Michael J. Depew

Reassessing the Dlx code: the genetic regulation of branchial arch skeletal pattern and development

The branchial arches are meristic vertebrate structures, being metameric both between each other within the rostrocaudal series along the ventrocephalic surface of the embryonic head and within each individual arch: thus, just as each branchial arch must acquire a unique identity along the rostrocaudal axis, each structure within the proximodistal axis of an arch must also acquire a unique identity. It is believed that regional specification of metameric structures is controlled by the nested expression of related genes resulting in a regional code, a principal that is though to be demonstrated by the regulation of rostrocaudal axis development in animals exerted by the nested HOM‐C/Hox homeobox genes. The nested expression pattern of the Dlx genes within the murine branchial arch ectomesenchyme has more recently led to the proposal of a Dlx code for the regional specification along the proximodistal axis of the branchial arches (i.e. it establishes intra‐arch identity). This review re‐examines this hypothesis, and presents new work on an allelic series of Dlx loss‐of‐function mouse mutants that includes various combinations of Dlx1, Dlx2, Dlx3, Dlx5 and Dlx6. Although we confirm fundamental aspects of the hypothesis, we further report a number of novel findings. First, contrary to initial reports, Dlx1, Dlx2 and Dlx1/2 heterozygotes exhibit alterations of branchial arch structures and Dlx2–/– and Dlx1/2–/– mutants have slight alterations of structures derived from the distal portions of their branchial arches. Second, we present evidence for a role for murine Dlx3 in the development of the branchial arches. Third, analysis of compound Dlx mutants reveals four grades of mandibular arch transformations and that the genetic interactions of cis first‐order (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx6), trans second‐order (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx2) and trans third‐order paralogues (e.g. Dlx5 and Dlx1) result in significant and distinct morphological differences in mandibular arch development. We conclude by integrating functions of the Dlx genes within the context of a hypothesized general mechanism for the establishment of pattern and polarity in the first branchial arch of gnathostomes that includes regionally secreted growth factors such as Fgf8 and Bmp and other transcription factors such as Msx1, and is consistent both with the structure of the conserved gnathostome jaw bauplan and the elaboration of this bauplan to meet organismal end‐point designs.

Satb2 Haploinsufficiency Phenocopies 2q32-q33 Deletions, whereas Loss Suggests a Fundamental Role in the Coordination of Jaw Development

The recent identification of SATB2 as a candidate gene responsible for the craniofacial dysmorphologies associated with deletions and translocations at 2q32-q33, one of only three regions of the genome for which haploinsufficiency has been significantly associated with isolated cleft palate, led us to investigate the in vivo functions of murine Satb2. We find that, similar to the way in which SATB2 is perceived to act in humans, craniofacial defects due to haploinsufficiency of Satb2, including cleft palate (in approximately 25% of cases), phenocopy those seen with 2q32-q33 deletions and translocations in humans. Full functional loss of Satb2 results in amplification of these defects and leads both to increased apoptosis in the craniofacial mesenchyme where Satb2 is usually expressed and to changes in the pattern of expression of three genes implicated in the regulation of craniofacial development in humans and mice: Pax9, Alx4, and Msx1. The Satb2-dosage sensitivity in craniofacial development is conspicuous--along with its control of cell survival, pattern of expression, and reversible functional modification by SUMOylation, it suggests that Satb2/SATB2 function in craniofacial development may prove to be more profound than has been anticipated previously. Because jaw development is Satb2-dosage sensitive, the regulators of Satb2 expression and posttranslational modification become of critical importance both ontogenetically and evolutionarily, especially since such regulators plausibly play undetected roles in jaw and palate development and in the etiology of craniofacial malformations.

Gas1 is a modifier for holoprosencephaly and genetically interacts with sonic hedgehog

Holoprosencephaly (HPE) is a clinically heterogeneous developmental anomaly affecting the CNS and face, in which the embryonic forebrain fails to divide into distinct halves. Numerous genetic loci and environmental factors are implicated in HPE, but mutation in the sonic hedgehog (Shh) gene is an established cause in both humans and mice. As growth arrest-specific 1 (Gas1) encodes a membrane glycoprotein previously identified as a Shh antagonist in the somite, we analyzed the craniofacial phenotype of mice harboring a targeted Gas1 deletion. Gas1(-/-) mice exhibited microform HPE, including midfacial hypoplasia, premaxillary incisor fusion, and cleft palate, in addition to severe ear defects; however, gross integrity of the forebrain remained intact. These defects were associated with partial loss of Shh signaling in cells at a distance from the source of transcription, suggesting that Gas1 can potentiate hedgehog signaling in the early face. Loss of a single Shh allele in a Gas1(-/-) background significantly exacerbated the midline craniofacial phenotype, providing genetic evidence that Shh and Gas1 interact. As human GAS1 maps to chromosome 9q21.3-q22, a region previously associated with nonsyndromic cleft palate and congenital deafness, our results establish GAS1 as a potential locus for several human craniofacial malformations.

