Meis2 Is Required for Inner Ear Formation and Proper Morphogenesis of the Cochlea

Meis genes have been shown to control essential processes during development of the central and peripheral nervous system. Here we have explored the roles of the Meis2 gene during vertebrate inner ear induction and the formation of the cochlea. Meis2 is expressed in several tissues required for inner ear induction and in non-sensory tissue of the cochlear duct. Global inactivation of Meis2 in the mouse leads to a severely reduced size of the otic vesicle. Tissue-specific knock outs of Meis2 reveal that its expression in the hindbrain is essential for otic vesicle formation. Inactivation of Meis2 in the inner ear itself leads to an aberrant coiling of the cochlear duct. By analyzing transcriptomes obtained from Meis2 mutants and ChIPseq analysis of an otic cell line, we define candidate target genes for Meis2 which may be directly or indirectly involved in cochlear morphogenesis. Taken together, these data show that Meis2 is essential for inner ear formation and provide an entry point to unveil the network underlying proper coiling of the cochlear duct.

Meis homeobox genes control progenitor competence in the retina

The vertebrate eye is derived from the neuroepithelium, surface ectoderm, and extracellular mesenchyme. The neuroepithelium forms an optic cup in which the spatial separation of three domains is established, namely, the region of multipotent retinal progenitor cells (RPCs), the ciliary margin zone (CMZ)-which possesses both a neurogenic and nonneurogenic potential-and the optic disk (OD), the interface between the optic stalk and the neuroretina. Here, we show by genetic ablation in the developing optic cup that Meis1 and Meis2 homeobox genes function redundantly to maintain the retinal progenitor pool while they simultaneously suppress the expression of genes characteristic of CMZ and OD fates. Furthermore, we demonstrate that Meis transcription factors bind regulatory regions of RPC-, CMZ-, and OD-specific genes, thus providing a mechanistic insight into the Meis-dependent gene regulatory network. Our work uncovers the essential role of Meis1 and Meis2 as regulators of cell fate competence, which organize spatial territories in the vertebrate eye.

Role of Retinoic Acid Signaling, FGF Signaling and Meis Genes in Control of Limb Development

The function of retinoic acid (RA) during limb development is still debated, as loss and gain of function studies led to opposite conclusions. With regard to limb initiation, genetic studies demonstrated that activation of FGF10 signaling is required for the emergence of limb buds from the trunk, with Tbx5 and RA signaling acting upstream in the forelimb field, whereas Tbx4 and Pitx1 act upstream in the hindlimb field. Early studies in chick embryos suggested that RA as well as Meis1 and Meis2 (Meis1/2) are required for subsequent proximodistal patterning of both forelimbs and hindlimbs, with RA diffusing from the trunk, functioning to activate Meis1/2 specifically in the proximal limb bud mesoderm. However, genetic loss of RA signaling does not result in loss of limb Meis1/2 expression and limb patterning is normal, although Meis1/2 expression is reduced in trunk somitic mesoderm. More recent studies demonstrated that global genetic loss of Meis1/2 results in a somite defect and failure of limb bud initiation. Other new studies reported that conditional genetic loss of Meis1/2 in the limb results in proximodistal patterning defects, and distal FGF8 signaling represses Meis1/2 to constrain its expression to the proximal limb. In this review, we hypothesize that RA and Meis1/2 both function in the trunk to initiate forelimb bud initiation, but that limb Meis1/2 expression is activated proximally by a factor other than RA and repressed distally by FGF8 to generate proximodistal patterning.

Neural crest cells require Meis2 for patterning the mandibular arch via the Sonic hedgehog pathway

Cranial neural crest cells (cNCCs) originate in the anterior neural tube and populate pharyngeal arches in which they contribute to formation of bone and cartilage. This cell population also provides molecular signals for the development of tissues of non-neural crest origin, such as the tongue muscles, teeth enamel or gland epithelium. Here we show that the transcription factor Meis2 is expressed in the oral region of the first pharyngeal arch (PA1) and later in the tongue primordium. Conditional inactivation of Meis2 in cNCCs resulted in loss of Sonic hedgehog signalling in the oropharyngeal epithelium and impaired patterning of PA1 along the lateral-medial and oral-aboral axis. Failure of molecular specification of PA1, illustrated by altered expression of Hand1/2, Dlx5, Barx1, Gsc and other markers, led to hypoplastic tongue and ectopic ossification of the mandible. Meis2-mutant mice thus display craniofacial defects that are reminiscent of several human syndromes and patients with mutations in the Meis2 gene.

