| Literature DB >> 29797482 |
Ian C Welsh1, James Hart2, Joel M Brown3, Karissa Hansen1, Marcelo Rocha Marques1, Robert J Aho1, Irina Grishina2, Romulo Hurtado4, Doris Herzlinger4, Elisabetta Ferretti2, Maria J Garcia-Garcia3, Licia Selleri1,2.
Abstract
Orofacial cleftinpan>g represents the most commonEntities:
Keywords: Pbx; birth defect; cleft lip/palate (CL/P); cleft palate only (CPO); craniofacial; morphogenesis; skeleton; tissue-specific; transcription factor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29797482 PMCID: PMC6036936 DOI: 10.1111/joa.12821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anat ISSN: 0021-8782 Impact factor: 2.610
Figure 1Localization of PBX1 and PBX2 in the developing midface at E11.5. Representative micrographs of immunofluorescence with PBX1‐ and PBX2‐specific antibodies on coronal sections through the primary and secondary palate. Cartoons of primary palate and secondary palate (anterior, mid, and posterior) are shown in left‐most column. PBX1 and PBX2 proteins, fuchsia signal; DAPI highlighting the nuclei, blue. Primary palate: (A–D) PBX1 and PBX2 are localized to the midfacial mesenchymal core where MNP, LNP and MxP converge (white arrowhead), as well as in the overlying epithelium (pink arrowhead). High levels of PBX1 in epithelium of the olfactory pit (pink asterisk in B) with low levels of PBX2 (empty pink asterisk in D). Anterior secondary palate: (E–H) Mesenchymal localization of PBX1 extends as a band from the naso‐lacrimal groove (NLG; pink arrowhead in E) into the palatal shelf primordium (white arrowhead in F) with PBX2 showing similar, albeit restricted, pattern (G,H). Both PBX1 and PBX2 also localize to the epithelium of the developing palatal shelf (F,H). Middle secondary palate: (I–L) Mesenchymal localization of both PBX1 and PBX2 extends medially from the NLG (pink arrowhead in I,K) into the palatal primordia in compressed band (pink asterisk in I,K) and is maintained in the mesenchyme and epithelium of the palatal shelf primordia (white arrowhead in J,L). PBX1 and PBX2 are localized to the tongue mesenchyme and epithelium (white asterisk in I,K). Posterior secondary palate: (M–P) PBX1 extends from the maxillary primordia into the palatal shelf primordia (pink asterisk in M), with sparser PBX2 mesenchymal expression (empty pink asterisk in O). In the overlying epithelium PBX1 is uniform (white arrowhead in N), with PBX2 restricted to the ventral‐lateral epithelium of the shelf (white arrowhead in P). LNP, lateral nasal process; Mb, mandible; MNP, medial nasal process; MxP, maxillary process; PS, palatal shelf; T, tongue. Magnification: columns 3 and 5, higher magnifications of the fields within red box in schemata of column 1. Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 2Localization of PBX1 and PBX2 in the developing midface at E12.5. Immunofluorescent detection of PBX1 and PBX2 (fuchsia signal) on coronal sections through the primary and secondary palate (DAPI, highlighting nuclei in blue). Cartoons of primary palate and secondary palate (anterior, mid, posterior) in left‐most column. Primary palate: (A,B) PBX1 and PBX2 in the oral epithelium, with higher levels lateral to the incisor bud (white arrowhead in A,B) throughout the surface cephalic ectoderm. PBX1 present in the mesenchyme of the primary palate but excluded from the condensation adjacent to the incisor bud (white empty asterisk in A). PBX1 also localized to the nasal epithelium (white arrow in A). PBX2 detectable throughout the anterior midfacial mesenchyme (B). Anterior secondary palate: (C,D) PBX1 levels higher in dorsal aspect of the MxP, palatal shelf proper (white arrowhead in C), and