1 dpf, leading to the distinctive fused-eye phenotype and a curved body axis associated with loss of Nodal signaling (Figure 3 —figure supplement 2A,B). However, somites still formed in the trunk region, suggesting an incomplete loss of Nodal signaling possibly due to maternal deposition of receptor proteins or incomplete mRNA knockdown”.

3. Figure 3 – in the absence of functional data to support the role of the newly identified type II receptors, given that the loss of function yielded no phenotype, the authors should avoid making a strong claim that these receptors play a role in Nodal signaling.

We fully agree. We have now extended our analysis of the putative Type II receptors acvr2a-a, acvr2a-b, acvr2b-a and acvr2b-b by generating quadruple knockout embryos (new Figure 2A,B) and by combining the knockout of acvr2b-b with triple homozygous acvr2a-a^-/-, acvr2a-b^-/- and acvr2b-a^-/- mutants (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2A-C). The morphological and molecular phenotypes that we observe in these embryos show that receptors function partly redundantly to pattern the early zebrafish embryo and that they do so at least partially independently of Nodal. In the revised manuscript we now emphasize that the receptors do not fulfill the function of classical Type II Nodal receptors.

4. In Figure 4a there seems to be a clear difference in signal intensity between the wildtype and acvr1b-a mutant in the uninflected case. In the mutant much of the margin appears to have reduced or no signal for pSmad2. This should be noted.

This was also noticed by Reviewer #1 in specific point 3. As suggested, we now point out more clearly that we measured the number of pSmad2/3-positive cell tiers only on the dorsal side.

Furthermore, we have included measurements in lateral regions in addition to the dorsal domain (new Figure 4 —figure supplement 1). In lateral regions, acvr1b‑a^-/- mutants showed a slight reduction in pSmad2/3 signal intensity at distances above 30 µm from the margin compared to wild-type embryos. We have noted this in the revised manuscript as suggested.

5. Figure 5 – results based on overexpression of fluorescently tagged Nodal ligand is not a reliable method for determining signaling range. It is clear from the current study as well as several other that the stoichometry of ligand and receptors will influence the result and so no faith can be put in the results of overexpression. To make any interpretation of this data at all, the authors would need to measure how the levels of the injected Nodal compare with endogenous levels and to see how the results vary when varying doses of Nodal are injected, however, even in this case, much caution is required when drawing conclusions about the range of Nodal in general.

We agree that it is important to ensure that endogenous receptors are not saturated by ectopic fluorescently tagged Nodal in gradient formation assays. Unfortunately, endogenous Nodal levels are unknown and currently impossible to determine precisely due to the lack of appropriate antibodies and transgenic lines. In order to visualize the distribution of Nodal signals in zebrafish embryos, expression of fluorescently tagged proteins by mRNA injection is currently the best approach and well recapitulates the endogenous signaling range and dynamics (e.g. Müller et al., 2012; Soh et al., 2020; Kuhn et al., 2022; also see Stapornwongkul and Briscoe 2022). Fluorescently tagged Nodal ligands expressed from localized ectopic sources can even induce the formation of a full secondary axis in zebrafish embryos, demonstrating that these fusion proteins have full biological activity and relevant signaling ranges to orchestrate complex morphogenetic processes (Soh et al., 2020). In our gradient formation assays (new Figure 5, New Figure 5 —figure supplement 1), we observe clear differences in the distribution of Nodal-GFP in receptor mutants compared to wild-type embryos (Figure 5, Figure 5 —figure supplement 1), indicating that Nodal-GFP expression does not lead to saturation of endogenous Nodal receptors.

To further validate the physiological relevance of the Nodal-GFP levels in our gradient formation assays, we have now performed additional experiments and injected different amounts of mRNA encoding Nodal-GFP into maternal-zygotic squint;cyclops mutants devoid of any endogenous Nodal source (new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1E). Importantly, the amount of mRNA that we had used in the YSL gradient formation assay rescued the mutant squint;cyclops phenotype the best, suggesting that the amount of Nodal-GFP in our gradient formation experiments is near physiological levels.

6. Figure 5 – the results shown in C,D are not consistent with what would be expected if binding to the receptor restricted the range of Nodal. In that case, when the receptor is downregulated and Nodal can diffuse more freely, one would expect lower levels near the source but a broader distribution. In this case, there is simply more Nodal everywhere which indicates either the receptor is somehow post-translationally regulating the expression of Nodal or else these embryos simply had more Nodal mRNA injected. Also, quantification is shown for receptor loss of function but not images are shown in B, these should be included.

