Pattern formation is a fundamental morphogenetic process. Models based on genetic and epigenetic control have been proposed but remain controversial. Here we use feather morphogenesis for further evaluation. Adhesion molecules and/or signaling molecules were first expressed homogenously in feather tracts (restrictive mode, appear earlier) or directly in bud or inter-bud regions (de novo mode, appear later). They either activate or inhibit bud formation, but paradoxically colocalize in the bud. Using feather bud reconstitution, we showed that completely dissociated cells can reform periodic patterns without reference to previous positional codes. The patterning process has the characteristics of being self-organizing, dynamic and plastic. The final pattern is an equilibrium state reached by competition, and the number and size of buds can be altered based on cell number and activator/inhibitor ratio, respectively. We developed a Digital Hormone Model which consists of (1) competent cells without identity that move randomly in a space, (2) extracellular signaling hormones which diffuse by a reaction-diffusion mechanism and activate or inhibit cell adhesion, and (3) cells which respond with topological stochastic actions manifested as changes in cell adhesion. Based on probability, the results are cell clusters arranged in dots or stripes. Thus genetic control provides combinational molecular information which defines the properties of the cells but not the final pattern. Epigenetic control governs interactions among cells and their environment based on physical-chemical rules (such as those described in the Digital Hormone Model). Complex integument patterning is the sum of these two components of control and that is why integument patterns are usually similar but non-identical. These principles may be shared by other pattern formation processes such as barb ridge formation, fingerprints, pigmentation patterning, etc. The Digital Hormone Model can also be applied to swarming robot navigation, reaching intelligent automata and representing a self-re-configurable type of control rather than a follow-the-instruction type of control. KEY WORDS: periodic patterning, reaction -diffusion, tissue engineering, complexity, self- The formation of each organ goes through induction, morphogenesis, and differentiation stages. During the morphogenesis stage, the shape, pattern, and size that constitute the functional form of an organ are laid down. Pattern formation is one of the fundamental processes that take place during the morphogenesis stage. The easiest patterns to observe are found on the integument (Bereiter-Hahn et al., 1986). The striking examples of Integument pattern formations are the avian plumages, leopard dots, tiger stripes, etc. In Fig. 1, we can appreciate examples of different integument patterns which grace our eyes that are produced by Nature.How do these patterns form? Are they under strict genetic control? Then, why are many patterns similar but not identical. Are they under epigenetic control? ...

During development and regeneration, new cells are added and incorporated to the liver parenchyma. Regulation of this process contributes to the final size and shape of the particular organs, including the liver. We identified the distribution of liver growth zones using an embryonic chicken model because of its accessibility to experimentation. Hepatocyte precursors were first generated all over the primordia surrounding the vitelline blood vessel at embryonic day 2 (E2), then became limited to the peripheral growth zones around E6. Differentiating daughter cells of the peripheral hepatocyte precursors were shown by DiI microinjection to be laid inward and were subsequently organized to form the hepatic architecture. At E8, hepatocyte precursor cells were further restricted to limited segments of the periphery, called localized growth zones (LoGZ). Adhesion and signaling molecules in the growth zone were studied. Among them, beta-catenin and Wnt 3a were highly enriched. We overexpressed constitutively active beta-catenin using replication competent avian sarcoma (RCAS) virus. Liver size increased about 3-fold with an expanded hepatocyte precursor cell population. In addition, blocking beta-catenin activity by either overexpression of dominant-negative LEF1 or overexpression of a secreted Wnt inhibitor Dickkopf (DKK) resulted in decreased liver size with altered liver shape. Our data suggest that (1) the duration of active growth zone activity modulates the size of the liver; (2) a shift in the position of the localized growth zone helps to shape the liver; and (3) beta-catenin/Wnt are involved in regulating growth zone activities during liver development.

A subgroup of the TNF receptor family, composed of Edar, Troy and Xedar, are implicated in the development of ectodermal appendages, such as hair follicles, teeth and sweat glands. We have isolated chicken orthologues of these three receptors and analysed their roles in early feather development. Conservation of protein sequences between mammalian and avian proteins is variable, with avian Edar showing the greatest degree of sequence identity. cXedar differs from its mammalian orthologue in that it contains an intracellular death domain. All three receptors are expressed during early feather morphogenesis and dominant negative forms of each receptor impair the epithelial contribution to feather bud morphogenesis, while the dermal contribution appears unaffected. Hyperactivation of each receptor leads to more widespread assumption of placode fate, though in different regions of the skin. Receptor signaling converges on NF-kappaB, and inhibiting this transcription factor alters feather bud number and size in a stage-specific manner. Our findings illustrate the roles of these three receptors during avian skin morphogenesis and also suggest that activators of feather placode fate undergo mutual regulation to reach a decision on skin appendage location and size.

SummaryPatterns form with the break of homogeneity, leading to the emergence of new structure or arrangement. There are different physiological and pathological mechanisms which lead to the formation of patterns. Here we first introduce the basics of pattern formation and their possible biological basis. We then discuss different categories of skin patterns and their potential underlying molecular mechanisms. Some patterns, such as the lines of Blaschko and naevus, are based on cell lineage and genetic mosaicism. Other patterns, such as regional specific skin appendages, can be set by distinct combinatorial molecular codes, which in turn may be set by morphogenetic gradients. There are also some patterns, such as the arrangement of hair follicles (hair whorls) and fingerprints, which involve genetics as well as stochastic epigenetic events based on physical-chemical principles. Many appendage primordia are laid out in developmental waves. In the adult, some patterns, such as those involving cycling hair follicles, may appear as traveling waves in mutant mice. Since skin appendages can renew themselves in regeneration, their size and shape can still change in the adult via regulation by hormones and the environment. Some lesion patterns are based on pathological changes involving the above processes and can be used as diagnostic criteria in medicine. Understanding the different mechanisms which lead to patterns on the skin will help us appreciate their full significance in morphogenesis and medical research. Much remains to be learned about complex pattern formation, a level between molecular biology and organism phenotypes.

HighlightsFeather orientation is collectively altered by 3pulsed electrical stimulationsThe electric field topology reshapes polarity cues in the epithelium Perturbation implicates involvement of Ca 2+ channels, not planar cell polarity Molecular characterization shows feather buds are otherwise normal