Variable Meis-dependence among paralog group-1 Hox proteins

scMultiome analysis identifies embryonic hindbrain progenitors with mixed rhombomere identities

Rhombomeres serve to position neural progenitors in the embryonic hindbrain, thereby ensuring appropriate neural circuit formation, but the molecular identities of individual rhombomeres and the mechanism whereby they form has not been fully established. Here, we apply scMultiome analysis in zebrafish to molecularly resolve all rhombomeres for the first time. We find that rhombomeres become molecularly distinct between 10hpf (end of gastrulation) and 13hpf (early segmentation). While the embryonic hindbrain transiently contains alternating odd- versus even-type rhombomeres, our scMultiome analyses do not detect extensive odd versus even molecular characteristics in the early hindbrain. Instead, we find that each rhombomere displays a unique gene expression and chromatin profile. Prior to the appearance of distinct rhombomeres, we detect three hindbrain progenitor clusters (PHPDs) that correlate with the earliest visually observed segments in the hindbrain primordium that represent prospective rhombomere r2/r3 (possibly including r1), r4, and r5/r6, respectively. We further find that the PHPDs form in response to Fgf and RA morphogens and that individual PHPD cells co-express markers of multiple mature rhombomeres. We propose that the PHPDs contain mixed-identity progenitors and that their subdivision into individual rhombomeres requires the resolution of mixed transcription and chromatin states.

scMultiome analysis identifies embryonic hindbrain progenitors with mixed rhombomere identities

Rhombomeres serve to position neural progenitors in the embryonic hindbrain, thereby ensuring appropriate neural circuit formation, but the molecular identities of individual rhombomeres and the mechanism whereby they form have not been fully established. Here we apply scMultiome analysis in zebrafish to molecularly resolve all rhombomeres for the first time. We find that rhombomeres become molecularly distinct between 10hpf (end of gastrulation) and 13hpf (early segmentation). While the mature hindbrain consists of alternating odd- versus even-type rhombomeres, our scMultiome analyses do not detect extensive odd versus even characteristics in the early hindbrain. Instead, we find that each rhombomere displays a unique gene expression and chromatin profile. Prior to the appearance of distinct rhombomeres, we detect three hindbrain progenitor clusters (PHPDs) that correlate with the earliest visually observed segments in the hindbrain primordium and that represent prospective rhombomere r2/r3 (possibly including r1), r4 and r5/r6, respectively. We further find that the PHPDs form in response to Fgf and RA morphogens and that individual PHPD cells co-express markers of multiple mature rhombomeres. We propose that the PHPDs contain mixed-identity progenitors and that their subdivision into individual mature rhombomeres requires resolution of mixed transcription and chromatin states.

Mechanisms of Specificity for Hox Factor Activity

Metazoans encode clusters of paralogous Hox genes that are critical for proper development of the body plan. However, there are a number of unresolved issues regarding how paralogous Hox factors achieve specificity to control distinct cell fates. First, how do Hox paralogs, which have very similar DNA binding preferences in vitro, drive different transcriptional programs in vivo? Second, the number of potential Hox binding sites within the genome is vast compared to the number of sites bound. Hence, what determines where in the genome Hox factors bind? Third, what determines whether a Hox factor will activate or repress a specific target gene? Here, we review the current evidence that is beginning to shed light onto these questions. In particular, we highlight how cooperative interactions with other transcription factors (especially PBC and HMP proteins) and the sequences of cis-regulatory modules provide a basis for the mechanisms of Hox specificity. We conclude by integrating a number of the concepts described throughout the review in a case study of a highly interrogated Drosophila cis-regulatory module named “The Distal-less Conserved Regulatory Element” (DCRE).

Epigenetic control of Hox genes during neurogenesis, development, and disease

The process of mammalian development is established through multiple complex molecular pathways acting in harmony at the genomic, proteomic, and epigenomic levels. The outcome is profoundly influenced by the role of epigenetics through transcriptional regulation of key developmental genes. Epigenetics refer to changes in gene expression that are inherited through mechanisms other than the underlying DNA sequence, which control cellular morphology and identity. It is currently well accepted that epigenetics play central roles in regulating mammalian development and cellular differentiation by dictating cell fate decisions via regulation of specific genes. Among these genes are the Hox family members, which are master regulators of embryonic development and stem cell differentiation and their mis-regulation leads to human disease and cancer. The Hox gene discovery led to the establishment of a fundamental role for basic genetics in development. Hox genes encode for highly conserved transcription factors from flies to humans that organize the anterior-posterior body axis during embryogenesis. Hox gene expression during development is tightly regulated in a spatiotemporal manner, partly by chromatin structure and epigenetic modifications. Here, we review the impact of different epigenetic mechanisms in development and stem cell differentiation with a clear focus on the regulation of Hox genes.