overlying epithelium (white arrow in C). PBX2 present at comparable levels in the palatal shelf and at lower levels in MxP (D). Middle secondary palate: (E,F) Mesenchymal localization of PBX1 and PBX2 confined to the dorsal‐most aspect of the palatal shelf and MxP (white arrowhead in E,F). In the epithelium, low levels of PBX1 restricted to the medial domain of the palatal shelf (white empty arrowhead in E) with broader distribution of PBX2 (F). Posterior secondary palate: (G,H) Weak mesenchymal levels of PBX1 and PBX2 in ventral palatal shelf mesenchyme (white empty asterisk in G,H), with band of higher PBX1 signal in MxP dorsal to shelf proper (white arrowhead in G, H). Epithelial localization of PBX1 and PBX2 confined to the oral side (G,H). Mb, mandible; MxP, maxillary process; NS, nasal septum; PP, primary palate; PS, palatal shelf; T, tongue. Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 3Epithelial loss of PBX1 results in clefting of the primary and secondary palate (CL/P). Scanning electron micrographs (SEM; top) and hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) stained coronal sections (bottom) of embryonic palate and oral cavity from E13.5–E15.5. Representative control: Pbx ;Foxg1 (left) and mutant: Pbx1 ;Foxg1 (right) embryos for each time point. E13.5: SEM shows dysmorphic primary palate in mutant (empty white asterisk in B) as compared with control (white asterisk in A). Anterior palatal shelves appear to be more widely spaced in mutant (white double‐headed arrows in A,B). H&E illustrates mild outgrowth defects of anterior secondary palatal shelves in mutant (empty black arrowhead in D) than in control (black arrowhead in C). Morphology of mutant middle and posterior secondary palatal shelves is otherwise comparable to that of control. E14.5: SEM highlights bilateral clefting of lip and primary palate in mutant (J) vs. control (I). Secondary palatal shelves remain unelevated and have not made contact medially (open white arrowhead in J), whereas in control they have elevated and made contact (white arrowhead in I). H&E sections show failure to elevate secondary palatal shelves in mutant as a potential consequence of aberrant trapping of shelves by tongue (empty black arrowhead in L,N,P), as compared with control (black arrowhead in K,M,O). E15.5: SEM shows complete clefting of secondary palate in mutant (open white arrowhead in R) vs. control (white arrowhead in Q). H&E illustrates that mutant secondary palatal shelves are cleft along entire A–P axis with aberrant contact with tongue (open black arrowhead in T,V,X), as compared with control (black arrowhead in S,U,W). M, molar tooth bud; NS, nasal septum; PS, palatal shelf; T, tongue. Scale bar: 400 μm.
Figure 4Pbx CNCC mutants result in isolated clefting of the secondary palate (cleft palate only; CPO). Scanning electron micrographs of developing palate (SEM; top) and hematoxylin & eosin (H&E) stained coronal sections (bottom) of embryonic palate and oral cavity at E11.5, E13.5 and E15.5. Representative control: Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre (left) and mutant: Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre (right) embryos for each time point. E11.5: SEM shows comparable morphology of nascent primary (white asterisk) and secondary (white arrowhead) palate in control (A) and mutant (B). In mutant, smaller embryonic choanae (empty black arrowhead in B) vs. control (black arrowhead in A) and distance between palatal shelf primordia subtly constricted (B). H&E confirms grossly comparable morphology of nascent palatal shelves in control and mutant (black arrowheads in C–H), with mildly abnormal dorsal aspect of forming