Hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) has a key role in cellular responses to hypoxia, including the regulation of genes involved in energy metabolism, angiogenesis and apoptosis. The alpha subunits of HIF are rapidly degraded by the proteasome under normal conditions, but are stabilized by hypoxia. Cobaltous ions or iron chelators mimic hypoxia, indicating that the stimuli may interact through effects on a ferroprotein oxygen sensor. Here we demonstrate a critical role for the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumour suppressor gene product pVHL in HIF-1 regulation. In VHL-defective cells, HIF alpha-subunits are constitutively stabilized and HIF-1 is activated. Re-expression of pVHL restored oxygen-dependent instability. pVHL and HIF alpha-subunits co-immunoprecipitate, and pVHL is present in the hypoxic HIF-1 DNA-binding complex. In cells exposed to iron chelation or cobaltous ions, HIF-1 is dissociated from pVHL. These findings indicate that the interaction between HIF-1 and pVHL is iron dependent, and that it is necessary for the oxygen-dependent degradation of HIF alpha-subunits. Thus, constitutive HIF-1 activation may underlie the angiogenic phenotype of VHL-associated tumours. The pVHL/HIF-1 interaction provides a new focus for understanding cellular oxygen sensing.

The tumour suppressor protein VHL targets hypoxia-inducible factors for oxygen-dependent proteolysis

Neuronal growth cones navigate over long distances along specific pathways to find their correct targets. The mechanisms and molecules that direct this pathfinding are the topics of this review. Growth cones appear to be guided by at least four different mechanisms: contact attraction, chemoattraction, contact repulsion, and chemorepulsion. Evidence is accumulating that these mechanisms act simultaneously and in a coordinated manner to direct pathfinding and that they are mediated by mechanistically and evolutionarily conserved ligand-receptor systems.

The Molecular Biology of Axon Guidance

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.

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/0092-8674(92)90471-N.pdf

Homeobox genes and axial patterning

Degeneration and regeneration of the nervous system

Basal lamina grafts for reconnecting severed nerves are prepared from muscle by removing cellular material therefrom while preserving the tubular structure of the basal lamina. When connected to nerve stumps the basal lamina surfaces promote axon regeneration therethrough, eventually reestablishing nerve function through the regenerated graft.

Peripheral nerve regeneration

Identification of specific neuronal populations and their projections in the developing hindbrain reveals a segmental organization in which pairs of metameric epithelial units cooperate to generate the repeating sequence of cranial branchiomotor nerves. Neurogenesis also follows a two-segment repeat, suggesting parallels with insect pattern formation.

Segmental patterns of neuronal development in the chick hindbrain.

In the chick embryo hindbrain, morphological segmentation into rhombomeres is matched by metameric patterns of early neuronal differentiation and axonogenesis. Boundaries between rhombomeres coincide with boundaries of expression of murine regulatory genes. By clonal analysis using intracellular marking, we show here that the rhombomere boundaries are partitions across which cells do not move. When a parent cell is marked before the appearance of rhombomere boundaries, the resulting clone is able to spread into the neighbouring rhombomere. When marked after boundary appearance, the clone still expands freely within the rhombomere of origin, but it is now restricted at the boundaries. Rhombomeres in the chick embryo thus behave like polyclonal units, raising the possibility that they are analogous to the compartments of insects.

Segmentation in the chick embryo hindbrain is defined by cell lineage restrictions

Although there is good evidence that growing axons can be guided by specific cues during the development of the vertebrate peripheral nervous system, little is known about the cellular mechanisms involved. We describe here an example where axons make a clear choice between two neighbouring groups of cells. Zinc iodide-osmium tetroxide staining of chick embryos reveals that motor and sensory axons grow from the neural tube region through the anterior (rostral) half of each successive somite. 180 degrees antero-posterior rotation of a portion of the neural tube relative to the somites does not alter this relationship, showing that neural segmentation is not intrinsic to the neural tube. Furthermore, if the somitic mesoderm is rotated 180 degrees about an antero-posterior axis, before somite segmentation, axons grow through the posterior (original anterior) half of each somite. Some difference therefore exists between anterior and posterior cells of the somite, undisturbed by rotation, which determines the position of axon outgrowth. It is widespread among the various vertebrate classes.

Segmentation in the vertebrate nervous system

We have studied the pathway of migration of neural crest cells through the somites of the developing chick embryo, using the monoclonal antibodies NC-1 and HNK-1 to stain them. Crest cells, as they migrate ventrally from the dorsal aspect of the neural tube, pass through the lateral part of the sclerotome, but only through that part of the sclerotome which lies in the rostral half of each somite. This migration pathway is almost identical to the path which presumptive motor axons take when they grow out from the neural tube shortly after the onset of neural crest migration. In order to see whether the ventral root axons are guided along this pathway by neural crest cells, we surgically excised the neural crest from a series of embryos, and examined the pattern of axon outgrowth approximately 24 h later. In somites which contained no neural crest cells, ventral root axons were still found only in the rostral half of the somite, although axonal growth was slightly delayed. These axons were surrounded by sheath cells, which had presumably migrated out of the neural tube, to a point about 50 μm proximal to the growth cones. With appropriate antibodies we found that the extracellular matrix components fibronectin and laminin are evenly distributed between the rostral and caudal halves of the somite. Neither of these molecules therefore plays a critical role in determining the specific pathway of neural crest cells or motor axons through the rostral half of the somite.

Roger J. Keynes

Papers

Peripheral nerve regeneration

Segmental patterns of neuronal development in the chick hindbrain.

Segmentation in the chick embryo hindbrain is defined by cell lineage restrictions

Segmentation in the vertebrate nervous system

The migration of neural crest cells and the growth of motor axons through the rostral half of the chick somite.