A new view of patterning domains in the vertebrate mesoderm

Extrinsic versus intrinsic cues in avian paraxial mesoderm patterning and differentiation

Somitic and head mesoderm contribute to cartilage and bone and deliver the entire skeletal musculature. Studies on avian somite patterning and cell differentiation led to the view that these processes depend solely on cues from surrounding tissues. However, evidence is accumulating that some developmental decisions depend on information within the somitic tissue itself. Moreover, recent studies established that head and somitic mesoderm, though delivering the same tissue types, are set up to follow their own, distinct developmental programmes. With a particular focus on the chicken embryo, we review the current understanding of how extrinsic signalling, operating in a framework of intrinsically regulated constraints, controls paraxial mesoderm patterning and cell differentiation.

Global patterning of the vertebrate mesoderm

We describe recent advances in the understanding of patterning in the vertebrate post-cranial mesoderm. Specifically, we discuss the integration of local information into global level information that results in the overall coordination along the anterioposterior axis. Experiments related to the integration of the axial and appendicular musculoskeletal systems are considered, and examples of genetic interactions between these systems are outlined. We emphasize the utility of the terms primaxial and abaxial as an aid to understanding development of the vertebrate musculoskeletal system, and hypothesize that the lateral somitic frontier is a catalyst for evolutionary change.

Hox patterning of the vertebrate axial skeleton

The axial skeleton in all vertebrates is composed of similar components that extend from anterior to posterior along the body axis: the occipital skull bones and cervical, thoracic, lumbar, sacral, and caudal vertebrae. Despite significant changes in the number and size of these elements during evolution, the basic character of these anatomical elements, as well as the order in which they appear in vertebrate skeletons, have remained remarkably similar. Through extensive expression analyses, classic morphological perturbation experiments in chicken and targeted loss-of-function analyses in mice, Hox genes have proven to be critical regulators in the establishment of axial skeleton morphology. The convergence of these studies to date allows an emerging understanding of Hox gene function in patterning the vertebrate axial skeleton. This review summarizes genetic and embryologic findings regarding the role of Hox genes in establishing axial morphology and how these combined results impact our current understanding of the vertebrate Hox code.

Molecular basis for skeletal variation: insights from developmental genetic studies in mice

Skeletal variations are common in humans, and potentially are caused by genetic as well as environmental factors. We here review molecular principles in skeletal development to develop a knowledge base of possible alterations that could explain variations in skeletal element number, shape or size. Environmental agents that induce variations, such as teratogens, likely interact with the molecular pathways that regulate skeletal development.

Muscle development: forming the head and trunk muscles

The morphological events forming the body's musculature are sensitive to genetic and environmental perturbations with high incidence of congenital myopathies, muscular dystrophies and degenerations. Pattern formation generates branching series of states in the genetic regulatory network. Different states of the network specify pre-myogenic progenitor cells in the head and trunk. These progenitors reveal their myogenic nature by the subsequent onset of expression of the master switch gene MyoD and/or Myf5. Once initiated, the myogenic progression that ultimately forms mature muscle appears to be quite similar in head and trunk skeletal muscle. Several genes that are essential in specifying pre-myogenic progenitors in the trunk are known. Pax3, Lbx1, and a number of other homeobox transcription factors are essential in specifying pre-myogenic progenitors in the dermomyotome, from which the epaxial and hypaxial myoblasts, which express myogenic regulatory factors (MRFs), emerge. The proteins involved in specifying pre-myogenic progenitors in the head are just beginning to be discovered and appear to be distinct from those in the trunk. The homeobox gene Pitx2, the T-box gene Tbx1, and the bHLH genes Tcf21 and Msc encode transcription factors that play roles in specifying progenitor cells that will give rise to branchiomeric muscles of the head. Pitx2 is expressed well before the onset of myogenic progression in the first branchial arch (BA) mesodermal core and is essential for the formation of first BA derived muscle groups. Anterior-posterior patterning events that occur during gastrulation appear to initiate the Pitx2 expression domain in the cephalic and BA mesoderm. Pitx2 therefore contributes to the establishment of network states, or kernels, that specify pre-myogenic progenitors for extraocular and mastication muscles. A detailed understanding of the molecular mechanisms that regulate head muscle specification and formation provides the foundation for understanding congenital myopathies. Current technology and mouse model systems help to elucidate the molecular basis on etiology and repair of muscular degenerative diseases.

