Abstract
- Top of page
- Abstract
- INTRODUCTION
- RESULTS
- DISCUSSION
- EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
- Acknowledgements
- REFERENCES
- Supporting Information
Cranial neural crest cells (NCCs) require neuropilin signaling to reach and invade the branchial arches. Here, we use an in vivo chick model to investigate whether the neuropilin-1 knockdown phenotype is specific to the second branchial arch (ba2), changes in NCC behaviors and phenotypic consequences, and whether neuropilins work together to facilitate entry into and invasion of ba2. We find that cranial NCCs with reduced neuropilin-1 expression displayed shorter protrusions and decreased cell body and nuclear length-to-width ratios characteristic of a loss in polarity and motility, after specific interaction with ba2. Directed NCC migration was rescued by transplantation of transfected NCCs into rhombomere 4 of younger hosts. Lastly, reduction of neuropilin-2 expression by shRNA either solely or with reduction of neuropilin-1 expression did not lead to a stronger head phenotype. Thus, NCCs, independent of rhombomere origin, require neuropilin-1, but not neuropilin-2 to maintain polarity and directed migration into ba2. Developmental Dynamics 239:1664–1673, 2010. © 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
- Top of page
- Abstract
- INTRODUCTION
- RESULTS
- DISCUSSION
- EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
- Acknowledgements
- REFERENCES
- Supporting Information
During vertebrate development, cranial neural crest cells (NCCs) delaminate from the neural tube, travel long distances to specific branchial arches, and contribute to important head and neck structures (Trainor and Krumlauf,2001; Santagati and Rijli,2003). The cranial NCC migratory pattern emerges in a rostrocaudal manner as cells exit from all segments (rhombomeres [r]) of the hindbrain and are dynamically sculpted into three discrete migratory streams (Le Douarin and Kalcheim,1999; Farlie et al.,1999). Within each migratory stream, cranial NCCs move in a directed manner by responding to microenvironmental and cell-to-cell contact cues (Teddy and Kulesa,2004; Carmona-Fontaine et al.,2008; Olesnicky-Killian et al.,2009). While our understanding of how cranial NCCs exit the neural tube and select a migratory pathway has advanced (Graham et al.,2004; Kulesa et al.,2004; Taneyhill,2008; Berndt et al.,2008), it is still unclear how signals regulate NCC entry into and invasion of the branchial arches.
Multiple studies have implicated neuropilins in the proper segregation of cranial NCCs into discrete streams, in zebrafish (Yu and Moens,2005), chick (Eickholt et al.,1999; Osborne et al.,2005; McLennan and Kulesa,2007), and mouse (Gammill et al.,2007; Schwarz et al.,2008). Both neuropilin-1 and neuropilin-2 are expressed by cranial NCCs and have been shown to be involved in the initial segmental migration of cranial NCCs from the neural tube (Eickholt et al.,1999; Chilton and Guthrie,2003; Osborne et al.,2005; Gammill et al.,2007; McLennan and Kulesa,2007; Schwarz et al.,2008). Recently, it was shown that neuropilin-1 plays a role in the invasion of cranial NCCs into second branchial arch (ba2), the target site of these NCCs (McLennan and Kulesa,2007). When neuropilin-1 expression was knocked down in premigratory cranial NCCs in vivo, by transfection with a neuropilin-1 siRNA-enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) construct (Np-1 siRNA) (Bron et al.,2004), the NCCs failed to fully invade the ba2 microenvironment. Instead, Np-1 siRNA transfected NCCs arrived at the entrance into ba2 and stopped, as other nontransfected cranial NCCs properly invaded the proximal and distal portions of the ba2 microenvironment (McLennan and Kulesa,2007).
What is unclear is whether this observed neuropilin-1 knockdown phenotype is specific to the second branchial arch and whether loss of the neuropilin-1 function causes sustained loss of cranial NCC polarity and migratory ability. If cranial NCCs display changes in directed cell migration at the entrance to ba2, it is not known whether they recover to participate in cranial NC-derived tissues, including the cranial ganglia and bones of the face. Lastly, because neuropilin-1 and neuropilin-2 are expressed by r4 NCCs, it is unclear whether they cooperate to facilitate proper NCC entry into and invasion of ba2. That is, whether loss of either neuropilin-2 expression solely or with reduction of neuropilin-1 expression leads to a stronger head phenotype than observed with reduction of neuropilin-1 expression alone. Here, we combine loss of function, chick embryo microsurgery, and in vivo confocal time-lapse microscopy to address these questions. By analyzing cell behaviors of Np-1 siRNA transfected cranial NCCs either in electroporated embryos or embryos receiving electroporated cranial NCC tissue transplants, we determine the dynamics of loss of neuropilin-1 function and phenotypic consequences. By development of an Np-2 shRNA and electroporation of a combination of Np-1 siRNA and Np-2 shRNA constructs into premigratory cranial NCCs, we study the functions of multiple neuropilins in cranial NCC migration.
