SOX3 activity during pharyngeal segmentation is required for craniofacial morphogenesis

Rizzoti, Karine; Lovell-Badge, Robin

doi:10.1242/dev.007906

Cited by 69 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sox3 itself is dispensable in mice (Rizzoti et al, 2004;Weiss et al, 2003), but it safeguards Sox2 functions by functional redundancy Rizzoti and Lovell-Badge, 2007). Sox1, the third SoxB1, is first activated weakly in a part of the developing anterior neural plate, then strongly in the developing spinal cord, and finally throughout the neural tube in mouse and chicken embryos (Cajal et al, 2012;Uchikawa et al, 2011;Wood and Episkopou, 1999).…”

Section: Soxb1 Proteins In Neural Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sox proteins: regulators of cell fate specification and differentiation

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummarySox transcription factors play widespread roles during development; however, their versatile functions have a relatively simple basis: the binding of a Sox protein alone to DNA does not elicit transcriptional activation or repression, but requires binding of a partner transcription factor to an adjacent site on the DNA. Thus, the activity of a Sox protein is dependent upon the identity of its partner factor and the context of the DNA sequence to which it binds. In this Primer, we provide an mechanistic overview of how Sox family proteins function, as a paradigm for transcriptional regulation of development involving multi-transcription factor complexes, and we discuss how Sox factors can thus regulate diverse processes during development. Key words: HMG domain, Partner factors, Transcriptional regulation, Stem cells, Cell lineage specification IntroductionAn emerging view of transcriptional regulation in developmental processes is that transcription factor complexes, rather than single transcription factors, play a major role (Reményi et al., 2004;Verger and Duterque-Coquillaud, 2002). This idea has been pioneered, most rigorously tested and studied in a variety of developmental contexts in the case of Sox (SRY-related HMG-box) family proteins. Sox family proteins are a conserved group of transcriptional regulators (see Box 1) defined by the presence of a highly conserved highmobility group (HMG) domain that mediates DNA binding. This domain was first identified in Sry, a crucial factor involved in mammalian male sex determination (Gubbay et al., 1990;Sinclair et al., 1990). Multiple other Sox proteins have subsequently been identified and analysed. Vertebrate genomes contain ~20 Sox family members with highly divergent developmental functions, as was indicated by the initial analyses of Sox expression in embryos (Collignon et al., 1996;Uwanogho et al., 1995). Although Sox proteins are also conserved in invertebrate lineages and exert analogous regulatory functions (Phochanukul and Russell, 2010), we here confine our discussion to the vertebrate Sox family members. In this Primer, we first outline the structure and molecular activities of Sox proteins, before discussing their roles during vertebrate development. In particular, the action and function of Sox proteins will be overviewed as a paradigm for transcriptional regulation mediated by a family of transcription factors. Sox protein structureSox proteins can bind to ATTGTT or related sequence motifs through their HMG domain, which consists of three α helices (Badis et al., 2009;Kondoh and Kamachi, 2010). This binding is established by the interaction of the HMG domain with the minor groove of the DNA, which widens the minor groove and causes DNA to bend towards the major groove (Reményi et al., 2003). It is speculated that DNA bending itself may contribute to the regulatory functions of Sox proteins (Pevny and Lovell-Badge, 1997), but this has not been proved experimentally. Sox proteins are classified into groups A-H, depending on the amino acid sequ...

show abstract

Section: Soxb1 Proteins In Neural Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sox proteins: regulators of cell fate specification and differentiation

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…differential gene expression), but might represent exaggeration of a natural developmental timing difference. Changes in a signal or transcription factor at a specific time in development could induce differential effects on the left and right sides because they are at slightly different developmental stages, revealing a tight molecular temporal control of pharyngeal organ development (Manley and Capecchi, 1998;Su et al, 2001;Moore-Scott and Manley, 2005;Rizzoti and Lovell-Badge, 2007). In humans, third pharyngeal pouch anomalies occur almost exclusively on the left side (Lin and Wang, 1991;Liberman et al, 2002).…”

Section: Thymus Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of thymus organogenesis and morphogenesis