To account for differences in fluorescence intensities in the YSL gradient formation assay possibly caused by differences in microscopy settings, laser power or injected Nodal mRNA amounts, we have now calculated normalized signal distributions (new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1C). As also suggested by Reviewer #1, we have additionally included images of Squint-GFP and Cyclops-GFP in receptor loss-of-function conditions in the revised manuscript (new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1B).

To corroborate our findings of broadened gradients when the receptor is downregulated, we have performed additional experiments and measured the distributions of Squint-GFP and Cyclops-GFP expressed from localized cell clones as an alternative to the YSL gradient formation assay (new Figure 5). In agreement with our previous results, the distributions of Squint-GFP and Cyclops-GFP were broadened in the absence of the Nodal Type I receptors and co-receptors, consistent with the increased effective diffusivity measured by FRAP experiments (Figure 6B).

7. Figure 6 A, B – the authors should show the data from the photoconversion and FRAP experiments and the fit to these curves and then the parameters that were extracted from this.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have included representative fits and raw data for the FDAP and FRAP experiments in Figure 6 —figure supplement 1.

8. Figure 6A – loss of function for the receptor should be performed as well. If most of the Nodal is already bound, overexpressing the receptor would not be expected to have an effect but loss of function might.

We agree with the reviewer and have included these additional FDAP experiments in the revised manuscript (new Figure 6A). The results demonstrate that the absence of the Type I receptors does not cause a decrease in the clearance rate of Squint-GFP or Cyclops-GFP, showing that the broadening of the gradients (Figure 5) cannot be explained through increased protein stability.

9. Figure 6B – I do not understand the model for diffusion the authors are proposing. How do the timescales for binding and unbinding to receptors compare to that for diffusion? If they are slow, then one expects that the receptor binding would show up in an immobile fraction in the experiment rather than in lowering the diffusion constant. Or are the authors suggesting that the receptor bound Nodal diffuses within the plasma membrane, but more slowly, in which case the data would need to be fit to a two component model. In any event, this FRAP data requires a clear model for its interpretation.

We assume rapid binding and relatively slow unbinding of Nodal ligands and receptors, and in the revised manuscript we now refer to our previous theoretical and experimental studies that provide detailed models (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019; Kuhn et al., 2022).

Specifically, we used the simple synthesis-diffusion-clearance model

${\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\partial }c}{\mathrm{\partial }t}=D{\mathrm{\nabla }}^2-k_{1}c+k_2}$ with our previously measured clearance rate constants k₁ for Squint and Cyclops (Müller et al., 2012), uniform production k₂ and the effective diffusion coefficient D as the fitting parameter for the time-dependent recovery of the fluorescence intensity c (Müller et al., 2012; Pomreinke et al., 2017; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019). It can be shown that the effective diffusion coefficient D of a molecule is equivalent to ${\displaystyle D=\frac{D_{\text{free}}}{\frac{\left[\text{Receptor}\right]}{\frac{k_{\text{off}}}{k_{\text{on}}}}+1}}$ when binding of a ligand with the local free diffusion coefficient D_free to an immobile receptor with the on-rate k_on and the off-rate k_off is fast and reversible (Crank 1979; Sprague et al., 2004; Thorne et al., 2008; Miura et al., 2009; Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019).

In our recent single-molecule tracking experiments (Kuhn et al., 2022), we have measured binding times of 16 s for fluorescently tagged Cyclops and 11 s for fluorescently tagged Squint in zebrafish embryos on a local nanometer-to-micrometer scale. These experimental measurements are in remarkable agreement with our previous FRAP-based tissue-scale binding time predictions of 18 s and 4 s for Cyclops-GFP and Squint-GFP, respectively (Müller et al., 2012). Importantly, these binding times can directly explain how the effective diffusion timescale of Nodal in FRAP experiments arises from local interactions with immobile receptors (Müller et al., 2012; Müller et al., 2013; Bläßle et al., 2018; Mörsdorf and Müller 2019; Kuhn et al., 2022).

10. Figure 6C, D – quantification is essential for these experiments including quantifying the number of donor cells as well as the induced gradient on pSmad2 in the host.

We have included these suggested quantifications in the revised paper (new Figure 6 —figure supplement 2A-C). We found that the number of transplanted donor cells was not significantly different between wild-type and MZsqt^-/-;cyc^-/- hosts (see Materials and methods – Statistical analysis in the revised manuscript). In addition, the pSmad2/3 gradient normalized to the number of transplanted cells was broader and of higher intensity in MZsqt^-/-;cyc^-/- compared to wild-type host embryos, confirming our previous conclusions.