Sonic hedgehog signalling inhibits palatogenesis and arrests tooth development in a mouse model of the nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome

Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (NBCCS) is an autosomal dominant or spontaneous disorder characterized by multiple cutaneous basal cell carcinomas, odontogenic keratocysts, skeletal anomalies and facial dysmorphology, including cleft lip and palate. Causative mutations for NBCCS occur in the PTCH1 gene on chromosome 9q22.3–q31, which encodes the principle receptor for the Hedgehog signalling pathway. We have investigated the molecular basis of craniofacial defects seen in NBCCS using a transgenic mouse model expressing Shh in basal epithelium under a Keratin-14 promoter. These mice have an absence of flat bones within the skull vault, hypertelorism, open-bite malocclusion, cleft palate and arrested tooth development. Significantly, increased Hedgehog signal transduction in these mice can influence cell fate within the craniofacial region. In medial edge epithelium of the palate, Shh activity prevents apoptosis and subsequent palatal shelf fusion. In contrast, high levels of Shh in odontogenic epithelium arrests tooth development at the bud stage, secondary to a lack of cell proliferation in this region. These findings illustrate the importance of appropriately regulated Hedgehog signalling during early craniofacial development and demonstrate that oro-facial clefting and hypodontia seen in NBCCS can occur as a direct consequence of increased Shh signal activity within embryonic epithelial tissues.

21st Century neontology and the comparative development of the vertebrate skull

Classic neontology (comparative embryology and anatomy), through the application of the concept of homology, has demonstrated that the development of the gnathostome (jawed vertebrate) skull is characterized both by a fidelity to the gnathostome bauplan and the exquisite elaboration of final structural design. Just as homology is an old concept amended for modern purposes, so are many of the questions regarding the development of the skull. With due deference to Geoffroy‐St. Hilaire, Cuvier, Owen, Lankester et al., we are still asking: How are bauplan fidelity and elaboration of design maintained, coordinated, and modified to generate the amazing diversity seen in cranial morphologies? What establishes and maintains pattern in the skull? Are there universal developmental mechanisms underlying gnathostome autapomorphic structural traits? Can we detect and identify the etiologies of heterotopic (change in the topology of a developmental event), heterochronic (change in the timing of a developmental event), and heterofacient (change in the active capacetence, or the elaboration of capacity, of a developmental event) changes in craniofacial development within and between taxa? To address whether jaws are all made in a like manner (and if not, then how not), one needs a starting point for the sake of comparison. To this end, we present here a “hinge and caps” model that places the articulation, and subsequently the polarity and modularity, of the upper and lower jaws in the context of cranial neural crest competence to respond to positionally located epithelial signals. This model expands on an evolving model of polarity within the mandibular arch and seeks to explain a developmental patterning system that apparently keeps gnathostome jaws in functional registration yet tractable to potential changes in functional demands over time. It relies upon a system for the establishment of positional information where pattern and placement of the “hinge” is driven by factors common to the junction of the maxillary and mandibular branches of the first arch and of the “caps” by the signals emanating from the distal‐most first arch midline and the lamboidal junction (where the maxillary branch meets the frontonasal processes). In this particular model, the functional registration of jaws is achieved by the integration of “hinge” and “caps” signaling, with the “caps” sharing at some critical level a developmental history that potentiates their own coordination. We examine the evidential foundation for this model in mice, examine the robustness with which it can be applied to other taxa, and examine potential proximate sources of the signaling centers. Lastly, as developmental biologists have long held that the anterior‐most mesendoderm (anterior archenteron roof or prechordal plate) is in some way integral to the normal formation of the head, including the cranial skeletal midlines, we review evidence that the seminal patterning influences on the early anterior ectoderm extend well beyond the neural plate and are just as important to establishing pattern within the cephalic ectoderm, in particular for the “caps” that will yield medial signaling centers known to coordinate jaw development. Developmental Dynamics 235:1256–1291, 2006.

Physiological implications of DLX homeoproteins in enamel formation

Tooth development is a complex process including successive stages of initiation, morphogenesis, and histogenesis. The role of the Dlx family of homeobox genes during the early stages of tooth development has been widely analyzed, while little data has been reported on their role in dental histogenesis. The expression pattern of Dlx2 has been described in the mouse incisor; an inverse linear relationship exists between the level of Dlx2 expression and enamel thickness, suggesting a role for Dlx2 in regulation of ameloblast differentiation and activity. In vitro data have revealed that DLX homeoproteins are able to regulate the expression of matrix proteins such as osteocalcin. The aim of the present study was to analyze the expression and function of Dlx genes during amelogenesis. Analysis of Dlx2/LacZ transgenic reporter mice, Dlx2 and Dlx1/Dlx2 null mutant mice, identified spatial variations in Dlx2 expression within molar tooth germs and suggests a role for Dlx2 in the organization of preameloblastic cells as a palisade in the labial region of molars. Later, during the secretory and maturation stages of amelogenesis, the expression pattern in molars was found to be similar to that described in incisors. The expression patterns of the other Dlx genes were examined in incisors and compared to Dlx2. Within the ameloblasts Dlx3 and Dlx6 are expressed constantly throughout presecretory, secretory, and maturation stages; during the secretory phase when Dlx2 is transitorily switched off, Dlx1 expression is upregulated. These data suggest a role for DLX homeoproteins in the morphological control of enamel. Sequence analysis of the amelogenin gene promoter revealed five potential responsive elements for DLX proteins that are shown to be functional for DLX2. Regulation of amelogenin in ameloblasts may be one method by which DLX homeoproteins may control enamel formation. To conclude, this study establishes supplementary functions of Dlx family members during tooth development: the participation in establishment of dental epithelial functional organization and the control of enamel morphogenesis via regulation of amelogenin expression. J. Cell. Physiol. 216: 688–697, 2008,

