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.

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

  • 2,379
    views
  • 454
    downloads
  • 10
    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
    Wenqing Li, Sara McCurdy ... Mark H Ginsberg
    Research Advance

    Previously, we showed that propranolol reduces experimental murine cerebral cavernous malformations (CCMs) and prevents embryonic caudal venous plexus (CVP) lesions in zebrafish that follow mosaic inactivation of ccm2 (Li et al., 2021). Because morpholino silencing of the β1 adrenergic receptor (adrb1) prevents the embryonic CVP lesion, we proposed that adrb1 plays a role in CCM pathogenesis. Here, we report that adrb1-/- zebrafish exhibited 86% fewer CVP lesions and 87% reduction of CCM lesion volume relative to wild type brood mates at 2dpf and 8–10 weeks stage, respectively. Treatment with metoprolol, a β1 selective antagonist, yielded a similar reduction in CCM lesion volume. Adrb1-/- zebrafish embryos exhibited reduced heart rate and contractility and reduced CVP blood flow. Similarly, slowing the heart and eliminating the blood flow in CVP by administration of 2,3-BDM suppressed the CVP lesion. In sum, our findings provide genetic and pharmacological evidence that the therapeutic effect of propranolol on CCM is achieved through β1 receptor antagonism.

    1. Developmental Biology
    Igor Kondrychyn, Liqun He ... Li-Kun Phng
    Research Article

    Cell migration is a key process in the shaping and formation of tissues. During sprouting angiogenesis, endothelial tip cells invade avascular tissues by generating actomyosin-dependent forces that drive cell migration and vascular expansion. Surprisingly, endothelial cells (ECs) can still invade if actin polymerization is inhibited. In this study, we show that endothelial tip cells employ an alternative mechanism of cell migration that is dependent on Aquaporin (Aqp)-mediated water inflow and increase in hydrostatic pressure. In the zebrafish, ECs express aqp1a.1 and aqp8a.1 in newly formed vascular sprouts in a VEGFR2-dependent manner. Aqp1a.1 and Aqp8a.1 loss-of-function studies show an impairment in intersegmental vessels formation because of a decreased capacity of tip cells to increase their cytoplasmic volume and generate membrane protrusions, leading to delayed tip cell emergence from the dorsal aorta and slower migration. Further inhibition of actin polymerization resulted in a greater decrease in sprouting angiogenesis, indicating that ECs employ two mechanisms for robust cell migration in vivo. Our study thus highlights an important role of hydrostatic pressure in tissue morphogenesis.