11. Figure 6C, D – in both cases there only appears to be active signaling immediately adjacent to the graft. This is not consistent with the authors investigation of "medium-range" Nodal signaling. This is important because the authors are trying to investigate whether a relay is essential for this medium range signal, however, if there is no signaling at a distance in the wildtype transplant then it is impossible to draw any conclusion from the transplant into the knockout.

The idea that the spreading of endogenous Nodal signaling requires relay is widely discussed in the current literature (e.g. van Boxtel et al., 2015; Rogers and Müller 2019; Liu et al., 2022). In these relay models, Nodal has at best a short diffusion range and requires a chain of signaling between adjacent cells to act over longer distances. For example, the Warmflash lab has recently stated that in an open micropatterned hESC-based 2D gastruloid system “Nodal does not travel more than one cell diameter in any context we examined” (Liu et al., 2022). This contrasts with the considerable number of pSmad2/3 positive nuclei (on average 4 and up to 15) that we found outside of margin-derived transplants in wild-type embryos and the even higher number (on average 8 and up to 31) in MZsqt^-/-;cyc^-/- hosts (Figure 6 —figure supplement 2E). Together with the longer Nodal signaling range in MZsqt^-/-;cyc^-/- hosts (Figure 6 —figure supplement 2B) this demonstrates that in an embryonic context Nodal can indeed act directly over a distance.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The nodal signaling pathway plays essential roles in germ-layer induction and patterning during development. While the ligands and co-receptor responsible for nodal activation during zebrafish development have been previously identified, it is still unclear which receptors are required for early zebrafish nodal signaling. Based on loss of function analysis, the authors identify two type I receptors that are redundantly required for nodal signaling during early development. The authors also perform experiments to suggest nodal ligand interactions with the type I receptor can affect ligand diffusion and help shape the nodal signaling gradient.

Strengths:

The identification and characterization of all seven receptors predicted to mediate nodal signaling serves as a nice reference for future studies of this pathway. The genetic loss of function of five of these supports a model where each of the five individually are not required for signaling. The combined loss of function of two type I receptors produces a nodal loss of function phenotype, suggesting that these two function redundantly during early zebrafish development.

The authors present a novel finding that the type I receptor normally functions to limit the diffusion of ligand, which in turn shapes the nodal gradient. This builds upon previous work showing that the nodal co-receptor oep and the nodal antagonist lefty influence the nodal gradient.

The authors show that endogenous levels of nodal ligand can directly activate signaling in cells several cell diameters away without a secondary relay system, which is an important aspect of our understanding of how nodal ligands function in a morphogenetic gradient.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating the strengths of our study.

Weaknesses:

Much of the combinatorial receptor loss of function data relies on the use of morpholinos. Given the lack of phenotype of single mutants, the absence of phenotypes in combinatorial loss of function using morpholinos may indicate that those particular receptors are dispensable, or rather that the morpholinos are not efficiently knocking down the gene product, and thus prevents definitive conclusions from being drawn regarding those particular experiments. However the distinctive nodal loss of function phenotype observed in the particular loss of function combination of acvr1b-a (genetic loss of function) and acvr1b-b (morpholino loss of function) provides strong support that these two receptors act redundantly during in zebrafish nodal signaling. These two genes are the central focus of the paper.

The manuscript would be strengthened by adding images for embryos where there are nodal loss or gain of function phenotypes.

As suggested, we have included these images in our revised manuscript (new Figure 2 —figure supplement 2, new Figure 3A, new Figure 5 —figure supplement 1E).

Although example images of phenotypes are provided, it is not clear what the manipulation was that generated them. In particular there should be images of the acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b combined loss of function phenotype.

We have included additional more detailed example images for the individual conditions in our revised manuscript and more clearly pointed out what the manipulation was that generated them (new Figure 2A and new Figure 3A).

The conclusion that acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b function maternally during early zebrafish development needs to be further supported by confirming that the acvr1b-b splice blocking morpholino disrupts splicing of the zygotic transcript.

We have performed the suggested analysis and included the results in our revised manuscript (new Figure 3 —figure supplement 2D). We found that the acvr1b-b splice-blocking morpholino indeed disrupts the splicing of the zygotic transcript but does not affect the already spliced maternal transcript. Additionally, we show that the phenotype observed upon combinatorial zygotic knockout of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b recapitulates the zygotic knockout of oep (new Figure 3A,C), further supporting the idea that maternally deposited receptor mRNAs contribute to Nodal signaling.

Suggestions for authors:

Although example images were presented for phenotype classification, it is important to show an example image of the nodal loss of function phenotype generated specifically from the acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b dual loss of function embryos (perhaps in a supplemental figure).

