Morphological innovation and developmental genetics

How do the actions of individual genes contribute to the complex morphologies of animals and plants? How widespread are these genes taxonomically? How many genes are involved in the morphological differences observed between species, and can we identify them? To what extent can empirical data and theory be reconciled? We provide an overview of some recent attempts to answer these questions, answers that have taken us to the threshold of understanding the mechanistic basis and evolutionary factors that underlie morphological innovation.

A modular misexpression screen in Drosophila detecting tissue-specific phenotypes.

Genetic screens in Drosophila have lead to the discovery of many genes important for patterning and signal transduction in diverse organisms. Traditionally, the phenotypic effects of loss-of-function mutations are analyzed. As an alternative way to link genes and function, I have developed a versatile misexpression screen in Drosophila, the first such screen in higher eukaryotes. The screen identifies genes that, when over- or misexpressed in a pattern of interest, give a specific phenotype or modulate an existing mutant phenotype. It is based on Gal4 transactivation of a mobile enhancer and promoter that "targets" random endogenous genes for expression. The modular design of the screen allows directed expression in any temporal or spatial pattern. When activated in the developing eye, 4% of target inserts gave dominant phenotypes. One insertion was in the gene encoding Ras GTPase-activating protein; its overexpression phenotype was strongly enhanced by a mutation in Ras1. Thus, biologically relevant phenotypes and genetic interactions are identified using this method. The screen is a powerful new tool for developmental genetics; similar approaches can also be developed for other organisms.

Effectors of a developmental mitogen-activated protein kinase cascade revealed by expression signatures of signaling mutants

Despite the importance of mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling in eukaryotic biology, the mechanisms by which signaling yields phenotypic changes are poorly understood. We have combined transcriptional profiling with genetics to determine how the Kss1 MAPK signaling pathway controls dimorphic development in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. This analysis identified dozens of transcripts that are regulated by the pathway, whereas previous work had identified only a single downstream target, FLO11. One of the MAPK-regulated genes is PGU1, which encodes a secreted enzyme that hydrolyzes polygalacturonic acid, a structural barrier to microbial invasion present in the natural plant substrate of S. cerevisiae. A third key transcriptional target is the G1 cyclin gene CLN1, a morphogenetic regulator that we show to be essential for pseudohyphal growth. In contrast, the homologous CLN2 cyclin gene is dispensable for development. Thus, the Kss1 MAPK cascade programs development by coordinately modulating a cell adhesion factor, a secreted host-destroying activity, and a specialized subunit of the Cdc28 cyclin-dependent kinase.

Molecular genetics of pattern formation in the inner ear: Do compartment boundaries play a role?

The membranous labyrinth of the inner ear establishes a precise geometrical topology so that it may subserve the functions of hearing and balance. How this geometry arises from a simple ectodermal placode is under active investigation. The placode invaginates to form the otic cup, which deepens before pinching off to form the otic vesicle. By the vesicle stage many genes expressed in the developing ear have assumed broad, asymmetrical expression domains. We have been exploring the possibility that these domains may reflect developmental compartments that are instrumental in specifying the location and identity of different parts of the ear. The boundaries between compartments are proposed to be the site of inductive interactions required for this specification. Our work has shown that sensory organs and the endolymphatic duct each arise near the boundaries of broader gene expression domains, lending support to this idea. A further prediction of the model, that the compartment boundaries will also represent lineage-restriction compartments, is supported in part by fate mapping the otic cup. Our data suggest that two lineage-restriction boundaries intersect at the dorsal pole of the otocyst, a convergence that may be critical for the specification of endolymphatic duct outgrowth. We speculate that the patterning information necessary to establish these two orthogonal boundaries may emanate, in part, from the hindbrain. The compartment boundary model of ear development now needs to be tested through a variety of experimental perturbations, such as the removal of boundaries, the generation of ectopic boundaries, and/or changes in compartment identity.