Rhombomere transplantation repatterns the segmental organization of cranial nerves and reveals cell-autonomous expression of a homeodomain protein

Development ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.C. Kuratani ◽  
G. Eichele

The developing vertebrate hindbrain consists of segmental units known as rhombomeres. Hindbrain neuroectoderm expresses 3′ Hox 1 and 2 cluster genes in characteristic patterns whose anterior limit of expression coincides with rhombomere boundaries. One particular Hox gene, referred to as Ghox 2.9, is initially expressed throughout the hindbrain up to the anterior border of rhombomere 4 (r4). Later, Ghox 2.9 is strongly upregulated in r4 and Ghox 2.9 protein is found in all neuroectodermal cells of r4 and in the hyoid crest cell population derived from this rhombomere. Using a polyclonal antibody, Ghox 2.9 was immunolocalized after transplanting r4 within the hindbrain. Wherever r4 was transplanted, Ghox 2.9 expression was cell-autonomous, both in the neuroectoderm of the graft and in the hyoid crest cell population originating from the graft. In all vertebrates, rhombomeres and cranial nerves (nerves V, VII+VIII, IX, X) exhibit a stereotypic relationship: nerve V arises at the level of r2, nerve VII+VIII at r4 and nerves IX-X extend caudal to r6. To examine how rhombomere transplantation affects this pattern, operated embryos were stained with monoclonal antibodies E/C8 (for visualization of the PNS and of even-numbered rhombomeres) and HNK-1 (to detect crest cells and odd-numbered rhombomeres). Upon transplantation, rhombomeres did not change E/C8 or HNK-1 expression or their ability to produce crest cells. For example, transplanted r4 generated a lateral stream of crest cells irrespective of the site into which it was grafted. Moreover, later in development, ectopic r4 formed an additional cranial nerve root. In contrast, transplantation of r3 (lacks crest cells) into the region of r7 led to inhibition of nerve root formation in the host. These findings emphasize that in contrast to spinal nerve segmentation, which entirely depends on the pattern of somites, cranial nerve patterning is brought about by factors intrinsic to rhombomeres and to the attached neural crest cell populations. The patterns of the neuroectoderm and of the PNS are specified early in hindbrain development and cannot be influenced by tissue transplantation. The observed cell-autonomous expression of Ghox 2.9 (and possibly also of other Hox genes) provides further evidence for the view that Hox gene expression underlies, at least in part, the segmental specification within the hindbrain neuroectoderm.

Development ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 120 (4) ◽  
pp. 911-923 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Prince ◽  
A. Lumsden

In this study we have cloned the chick Hoxa-2 gene and analysed its expression during early development. We find that Hoxa-2 has a rostral limit of expression in the rhombencephalic neural tube corresponding precisely to the boundary between rhombomeres (r)1 and 2; a limit further rostral than any other Hox gene reported to date. Neural crest migrates from r2 to populate the first branchial arch, yet although Hoxa-2 is expressed down the full dorsoventral extent of r2 during the phase of neural crest emigration, there is no Hoxa-2 expression in either the emergent neural crest or in the first branchial arch. Conversely, at the level of r4, both the neural tube and the neural crest cells, which migrate out of this rhombomere to populate the second branchial arch, express Hoxa-2. Other Hox genes expressed in the rhombencephalic neural tube demonstrate a transfer of expression from neural tube to neural crest at all axial levels of expression. Hoxa-2 is thus unusual in demonstrating separate anterior expression limits in neural tube and neural crest; this allowed us to test whether Hox gene expression patterns in neural crest are determined by migratory pathways or are prespecified by the site of origin in the neuroepithelium. Grafting experiments in which pairs of rhombomeres were transplanted to ectopic sites at the time of rhombomere boundary formation reveal a prepatterning of the neural crest with respect to Hoxa-2 expression. The decision to down-regulate Hoxa-2 expression in r2-derived neural crest, but to maintain Hoxa-2 expression in r4-derived neural crest is intrinsic to the premigratory crest cell population. Thus, following grafting of r4 to the r2 site and vice-versa, Hoxa-2 expression is maintained in r4-derived neural crest, but lost in r2-derived neural crest.


