Leg development in flies versus grasshoppers

Differences in dpp expression do not lead to differences in the expression of downstream components of the leg patterning pathway

Elizabeth L. Jockusch, Candice Nulsen, Stuart Newfeld, Lisa M. Nagy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

All insect legs are structurally similar, characterized by five primary segments. However, this final form is achieved in different ways. Primitively, the legs developed as direct outgrowths of the body wall, a condition retained in most insect species. In some groups, including the lineage containing the genus Drosophila, legs develop indirectly from imaginal discs. Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating leg development is based largely on analysis of this derived mode of leg development in the species D. melanogaster. The current model for Drosophila leg development is divided into two phases, embryonic allocation and imaginal disc patterning, which are distinguished by interactions among the genes wingless (wg), decapentaplegic (dpp) and distalless (dll). In the allocation phase, dll is activated by wg but repressed by dpp. During imaginal disc patterning, dpp and wg cooperatively activate dll and also indirectly inhibit the nuclear localization of Extradenticle (Exd), which divide the leg into distal and proximal domains. In the grasshopper Schistocerca americana, the early expression pattern of dpp differs radically from the Drosophila pattern, suggesting that the genetic interactions that allocate the leg differ between the two species. Despite early differences in dpp expression, wg, D11 and Exd are expressed in similar patterns throughout the development of grasshopper and fly legs, suggesting that some aspects of proximodistal (P/D) patterning are evolutionarily conserved. We also detect differences in later dpp expression, which suggests that dpp likely plays a role in limb segmentation in Schistocerca, but not in Drosophila. The divergence in dpp expression is surprising given that all other comparative data on gene expression during insect leg development indicate that the molecular pathways regulating this process are conserved. However, it is consistent with the early divergence in developmental mode between fly and grasshopper limbs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1617-1626
Number of pages10
JournalDevelopment
Volume127
Issue number8
StatePublished - Apr 2000

Fingerprint

Grasshoppers
grasshopper
Diptera
Leg
insect
limb
divergence
Imaginal Discs
Drosophila
segmentation
gene expression
Insects
interaction
gene
Extremities
allocation
Group
Gene Expression

Keywords

  • Decapentaplegic
  • Imaginal disc evolution
  • Leg development
  • Schistocerca americana

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anatomy
  • Cell Biology

Cite this

Leg development in flies versus grasshoppers : Differences in dpp expression do not lead to differences in the expression of downstream components of the leg patterning pathway. / Jockusch, Elizabeth L.; Nulsen, Candice; Newfeld, Stuart; Nagy, Lisa M.

In: Development, Vol. 127, No. 8, 04.2000, p. 1617-1626.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8a468ae49b2d412191ffeb100138a1a9,
title = "Leg development in flies versus grasshoppers: Differences in dpp expression do not lead to differences in the expression of downstream components of the leg patterning pathway",
abstract = "All insect legs are structurally similar, characterized by five primary segments. However, this final form is achieved in different ways. Primitively, the legs developed as direct outgrowths of the body wall, a condition retained in most insect species. In some groups, including the lineage containing the genus Drosophila, legs develop indirectly from imaginal discs. Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating leg development is based largely on analysis of this derived mode of leg development in the species D. melanogaster. The current model for Drosophila leg development is divided into two phases, embryonic allocation and imaginal disc patterning, which are distinguished by interactions among the genes wingless (wg), decapentaplegic (dpp) and distalless (dll). In the allocation phase, dll is activated by wg but repressed by dpp. During imaginal disc patterning, dpp and wg cooperatively activate dll and also indirectly inhibit the nuclear localization of Extradenticle (Exd), which divide the leg into distal and proximal domains. In the grasshopper Schistocerca americana, the early expression pattern of dpp differs radically from the Drosophila pattern, suggesting that the genetic interactions that allocate the leg differ between the two species. Despite early differences in dpp expression, wg, D11 and Exd are expressed in similar patterns throughout the development of grasshopper and fly legs, suggesting that some aspects of proximodistal (P/D) patterning are evolutionarily conserved. We also detect differences in later dpp expression, which suggests that dpp likely plays a role in limb segmentation in Schistocerca, but not in Drosophila. The divergence in dpp expression is surprising given that all other comparative data on gene expression during insect leg development indicate that the molecular pathways regulating this process are conserved. However, it is consistent with the early divergence in developmental mode between fly and grasshopper limbs.",
keywords = "Decapentaplegic, Imaginal disc evolution, Leg development, Schistocerca americana",
author = "Jockusch, {Elizabeth L.} and Candice Nulsen and Stuart Newfeld and Nagy, {Lisa M.}",
year = "2000",
month = "4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
pages = "1617--1626",
journal = "Development",
issn = "0950-1991",
publisher = "Company of Biologists Ltd",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Leg development in flies versus grasshoppers