nasal septum in mutant (black asterisk in D). E13.5: SEM shows normal formation of primary palate (white asterisk in I,J) in control and mutant with profound dysmorphology of mutant secondary palate, which exhibits aberrant organization of its A–P domains separated by abnormal groove (white arrow in J). Specifically, in mutant, anterior palatal domain bearing rugae (presumptive hard palate) (white empty arrowhead in J) is positioned more laterally and posteriorly than in control (white arrowhead in I). H&E highlights markedly hypoplastic mutant anterior palatal shelves (black empty arrowhead in L) vs. control (black arrowhead in K). Aberrant A–P organization of mutant secondary palate results in abnormal connection between nasal septum and maxilla (black asterisk in L). Sections of middle palate demonstrate presence of epithelial thickenings (black arrows in N) consistent with presence of rugae in more posterior domains of mutant shelves as compared with control (M). Posterior presumptive soft palate comparable in control and mutant (black arrowheads in O, P). E15.5: SEM illustrates reduced outgrowth of midfacial complex in mutant vs. control (compare length of black and white bars along A–P snout in Q and R, respectively). Lack of palatal shelf fusion evident in mutant (white empty arrowhead in R) as compared with control (white arrowhead in Q). H&E demonstrates that in mutant vestigial anterior palatal shelves do not make contact medially (black empty arrowhead in T) vs. control (black arrowhead in S). In addition, in mutant, abnormal tissue connection between nasal septum and maxilla persists (black asterisk in T). Mid‐palatal sections show dysmorphic palatal shelves and clefting at midline in mutant (black arrow in V). Posterior palatal sections demonstrate clefting of soft palate (empty black arrowhead in X) as compared with control (black arrowhead in W). LNP, lateral nasal process; MNP, medial nasal process; M, molar tooth bud; Mx, maxilla; MxP, maxillary process; NS, nasal septum; PS, palatal shelf; T, tongue. Scale bar: 400 μm.
Figure 5Tissue‐specific deletion of Pbx genes results in distinct clefting defects with CNCC‐specific loss concomitantly causing altered positioning and proportions of midfacial skeletal elements. Morphometric analysis of premaxilla, maxilla, and palatine bones in E18.5 wild type and mutant embryos with epithelial‐ and CNCC‐specific loss of Pbx genes. (A–C) Ventral μCT reconstructions of palatal regions showing premaxilla (green), maxilla (purple) and palatine bones (pale blue). Ventral and lateral views of individual bones shown in (A′–A′′′) wild type, (B′–B′′′) Pbx1 ;Foxg1 and (C′‐C′′′) Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre embryos. In lateral views, ventral side oriented towards the right. (D) Diagram of wild type palatal region illustrating location of individual measurements quantified in (E). (E) Morphometric measurements of palatal structures in Pbx1 ;Foxg1 (medium gray; n = 3) and Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre mutants (dark gray; n = 3) relative to wild type controls (light gray; n = 4). Colors and numbers correspond to those used in diagram shown in (D). Compared withd type and epithelial‐specific loss of Pbx1, CNCC mutants exhibit significant shortening and widening of maxilla (C′′; see measurements 7,9,10). In addition, this mutant displays abnormally elongated structure comprising palatal process of maxilla fused to palatine bone (C′′′; palato‐maxillary process, see measurements 11,13). Data are reported as averages ± SEM. Statistical significance: *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.01; ***P ≤ 0.001. Scale bars: 1 mm.