Hox patterning of the vertebrate rib cage

Unlike the rest of the axial skeleton, which develops solely from somitic mesoderm, patterning of the rib cage is complicated by its derivation from two distinct tissues. The thoracic skeleton is derived from both somitic mesoderm,which forms the vertebral bodies and ribs, and from lateral plate mesoderm,which forms the sternum. By generating mouse mutants in Hox5, Hox6and Hox9 paralogous group genes, along with a dissection of the Hox10 and Hox11 group mutants, several important conclusions regarding the nature of the `Hox code' in rib cage and axial skeleton development are revealed. First, axial patterning is consistently coded by the unique and redundant functions of Hox paralogous groups throughout the axial skeleton. Loss of paralogous function leads to anterior homeotic transformations of colinear regions throughout the somite-derived axial skeleton. In the thoracic region, Hox genes pattern the lateral plate-derived sternum in a non-colinear manner, independent from the patterning of the somite-derived vertebrae and vertebral ribs. Finally, between adjacent sets of paralogous mutants, the regions of vertebral phenotypes overlap considerably;however, each paralogous group imparts unique morphologies within these regions. In all cases examined, the next-most posterior Hox paralogous group does not prevent the function of the more-anterior Hox group in axial patterning. Thus, the `Hox code' in somitic mesoderm is the result of the distinct, graded effects of two or more Hox paralogous groups functioning in any anteroposterior location.

On the carapacial ridge in turtle embryos: its developmental origin, function and the chelonian body plan

The chelonian carapace is composed of dorsolaterally expanded ribs; an evolutionary change in the rib-patterning program is assumed to be related to this novelty. Turtle embryos exhibit a longitudinal ridge called the carapacial ridge (CR) on the flank, and its histological resemblance to the apical ectodermal ridge of the limb bud implies its inductive activity in the unique patterning of the ribs. We studied the Chinese soft-shelled turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis, and confirmed by labeling with a lipophilic dye, DiI, that the CR contains the somite-derived dermis and that it is a unique structure among amniotes. Using electroporation of a dominant-negative form of LEF-1, the CR-specific gene, we showed that CR-specific genes function in the growth and maintenance of the CR. Microcauterization or implantation of the CR did not change the dorsoventral pattern of the ribs, and only their fan-shaped pattern was arrested by CR removal. We conclude that the CR is a true embryonic novelty among amniotes and, because of the specific expression of regulatory genes, it functions in the marginal growth of the carapacial primordium, thereby inducing the fan-shaped arrangement of the ribs.

Expression pattern of the homeodomain transcription factor Pitx2 during muscle development

Late-stage Pitx2(+/LacZ) mouse embryos stained with x-gal appeared to have blue muscles, suggesting that Pitx2 expression specifically marks some phase of the myogenic progression or muscle anlagen formation. Detailed temporal and spatial analyses were undertaken to determine the extent and onset of Pitx2 expression in muscle. Pitx2 was specifically expressed in the vast majority of muscles of the head and trunk in late embryos and adults. Early Pitx2 expression in the cephalic mesoderm, first branchial arch and somatopleure preceded specification of head muscle. In contrast, Pitx2 expression appeared to follow muscle specification events in the trunk. However, Pitx2 expression was rapidly upregulated in these myogenic structures by E10.5. Upregulation correlated tightly with the apposition of a non-myogenic, Pitx2-expressing, cell cluster lateral to the dermomyotome. This cluster first appeared at the forelimb level at E10.25, gradually elongated in the posterior direction, appeared to aggregate from delaminated cells emanating from the ventrally located somatopleure, and was named the dorsal somatopleure. Immunohistochemistry on appendicular sections after E10.5 demonstrated that Pitx2 neatly marked the areas of muscle anlagen, that Pax3, Lbx1, and the muscle regulatory factors (MRFs) stained only subsets of Pitx2(+) cells within these areas, and that virtually all Pitx2(+) cells in these areas express at least one of these known myogenic markers. Taken together, the results demonstrate that, within muscle anlagen, Pitx2 marks the muscle lineage more completely that any of the known markers, and are consistent with a role for Pitx2 in muscle anlagen formation or maintenance.