T2 - Differences in dpp expression do not lead to differences in the expression of downstream components of the leg patterning pathway

AU - Jockusch, Elizabeth L.

AU - Nulsen, Candice

AU - Newfeld, Stuart

AU - Nagy, Lisa M.

PY - 2000/4

Y1 - 2000/4

N2 - All insect legs are structurally similar, characterized by five primary segments. However, this final form is achieved in different ways. Primitively, the legs developed as direct outgrowths of the body wall, a condition retained in most insect species. In some groups, including the lineage containing the genus Drosophila, legs develop indirectly from imaginal discs. Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating leg development is based largely on analysis of this derived mode of leg development in the species D. melanogaster. The current model for Drosophila leg development is divided into two phases, embryonic allocation and imaginal disc patterning, which are distinguished by interactions among the genes wingless (wg), decapentaplegic (dpp) and distalless (dll). In the allocation phase, dll is activated by wg but repressed by dpp. During imaginal disc patterning, dpp and wg cooperatively activate dll and also indirectly inhibit the nuclear localization of Extradenticle (Exd), which divide the leg into distal and proximal domains. In the grasshopper Schistocerca americana, the early expression pattern of dpp differs radically from the Drosophila pattern, suggesting that the genetic interactions that allocate the leg differ between the two species. Despite early differences in dpp expression, wg, D11 and Exd are expressed in similar patterns throughout the development of grasshopper and fly legs, suggesting that some aspects of proximodistal (P/D) patterning are evolutionarily conserved. We also detect differences in later dpp expression, which suggests that dpp likely plays a role in limb segmentation in Schistocerca, but not in Drosophila. The divergence in dpp expression is surprising given that all other comparative data on gene expression during insect leg development indicate that the molecular pathways regulating this process are conserved. However, it is consistent with the early divergence in developmental mode between fly and grasshopper limbs.

AB - All insect legs are structurally similar, characterized by five primary segments. However, this final form is achieved in different ways. Primitively, the legs developed as direct outgrowths of the body wall, a condition retained in most insect species. In some groups, including the lineage containing the genus Drosophila, legs develop indirectly from imaginal discs. Our understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating leg development is based largely on analysis of this derived mode of leg development in the species D. melanogaster. The current model for Drosophila leg development is divided into two phases, embryonic allocation and imaginal disc patterning, which are distinguished by interactions among the genes wingless (wg), decapentaplegic (dpp) and distalless (dll). In the allocation phase, dll is activated by wg but repressed by dpp. During imaginal disc patterning, dpp and wg cooperatively activate dll and also indirectly inhibit the nuclear localization of Extradenticle (Exd), which divide the leg into distal and proximal domains. In the grasshopper Schistocerca americana, the early expression pattern of dpp differs radically from the Drosophila pattern, suggesting that the genetic interactions that allocate the leg differ between the two species. Despite early differences in dpp expression, wg, D11 and Exd are expressed in similar patterns throughout the development of grasshopper and fly legs, suggesting that some aspects of proximodistal (P/D) patterning are evolutionarily conserved. We also detect differences in later dpp expression, which suggests that dpp likely plays a role in limb segmentation in Schistocerca, but not in Drosophila. The divergence in dpp expression is surprising given that all other comparative data on gene expression during insect leg development indicate that the molecular pathways regulating this process are conserved. However, it is consistent with the early divergence in developmental mode between fly and grasshopper limbs.

KW - Decapentaplegic

KW - Imaginal disc evolution

KW - Leg development

KW - Schistocerca americana

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034106840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034106840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 127

SP - 1617

EP - 1626

JO - Development

JF - Development

SN - 0950-1991

IS - 8

ER -