Figure 6Pbx CNCC mutants exhibit proliferation defects along the anterior‐posterior axis of the secondary palate. Proliferation rates assayed by immunofluorescent detection of EdU incorporation in S‐phase cells of developing secondary palate at E12.5. Three pairs of controls: Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre (left) and mutant: Pbx1 ;Pbx2 ;Wnt1‐Cre (right) littermates processed simultaneously. Sections designated anterior, middle or posterior based on morphological landmarks (left panels, A–F: representative micrographs). Quantification of EdU incorporation presented via box and whisker plots of E12.5 datasets corresponding to anterior, middle or posterior secondary palatal domains (right panel, G). Red bars inside boxes represent median values. At this gestational time‐point, mutant embryos exhibit significant reduction in proliferation rates in all A–P palatal domains. Moderate differences in proliferation between control and mutant at E11.5 (see Fig. S10) presage significantly reduced proliferation rate observed in mutant at E12.5. PS, palatal shelf; NS, nasal septum; T, tongue. Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 7Altered positioning of transcriptional domains along the palatal shelf anterior‐posterior axis in Pbx CNCC mutant embryos. WISH reveals that spatial expression of anterior palate markers: Msx1 (A–D); Shox2 (E–H); epithelial‐Barx1 (I–L), as well as posterior palate markers: mesenchymal‐Barx1 (I–L) and Tbx22 (M–P), is perturbed in E12.5 CNCC mutants vs. controls (anterior is to the top in oral views and to the right in sagittal views). Anterior boundary of (a) anterior secondary palate, (b) posterior secondary palate and (c) molar tooth bud. All gene transcripts detectable at comparable levels in control (top) and mutant (middle) palates; however, spatial expression domains in anterior vs. posterior secondary palates show altered organization along A–P axis in mutants as compared with controls. Length of posterior secondary palate is similar between controls and mutants (light‐blue dashed outline), whereas the length of mutant anterior secondary palate is slightly reduced (light purple dashed outline; compare distance a–c). Significantly, rather than being positioned rostral to the posterior secondary palate as in controls (distance a–b > b–c), anterior secondary palate in mutants is more caudal (distance a–b < b–c) and lateral (black arrows) to posterior secondary palate. Maxillary dysmorphology accompanied by defective elongation of sinus cavity and nasal septum (black double‐headed arrows in oral view of Msx1 expression). Morphogenetic and anatomical defects in CNCC mutants summarized schematically (bottom row; Q). Consistent with highly coordinated outgrowth of the midfacial complex, positioning of anterior secondary palate (light purple) rostral to posterior secondary palate (light blue) is perturbed in mutants resulting in cleft palate and consequent reduced expansion of sinus cavity. Scale bar: 200 μm.
Figure 8Spatiotemporal dynamics of skeletogenic gene expression is altered in CNCC mutant embryos. Comparison of Alpl, a bone alkaline phosphatase, expression in controls and mutants. At E12.5 (A,B) and E13.5 (C,D) Alpl expression in posterior palatal shelves is reduced in mutants (open arrowheads) vs. controls (black arrowheads). At E13.5, comparable expression in developing incisors (white arrowheads) of controls and mutants. Alpl mRNA levels are reduced overall throughout secondary palate of mutants, in which domains of Alpl expression are positioned more laterally in anterior palate (open arrowheads) vs. controls (black arrowheads), and extend rostrally in posterior palate (compare length of vertical black bar in mutant vs. control; Fig. 8C,D). Scale bar: 500 μm.
Figure 9Model for palate morphogenesis in Pbx epithelial and CNCC mutant embryos. Top panels: schematics of early expression domains (fuchsia) of Pbx1 and Pbx2 in cephalic epithelium and CNCC‐derived mesenchyme of midfacial prominences that will give rise to primary and secondary palate in E11.5 wild type (left), epithelial mutant (middle), and CNCC mutant (right). Domains of tissue‐specific loss of Pbx expression highlighted in gray. Middle panels: scanning electron microscopy images of E14.5 wild type (left), epithelial mutant with severe clefting of lip/primary palate and cleft secondary palate (CL/P) (middle), and CNCC mutant with normal lip/primary palate but striking A–P dysmorphology and clefting of secondary palate (CPO; right). Bottom panels: μCT reconstructions of maxillary skeletal element morphology of E18.5 wild type (left), epithelial mutant (middle) and CNCC mutant (right). Premaxilla, maxilla and palatine bones pseudo‐colored in green, purple and pale blue, respectively. Compared with wild type, Pbx epithelial‐specific loss results in cleft premaxilla and secondary palate (CL/P) with widening of basisphenoid but unaltered A–P organization of individual skeletal elements. In contrast, Pbx CNCC‐specific loss yields clefting of secondary palate only (CPO) accompanied by shortening and widening of maxillary bone and aberrant A–P organization of upper jaw skeletal elements. The altered organization of individual skeletal elements observed at E18.5 is presaged by A–P dysmorphology of secondary palate observed at E14.5 and at earlier developmental stages (see also Figs 4 and Fig. S7).