Expression of meis and hoxa11 in dipnoan and teleost fins provides new insights into the evolution of vertebrate appendages

Background

The concerted activity of Meis and Hoxa11 transcription factors is essential for the subdivision of tetrapod limbs into proximo-distal (PD) domains; however, little is know about the evolution of this patterning mechanism. Here, we aim to study the expression of meis and hoxa11 orthologues in the median and paired rayed fins of zebrafish and in the lobed fins of the Australian lungfish.

Results

First, a late phase of expression of meis1.1 and hoxa11b in zebrafish dorsal and anal fins relates with segmentation of endochondral elements in proximal and distal radials. Second, our zebrafish in situ hybridization results reveal spatial and temporal changes between pectoral and pelvic fins. Third, in situ analysis of meis1, meis3 and hoxa11 genes in Neoceratodus pectoral fins identifies decoupled domains of expression along the PD axis.

Conclusions

Our data raise the possibility that the origin of stylopod and zeugopod lies much deeper in gnathostome evolution and that variation in meis and hoxa11 expression has played a substantial role in the transformation of appendage anatomy. Moreover, these observations provide evidence that the Meis/Hoxa11 profile considered a hallmark of stylopod/zeugopod patterning is present in Neoceratodus.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13227-018-0099-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The TALE face of Hox proteins in animal evolution

Hox genes are major regulators of embryonic development. One of their most conserved functions is to coordinate the formation of specific body structures along the anterior-posterior (AP) axis in Bilateria. This architectural role was at the basis of several morphological innovations across bilaterian evolution. In this review, we traced the origin of the Hox patterning system by considering the partnership with PBC and Meis proteins. PBC and Meis belong to the TALE-class of homeodomain-containing transcription factors and act as generic cofactors of Hox proteins for AP axis patterning in Bilateria. Recent data indicate that Hox proteins acquired the ability to interact with their TALE partners in the last common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria. These interactions relied initially on a short peptide motif called hexapeptide (HX), which is present in Hox and non-Hox protein families. Remarkably, Hox proteins can also recruit the TALE cofactors by using specific PBC Interaction Motifs (SPIMs). We describe how a functional Hox/TALE patterning system emerged in eumetazoans through the acquisition of SPIMs. We anticipate that interaction flexibility could be found in other patterning systems, being at the heart of the astonishing morphological diversity observed in the animal kingdom.

Glimpse into Hox and tale regulation of cell differentiation and reprogramming

During embryonic development, cells become gradually restricted in their developmental potential and start elaborating lineage-specific transcriptional networks to ultimately acquire a unique differentiated state. Hox genes play a central role in specifying regional identities, thereby providing the cell with critical information on positional value along its differentiation path. The exquisite DNA-binding specificity of the Hox proteins is frequently dependent upon their interaction with members of the TALE family of homeodomain proteins. In addition to their function as Hox-cofactors, TALE homeoproteins control multiple crucial developmental processes through Hox-independent mechanisms. Here, we will review recent findings on the function of both Hox and TALE proteins in cell differentiation, referring mostly to vertebrate species. In addition, we will discuss the direct implications of this knowledge on cell plasticity and cell reprogramming.

Hox regulation of transcription: more complex(es)

Hox genes encode transcription factors with important roles during embryogenesis and tissue differentiation. Genetic analyses initially demonstrated that interfering with Hox genes has profound effects on the specification of cell identity, suggesting that Hox proteins regulate very specific sets of target genes. However, subsequent biochemical analyses revealed that Hox proteins bind DNA with relatively low affinity and specificity. Furthermore, it became clear that a given Hox protein could activate or repress transcription, depending on the context. A resolution to these paradoxes presented itself with the discovery that Hox proteins do not function in isolation, but interact with other factors in complexes. The first such "cofactors" were members of the Extradenticle/Pbx and Homothorax/Meis/Prep families. However, the list of Hox-interacting proteins has continued to grow, suggesting that Hox complexes contain many more components than initially thought. Additionally, the activities of the various components and the exact mechanisms whereby they modulate the activity of the complex remain puzzling. Here, we review the various proteins known to participate in Hox complexes and discuss their likely functions. We also consider that Hox complexes of different compositions may have different activities and discuss mechanisms whereby Hox complexes may be switched between active and inactive states.