Evolutionary perspectives from development of mesodermal components in the lamprey

Lampreys, a jawless vertebrate species, lack not only jaws but also several other organs, including ventral migratory muscles shared by gnathostomes. In the lamprey embryo, the mesoderm consists primarily of unsegmented head mesoderm, segmented somites, and yet uncharacterized lateral plate mesoderm, as in gnathostomes. Although the adult lamprey possesses segmented myotomes in the head, the head mesoderm of this animal is primarily unsegmented, similar to that in gnathostomes. In the trunk, the large part of lamprey somites is destined to form myotomes, and the Pax3/7 gene expression domain in the lateral part of somites is suggested to represent a dermomyotome homologue. Lamprey myotomes are not segregated by a horizontal myoseptum, which has been regarded as consistent with the apparent absence of a migratory population of hypaxial muscles shared by gnathostomes. However, recent analysis suggests that lampreys have established the gene regulatory cascade necessary for the ventrally migrating myoblasts, which functions in part during the development of the primordial hypobranchial muscle. There have also been new insights on the developmental cascade of lamprey cartilages, in which the Sox family of transcription factors plays major roles, as in gnathostomes. Thus, mesoderm development in lampreys may represent the ancestral state of gene regulatory mechanisms required for the evolution of the complex and diverse body plan of gnathostomes.

Amniote somite derivatives

Somites are segments of paraxial mesoderm that give rise to a multitude of tissues in the vertebrate embryo. Many decades of intensive research have provided a wealth of data on the complex molecular interactions leading to the formation of various somitic derivatives. In this review, we focus on the crucial role of the somites in building the body wall and limbs of amniote embryos. We give an overview on the current knowledge on the specification and differentiation of somitic cell lineages leading to the development of the vertebral column, skeletal muscle, connective tissue, meninges, and vessel endothelium, and highlight the importance of the somites in establishing the metameric pattern of the vertebrate body.

A novel genetic hierarchy functions during hypaxial myogenesis: Pax3 directly activates Myf5 in muscle progenitor cells in the limb

We address the molecular control of myogenesis in progenitor cells derived from the hypaxial somite. Null mutations in Pax3, a key regulator of skeletal muscle formation, lead to cell death in this domain. We have developed a novel allele of Pax3 encoding a Pax3-engrailed fusion protein that acts as a transcriptional repressor. Heterozygote mouse embryos have an attenuated mutant phenotype, with partial conservation of the hypaxial somite and its myogenic derivatives, including some hindlimb muscles. At these sites, expression of Myf5 is compromised, showing that Pax3 acts genetically upstream of this myogenic determination gene. We have characterized a 145-base-pair (bp) regulatory element, at -57.5 kb from Myf5, that directs transgene expression to the mature somite, notably to myogenic cells of the hypaxial domain that form ventral trunk and limb muscles. A Pax3 consensus site in this sequence binds Pax3 in vitro and in vivo. Multimers of the 145-bp sequence direct transgene expression to sites of Pax3 function, and an assay of its activity in the chick embryo shows Pax3 dependence. Mutation of the Pax3 site abolishes all expression controlled by the 145-bp sequence in transgenic mouse embryos. We conclude that Pax3 directly regulates Myf5 in the hypaxial somite and its derivatives.

