Since their isolation in the early 1990s, members of the Hedgehog family of intercellular signaling proteins have come to be recognized as key mediators of many fundamental processes in embryonic development. Their activities are central to the growth, patterning, and morphogenesis of many different regions within the body plans of vertebrates and insects, and most likely other invertebrates. In some contexts, Hedgehog signals act as morphogens in the dose-dependent induction of distinct cell fates within a target field, in others as mitogens regulating cell proliferation or as inducing factors controlling the form of a developing organ. These diverse functions of Hedgehog proteins raise many intriguing questions about their mode of operation. How do these proteins move between or across fields of cells? How are their activities modulated and transduced? What are their intracellular targets? In this article we review some well-established paradigms of Hedgehog function inDrosophila and vertebrate development and survey the current understanding of the synthesis, modification, and transduction of Hedgehog proteins. Embryological studies over much of the last century that relied primarily on the physical manipulation of cells within the developing embryo or fragments of the embryo in culture, provided many compelling examples for the primacy of cell–cell interactions in regulating invertebrate and vertebrate development. The subsequent identification of many of the signaling factors that mediate cellular communication has led to two general conclusions. First, although there are many important signals, most of these fall into a few large families of secreted peptide factors: theWnt (Wodarz and Nusse 1998), fibroblast growth factor (Szebenyi and Fallon 1999), TGFsuperfamily (Massague and Chen 2000), plateletderived growth factor (Betsholtz et al. 2001), ephrin (Bruckner and Klein 1998), and Hedgehog families. Second, parallel studies in invertebrate and vertebrate systems have shown that although the final outcome might look quite different (e.g., a fly vs. a mouse), there is a striking conservation in the deployment of members of the same signaling families to regulate development of these seemingly quite different organisms. This review focuses on one of the most intriguing examples of this phenomenon, that of the Hedgehog family. As with many of the advances in our understanding of the genetic regulation of animal development, hedgehog (hh) genes owe their discovery to the pioneering work of Nusslein-Volhard and Wieschaus (1980). In their screen for mutations that disrupt the Drosophila larval body plan, these authors identified several that cause the duplication of denticles (spiky cuticular processes that decorate the anterior half of each body segment) and an accompanying loss of naked cuticle, characteristic of the posterior half of each segment (see Fig. 1). The ensuing appearance of a continuous lawn of denticles projecting from the larval cuticle evidently suggested the spines of a hedgehog to the discoverers, hence the origin of the name of one of these genes. Other loci identified by mutants with this phenotype included armadillo, gooseberry, and wingless (wg). In contrast, animals mutant for the aptly named naked gene showed the converse phenotype, with denticle belts replaced by naked cuticle in every segment. On the basis of these mutant phenotypes, Nusslein-Volhard and Wieschaus (1980) proposed that these so-called segment-polarity genes regulate pattern within each of the segments of the larval body, individual genes acting within distinct subregions of the emerging segmental pattern. The first important breakthrough in unraveling how segment-polarity genes act came in the mid-1980s with the cloning of two members of the class, wingless and engrailed (en). Wg was shown to be the ortholog of the vertebrate proto-oncogene int1 (subsequently renamed Wnt1 and the founder member of the Wnt family of secreted peptide factors; Rijsewijk et al. 1987), whereas the sequence of en revealed that it encodes a homeodomaincontaining transcription factor (Fjose et al. 1985; Poole et al. 1985). Intriguingly, the two genes were found to be expressed in adjacent narrow stripes of cells in each segment (Martinez Arias et al. 1988). A close spatial relationship between Wnt1 and En expression domains was also reported in the primordial midbrain and hindbrain of the vertebrate embryo (McMahon et al. 1992). AnalyWe dedicate this review to the memory of our dear friend and colleague Rosa Beddington, whose encouragement led to our initial collaboration. 3Corresponding authors. E-MAIL p.w.ingham@sheffield.ac.uk; FAX 0114-222-288. E-MAIL amcmahon@biosun.harvard.edu; FAX (617) 496-3763. Article and publication are at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/ gad.938601.

/pdf/hedgehog-signaling-in-animal-development-paradigms-and-39bv1i8k90.pdf

Hedgehog signaling in animal development: paradigms and principles.

Super-Enhancers in the Control of Cell Identity and Disease

Rapid improvements in sequencing and array-based platforms are resulting in a flood of diverse genome-wide data, including data from exome and whole-genome sequencing, epigenetic surveys, expression profiling of coding and noncoding RNAs, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and copy number profiling, and functional assays. Analysis of these large, diverse data sets holds the promise of a more comprehensive understanding of the genome and its relation to human disease. Experienced and knowledgeable human review is an essential component of this process, complementing computational approaches. This calls for efficient and intuitive visualization tools able to scale to very large data sets and to flexibly integrate multiple data types, including clinical data. However, the sheer volume and scope of data pose a significant challenge to the development of such tools.

Integrative Genomics Viewer

Neural circuits are assembled with remarkable precision during embryonic development, and the selectivity inherent in their formation helps to define the behavioural repertoire of the mature organism. In the vertebrate central nervous system, this developmental program begins with the differentiation of distinct classes of neurons from progenitor cells located at defined positions within the neural tube. The mechanisms that specify the identity of neural cells have been examined in many regions of the nervous system and reveal a high degree of conservation in the specification of cell fate by key signalling molecules.

