Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:31:56.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Significance of the temporal modulation of Hox gene expression on segment morphology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2009

J. Castelli-Gair Hombría
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
Manuel Marí-Beffa
Affiliation:
Universidad de Málaga, Spain
Jennifer Knight
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Get access

Summary

OBJECTIVE OF THE EXPERIMENT Hox genes control the morphology of segments in animals. During development Hox genes are expressed in defined regions, with a specific temporal–spatial dynamic expression in each segment. The purpose of these experiments is to observe the evolution of the temporal expression of some Hox genes and to manipulate their temporal expression to analyse how this affects segment morphology in Drosophila.

DEGREE OF DIFFICULTY Antibody staining is time consuming. RNA in situ hybridisation involves many washing steps, and the probe is susceptible to degradation.

The study of dynamic patterns of expression in embryo populations of mixed ages can be daunting to the nonexpert. In addition, the gastrulation movements and the variable orientations of the embryos in the slide make the identification of different stages of embryogenesis difficult.

INTRODUCTION

In the first two hours of embryogenesis the trunk of Drosophila is subdivided into identical segments that become morphologically different by the action of the Hox genes. Hox genes encode transcription factors that activate or repress downstream genes that are responsible of controlling the morphogenesis of the structures formed in each segment.

The trunk consists of three thoracic (T1–T3) and eight major abdominal segments (A1–A8). Some distinguishing features of the segments are the development of legs in the thorax, the formation of ventral denticle belts of different widths in the epidermis, and the formation of the posterior spiracles in A8 (Figure 20.1). In Drosophila, the legs are well developed only in the adult.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Campos-Ortega, J. A., and Hartenstein, V. (eds.) (1997). The Embryonic Development of Drosophila melanogaster, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag
Castelli-Gair, J. (1998). Implications of the spatial and temporal regulation of Hox genes on development and evolution. Int. J. Dev. Biol., 42, 437–44Google ScholarPubMed
Castelli-Gair, J., and Akam, M. (1995). How the Hox gene Ultrabithorax specifies two different segments: The significance of spatial and temporal regulation within metameres, Development, 121, 2973–82Google ScholarPubMed
Celniker, S. E., Keelan, D. J., and Lewis, E. B. (1989). The molecular genetics of the bithorax complex of Drosophila: Characterization of the products of the Abdominal-B domain. Genes Dev., 3, 1424–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S. M. (1990). Specification of limb development in the Drosophila embryo by positional cues from segmentation genes. Nature, 343, 173–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S. M., and Jürgens, G. (1989). Proximal-distal pattern fomation in Drosophila: Cell autonomous requirement for Distal-less gene activity in limb development. EMBO J., 8, 2045–55Google Scholar
Glicksman, M. A., and Brower, D. L. (1988). Expression of the Sex combs reduced protein in Drosophila larvae. Dev. Biol., 127, 113–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Reyes, A., and Morata, G. (1990). The developmental effect of overexpressing a Ubx product in Drosophila embryos is dependent on its interactions with other homeotic products. Cell, 61, 515–22CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, N., and Castelli-Gair, J. (1999). Study of the posterior spiracles of Drosophila as a model to understand the genetic and cellular mechanisms controlling morphogenesis. Dev. Biol., 214, 197–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuziora, M. A. (1993). Abdominal-B protein isoforms exhibit distinct cuticular transformations and regulatory activities when ectopically expressed in Drosophila embryos. Mech. Dev., 42, 125–37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamka, M. L., Boulet, A. M., and Sakonju, S. (1992). Ectopic expression of UBX and ABD-B proteins during Drosophila embryogenesis: Competition, not a functional hierarchy, explains phenotypic suppression. Development, 116, 841–54Google Scholar
Mann, R. S., and Hogness, D. S. (1990). Functional dissection of Ultrabithorax proteins in D. melanogaster. Cell, 60, 597–610CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martínez-Arias, A., and Lawrence, P. A. (1985). Parasegments and compartments in the Drosophila embryo. Nature, 313, 639–42CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Panzer, S., Weigel, D., and Beckendorf, S. K. (1992). Organogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster: Embryonic salivary gland determination is controlled by homeotic and dorsoventral patterning genes. Development, 114, 49–57Google ScholarPubMed
Tautz, D., and Pfeifle, C. (1989). A non-radioactive in situ hybridisation method for the localisation of specific RNAs in Drosophila embryos reveals translational control of the segmentation gene hunchback. Chromosoma, 98, 81–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vachon, G., Cohen, B., Pfeifle, C., McGuffin, M. E., Botas, J., and Cohen, S. M. (1992). Homeotic genes of the bithorax complex repress limb development in the abdomen of the Drosophila embryo through target gene Distal-less. Cell, 71, 437–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, R. A. H., and Wilcox, M. (1984). Protein products of the bithorax complex in Drosophila. Cell, 39, 163–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zakany, J., Kmita, M., Alarcon, P., Pompa, J. L., and Duboule, D. (2001). Localized and transient transcription of Hox genes suggests a link between patterning and the segmentation clock. Cell, 106, 207–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×