Abstract
During development, the vertebrate embryo undergoes significant morphological changes which lead to its future body form and functioning organs. One of these noticeable changes is the extension of the body shape along the antero-posterior (A–P) axis. This A–P extension, while taking place in multiple embryonic tissues of the vertebrate body, involves the same basic cellular behaviors: cell proliferation, cell migration (of new progenitors from a posterior stem zone), and cell rearrangements. However, the nature and the relative contribution of these different cellular behaviors to A–P extension appear to vary depending upon the tissue in which they take place and on the stage of embryonic development. By focusing on what is known in the neural and mesodermal tissues of the bird embryo, I review the influences of cellular behaviors in posterior tissue extension. In this context, I discuss how changes in distinct cell behaviors can be coordinated at the tissue level (and between tissues) to synergize, build, and elongate the posterior part of the embryonic body. This multi-tissue framework does not only concern axis elongation, as it could also be generalized to morphogenesis of any developing organs.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Keller RE, Danilchik M, Gimlich R, Shih J (1985) The function and mechanism of convergent extension during gastrulation of Xenopus laevis. J Embryol Exp Morphol 89(Suppl):185–209
Keller R, Davidson L, Edlund A et al (2000) Mechanisms of convergence and extension by cell intercalation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:897–922. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2000.0626
Shindo A (2018) Models of convergent extension during morphogenesis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol. https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.293
Beck CW (2015) Development of the vertebrate tailbud. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 4:33–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/wdev.163
Griffith CM, Wiley MJ, Sanders EJ (1992) The vertebrate tail bud: three germ layers from one tissue. Anat Embryol (Berl) 185:101–113
Takada S, Stark KL, Shea MJ et al (1994) Wnt-3a regulates somite and tailbud formation in the mouse embryo. Genes Dev 8:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.8.2.174
Bertrand N, Médevielle F, Pituello F (2000) FGF signalling controls the timing of Pax6 activation in the neural tube. Development 127:4837–4843
Diez del Corral R, Olivera-Martinez I, Goriely A et al (2003) Opposing FGF and retinoid pathways control ventral neural pattern, neuronal differentiation, and segmentation during body axis extension. Neuron 40:65–79
Dubrulle J, McGrew MJ, Pourquié O (2001) FGF signaling controls somite boundary position and regulates segmentation clock control of spatiotemporal Hox gene activation. Cell 106:219–232
Wilson L, Maden M (2005) The mechanisms of dorsoventral patterning in the vertebrate neural tube. Dev Biol 282:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.02.027
Hubaud A, Pourquié O (2014) Signalling dynamics in vertebrate segmentation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 15:709–721. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3891
Hamburger V, Hamilton HL (1951) A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. J Morphol 88:49–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1050880104
Patten I, Kulesa P, Shen MM et al (2003) Distinct modes of floor plate induction in the chick embryo. Development 130:4809–4821. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.00694
Catala M, Teillet MA, De Robertis EM, Le Douarin ML (1996) A spinal cord fate map in the avian embryo: while regressing, Hensen’s node lays down the notochord and floor plate thus joining the spinal cord lateral walls. Development 122:2599–2610
Selleck MA, Stern CD (1991) Fate mapping and cell lineage analysis of Hensen’s node in the chick embryo. Development 112:615–626
Hatada Y, Stern CD (1994) A fate map of the epiblast of the early chick embryo. Development 120:2879–2889
Brown JM, Storey KG (2000) A region of the vertebrate neural plate in which neighbouring cells can adopt neural or epidermal fates. Curr Biol 10:869–872
Iimura T, Yang X, Weijer CJ, Pourquié O (2007) Dual mode of paraxial mesoderm formation during chick gastrulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:2744–2749. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610997104
Psychoyos D, Stern CD (1996) Fates and migratory routes of primitive streak cells in the chick embryo. Development 122:1523–1534
Catala M, Teillet MA, Le Douarin NM (1995) Organization and development of the tail bud analyzed with the quail-chick chimaera system. Mech Dev 51:51–65
Cambray N, Wilson V (2007) Two distinct sources for a population of maturing axial progenitors. Development 134:2829–2840. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.02877
McGrew MJ, Sherman A, Lillico SG et al (2008) Localised axial progenitor cell populations in the avian tail bud are not committed to a posterior Hox identity. Development 135:2289–2299. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.022020
Knezevic V, De Santo R, Mackem S (1998) Continuing organizer function during chick tail development. Development 125:1791–1801
Iimura T, Pourquié O (2008) Manipulation and electroporation of the avian segmental plate and somites in vitro. Methods Cell Biol 87:257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0091-679X(08)00213-6