DISCUSSION
- Top of page
- Abstract
- INTRODUCTION
- RESULTS
- DISCUSSION
- EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
- Acknowledgements
- REFERENCES
- Supporting Information
We used the chick cranial NCC migratory pattern as a model system to study the signals that regulate NCC entry into and invasion of the ba2. We addressed specific questions related to our previous result (neuropilin-1 is required for invasion of ba2; McLennan and Kulesa,2007), and discovered four main conclusions. First, the failure of a cranial NCC to enter into ba2 was independent of its rhombomere of origin, but required neuropilin-1 expression. Second, cranial NCC-ba2–microenvironment interactions dramatically altered cell migratory behaviors and protrusive activity characteristic of a loss of polarity and motility. The failure of cranial NCCs to invade ba2 was not due to a delay in migration, as cells survived through E3.5, but did not participate in cranial NC-derived ba2 structures. Third, cranial NCC-directed migration was rescued by transplantation of stopped cells to a permissive microenvironment, such as the rhombencephalon of younger host embryos. Fourth, reduction of neuropilin-2 expression solely or in combination with reduction of neuropilin-1 expression either did not affect or dramatically affected cranial NCC entry into and invasion of ba2, respectively, but not more severe of the phenotype with loss of neuropilin-1 expression alone.
Transplantation experiments confirmed that failure of cranial NCCs to enter into and invade the second branchial arch was due to a loss of neuropilin-1 direct interactions with the ba2 microenvironment, rather than the rhombomere from which the NCCs originated (Fig. 1). With these data, it was tempting to speculate that our phenotype was due to a specific molecular fingerprint of the ba2 and anterior ba3 microenvironments (Fig. 5), requiring neuropilin-1–ligand interactions for cells to enter into and invade distal positions within the arches. Indeed, our results support previous data that show cranial NCCs may reach the entrance to the branchial arches, but then fail to enter into and/or properly colonize proximal and distal sites within the arches. For example, loss of the endothelin-1–mediated endothelin A receptor (Ednra), expressed by migratory and postmigratory cranial NCCs, leads to defects in lower jaw and neck structures (Abe et al.,2007). Absence of Ednra signaling results in increased cranial NCC apoptosis in proximal first branchial arch and distal bone loss in the lower jaw, suggesting Ednra signaling is required after cranial NCCs reach the branchial arches (Abe et al.,2007). Similarly, perturbation of Fgfr1 function leads to a failure of mouse cranial NCC entry into the second branchial arch (Trokovic et al.,2003). It is thought that an Fgfr1 signaling center in the distal ectoderm of ba2 creates a permissive environment for cranial NCC migration into distal portions of the second branchial arch (Trokovic et al.,2005). Thus, cranial NCC entry into and invasion within head targets may be regulated by a combination of factors distinct to particular branchial arches.
Np-1 siRNA transfected r4 NCCs that reached the entrance to the second branchial arch displayed a sequence of cellular events that suggested cells triggered a mechanism to stop, in the absence of a physical barrier. NCCs displayed a rounding-up of cell body and nuclear shapes, severely reduced motility, and shorter filopodial extensions (Fig. 2). Although NCCs stopped, it is not clear why the cells did not re-route their trajectories to other locations, because cranial NCCs can overcome a physical alteration to their migratory pathway (Kulesa et al.,2005). Interestingly, chick cranial NCCs that encounter a physical barrier (that is shorter than the width of the r4 NCC migratory stream) initially stop, but trailing cells are able to reroute around the barrier and enter into the second branchial arch (Kulesa et al.,2005). We have also observed this behavior and result when chick r3 or r5 NCCs wander into NCC-free zones (Kulesa and Fraser,1998). In this scenario, NCCs either stopped and remained in a location or actively extended filopodia and migrated to join a neighboring migratory stream after contact with cells leaving r2 or r4 (Kulesa and Fraser,1998). Thus, it appears that when NCCs encounter a local inhibitory signal or physical barrier in their migratory pathway, cells are still able to respond to guidance signals in a manner that is distinct from the behavior when permissive receptor-ligand interactions are altered.