/pdf/neuronal-specification-in-the-spinal-cord-inductive-signals-24bsm9hhvx.pdf

Neuronal specification in the spinal cord: inductive signals and transcriptional codes

Developmental progression is driven by specific spatiotemporal domains of gene expression, which give rise to stereotypically patterned embryos even in the presence of environmental and genetic variation. Views of how transcription factors regulate gene expression are changing owing to recent genome-wide studies of transcription factor binding and RNA expression. Such studies reveal patterns that, at first glance, seem to contrast with the robustness of the developmental processes they encode. Here, we review our current knowledge of transcription factor function from genomic and genetic studies and discuss how different strategies, including extensive cooperative regulation (both direct and indirect), progressive priming of regulatory elements, and the integration of activities from multiple enhancers, confer specificity and robustness to transcriptional regulation during development.

http://materiais.dbio.uevora.pt/BD/Crescimento/TFs_2012.pdf

Transcription factors: from enhancer binding to developmental control.

The generation of neurons from stem cells involves the activity of proneural basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) proteins, but the mechanism by which these proteins irreversibly commit stem cells to neuronal differentiation is not known. Here we report that expression of the transcription factors Sox1, Sox2 and Sox3 (Sox1-3) is a critical determinant of neurogenesis. Using chick in ovo electroporation, we found that Sox1-3 transcription factors keep neural cells undifferentiated by counteracting the activity of proneural proteins. Conversely, the capacity of proneural bHLH proteins to direct neuronal differentiation critically depends on their ability to suppress Sox1-3 expression in CNS progenitors. These data suggest that the generation of neurons from stem cells depends on the inhibition of Sox1-3 expression by proneural proteins.

Vertebrate neurogenesis is counteracted by Sox1–3 activity

Sonic hedgehog induces the differentiation of ventral forebrain neurons: A common signal for ventral patterning within the neural tube

Groucho-mediated transcriptional repression establishes progenitor cell pattern and neuronal fate in the ventral neural tube.

The progression of neurogenesis relies on proneural basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) transcription factors. These factors operate in undifferentiated neural stem cells and induce cell cycle exit and the initiation of a neurogenic program. However, the transient expression of proneural bHLH proteins in neural progenitors indicates that expression of neuronal traits must rely on previously unexplored mechanisms operating downstream from proneural bHLH proteins. Here we show that the HMG-box transcription factors Sox4 and Sox11 are of critical importance, downstream from proneural bHLH proteins, for the establishment of pan-neuronal protein expression. Examination of a neuronal gene promoter reveals that Sox4 and Sox11 exert their functions as transcriptional activators. Interestingly, the capacity of Sox4 and Sox11 to induce the expression of neuronal traits is independent of mechanisms regulating the exit of neural progenitors from the cell cycle. The transcriptional repressor protein REST/NRSF has been demonstrated to block neuronal gene expression in undifferentiated neural cells. We now show that REST/NRSF restricts the expression of Sox4 and Sox11, explaining how REST/NRSF can prevent precocious expression of neuronal proteins. Together, these findings demonstrate a central regulatory role of Sox4 and Sox11 during neuronal maturation and mechanistically separate cell cycle withdrawal from the establishment of neuronal properties.

/pdf/the-establishment-of-neuronal-properties-is-controlled-by-4l8i2jgpq1.pdf

The establishment of neuronal properties is controlled by Sox4 and Sox11

Pluripotent embryonic stem (ES) cells can generate all cell types, but how cell lineages are initially specified and maintained during development remains largely unknown. Different classes of Sox transcription factors are expressed during neurogenesis and have been assigned important roles from early lineage specification to neuronal differentiation. Here we characterize the genome-wide binding for Sox2, Sox3, and Sox11, which have vital functions in ES cells, neural precursor cells (NPCs), and maturing neurons, respectively. The data demonstrate that Sox factor binding depends on developmental stage-specific constraints and reveal a remarkable sequential binding of Sox proteins to a common set of neural genes. Interestingly, in ES cells, Sox2 preselects for neural lineage-specific genes destined to be bound and activated by Sox3 in NPCs. In NPCs, Sox3 binds genes that are later bound and activated by Sox11 in differentiating neurons. Genes prebound by Sox proteins are associated with a bivalent chromatin signature, which is resolved into a permissive monovalent state upon binding of activating Sox factors. These data indicate that a single key transcription factor family acts sequentially to coordinate neural gene expression from the early lineage specification in pluripotent cells to later stages of neuronal development.

http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/25/23/2453.full.pdf

Jonas Muhr

Papers

Vertebrate neurogenesis is counteracted by Sox1–3 activity

Sonic hedgehog induces the differentiation of ventral forebrain neurons: A common signal for ventral patterning within the neural tube

Groucho-mediated transcriptional repression establishes progenitor cell pattern and neuronal fate in the ventral neural tube.

The establishment of neuronal properties is controlled by Sox4 and Sox11

Sequentially acting Sox transcription factors in neural lineage development