Skeletal muscle translocation in vertebrates

It is now over 30 years since Bodo Christ first demonstrated that the musculature of the limb originated from the somites and overturned the then prevailing view that limb muscle develops from a local source. Subsequently, using electron microscopy and histological procedures, Bodo Christ identified that cells of the somites undergo an epithelial to mesenchymal transition which enabled them to move from their paraxial point of origin to distal locations. These studies defined this translocation as one of the major mechanisms allowing myogenic cells to translocate around the body. The other means used to translocate muscle involves the movement of cells as a sheet. The deployment of one of these two mechanisms has been postulated to be involved in the formation of all the hypaxial musculature of the vertebrate body. In this paper we describe the formation of muscles both in the head and in the body, which use a translocatory mechanism during their development. We highlight recent data showing that muscle translocation is a far more complex process than first thought but which in itself can be used as a valuable tool to address questions regarding tissue patterning and development.

Relations and interactions between cranial mesoderm and neural crest populations

The embryonic head is populated by two robust mesenchymal populations, paraxial mesoderm and neural crest cells. Although the developmental histories of each are distinct and separate, they quickly establish intimate relations that are variably important for the histogenesis and morphogenesis of musculoskeletal components of the calvaria, midface and branchial regions. This review will focus first on the genesis and organization within nascent mesodermal and crest populations, emphasizing interactions that probably initiate or augment the establishment of lineages within each. The principal goal is an analysis of the interactions between crest and mesoderm populations, from their first contacts through their concerted movements into peripheral domains, particularly the branchial arches, and continuing to stages at which both the differentiation and the integrated three-dimensional assembly of vascular, connective and muscular tissues is evident. Current views on unresolved or contentious issues, including the relevance of head somitomeres, the processes by which crest cells change locations and constancy of cell-cell relations at the crest-mesoderm interface, are addressed.

Spatial relations between avian craniofacial neural crest and paraxial mesoderm cells

Fate maps based on quail-chick grafting of avian cephalic neural crest precursors and paraxial mesoderm cells have identified the majority of derivatives from each population but have not unequivocally resolved the precise locations of and population dynamics at the interface between them. The relation between these two mesenchymal tissues is especially critical for the development of skeletal muscles, because crest cells play an essential role in their differentiation and subsequent spatial organization. It is not known whether myogenic mesoderm and skeletogenic neural crest cells establish permanent relations while en route to their final destinations, or later at the sites where musculoskeletal morphogenesis is completed. We applied beta-galactosidase-encoding, replication-incompetent retroviruses to paraxial mesoderm, to crest progenitors, or at the interface between mesodermal and overlying neural crest as both were en route to branchial or periocular regions in chick embryos. With respect to skeletal structures, the results identify the avian neural crest:mesoderm boundary at the junction of the supraorbital and calvarial regions of the frontal bone, lateral to the hypophyseal foramen, and rostral to laryngeal cartilages. Therefore, in the chick embryo, most of the frontal and the entire parietal bone are of mesodermal, not neural crest, origin. Within paraxial mesoderm, the progenitors of each lineage display different behaviors. Chondrogenic cells are relatively stationary and intramembranous osteogenic cells move only in transverse planes around the brain. Angioblasts migrate invasively in all directions. Extraocular muscle precursors form tightly aggregated masses that en masse cross the crest:mesoderm interface to enter periocular territories, while branchial myogenic lineages shift ventrally coincidental with the movements of corresponding neural crest cells. En route to the branchial arches, myogenic mesoderm cells do not maintain constant, nearest-neighbor relations with adjacent, overlying neural crest cells. Thus, progenitors of individual muscles do not establish stable, permanent relations with their connective tissues until both populations reach the sites of their morphogenesis within branchial arches or orbital regions.