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The thymus is the primary organ responsible for generating functional T cells in vertebrates. Although T cell differentiation within the thymus has been an area of intense investigation, the study of thymus organogenesis has made slower progress. The past decade, however, has seen a renewed interest in thymus organogenesis, with the aim of understanding how the thymus develops to form a microenvironment that supports T cell maturation and regeneration. This has prompted modern revisits to classical experiments and has driven additional genetic approaches in mice. These studies are making significant progress in identifying the molecular and cellular mechanisms that control specification, early organogenesis and morphogenesis of the thymus.

show abstract

“…Sox3 is necessary for epibranchial neurogenesis in the chick and zebrafish (Tripathi et al, 2009;Dee et al, 2008). However, cranial nerves still form in mice lacking Sox3, suggesting possible redundancy with the other SoxB1 family member Sox2 (Rizzoti and Lovell-Badge, 2007). Overexpressing Sox3 in epibranchial placodal cells inhibits migration and neurogenesis .…”

Section: Neuronal Differentiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

From shared lineage to distinct functions: the development of the inner ear and epibranchial placodes

Ladher¹,

O’Neill²,

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe inner ear and the epibranchial ganglia constitute much of the sensory system in the caudal vertebrate head. The inner ear consists of mechanosensory hair cells, their neurons, and structures necessary for sound and balance sensation. The epibranchial ganglia are knots of neurons that innervate and relay sensory signals from several visceral organs and the taste buds. Their development was once thought to be independent, in line with their independent functions. However, recent studies indicate that both systems arise from a morphologically distinct common precursor domain: the posterior placodal area. This review summarises recent studies into the induction, morphogenesis and innervation of these systems and discusses lineage restriction and cell specification in the context of their common origin. Key words: Epibranchial, Inner ear, Neurogenesis, Placode, Signalling IntroductionCranial placodes, found in all vertebrates, are transient thickenings of ectoderm that contribute extensively to the sensory component of the cephalic peripheral nervous system (see Box 1 and Glossary, Box 2). Individual placodes give rise to characteristic cell types, although the diversity of placodal derivatives varies (Box 1). Some placodes, such as the olfactory, otic and lateral line placodes, can form the receptive cell that responds to a stimulus, as well as the sensory neurons that transmit this information (Box 1). Others, such as the epibranchial and trigeminal placodes, only give rise to sensory neurons. The lens and adenohypophyseal placodes generate no sensory derivatives (Baker and Bronner-Fraser, 2001;Webb and Noden, 1993;Begbie and Graham, 2001b). In this review, we focus on the inner ear (or otic) placode and the epibranchial series of placodes and discuss their origins from a common progenitor domain: the posterior placodal area (PPA) (Fig. 1).The otic placode forms the complex inner ear structure that detects sound and balance, as well as the neurons that convey this information to the auditory hindbrain. The otic placodes form distinctive paired depressions adjacent to the caudal hindbrain and progressively deepen to form otocysts (see Glossary, Box 2). Transcriptional networks, influenced by extrinsic signals, drive the regional differentiation of the otic placode to generate mechanosensory hair cells, supporting cells and neurons (see Box 1 and Glossary, Box 2). This progressive differentiation results in a remarkable convolution of the simple spherical otocyst into an intricate structure that is dedicated to receiving information on balance, angular velocity and sound. These later morphogenetic events have been well reviewed (Bok et al., 2007;Fritzsch et al., 2006;Torres and Giráldez, 1998) and will not be covered here.The epibranchial placodes give rise to the geniculate, petrosal and nodose ganglia, which contribute sensory neurons to cranial nerves VII (facial), IX (glossopharyngeal) and X (vagus), in that order (see Box 1 and Glossary, Box 2; Fig. 1). Epibranchial placodes are located ventral to the...

show abstract

SOX3 activity during pharyngeal segmentation is required for craniofacial morphogenesis

Cited by 69 publications

References 32 publications

Sox proteins: regulators of cell fate specification and differentiation

Sox proteins: regulators of cell fate specification and differentiation

Mechanisms of thymus organogenesis and morphogenesis

From shared lineage to distinct functions: the development of the inner ear and epibranchial placodes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About