Development ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 124 (10) ◽  
pp. 1953-1962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Wakamatsu ◽  
Y. Watanabe ◽  
H. Nakamura ◽  
H. Kondoh

During neural crest development in avian embryos, transcription factor N-myc is initially expressed in the entire cell population. The expression is then turned off in the period following colonization in ganglion and nerve cord areas except for the cells undergoing neuronal differentiation. This was also recapitulated in the culture of Japanese quail neural crest, and the cells expressing N-myc eventually coincided with those expressing neurofilaments. These findings suggested that N-myc is involved in regulation of neuronal differentiation in the neural crest cell population. In fact, transient overexpression of N-myc in the neural crest culture by transfection resulted in a remarkable promotion of neuronal differentiation. An experimental procedure was developed to examine the effect of exogenous N-myc expression in the neural crest cells in embryos. Neural crest cell clusters still attached to the neural tube were excised from Japanese quail embryos, transfected and grafted into chicken host embryos. Using this chimera technique, we were able to analyze the consequence of transient high N-myc during the early phase of neural crest migration. Two effects were demonstrated in the embryos: first, high N-myc expression provoked massive ventral migration of the neural crest population and, second, those cells that migrated to the ganglion-forming areas underwent neuronal differentiation with the cell type determined by the nature of the ganglion. Thus, N-myc is involved in regulation of the neural crest fate in two different aspects: ventral migration and neuronal differentiation.


2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S2) ◽  
pp. 417-417
Author(s):  
S. Frohlich ◽  
C.A. Franco

The cranial nerves can be an important key for research in Neuropsychology. Our hypothesis is that they can be organized in three groups and then, related to specifics attitudes.The Cochlear Nerve (VII pair), the Optic Nerve (II pair) and the olfactory nerve (I pair) have special translators that process the sensorial information from the environment to the brain, to form a clue. They are the first cranial nerve group: the cognitive nerves that incite the nervous system in an endogenous way. The second cranial nerve group stimulates muscles: the spinal nerve (XI pair) that regulates the posture, the trigeminal nerve (V pair) that is connected to mastication muscles and the hypoglossal nerve (XII pair) that supplies motor fibers for all the tongue muscles. They are behavioral nerves and act in an exogenous way.The third cranial nerve group regulates the emotions and is connected to the SNA: the Vagus nerve (X pair), the Facial nerve (VII pair) and the Glossofaringeal nerve (IX pair).The cranial nerves that enervate the eyes muscles are responsible for the regulation of the visual focus and the attention. We related them to the three groups above described. The Trochlear nerve (IV pair) incite a cognitive attitude and act in an endogenous way; the Abducent nerve (VI pair) produces the plain environmental attention through the saccades and following eyes movement and produces behavioral attitudes and the Oculomotor Nerve (III pair) act in autonomic way, regulating the inner feelings and emotions.


Development ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 125 (6) ◽  
pp. 1123-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Gavalas ◽  
M. Studer ◽  
A. Lumsden ◽  
F.M. Rijli ◽  
R. Krumlauf ◽  
...  

The analysis of Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 null mutants suggested that these genes are involved in distinct aspects of hindbrain segmentation and specification. Here we investigate the possible functional synergy of the two genes. The generation of Hoxa1(3′RARE)/Hoxb1(3′RARE) compound mutants resulted in mild facial motor nerve defects reminiscent of those present in the Hoxb1 null mutants. Strong genetic interactions between Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 were uncovered by introducing the Hoxb1(3′RARE) and Hoxb1 null mutations into the Hoxa1 null genetic background. Hoxa1(null)/Hoxb1(3′RARE) and Hoxa1(null)/Hoxb1(null)double homozygous embryos showed additional patterning defects in the r4-r6 region but maintained a molecularly distinct r4-like territory. Neurofilament staining and retrograde labelling of motor neurons indicated that Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 synergise in patterning the VIIth through XIth cranial nerves. The second arch expression of neural crest cell markers was abolished or dramatically reduced, suggesting a defect in this cell population. Strikingly, the second arch of the double mutant embryos involuted by 10.5 dpc and this resulted in loss of all second arch-derived elements and complete disruption of external and middle ear development. Additional defects, most notably the lack of tympanic ring, were found in first arch-derived elements, suggesting that interactions between first and second arch take place during development. Taken together, our results unveil an extensive functional synergy between Hoxa1 and Hoxb1 that was not anticipated from the phenotypes of the simple null mutants.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, does not provide a separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment; radiculopathy was reflected in the spinal rating process in Chapter 17, The Spine and Pelvis. Certain jurisdictions, such as the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA), rate nerve root injury as impairment involving the extremities rather than as part of the spine. This article presents an approach to rate spinal nerve impairments consistent with the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, methodology. This approach should be used only when a jurisdiction requires ratings for extremities and precludes rating for the spine. A table in this article compares sensory and motor deficits according to the AMA Guides, Sixth and Fifth Editions; evaluators should be aware of changes between editions in methodology used to assign the final impairment. The authors present two tables regarding spinal nerve impairment: one for the upper extremities and one for the lower extremities. Both tables were developed using the methodology defined in the sixth edition. Using these tables and the process defined in the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, evaluators can rate spinal nerve impairments for jurisdictions that do not permit rating for the spine and require rating for radiculopathy as an extremity impairment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document