Np-1 siRNA transfected r4 NCCs regained their migratory ability when heterochronically and heterotopically transplanted from the ba2 microenvironment entrance into r4 of host embryos, suggesting that cells could recover directed migration in permissive regions that do not require neuropilin-1 expression (Fig. 2). These data support the hypothesis that, in the absence of proper neuropilin-1-ligand interactions, cells at the entrance of ba2 failed to interpret local invasion cues and stopped. This proved to be an effective mechanism to limit aberrant cranial NCC migration. Future experiments focused on revealing the sequence of molecular events that cause highly invasive NCCs to prematurely stop may help to better understand how cranial NCCs are programmed to stop in precise locations or wait before responding to further signaling events.
NCC-derived structures were able to form normally in the absence of Np-1 siRNA transfected r4 NCCs, suggesting that other nontransfected r4 NCCs compensated for the loss of missing neighbors (Fig. 3). We previously examined cell death and showed there was no short-term (24 hr after electroporation) increase in cell death when NCCs were transfected with Np-1 siRNA (McLennan and Kulesa,2007). In the cranial region, typical NC-derivatives include neurons and glia of the cranial ganglia as well as bone and cartilage of the face and neck (Baker and Bronner-Fraser,1997; Le Douarin and Kalchiem,1999; Le Douarin,2004). Np-1 siRNA transfected cranial NCCs did not contribute to the cranial ganglia in normal numbers, but the ganglia did form appropriately (Fig. 3B). The neural crest-derived lower jaw and hyoid bone also formed normally when cranial NCCs were transfected with Np-1 siRNA (Fig. 3G,H). Because these tissue structures developed normally, other nontransfected r4 NCCs were able to alter their proliferative activity. Alternatively, NCCs from neighboring migratory streams were able to compensate by altering their trajectories in a similar manner to that observed in chick embryos where subpopulations of premigratory cranial NCCs are ablated (Saldivar et al., 1995; Kulesa et al.,2000). Thus, Np-1 siRNA transfected NCCs that prematurely stopped before colonizing the second branchial arch, failed to reach critical survival factors and contribute to NC-derived tissues.
When both neuropilins were knocked down, the r4 NCC migratory stream failed to enter into and invade ba2 (Fig. 4), but the phenotype was not stronger than with loss of neuropilin-1 expression alone. The Np-2 shRNA did successfully knockdown the expression of neuropilin-2 (Fig. 4A). Np-1 siRNA- and Np-2 shRNA-transfected embryos had quantitative measurements of NCC distance migrated into and throughout the second branchial arch that were dramatic, but not as significant as with reduction of neuropilin-1 expression alone (compare Fig. 4F,G with Fig. S1). This suggests that neuropilins do not compensate for each other in regulating the entry into and invasion of cranial NCCs into the second branchial arch. Alternatively, because we were unable to determine the efficiency of whether NCCs were transfected with both neuropilins, we may not have been able to assess a stronger phenotype. Surprisingly, we did not observe any severe affects on the ability of r4 NCCs to invade the second branchial arch when neuropilin-2 expression was knocked down (Fig. 4A–C). However, we did recapitulate the neuropilin-2 mouse knockout trunk NCC migratory defect (Gammill et al.,2006), as we observed trunk NCCs to invade caudal somite-halves (Fig. 4D,E). Although our Np-2 shRNA phenotype did not appear to affect the early cranial NCC migratory pattern similar to observations in mouse (Gammill et al.,2007), this may have been due to knockdown methodology differences in chick (reduction of neuropilin-2 expression in NCCs) versus mouse (whole embryo knockout), or species differences.
In summary, our findings implicate an intimate interaction between the neuropilin-1–expressing cranial NCCs and the microenvironment that ensures the proper entry into and invasion of the second branchial arch (Fig. 5). This specificity may be a means for the embryo to control which cells enter the arches and prevent exposure of survival and patterning signals to unwanted neighbors. We interpret the characteristic loss of cell polarity and motility to be due to an inability of these cranial NCCs to interpret navigational signals. Interestingly, the inhibition of an invasive cell type, such as the neural crest, by precise knockdown of molecular signaling suggests a means to regulate the position of where a cell stops. This is an important goal for the embryo to properly position migratory cells, yet control the invasion of misguided neighbors. Further molecular details of neuropilin-1–ligand interactions in the migratory neural crest may yield important insights for mechanisms of embryonic cell migration.