A tumor suppressor Retinoblastoma1 is essential for embryonic development in the sea urchin

Micromere formation and its evolutionary implications in the sea urchin

The micromeres of the sea urchin embryo are distinct from other blastomeres. After they arise through an asymmetric cell division at the 8- to 16-cell stage, micromeres immediately function as organizers. They also commit themselves to specific cell fates such as larval skeletogenic cells and primordial germ cells, while other blastomeres remain plastic and uncommitted at the 16-cell stage. In the phylum Echinodermata, only the sea urchin (class Echinoidea) embryo forms micromeres that serve as apparent organizers during early embryogenesis. Therefore, it is considered that micromeres are the derived features and that modification(s) of the developmental system allowed evolutionary introduction of this unique cell lineage. In this chapter, we summarize the both historic and recent observations that demonstrate unique properties of micromeres and discuss how this lineage of micromeres may have arisen during echinoderm evolution.

Functional contribution of DCLKs in sea urchin development

BACKGROUND

Doublecortin-like kinase1 and 2 (DCLKs) are protein Ser/Thr kinases important for neuronal development. More recently, they are also reported to regulate plasticity such as cell proliferation and differentiation of stem cells and cancer cells, but the details of their functions in this biological context are still unclear. With an attempt to reveal the functions of DCLKs in plasticity regulation, we here used the sea urchin embryo that undergoes highly regulative development as an experimental model.

RESULTS

We found that both the transcripts and the proteins of DCLKs are uniformly present during early embryogenesis and with some enrichment in mesenchymal cells after gastrula stage. Knockdown of DCLKs induced general developmental delay and defects at day 2. Further, the damage on the embryo/larva induced ectopic expression of DCLKs in the ectoderm where the damage was most severe. Under a tumor-prone or -suppressive condition, DCLKs expression was upregulated or downregulated, respectively, after damage. In both cases, the embryos showed severe developmental defects.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, a transient upregulation of DCLKs appears to be involved in a damage response both during normal and abnormal development, and which could result in different phenotypes in a context dependent manner.