How distinct cell fates are manifested by direct lineage ancestry from bipotent progenitors, or by specification of individual cell types is a key question for understanding the emergence of tissues. The interplay between skeletal muscle progenitors and associated connective tissue cells provides a model for examining how muscle functional units are established. Most craniofacial structures originate from the vertebrate-specific neural crest cells except in the dorsal portion of the head, where they arise from cranial mesoderm. Here, using multiple lineage-tracing strategies combined with single cell RNAseq and in situ analyses, we identify bipotent progenitors expressing Myf5 (an upstream regulator of myogenic fate) that give rise to both muscle and juxtaposed connective tissue. Following this bifurcation, muscle and connective tissue cells retain complementary signalling features and maintain spatial proximity. Disrupting myogenic identity shifts muscle progenitors to a connective tissue fate. The emergence of Myf5-derived connective tissue is associated with the activity of several transcription factors, including Foxp2. Interestingly, this unexpected bifurcation in cell fate was not observed in craniofacial regions that are colonised by neural crest cells. Therefore, we propose that an ancestral bi-fated program gives rise to muscle and connective tissue cells in skeletal muscles that are deprived of neural crest cells.
scRNAseq datasets are available in open access on DRYAD at the following address: https://datadryad.org/stash/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.gf1vhhmrs?. The code that was used to generate the driver regulators is available at this address: https://github.com/TajbakhshLab/DriverRegulators. Source data files have been provided for Figure 3J, Figure 4H, Figure 5F, Figure 5J, Figure 5-figure supplement 1E, Figure 7E and Figure 7G.
scRNAseq_raw_filtered_preprocessedDryad Digital Repository, doi:10.5061/dryad.gf1vhhmrs.
- Alexandre Grimaldi
- Alexandre Grimaldi
- Shahragim Tajbakhsh
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Animal experimentation: Animals were handled as per European Community guidelines and the ethics committee of the Institut Pasteur (CETEA) approved protocols (APAFIS#6354-20160809 l2028839).
- Marianne E Bronner, California Institute of Technology, United States
© 2022, Grimaldi et al.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Development of tooth shape is regulated by the enamel knot signalling centre, at least in mammals. Fgf signalling regulates differential proliferation between the enamel knot and adjacent dental epithelia during tooth development, leading to formation of the dental cusp. The presence of an enamel knot in non-mammalian vertebrates is debated given differences in signalling. Here, we show the conservation and restriction of fgf3, fgf10, and shh to the sites of future dental cusps in the shark (Scyliorhinus canicula), whilst also highlighting striking differences between the shark and mouse. We reveal shifts in tooth size, shape, and cusp number following small molecule perturbations of canonical Wnt signalling. Resulting tooth phenotypes mirror observed effects in mammals, where canonical Wnt has been implicated as an upstream regulator of enamel knot signalling. In silico modelling of shark dental morphogenesis demonstrates how subtle changes in activatory and inhibitory signals can alter tooth shape, resembling developmental phenotypes and cusp shapes observed following experimental Wnt perturbation. Our results support the functional conservation of an enamel knot-like signalling centre throughout vertebrates and suggest that varied tooth types from sharks to mammals follow a similar developmental bauplan. Lineage-specific differences in signalling are not sufficient in refuting homology of this signalling centre, which is likely older than teeth themselves.
The tooth shape of sharks and mice are regulated by a similar signaling center despite their teeth having very different geometries.