The differentiation and morphogenesis of craniofacial muscles

Unraveling the complex tissue interactions necessary to generate the structural and functional diversity present among craniofacial muscles is challenging. These muscles initiate their development within a mesenchymal population bounded by the brain, pharyngeal endoderm, surface ectoderm, and neural crest cells. This set of spatial relations, and in particular the segmental properties of these adjacent tissues, are unique to the head. Additionally, the lack of early epithelialization in head mesoderm necessitates strategies for generating discrete myogenic foci that may differ from those operating in the trunk. Molecular data indeed indicate dissimilar methods of regulation, yet transplantation studies suggest that some head and trunk myogenic populations are interchangeable. The first goal of this review is to present key features of these diversities, identifying and comparing tissue and molecular interactions regulating myogenesis in the head and trunk. Our second focus is on the diverse morphogenetic movements exhibited by craniofacial muscles. Precursors of tongue muscles partly mimic migrations of appendicular myoblasts, whereas myoblasts destined to form extraocular muscles condense within paraxial mesoderm, then as large cohorts they cross the mesoderm:neural crest interface en route to periocular regions. Branchial muscle precursors exhibit yet another strategy, establishing contacts with neural crest populations before branchial arch formation and maintaining these relations through subsequent stages of morphogenesis. With many of the prerequisite stepping-stones in our knowledge of craniofacial myogenesis now in place, discovering the cellular and molecular interactions necessary to initiate and sustain the differentiation and morphogenesis of these neglected craniofacial muscles is now an attainable goal.

Evolution and developmental patterning of the vertebrate skeletal muscles: Perspectives from the lamprey

The myotome in gnathostome vertebrates, which gives rise to the trunk skeletal muscles, consists of epaxial (dorsal) and hypaxial (ventral) portions, separated by the horizontal myoseptum. The hypaxial portion contains some highly derived musculature that is functionally as well as morphologically well differentiated in all the gnathostome species. In contrast, the trunk muscles of agnathan lampreys lack these distinctions and any semblance of limb muscles. Therefore, the lamprey myotomes probably represent a primitive condition compared with gnathostomes. In this review, we compare the patterns of expression of some muscle-specific genes between the lamprey and gnathostomes. Although the cellular and tissue morphology of lamprey myotomes seems uniform and undifferentiated, some of the muscle-specific genes are expressed in a spatially restricted manner. The lamprey Pax3/7 gene, a cognate of gnathostome Pax3, is expressed only at the lateral edge of the myotomes and in the hypobranchial muscle, which we presume is homologous to the gnathostome hypobranchial muscle. Thus, the emergence of some part of a hypaxial-specific gene regulatory cascade might have evolved before the agnathan/gnathostome divergence, or before the evolutionary separation of epaxial and hypaxial muscles.

Hox code in embryos of Chinese soft-shelled turtlePelodiscus sinensis correlates with the evolutionary innovation in the turtle

Turtles have the most unusual body plan of the amniotes, with a dorsal shell consisting of modified ribs. Because this morphological change in the ribs can be described as an axial-level specific alteration, the evolution of the turtle carapace should depend on changes in the Hox code. To identify turtle-specific changes in developmental patterns, we cloned several Hox genes from the Chinese soft-shelled turtle, Pelodiscus sinensis, examined their expression patterns during embryogenesis, and compared them with those of chicken and mouse embryos. We detected possibly turtle-specific derived traits in Hoxc-6 expression, which is restricted to the paraxial part of the embryo; in the expression of Hoxa-5 and Hoxb-5, the transcripts of which were detected only at the cervical level; and in Hoxc-8 and Hoxa-7 expression, which is shifted anteriorly relative to that of the other two amniote groups. From the known functions of the Hox orthologs in model animals, these P. sinensis-specific changes apparently correlate with specializations in the turtle-specific body plan.

