Abstract

During early vertebrate development, signals from a special region of the embryo, the organizer, can re-direct the fate of non-neural ectoderm cells to form a complete, patterned nervous system. This is called neural induction and has generally been imagined as a single signalling event, causing a switch of fate. Here we undertake a comprehensive analysis, in very fine time-course, of the events following exposure of competent ectoderm of the chick to the organizer (the tip of the primitive streak, Hensen's node). Using transcriptomics and epigenomics we generate a Gene Regulatory Network comprising 175 transcriptional regulators and 5,614 predicted interactions between them, with fine temporal dynamics from initial exposure to the signals to expression of mature neural plate markers. Using in situ hybridization, single-cell RNA-sequencing and reporter assays we show that the gene regulatory hierarchy of responses to a grafted organizer closely resembles the events of normal neural plate development. The study is accompanied by an extensive resource, including information about conservation of the predicted enhancers in other vertebrates.

Data availability

Full scRNAseq software and pipelines deposited in https://github.com/alexthiery/10x_neural_tubeFull software/scripts/pipelines for GRN construction deposited inhttps://github.com/grace-hc-lu/NI_networkFull sequencing datasets in ArrayExpress under E-MTAB-10409, E-MTAB-10420, E-MTAB-10424, E-MTAB-10426, and E-MTAB-10408.Expression patterns submitted to GEISHA (http://geisha.arizona.edu/geisha/)Code for DREiVe: https://github.com/grace-hc-lu/DREiVe

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katherine E Trevers

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Hui-Chun Lu

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Youwen Yang

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Alexandre P Thiery

    Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Anna C Strobl

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Claire Anderson

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Božena Pálinkášová

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Nidia MM de Oliveira

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Irene M de Almeida

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Mohsin AF Khan

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Natalia Moncaut

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Nicholas M Luscombe

    The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Leslie Dale

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Andrea Streit

    Centre for Craniofacial and Regenerative Biology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7664-7917
  15. Claudio D Stern

    Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    c.stern@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9907-889X

Funding

National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH60156)

  • Claudio D Stern

Wellcome Trust (FC010110)

  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (G0400559)

  • Claudio D Stern

Wellcome Trust (063988)

  • Claudio D Stern

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R003432/1)

  • Claudio D Stern

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/K007742/1)

  • Claudio D Stern

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/K006207/1)

  • Andrea Streit

Francis Crick Institute

  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Cancer Research UK (FC010110)

  • Nicholas M Luscombe

Medical Research Council (FC010110)

  • Nicholas M Luscombe

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Anne Helene Monsoro-Burq, Institute Curie, France

Version history

  1. Preprint posted: April 16, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: August 19, 2021
  3. Accepted: March 2, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 3, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: March 24, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Trevers et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,806
    views
  • 379
    downloads
  • 7
    citations

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

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Katherine E Trevers
  2. Hui-Chun Lu
  3. Youwen Yang
  4. Alexandre P Thiery
  5. Anna C Strobl
  6. Claire Anderson
  7. Božena Pálinkášová
  8. Nidia MM de Oliveira
  9. Irene M de Almeida
  10. Mohsin AF Khan
  11. Natalia Moncaut
  12. Nicholas M Luscombe
  13. Leslie Dale
  14. Andrea Streit
  15. Claudio D Stern
(2023)
A gene regulatory network for neural induction
eLife 12:e73189.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73189

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.73189

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.