Rupp PA, Rongish BJ, Czirok A, Little CD (2003) Culturing of avian embryos for time-lapse imaging. Biotechniques 34:274–278
Chapman SC, Collignon J, Schoenwolf GC, Lumsden A (2001) Improved method for chick whole-embryo culture using a filter paper carrier. Dev Dyn 220:284–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0177(20010301)220:3%3c284:AID-DVDY1102%3e3.0.CO;2-5
Yang X, Dormann D, Münsterberg AE, Weijer CJ (2002) Cell movement patterns during gastrulation in the chick are controlled by positive and negative chemotaxis mediated by FGF4 and FGF8. Dev Cell 3:425–437
Mathis L, Kulesa PM, Fraser SE (2001) FGF receptor signalling is required to maintain neural progenitors during Hensen’s node progression. Nat Cell Biol 3:559–566. https://doi.org/10.1038/35078535
Sweetman D, Wagstaff L, Cooper O et al (2008) The migration of paraxial and lateral plate mesoderm cells emerging from the late primitive streak is controlled by different Wnt signals. BMC Dev Biol 8:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-8-63
Ciruna B, Rossant J (2001) FGF signaling regulates mesoderm cell fate specification and morphogenetic movement at the primitive streak. Dev Cell 1:37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1534-5807(01)00017-X
Iimura T, Pourquié O (2006) Collinear activation of Hoxb genes during gastrulation is linked to mesoderm cell ingression. Nature 442:568–571. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04838
Denans N, Iimura T, Pourquié O (2015) Hox genes control vertebrate body elongation by collinear Wnt repression. Elife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.04379
Wacker SA, McNulty CL, Durston AJ (2004) The initiation of Hox gene expression in Xenopus laevis is controlled by Brachyury and BMP-4. Dev Biol 266:123–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2003.10.011
Mallo M, Wellik DM, Deschamps J (2010) Hox genes and regional patterning of the vertebrate body plan. Dev Biol 344:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2010.04.024
Deschamps J, Duboule D (2017) Embryonic timing, axial stem cells, chromatin dynamics, and the Hox clock. Genes Dev 31:1406–1416. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.303123.117
Brown JM, Storey KG (2000) A region of the vertebrate neural plate in which neighbouring cells can adopt neural or epidermal fates. Curr Biol 10:869–872
Martin BL, Kimelman D (2012) Canonical Wnt signaling dynamically controls multiple stem cell fate decisions during vertebrate body formation. Dev Cell 22:223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2011.11.001
Cambray N, Wilson V (2002) Axial progenitors with extensive potency are localised to the mouse chordoneural hinge. Development 129:4855–4866
Tzouanacou E, Wegener A, Wymeersch FJ et al (2009) Redefining the progression of lineage segregations during mammalian embryogenesis by clonal analysis. Dev Cell 17:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.08.002
Beddington RS, Rashbass P, Wilson V (1992) Brachyury–a gene affecting mouse gastrulation and early organogenesis. Development 116:157–165
Graham V, Khudyakov J, Ellis P, Pevny L (2003) SOX2 functions to maintain neural progenitor identity. Neuron 39:749–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00497-5
Olivera-Martinez I, Harada H, Halley PA, Storey KG (2012) Loss of FGF-dependent mesoderm identity and rise of endogenous retinoid signalling determine cessation of body axis elongation. PLoS Biol 10:e1001415. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001415
Wymeersch FJ, Huang Y, Blin G et al (2016) Position-dependent plasticity of distinct progenitor types in the primitive streak. Elife 5:e10042. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.10042
Aires R, Jurberg AD, Leal F et al (2016) Oct4 is a key regulator of vertebrate trunk length diversity. Dev Cell 38:262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2016.06.021
Gouti M, Delile J, Stamataki D et al (2017) A gene regulatory network balances neural and mesoderm specification during vertebrate trunk development. Dev Cell 41(243–261):e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.04.002
Koch F, Scholze M, Wittler L et al (2017) Antagonistic activities of Sox2 and brachyury control the fate choice of neuro-mesodermal progenitors. Dev Cell 42(514–526):e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.07.021
Amin S, Neijts R, Simmini S et al (2016) Cdx and T brachyury co-activate growth signaling in the embryonic axial progenitor niche. Cell Rep 17:3165–3177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.11.069
Oginuma M, Moncuquet P, Xiong F et al (2017) A gradient of glycolytic activity coordinates FGF and Wnt signaling during elongation of the body axis in amniote embryos. Dev Cell 40(342–353):e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.02.001
Takemoto T, Uchikawa M, Yoshida M et al (2011) Tbx6-dependent Sox2 regulation determines neural or mesodermal fate in axial stem cells. Nature 470:394–398. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09729
Goto H, Kimmey SC, Row RH et al (2017) FGF and canonical Wnt signaling cooperate to induce paraxial mesoderm from tailbud neuromesodermal progenitors through regulation of a two-step epithelial to mesenchymal transition. Development 144:1412–1424. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.143578
Akai J, Halley PA, Storey KG (2005) FGF-dependent Notch signaling maintains the spinal cord stem zone. Genes Dev 19:2877–2887. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.357705
