The initiation of eye formation in all seeing animals is controlled by a group of selector genes that together forms the retinal determination cascade. In Drosophila, mice and humans, loss-of-function mutations lead to defects in eye and/or head development. While ectopic expression of these genes is sufficient to direct non-retinal tissues towards an eye fate, the ability of each gene to initiate eye formation is neither unlimited nor equal. A particularly enigmatic observation has been that one member of the cascade, sine oculis (so), which is a member of the SIX family of homeobox transcription factors, is unable to initiate eye development in non-retinal tissues. It is in contrast to every other retinal determination gene including optix, another Six family member, which can induce eye formation when expressed on its own. Here we demonstrate that, in contrast to published reports, expression of so on its own is sufficient to induce eye development within non-retinal tissues. We have extended results from prior reports on binding partner selectivity and DNA binding sites by conducting a structure/function analysis of the SO and OPTIX proteins. Here we demonstrate that the SIX domains and C-terminal portions of the SO and OPTIX proteins are required for functional specificity of SIX class transcription factors while the homeodomain of these proteins are interchangeable. Taken together, these results shed new light on the role that so plays in eye specification.

Summary The development of any cell and/or tissue is dependent upon interconnections between several signaling pathways and myriad transcription factors. It is becoming more apparent that these inputs are best studied, not as individual components, but rather as elements of a gene regulatory network. Over the last decade several networks governing the specification of single cells, individual organs and entire stages of development have been described. The current incarnations of these networks are the products of the continual addition of newly discovered genetic, molecular and biochemical interactions. However, as currently envisaged, network diagrams may not sufficiently describe the spatial and temporal dynamics that underlie developmental processes. We have conducted a developmental analysis of a sub circuit of the Drosophila retinal determination network. This sub circuit is comprised of three genes, two (sine oculis and dachshund) of which code for DNA binding proteins and one (eyes absent) that encodes a transcriptional co-activator. We demonstrate here that the nature of the regulatory relationships that exist between these three genes changes as retinal development progresses. We also demonstrate that the response of the tissue to the loss of any of these three RD genes is dependent upon the position of the mutant cells within the eye field. Depending upon its location, mutant tissue will either overproliferate itself or will signal to surrounding cells instructing them to propagate and compensate for the eventual loss through apoptosis of the mutant clone. Taken together these results suggest that the complexities of development are best appreciated when spatial and temporal information is incorporated when describing gene regulatory networks.

BackgroundThe retinal determination (RD) network is an evolutionarily conserved regulatory circuit that governs early events in the development of eyes throughout the animal kingdom. Ectopic expression of many members of this network leads to the transformation of non-retinal epithelia into eye tissue. An often-overlooked observation is that only particular cell-populations within a handful of tissues are capable of having their primary developmental instructions superseded and overruled.Methodology/Preliminary FindingsHere we confirm that indeed, only a discrete number of cell populations within the imaginal discs that give rise to the head, antenna, legs, wings and halteres have the cellular plasticity to have their developmental fates altered. In contrast to previous reports, we find that all transformable cell populations do not lie within the TGFβ or Hedgehog signaling domains. Additionally neither signaling cascade alone is sufficient for non-retinal cell types to be converted into retinal tissue. The transformation “hot spots” that we have identified appear to coincide with several previously defined transdetermination “weak spots”, suggesting that ectopic eye formation is less the result of one network overriding the orders of another, as previously thought, but rather is the physical manifestation of redirecting cell populations of enormous cellular plasticity. We also demonstrate that the initiation of eye formation in non-retinal tissues occurs asynchronously compared to that of the normal eye suggesting that retinal development is not under the control of a global developmental clock.Conclusions/SignificanceWe conclude that the subregions of non-retinal tissues that are capable of supporting eye formation represent specialized cell-populations that have a different level of plasticity than other cells within these tissues and may be the founder cells of each tissue.

In eye development the tasks of tissue specification and cell proliferation are regulated, in part, by the Pax6 and Pax6(5a) proteins respectively. In vertebrates, Pax6(5a) is generated as an alternately spliced isoform of Pax6. This stands in contrast to the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, which has two Pax6(5a) homologs that are encoded by the eyegone and twin of eyegone genes. In this report we set out to determine the respective contributions that each gene makes to the development of the fly retina. Here we demonstrate that both eyg and toe encode transcriptional repressors, are expressed in identical patterns but at significantly different levels. We further show, through a molecular dissection of both proteins, that Eyg makes differential use of several domains when compared to Toe and that the number of repressor domains also differs between the two Pax6(5a) homologs. We predict that these results will have implications for elucidating the functional differences between closely related members of other Pax subclasses.

We describe an adaptation of φC31 integrase–mediated targeted cassette exchange for use in Drosophila cell lines. Single copies of an attP-bounded docking platform carrying a GFP-expression marker, with or without insulator elements flanking the attP sites, were inserted by P-element transformation into the Kc167 and Sg4 cell lines; each of the resulting docking-site lines carries a single mapped copy of one of the docking platforms. Vectors for targeted substitution contain a cloning cassette flanked by attB sites. Targeted substitution occurs by integrase-mediated substitution between the attP sites (integrated) and the attB sites (vector). We describe procedures for isolating cells carrying the substitutions and for eliminating the products of secondary off-target events. We demonstrate the technology by integrating a cassette containing a Cu2+-inducible mCherry marker, and we report the expression properties of those lines. When compared with clonal lines made by traditional transformation methods, which lead to the illegitimate insertion of tandem arrays, targeted insertion lines give more uniform expression, lower basal expression, and higher induction ratios. Targeted substitution, though intricate, affords results that should greatly improve comparative expression assays—a major emphasis of cell-based studies.