In ovo technique for cell injection in the CPM followed by bead implantation in the BA2 of chicken embryos

Chicken embryo as a model in second heart field development

Previously, a single source of progenitor cells was thought to be responsible for the formation of the cardiac muscle. However, the second heart field has recently been identified as an additional source of myocardial progenitor cells. The chicken embryo, which develops in the egg, outside the mother can easily be manipulated in vivo and in vitro. Hence, it was an excellent model for establishing the concept of the second heart field. Here, our review will focus on the chicken model, specifically its role in understanding the second heart field. In addition to discussing historical aspects, we provide an overview of recent findings that have helped to define the chicken second heart field progenitor cells. A better understanding of the second heart field development will provide important insights into the congenital malformations affecting cardiac muscle formation and function.

Local Glucocorticoid Administration Impairs Embryonic Wound Healing

Understanding the complex processes of fetal wound healing and skin regeneration can help to improve fetal surgery. As part of the integumentary system, the skin protects the newborn organism against environmental factors and serves various functions. Glucocorticoids can enter the fetal circulatory system by either elevated maternal stress perception or through therapeutic administration and are known to affect adult skin composition and wound regeneration. In the present study, we aimed at investigating the effects of local glucocorticoid administration on the process of embryonic wound healing. We performed in-ovo bead implantation of dexamethasone beads into skin incisional wounds of avian embryos and observed the local effects of the glucocorticoid on the process of skin regeneration through histology, immunohistochemistry and in-situ hybridization, using vimentin, fibronectin, E-cadherin, Dermo-1 and phospho-Histone H3 as investigational markers. Local glucocorticoid administration decelerated the healing of the skin incisional wounds by impairing mesenchymal contraction and re-epithelialization resulting in morphological changes, such as increased epithelialization and disorganized matrix formation. The results contribute to a better understanding of scarless embryonic wound healing and how glucocorticoids might interfere with the underlying molecular processes, possibly indicating that glucocorticoid therapies in prenatal clinical practice should be carefully evaluated.

Chicken Second Branchial Arch Progenitor Cells Contribute to Heart Musculature in vitro and in vivo

In the past, the heart muscle was thought to originate from a single source of myocardial progenitor cells. More recently, however, an additional source of myocardial progenitors has been revealed to be the second heart field, and chicken embryos were important for establishing this concept. However, there have been few studies in chicken on how this field contributes to heart muscles in vitro. We have developed an ex vivo experimental system from chicken embryos between stages HH17-20 to investigate how mesodermal progenitors in the second branchial arch (BA2) differentiate into cardiac muscles. Using this method, we presented evidence that the progenitor cells within the BA2 arch differentiated into beating cardiomyocytes in vitro. The beating explant cells were positive for cardiac actin, Nkx2.5, and ventricular myosin heavy chain. In addition, we performed a time course for the expression of second heart field markers (Isl1 and Nkx2.5) in the BA2 from stage HH16 to stage HH21 using in situ hybridization. Accordingly, using EGFP-based cell labeling techniques and quail-chicken cell injection, we demonstrated that mesodermal cells from the BA2 contributed to the outflow tract and ventricular myocardium in vivo. Thus, our findings highlight the cardiogenic potential of chicken BA2 mesodermal cells in vitro and in vivo.

The CXCR4/SDF-1 Axis in the Development of Facial Expression and Non-somitic Neck Muscles

Trunk and head muscles originate from distinct embryonic regions: while the trunk muscles derive from the paraxial mesoderm that becomes segmented into somites, the majority of head muscles develops from the unsegmented cranial paraxial mesoderm. Differences in the molecular control of trunk versus head and neck muscles have been discovered about 25 years ago; interestingly, differences in satellite cell subpopulations were also described more recently. Specifically, the satellite cells of the facial expression muscles share properties with heart muscle. In adult vertebrates, neck muscles span the transition zone between head and trunk. Mastication and facial expression muscles derive from the mesodermal progenitor cells that are located in the first and second branchial arches, respectively. The cucullaris muscle (non-somitic neck muscle) originates from the posterior-most branchial arches. Like other subclasses within the chemokines and chemokine receptors, CXCR4 and SDF-1 play essential roles in the migration of cells within a number of various tissues during development. CXCR4 as receptor together with its ligand SDF-1 have mainly been described to regulate the migration of the trunk muscle progenitor cells. This review first underlines our recent understanding of the development of the facial expression (second arch-derived) muscles, focusing on new insights into the migration event and how this embryonic process is different from the development of mastication (first arch-derived) muscles. Other muscles associated with the head, such as non-somitic neck muscles derived from muscle progenitor cells located in the posterior branchial arches, are also in the focus of this review. Implications on human muscle dystrophies affecting the muscles of face and neck are also discussed.

Cxcr4 and Sdf-1 are critically involved in the formation of facial and non-somitic neck muscles

The present study shows that the CXCR4/SDF-1 axis regulates the migration of second branchial arch-derived muscles as well as non-somitic neck muscles. Cxcr4 is expressed by skeletal muscle progenitor cells in the second branchial arch (BA2). Muscles derived from the second branchial arch, but not from the first, fail to form in Cxcr4 mutants at embryonic days E13.5 and E14.5. Cxcr4 is also required for the development of non-somitic neck muscles. In Cxcr4 mutants, non-somitic neck muscle development is severely perturbed. In vivo experiments in chicken by means of loss-of-function approach based on the application of beads loaded with the CXCR4 inhibitor AMD3100 into the cranial paraxial mesoderm resulted in decreased expression of Tbx1 in the BA2. Furthermore, disrupting this chemokine signal at a later stage by implanting these beads into the BA2 caused a reduction in MyoR, Myf5 and MyoD expression. In contrast, gain-of-function experiments based on the implantation of SDF-1 beads into BA2 resulted in an attraction of myogenic progenitor cells, which was reflected in an expansion of the expression domain of these myogenic markers towards the SDF-1 source. Thus, Cxcr4 is required for the formation of the BA2 derived muscles and non-somitic neck muscles.