Glickman NS, Kimmel CB, Jones MA, Adams RJ (2003) Shaping the zebrafish notochord. Development 130:873–887
Keller R, Cooper MS, Danilchik M et al (1989) Cell intercalation during notochord development in Xenopus laevis. J Exp Zool 251:134–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402510204
Ellis K, Bagwell J, Bagnat M (2013) Notochord vacuoles are lysosome-related organelles that function in axis and spine morphogenesis. J Cell Biol 200:667–679. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.201212095
Adams DS, Keller R, Koehl MA (1990) The mechanics of notochord elongation, straightening and stiffening in the embryo of Xenopus laevis. Development 110:115–130
Catala M, Teillet MA, Le Douarin NM (1995) Organization and development of the tail bud analyzed with the quail-chick chimaera system. Mech Dev 51:51–65
Sausedo RA, Schoenwolf GC (1994) Quantitative analyses of cell behaviors underlying notochord formation and extension in mouse embryos. Anat Rec 239:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.1092390112
Sausedo RA, Schoenwolf GC (1993) Cell behaviors underlying notochord formation and extension in avian embryos: quantitative and immunocytochemical studies. Anat Rec 237:58–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.1092370107
Schoenwolf GC (2018) Contributions of the chick embryo and experimental embryology to understanding the cellular mechanisms of neurulation. Int J Dev Biol 62:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.170288gs
Schoenwolf GC (1984) Histological and ultrastructural studies of secondary neurulation in mouse embryos. Am J Anat 169:361–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001690402
Schoenwolf GC, Delongo J (1980) Ultrastructure of secondary neurulation in the chick embryo. Am J Anat 158:43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/aja.1001580106
Dady A, Havis E, Escriou V et al (2014) Junctional neurulation: a unique developmental program shaping a discrete region of the spinal cord highly susceptible to neural tube defects. J Neurosci 34:13208–13221. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1850-14.2014
Schoenwolf GC (1985) Shaping and bending of the avian neuroepithelium: morphometric analyses. Dev Biol 109:127–139
Nishimura T, Honda H, Takeichi M (2012) Planar cell polarity links axes of spatial dynamics in neural-tube closure. Cell 149:1084–1097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.021
López-Escobar B, Caro-Vega JM, Vijayraghavan DS et al (2018) The non-canonical Wnt-PCP pathway shapes the mouse caudal neural plate. Development. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.157487
Roszko I, Faure P, Mathis L (2007) Stem cell growth becomes predominant while neural plate progenitor pool decreases during spinal cord elongation. Dev Biol 304:232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.12.050
Sausedo RA, Smith JL, Schoenwolf GC (1997) Role of nonrandomly oriented cell division in shaping and bending of the neural plate. J Comp Neurol 381:473–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19970519)381:4%3c473:AID-CNE7%3e3.0.CO;2-%23
Ciruna B, Jenny A, Lee D et al (2006) Planar cell polarity signalling couples cell division and morphogenesis during neurulation. Nature 439:220–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04375
Shimokita E, Takahashi Y (2011) Secondary neurulation: fate-mapping and gene manipulation of the neural tube in tail bud. Dev Growth Differ 53:401–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-169X.2011.01260.x
Le Douarin NM, Teillet MA, Catala M (1998) Neurulation in amniote vertebrates: a novel view deduced from the use of quail-chick chimeras. Int J Dev Biol 42:909–916
Chal J, Pourquié O (2009) Patterning and differentiation of the vertebrate spine. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York
Yin C, Kiskowski M, Pouille P-A et al (2008) Cooperation of polarized cell intercalations drives convergence and extension of presomitic mesoderm during zebrafish gastrulation. J Cell Biol 180:221–232. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200704150
Yen WW, Williams M, Periasamy A et al (2009) PTK7 is essential for polarized cell motility and convergent extension during mouse gastrulation. Development 136:2039–2048. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.030601
Bénazéraf B, Francois P, Baker RE et al (2010) A random cell motility gradient downstream of FGF controls elongation of an amniote embryo. Nature 466:248–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09151
Delfini M-C, Dubrulle J, Malapert P et al (2005) Control of the segmentation process by graded MAPK/ERK activation in the chick embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:11343–11348. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0502933102
Kulesa PM, Fraser SE (2002) Cell dynamics during somite boundary formation revealed by time-lapse analysis. Science 298:991–995. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1075544
Stern CD, Fraser SE, Keynes RJ, Primmett DR (1988) A cell lineage analysis of segmentation in the chick embryo. Development 104(Suppl):231–244
Lawton AK, Nandi A, Stulberg MJ et al (2013) Regulated tissue fluidity steers zebrafish body elongation. Development 140:573–582. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.090381
Das D, Chatti V, Emonet T, Holley SA (2017) Patterned disordered cell motion ensures vertebral column symmetry. Dev Cell 42(170–180):e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2017.06.020