The epaxial–hypaxial subdivision of the avian somite

In all jaw-bearing vertebrates, three-dimensional mobility relies on segregated, separately innervated epaxial and hypaxial skeletal muscles. In amniotes, these muscles form from the morphologically continuous dermomyotome and myotome, whose epaxial-hypaxial subdivision and hence the formation of distinct epaxial-hypaxial muscles is not understood. Here we show that En1 expression labels a central subdomain of the avian dermomyotome, medially abutting the expression domain of the lead-lateral or hypaxial marker Sim1. En1 expression is maintained when cells from the En1-positive dermomyotome enter the myotome and dermatome, thereby superimposing the En1-Sim1 expression boundary onto the developing musculature and dermis. En1 cells originate from the dorsomedial edge of the somite. Their development is under positive control by notochord and floor plate (Shh), dorsal neural tube (Wnt1) and surface ectoderm (Wnt1-like signalling activity) but negatively regulated by the lateral plate mesoderm (BMP4). This dependence on epaxial signals and suppression by hypaxial signals places En1 into the epaxial somitic programme. Consequently, the En1-Sim1 expression boundary marks the epaxial-hypaxial dermomyotomal or myotomal boundary. In cell aggregation assays, En1- and Sim1-expressing cells sort out, suggesting that the En1-Sim1 expression boundary may represent a true compartment boundary, foreshadowing the epaxial-hypaxial segregation of muscle.

Normal and aberrant craniofacial myogenesis by grafted trunk somitic and segmental plate mesoderm

Our research assesses the ability of three trunk mesodermal populations– medial and lateral halves of newly formed somites, and presomitic(segmental plate) mesenchyme – to participate in the differentiation and morphogenesis of craniofacial muscles. Grafts from quail donor embryos were placed in mesodermal pockets adjacent to the midbrain-hindbrain boundary,prior to the onset of neural crest migration, in chick host embryos. This encompasses the site where the lateral rectus and the proximal first branchial arch muscle primordia arise. The distribution and differentiation of graft-derived cells were assayed using QCPN and QH1 antibodies to identify all quail cells and quail endothelial cells, respectively. Chimeric embryos were assayed for expression of myf5, myod, paraxis and lbx1, and the synthesis of myosin heavy chain (MyHC), between 1 and 6 days later (stages 14-30). Heterotopic and control (orthotopic) transplants consistently produced invasive angioblasts, and contributed to the lateral rectus and proximal first branchial arch muscles; many also contributed to the dorsal oblique muscle. The spatiotemporal patterns of transcription factor and MyHC expression by these trunk cells mimicked those of normal head muscles. Heterotopic grafts also gave rise to many ectopic muscles. These were observed in somite-like condensations at the implant site, in dense mesenchymal aggregates adjacent to the midbrain-hindbrain boundary, and in numerous small condensations scattered deep to the dorsal margin of the eye. Cells in ectopic condensations expressed trunk transcription factors and differentiated rapidly, mimicking the trunk myogenic timetable. A novel discovery was the formation by grafted trunk mesoderm of many mononucleated myocytes and irregularly oriented myotubes deep to the eye. These results establish that the head environment is able to support the progressive differentiation of several distinct trunk myogenic progenitor populations, over-riding whatever biases were present at the time of grafting. The spatial and temporal control of head muscle differentiation and morphogenesis are very site specific, and head mesoderm outside of these sites is normally refractory to, or inhibited by, the signals that initiate ectopic myogenesis by grafted trunk mesoderm cells.