Segment-specific neuronal subtype specification by the integration of anteroposterior and temporal cues

To address the question of how neuronal diversity is achieved throughout the CNS, this study provides evidence of modulation of neural progenitor cell “output” along the body axis by integration of local anteroposterior and temporal cues.

The generation of distinct neuronal subtypes at different axial levels relies upon both anteroposterior and temporal cues. However, the integration between these cues is poorly understood. In the Drosophila central nervous system, the segmentally repeated neuroblast 5–6 generates a unique group of neurons, the Apterous (Ap) cluster, only in thoracic segments. Recent studies have identified elaborate genetic pathways acting to control the generation of these neurons. These insights, combined with novel markers, provide a unique opportunity for addressing how anteroposterior and temporal cues are integrated to generate segment-specific neuronal subtypes. We find that Pbx/Meis, Hox, and temporal genes act in three different ways. Posteriorly, Pbx/Meis and posterior Hox genes block lineage progression within an early temporal window, by triggering cell cycle exit. Because Ap neurons are generated late in the thoracic 5–6 lineage, this prevents generation of Ap cluster cells in the abdomen. Thoracically, Pbx/Meis and anterior Hox genes integrate with late temporal genes to specify Ap clusters, via activation of a specific feed-forward loop. In brain segments, “Ap cluster cells” are present but lack both proper Hox and temporal coding. Only by simultaneously altering Hox and temporal gene activity in all segments can Ap clusters be generated throughout the neuroaxis. This study provides the first detailed analysis, to our knowledge, of an identified neuroblast lineage along the entire neuroaxis, and confirms the concept that lineal homologs of truncal neuroblasts exist throughout the developing brain. We furthermore provide the first insight into how Hox/Pbx/Meis anteroposterior and temporal cues are integrated within a defined lineage, to specify unique neuronal identities only in thoracic segments. This study reveals a surprisingly restricted, yet multifaceted, function of both anteroposterior and temporal cues with respect to lineage control and cell fate specification.

An animal's nervous system contains a wide variety of neuronal subtypes generated from neural progenitor (“stem”) cells, which generate different types of neurons at different axial positions and time points. Hence, the generation and specification of unique neuronal subtypes is dependent upon the integration of both spatial and temporal cues within distinct stem cells. The nature of this integration is poorly understood. We have addressed this issue in the Drosophila neuroblast 5–6 lineage. This stem cell is generated in all 18 segments of the central nervous system, stretching from the brain down to the abdomen of the fly, but a larger lineage containing a well-defined set of cells—the Apterous (Ap) cluster—is generated only in thoracic segments. We show that segment-specific generation of the Ap cluster neurons is achieved by the integration of the anteroposterior and temporal cues in several different ways. Generation of the Ap neurons in abdominal segments is prevented by anteroposterior cues stopping the cell cycle in the stem cell at an early stage. In brain segments, late-born neurons are generated, but are differently specified due to the presence of different anteroposterior and temporal cues. Finally, in thoracic segments, the temporal and spatial cues integrate on a highly limited set of target genes to specify the Ap cluster neurons.

Meis cofactors control HDAC and CBP accessibility at Hox-regulated promoters during zebrafish embryogenesis

Hox proteins form complexes with Pbx and Meis cofactors to control gene expression, but the role of Meis is unclear. We demonstrate that Hoxb1-regulated promoters are highly acetylated on histone H4 (AcH4) and occupied by Hoxb1, Pbx, and Meis in zebrafish tissues where these promoters are active. Inhibition of Meis blocks gene expression and reduces AcH4 levels at these promoters, suggesting a role for Meis in maintaining AcH4. Within Hox transcription complexes, Meis binds directly to Pbx and we find that this binding displaces histone deacetylases (HDACs) from Hoxb1-regulated promoters in zebrafish embryos. Accordingly, Pbx mutants that cannot bind Meis act as repressors by recruiting HDACs and reducing AcH4 levels, while Pbx mutants that bind neither HDAC nor Meis are constitutively active and recruit CBP to increase AcH4 levels. We conclude that Meis acts, at least in part, by controlling access of HDAC and CBP to Hox-regulated promoters.

hnf1b genes in zebrafish hindbrain development

The Hnf1b transcription factor acts during formation of rhombomeres (r) 5 and 6 in the hindbrain. To determine if hnf1b is absolutely required in r5/r6, we examined the hnf1b(hi2169) and hnf1b(hi1843) retroviral insertion alleles. Hnf1b(hi2169) shows highly variable residual expression of several genes in r5/r6, but this is not due to full-length hnf1b transcripts persisting in hnf1b(hi2169) embryos, nor to hnf1bl, a novel hnf1 family member expressed in r5 that we identified. Instead, we find evidence for a virus-hnf1b fusion transcript in hnf1b(hi2169) embryos and demonstrate that morpholino-mediated knockdown of this transcript leads to near-undetectable r5 gene expression. The hnf1b(hi1843) allele has a more severe phenotype with near-undetectable expression of r5/r6 genes. We next examined if hoxb1b, which functions upstream of hnf1b in r5/r6 formation, can induce expression of r5/r6 genes in hnf1b mutants. We find that microinjected hoxb1b mRNA induces ectopic gene expression anterior to the hindbrain in hnf1b(hi2169) and hnf1b(hi1843) embryos, but cannot restore gene expression in r5/r6 of the mutants. We conclude that hnf1b(hi2169) is hypomorphic to hnf1b(hi1843) and that, while hnf1b is required for r5/r6 gene expression in the hindbrain, r5/r6 gene expression can be experimentally induced independently of hnf1b anterior to the hindbrain.