We have included additional more detailed example images for the individual conditions in our revised manuscript for clarification (new Figure 3A).

The authors conclude that the maternal transcripts of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b are critical for nodal signaling based on the strong nodal loss of function phenotype using the acvr1b-b translation blocking MO, and lack of phenotype from the acvr1b-b splice blocking MO. In order to make this conclusion though the authors need to show that the splice blocking MO is actually disrupting the acvr1b-b transcript, as opposed to the lack of phenotype being due to the MO not effectively inhibiting splicing (or causing an in-frame cryptic splice site usage).

Thank you for the suggestion. We have performed the suggested analysis and included the results in our revised manuscript (new Figure 3 —figure supplement 2D). We found that the acvr1b-b splice-blocking morpholino indeed disrupts the splicing of the zygotic transcript but does not affect the already spliced maternal transcript. However, even with 2 ng of injected morpholino, spliced transcripts are detected at shield stage (new Figure 3 —figure supplement 2D). This suggests either a long persistence of the maternal transcripts or incomplete knockdown.

To further test whether maternally deposited receptor mRNA contributes to Nodal signaling, we have complemented our analysis with zygotic combinatorial receptor mutants (new Figure 3A,C). We show that the phenotypes observed upon zygotic knockout of both acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b resemble the zygotic oep knockout phenotype, indicating a partial rescue of the Nodal loss-of-function phenotype by maternal transcripts.

Regarding the previous point, something that seems to suggest that the splice blocking acvr1b-b MO is not inhibiting acvr1b-b function is that there is no zygotic nodal loss of function phenotype in the splice-blocking acvr1b-b MO injected acvr1b-a MZ mutants (figure 3C).

We fully agree with this interpretation. As outlined above, we did observe a disruption of transcript splicing upon injection of the morpholino, but we also observed remaining spliced transcript at shield stage indicative of persistent maternal transcripts or incomplete knockdown. This might explain the absence of a zygotic loss-of-function phenotype. However, together with the results obtained from the combinatorial zygotic receptor mutants (see above), this suggests a contribution of maternal receptor mRNA. We have adjusted our interpretations in the text accordingly.

It is not clear to me why the quantification of nodal signaling in acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function and rescue experiments is measured as the number of tiers of cells (distance from ligand source) of pSmad2/3? The ligand distribution should either not be changed or perhaps increased based on receptor loss. Instead, for a more accurate measure of signaling level, the amount of pSmad2/3 (fluorescence intensity) should be measured in discreet regions of the embryo. In the images shown, it appears that the acvr1b-a mutant alone has weaker staining compared to wild-type, which may indicate lower signaling activity even in the absence of a morphological phenotype.

This was also suggested by Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2 (see above), and we have included additional quantifications in dorsal and lateral domains in the revised manuscript (new Figure 4 —figure supplement 1).

In the FRAP experiment in figure 6B, the example image of acvr1b-a and acvr1b-b loss of function seems to have worse fluorescence recovery than the wild-type embryos, which is opposite of the general trend in the graph of all of the data. When I went to look at the source data to clarify, I just see the final diffusion coefficient numbers that were used to generate the plot. It would be helpful to have the raw fluorescence intensity measurements in this data set.

As suggested, we have included representative fits and raw fluorescence intensity measurements in the revised manuscript (Figure 6 —figure supplement 1A, Figure 6 —figure supplement 1 – source data).

Author details

1. Hannes Preiß

   Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Anna C Kögler and David Mörsdorf

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6873-9440

2. Anna C Kögler

   1. Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany
   2. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Hannes Preiß and David Mörsdorf

   For correspondence

   anna.koegler@uni-konstanz.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2794-3589

3. David Mörsdorf

   Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany

   Present address

   Department of Neurosciences and Developmental Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

   Contribution

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

   Contributed equally with

   Hannes Preiß and Anna C Kögler

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8982-2155

4. Daniel Čapek

   1. Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany
   2. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5199-9940

5. Gary H Soh

   Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Validation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0755-6805

6. Katherine W Rogers

   Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany

   Present address

   Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, United States

   Contribution

   Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5700-2662

7. Hernán Morales-Navarrete

   University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9578-2556

8. María Almuedo-Castillo

   Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany

   Present address

   Centro Andaluz de Biología de Desarrollo, Seville, Spain

   Contribution

   Resources, Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6759-5879

9. Patrick Müller

   1. Friedrich Miescher Laboratory of the Max Planck Society, Tübingen, Germany
   2. University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing

   For correspondence

   patrick.mueller@uni-konstanz.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0702-6209

• 1,329

  Page views

• 297

  Downloads

• 1

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.