Antagonists of Wnt and BMP signaling promote the formation of vertebrate head muscle

Recent studies have postulated that distinct regulatory cascades control myogenic differentiation in the head and the trunk. However, although the tissues and signaling molecules that induce skeletal myogenesis in the trunk have been identified, the source of the signals that trigger skeletal muscle formation in the head remain obscure. Here we show that although myogenesis in the trunk paraxial mesoderm is induced by Wnt signals from the dorsal neural tube, myogenesis in the cranial paraxial mesoderm is blocked by these same signals. In addition, BMP family members that are expressed in both the dorsal neural tube and surface ectoderm are also potent inhibitors of myogenesis in the cranial paraxial mesoderm. We provide evidence suggesting that skeletal myogenesis in the head is induced by the BMP inhibitors, Noggin and Gremlin, and the Wnt inhibitor, Frzb. These molecules are secreted by both cranial neural crest cells and by other tissues surrounding the cranial muscle anlagen. Our findings demonstrate that head muscle formation is locally repressed by Wnt and BMP signals and induced by antagonists of these signaling pathways secreted by adjacent tissues.

Dorsoventral patterning of the mouse coat by Tbx15

Many members of the animal kingdom display coat or skin color differences along their dorsoventral axis. To determine the mechanisms that control regional differences in pigmentation, we have studied how a classical mouse mutation, droopy ear (de^H), affects dorsoventral skin characteristics, especially those under control of the Agouti gene. Mice carrying the Agouti allele black-and-tan (a^t) normally have a sharp boundary between dorsal black hair and yellow ventral hair; the de^H mutation raises the pigmentation boundary, producing an apparent dorsal-to-ventral transformation. We identify a 216 kb deletion in de^H that removes all but the first exon of the Tbx15 gene, whose embryonic expression in developing mesenchyme correlates with pigmentary and skeletal malformations observed in de^H/de^H animals. Construction of a targeted allele of Tbx15 confirmed that the de^H phenotype was caused by Tbx15 loss of function. Early embryonic expression of Tbx15 in dorsal mesenchyme is complementary to Agouti expression in ventral mesenchyme; in the absence of Tbx15, expression of Agouti in both embryos and postnatal animals is displaced dorsally. Transplantation experiments demonstrate that positional identity of the skin with regard to dorsoventral pigmentation differences is acquired by E12.5, which is shortly after early embryonic expression of Tbx15. Fate-mapping studies show that the dorsoventral pigmentation boundary is not in register with a previously identified dermal cell lineage boundary, but rather with the limb dorsoventral boundary. Embryonic expression of Tbx15 in dorsolateral mesenchyme provides an instructional cue required to establish the future positional identity of dorsal dermis. These findings represent a novel role for T-box gene action in embryonic development, identify a previously unappreciated aspect of dorsoventral patterning that is widely represented in furred mammals, and provide insight into the mechanisms that underlie region-specific differences in body morphology.

Greg Barsh and colleagues show that a member of the well-known family of T-box genes helps to form an important pigmentation boundary in mice

Turtle-chicken chimera: An experimental approach to understanding evolutionary innovation in the turtle

Turtles have a body plan unique among vertebrates in that their ribs have shifted topographically to a superficial layer of the body and the trunk muscles are greatly reduced. Identifying the developmental factors that cause this pattern would further our understanding of the evolutionary origin of the turtles. As the first step in addressing this question, we replaced newly developed epithelial somites of the chicken at the thoracic level with those of the Chinese soft-shelled turtle Pelodiscus sinensis (P. sinensis somites into a chicken host) and observed the developmental patterning of the grafted somites in the chimera. The P. sinensis somites differentiated normally in the chicken embryonic environment into sclerotomes and dermomyotomes, and the myotomes differentiated further into the epaxial and hypaxial muscles with histological morphology similar to that of normal P. sinensis embryos and not to that of the chicken. Epaxial dermis also arose from the graft. Skeletal components, however, did not differentiate from the P. sinensis sclerotome, except for small fragments of cartilage associated with the host centrum and neural arches. We conclude that chicken and P. sinensis share the developmental programs necessary for the early differentiation of somites and that turtle-specific traits in muscle patterning arise mainly through a cell-autonomous developmental process in the somites per se. However, the mechanism for turtle-specific cartilage patterning, including that of the ribs, is not supported by the chicken embryonic environment.