Rostral hindbrain patterning involves the direct activation of a Krox20 transcriptional enhancer by Hox/Pbx and Meis factors

The morphogenesis of the vertebrate hindbrain involves the generation of metameric units called rhombomeres (r), and Krox20 encodes a transcription factor that is expressed in r3 and r5 and plays a major role in this segmentation process. Our knowledge of the basis of Krox20 regulation in r3 is rather confusing, especially concerning the involvement of Hox factors. To investigate this issue, we studied one of the Krox20 hindbrain cis-regulatory sequences, element C, which is active in r3-r5 and which is the only initiator element in r3. We show that element C contains multiple binding sites for Meis and Hox/Pbx factors and that these proteins synergize to activate the enhancer. Mutation of these binding sites allowed us to establish that Krox20 is under the direct transcriptional control of both Meis (presumably Meis2) and Hox/Pbx factors in r3. Furthermore, our data indicate that element C functions according to multiple modes, in Meis-independent or -dependent manners and with different Hox proteins, in r3 and r5. Finally, we show that the Hoxb1 and Krox20 expression domains transiently overlap in prospective r3, and that Hoxb1 binds to element C in vivo, supporting a cell-autonomous involvement of Hox paralogous group 1 proteins in Krox20 regulation. Altogether, our data clarify the molecular mechanisms of an essential step in hindbrain patterning. We propose a model for the complex regulation of Krox20, involving a novel mode of initiation, positive and negative controls by Hox proteins, and multiple direct and indirect autoregulatory loops.

Consequences of hoxb1 duplication in teleost fish

Vertebrate evolution is characterized by gene and genome duplication events. There is strong evidence that a whole-genome duplication occurred in the lineage leading to the teleost fishes. We have focused on the teleost hoxb1 duplicate genes as a paradigm to investigate the consequences of gene duplication. Previous analysis of the duplicated zebrafish hoxb1 genes suggested they have subfunctionalized. The combined expression pattern of the two zebrafish hoxb1 genes recapitulates the expression pattern of the single Hoxb1 gene of tetrapods, possibly due to degenerative changes in complementary cis-regulatory elements of the duplicates. Here we have tested the hypothesis that all teleost duplicates had a similar fate post duplication, by examining hoxb1 genes in medaka and striped bass. Consistent with this theory, we found that the ancestral Hoxb1 expression pattern is subdivided between duplicate genes in a largely similar fashion in zebrafish, medaka, and striped bass. Further, our analysis of hoxb1 genes reveals that sequence changes in cis-regulatory regions may underlie subfunctionalization in all teleosts, although the specific changes vary between species. It was previously shown that zebrafish hoxb1 duplicates have also evolved different functional capacities. We used misexpression to compare the functions of hoxb1 duplicates from zebrafish, medaka and striped bass. Unexpectedly, we found that some biochemical properties, which were paralog specific in zebrafish, are conserved in both duplicates of other species. This work suggests that the fate of duplicate genes varies across the teleost group.

TALE-family homeodomain proteins regulate endodermal sonic hedgehog expression and pattern the anterior endoderm

sonic hedgehog (shh) is expressed in anterior endoderm, where it is required to repress pancreas gene expression and to pattern the endoderm, but the pathway controlling endodermal shh expression is unclear. We find that expression of meis3, a TALE class homeodomain gene, coincides with shh expression in the endoderm of zebrafish embryos. Using a dominant negative construct or anti-sense morpholino oligos (MOs) to disrupt meis3 function, we observe ectopic insulin expression in anterior endoderm. This phenotype is also observed when meis3 MOs are targeted to the endoderm, suggesting that meis3 acts within the endoderm to restrict insulin expression. We also find that meis3 is required for endodermal shh expression, indicating that meis3 acts upstream of shh to restrict insulin expression. Loss of pbx4, a TALE gene encoding a Meis cofactor, produces the same phenotype as loss of meis3, consistent with Meis3 acting in a complex with Pbx4 as reported in other systems. Lastly, we observe a progressive anterior displacement of endoderm-derived organs upon disruption of meis3 or pbx4, apparently as a result of underdevelopment of the pharyngeal region. Our data indicate that meis3 and pbx4 regulate shh expression in anterior endoderm, thereby influencing patterning and growth of the foregut.