Bénazéraf B, Beaupeux M, Tchernookov M et al (2017) Multi-scale quantification of tissue behavior during amniote embryo axis elongation. Development 144:4462–4472. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150557
Wilson PA, Oster G, Keller R (1989) Cell rearrangement and segmentation in Xenopus: direct observation of cultured explants. Development 105:155–166
Steventon B, Duarte F, Lagadec R et al (2016) Species-specific contribution of volumetric growth and tissue convergence to posterior body elongation in vertebrates. Development 143:1732–1741. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.126375
Huss D, Benazeraf B, Wallingford A et al (2015) A transgenic quail model that enables dynamic imaging of amniote embryogenesis. Development 142:2850–2859. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.121392
Schoenwolf GC, Yuan S (1995) Experimental analyses of the rearrangement of ectodermal cells during gastrulation and neurulation in avian embryos. Cell Tissue Res 280:243–251
Smith JL, Schoenwolf GC (1989) Notochordal induction of cell wedging in the chick neural plate and its role in neural tube formation. J Exp Zool 250:49–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1402500107
Psychoyos D, Stern CD (1996) Restoration of the organizer after radical ablation of Hensen’s node and the anterior primitive streak in the chick embryo. Development 122:3263–3273
Charrier J-B, Catala M, Lapointe F et al (2005) Cellular dynamics and molecular control of the development of organizer-derived cells in quail-chick chimeras. Int J Dev Biol 49:181–191. https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.041962jc
Charrier JB, Teillet MA, Lapointe F, Le Douarin NM (1999) Defining subregions of Hensen’s node essential for caudalward movement, midline development and cell survival. Development 126:4771–4783
van Nes J, de Graaff W, Lebrin F et al (2006) The Cdx4 mutation affects axial development and reveals an essential role of Cdx genes in the ontogenesis of the placental labyrinth in mice. Development 133:419–428. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.02216
Takada S, Stark KL, Shea MJ et al (1994) Wnt-3a regulates somite and tailbud formation in the mouse embryo. Genes Dev 8:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.8.2.174
Herrmann BG, Labeit S, Poustka A et al (1990) Cloning of the T gene required in mesoderm formation in the mouse. Nature 343:617–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/343617a0
Duband JL, Dufour S, Hatta K et al (1987) Adhesion molecules during somitogenesis in the avian embryo. J Cell Biol 104:1361–1374
Zamir EA, Czirók A, Cui C et al (2006) Mesodermal cell displacements during avian gastrulation are due to both individual cell-autonomous and convective tissue movements. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19806–19811. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606100103
Filla MB, Czirók A, Zamir EA et al (2004) Dynamic imaging of cell, extracellular matrix, and tissue movements during avian vertebral axis patterning. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 72:267–276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdrc.20020
Czirók A, Rongish BJ, Little CD (2004) Extracellular matrix dynamics during vertebrate axis formation. Dev Biol 268:111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2003.09.040
George EL, Georges-Labouesse EN, Patel-King RS et al (1993) Defects in mesoderm, neural tube and vascular development in mouse embryos lacking fibronectin. Development 119:1079–1091
Yang JT, Rayburn H, Hynes RO (1993) Embryonic mesodermal defects in alpha 5 integrin-deficient mice. Development 119:1093–1105
Girós A, Grgur K, Gossler A, Costell M (2011) α5β1 integrin-mediated adhesion to fibronectin is required for axis elongation and somitogenesis in mice. PLoS One 6:e22002. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022002
Dray N, Lawton A, Nandi A et al (2013) Cell-fibronectin interactions propel vertebrate trunk elongation via tissue mechanics. Curr Biol 23:1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.05.052
Serwane F, Mongera A, Rowghanian P et al (2017) In vivo quantification of spatially varying mechanical properties in developing tissues. Nat Methods 14:181–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4101
Agero U, Glazier JA, Hosek M (2010) Bulk elastic properties of chicken embryos during somitogenesis. Biomed Eng Online 9:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-9-19
Zhou J, Kim HY, Davidson LA (2009) Actomyosin stiffens the vertebrate embryo during crucial stages of elongation and neural tube closure. Development 136:677–688. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.026211
Mongera A, Rowghanian P, Gustafson HJ, et al. (2018) A fluid-to-solid jamming transition underlies vertebrate body axis elongation. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0479-2
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Rusty Lansford, David Huss, Cathy Soula, Eric Theveneau, Ben Steventon, Daniela Roellig and Octavian Voiculescu for reading and giving critical comments on the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bénazéraf, B. Dynamics and mechanisms of posterior axis elongation in the vertebrate embryo. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 76, 89–98 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2927-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2927-4