Evolution of vertebrate forebrain development: how many different mechanisms?

Over the past 50 years and more, many models have been proposed to explain how the nervous system is initially induced and how it becomes subdivided into gross regions such as forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain and spinal cord. Among these models is the 2-signal model of Nieuwkoop & Nigtevecht (1954), who suggested that an initial signal ('activation') from the organiser both neuralises and specifies the forebrain, while later signals ('transformation') from the same region progressively caudalise portions of this initial territory. An opposing idea emerged from the work of Otto Mangold (1933) and other members of the Spemann laboratory: 2 or more distinct organisers, emitting different signals, were proposed to be responsible for inducing the head, trunk and tail regions. Since then, evidence has accumulated that supports one or the other model, but it has been very difficult to distinguish between them. Recently, a considerable body of work from mouse embryos has been interpreted as favouring the latter model, and as suggesting that a 'head organiser', required for the induction of the forebrain, is spatially separate from the classic organiser (Hensen's node). An extraembryonic tissue, the 'anterior visceral endoderm' (AVE), was proposed to be the source of forebrain-inducing signals. It is difficult to find tissues that are directly equivalent embryologically or functionally to the AVE in other vertebrates, which led some (e.g. Kessel, 1998) to propose that mammals have evolved a new way of patterning the head. We will present evidence from the chick embryo showing that the hypoblast is embryologically and functionally equivalent to the mouse AVE. Like the latter, the hypoblast also plays a role in head development. However, it does not act like a true organiser. It induces pre-neural and pre-forebrain markers, but only transiently. Further development of neural and forebrain phenotypes requires additional signals not provided by the hypoblast. In addition, the hypoblast plays a role in directing cell movements in the adjacent epiblast. These movements distance the future forebrain territory from the developing organiser (Hensen's node), and we suggest that this is a mechanism to protect the forebrain from caudalising signals from the node. These mechanisms are consistent with all the findings obtained from the mouse to date. We conclude that the mechanisms responsible for setting up the forebrain and more caudal regions of the nervous system are probably similar among different classes of higher vertebrates. Moreover, while reconciling the two main models, our findings provide stronger support for Nieuwkoop's ideas than for the concept of multiple organisers, each inducing a distinct region of the CNS.

Reconciling different models of forebrain induction and patterning: a dual role for the hypoblast.

Several models have been proposed for the generation of the rostral nervous system. Among them, Nieuwkoop's activation/transformation hypothesis and Spemann's idea of separate head and trunk/tail organizers have been particularly favoured recently. In the mouse, the finding that the visceral endoderm (VE) is required for forebrain development has been interpreted as support for the latter model. Here we argue that the chick hypoblast is equivalent to the mouse VE, based on fate, expression of molecular markers and characteristic anterior movements around the time of gastrulation. We show that the hypoblast does not fit the criteria for a head organizer because it does not induce neural tissue from naïve epiblast, nor can it change the regional identity of neural tissue. However, the hypoblast does induce transient expression of the early markers Sox3 and Otx2. The spreading of the hypoblast also directs cell movements in the adjacent epiblast, such that the prospective forebrain is kept at a distance from the organizer at the tip of the primitive streak. We propose that this movement is important to protect the forebrain from the caudalizing influence of the organizer. This dual role of the hypoblast is more consistent with the Nieuwkoop model than with the notion of separate organizers, and accommodates the available data from mouse and other vertebrates.

The prechordal region lacks neural inducing ability, but can confer anterior character to more posterior neuroepithelium.

The avian equivalent of Spemann's organizer, Hensen's node, begins to lose its ability to induce a nervous system from area opaca epiblast cells at stage 4+, immediately after the full primitive streak stage. From this stage, the node is no longer able to induce regions of the nervous system anterior to the hindbrain. Stage 4+ is marked by the emergence from the node of a group of cells, the prechordal mesendoderm. Here we have investigated whether the prechordal region possesses the lost functions of the organizer, using quail-chick chimaeras to distinguish graft- and host-derived cells, together with several region-specific molecular markers. We find that the prechordal region does not have neural inducing ability, as it is unable to divert extraembryonic epiblast cells to a neural fate. However, it can confer more anterior character to prospective hindbrain cells of the host, making them acquire expression of the forebrain markers tailless and Otx-2. It can also rescue the expression of Krox-20 and Otx-2 from nervous system induced by an older (stage 5) node in extraembryonic epiblast. We show that these properties reflect a true change of fate of cells rather than recruitment from other regions. The competence of neuroectoderm to respond to anteriorizing signals declines by stages 7-9, but both posteriorizing signals and the ability of neuroectoderm to respond to them persist after this stage.