Fgf8 dosage determines midfacial integration and polarity within the nasal and optic capsules

Craniofacial development requires an exquisitely timed and positioned cross-talk between the embryonic cephalic epithelia and mesenchyme. This cross-talk underlies the precise translation of patterning processes and information into distinct, appropriate skeletal morphologies. The molecular and cellular dialogue includes communication via secreted signaling molecules, including Fgf8, and effectors of their interpretation. Herein, we use genetic attenuation of Fgf8 in mice and perform gain-of-function mouse-chick chimeric experiments to demonstrate that significant character states of the frontonasal and optic skeletons are dependent on Fgf8. Notably, we show that the normal orientation and polarity of the nasal capsules and their developing primordia are dependent on Fgf8. We further demonstrate that Fgf8 is required for midfacial integration, and provide evidence for a role for Fgf8 in optic capsular development. Taken together, our data highlight Fgf8 signaling in craniofacial development as a plausible target for evolutionary selective pressures.

Evolution of the Alx homeobox gene family: parallel retention and independent loss of the vertebrate Alx3 gene

SUMMARY The Alx gene family is implicated in craniofacial development and comprises two to four homeobox genes in each vertebrate genome analyzed. Using phylogenetics and comparative genomics, we show that the common ancestor of jawed vertebrates had three Alx genes descendent from the two‐round genome duplications (Alx1, Alx3, Alx4), compared with a single amphioxus gene. Later in evolution one of the paralogues, Alx3, was lost independently from at least three different vertebrate lineages, whereas Alx1 and Alx4 were consistently retained. Comparison of spatial gene expression patterns reveals that the three mouse genes have equivalent craniofacial expression to the two chick and frog genes, suggesting that redundancy compensated for gene loss. We suggest that multiple independent loss of one Alx gene was predisposed by extensive and persistent overlap in gene expression between Alx paralogues. Even so, it is unclear whether it was coincidence or evolutionary bias that resulted in the same Alx gene being lost on each occasion, rather than different members of the gene family.

Pax6 regulates craniofacial form through its control of an essential cephalic ectodermal patterning center

Normal patterning and morphogenesis of the complex skeletal structures of the skull requires an exquisite, reciprocal cross‐talk between the embryonic cephalic epithelia and mesenchyme. The mesenchyme associated with the jaws and the optic and olfactory capsules is derived from a Hox‐negative cranial neural crest (CNC) population that acts much as an equivalence group in its interactions with specific local cephalic epithelial signals. Craniofacial pattern and morphogenesis is therefore controlled in large part through the regulation of these local cephalic epithelial signals. Here, we demonstrate that Pax6 is essential to the formation and maturation of the complex cephalic ectodermal patterning centers that govern the development and morphogenesis of the upper jaws and associated nasal capsules. Previous examinations of the craniofacial skeletal defects associated with Pax6 mutations have suggested that they arise from an optic‐associated blockage in the migration of a specific subpopulation of midbrain CNC to the lateral frontonasal processes. We have addressed an alternative explanation for the craniofacial skeletal defects. We show that in Pax6SeyN/SeyN mutants regional CNC is present by E9.25 while there is already specific disruption in the early ontogenetic elaboration of cephalic ectodermal expression, associated with the nascent lambdoidal junction, of secreted signaling factors (including Fgf8 and Bmp4) and transcription factors (including Six1 and Dlx5) essential for upper jaw and/or nasal capsular development. Pax6 therefore regulates craniofacial form, at stages when CNC has just arrived in the frontonasal region, through its control of surface cephalic ectodermal competence to form an essential craniofacial patterning center. genesis 49:307‐325, 2011.

19 – Craniofacial Development

This chapter focuses on the organization, development, and pattern of craniofacial tissues. To generate a functional skull, an embryo must specify its body axes, along with its cranial neural crest (CNC) mesoderm, ectoderm, and endoderm. CNC must “migrate” correctly in concert with the ectoderm: CNC must stop at appropriate locations; cells must differentiate and condense; cells must be competent to recognize change of status at each junction and be aware of their position; cells must know how to respond appropriately to apoptotic signals; and cells must behave differentially to generate morphology. Although further investigation into cranial celt origins revealed that much of the cephalic hard tissues are generated not by mesodermal cells but rather by vertebrate-synapomorphic CNC cells, more recent research on vertebrate craniogenesis has centered around modem corollaries of these classic concerns.