Myocyte enhancer factor 2
See the embryonic expression pattern of Mef2 at the Berkeley Drosophila Genome Project Patterns of Gene Expression Site.
Mef2 gene expression is first detected during Drosophila embryogenesis within mesodermal precursor cells during gastrulation [Images], prior to specification of the somatic and visceral muscle lineages (Lilly, 1994). MEF2 protein is expressed throughout the mesoderm following gastrulation. Later in embryogenesis, its expression is maintained in precursors and differentiated cells of the somatic and visceral musculature, as well as the heart. Like Nautilus, Mef2 seems to be confined to single precursor cells.
The three major types of musculature in the Drosophila embryo requireMEF2 for later aspects of their differentiation, including body wall muscles, gut musculature, and the heart . tinman is restricted to the visceral mesoderm, the tissue that gives rise to cardiac muscle cells, and nautilus is restricted to somatic mesoderm, the tissue that gives rise to skeletal cells, however MEF2 is found in both tissues. (Bour, 1995).
In Drosophila, much has been learned about the specification of neuronal cell fates but little is known
about the lineage of mesodermal cells with different developmental fates. During development,
individual mesodermal precursor cells are initially singled out to become the founder cells for specific muscles.
The selection of muscle founder cells is thought to employ a Notch-mediated process of lateral
inhibition, similar to what is observed for the specification of neural precursors. These muscle founder
cells then seem to fuse with the surrounding, uncommitted myocytes, inducing the formation of muscle
fiber syncytia. In contrast, the differentiated progeny of neural precursor cells are usually the result of
a fixed pattern of asymmetric cell divisions that are directed, in part, by interactions among Numb (a
localized intracellular-receptor protein); Sanpodo (Spdo, a potential tropomodulin homolog), and Notch (a
transmembrane receptor protein). The roles of these neural lineage genes have been examined in
the cell fate specification of muscle and heart precursors. numb and spdo mutations have opposite effects in the specification of muscle founder cells. In all numb mutant embryos examined, the number of Kruppel and S59/NK1 expressing muscle cells is dramatically reduced or absent in stage 12/13 embryos. In spdo mutant embryos the number of S59 and Kr expressing muscle founders is increased (Park, 1998).
A progenitor cell that generates both a pericardial heart cell and a
somatic muscle founder cell was the focus of investigation. The two sibling cells studied were a single dorsal muscle, DA1, and a non-muscle pericardial cell (termed EPC), which is associated with the heart. Both cell types express Eve, however, they can be distinguished from one another morphologically. The precursor for both the EPCs and the putative founders of DA1 muscle emerges from a small cluster of mesodermal Eve-expressing cells in each hemisegment at mid-stage 11. At first, these mesodermal Eve cells are indistinguishable from one another, and they co-express Mef2, which is expressed in the entire early mesoderm and later in all (contractile) muscle types. Subsequently Mef2 expression ceases in the future EPCs as they begin to differentiate as non-muscle, pericardial cells. The putative DA1 founder seems to maintain Mef2 expression and begins fusing with surrounding myocytes. In Mef2 mutants, no fusion occurs but the putative muscle founders maintain expression of their muscle precursor markers, such as Eve. The asymmetric segregation of Numb into one of these
daughter cells antagonizes the function of Notch and Spdo by preventing the presumptive muscle
founder from assuming the same fate as its cardiac sibling. In numb mutants, most DA1 muscles are physically absent and the remaining ones lack Eve (and Kr) expression; in addition, the number of EPCs is doubled. These data suggest that in numb mutants, the putative DA1 founders are transformed into EPCs, because the Eve progenitor cells that normally give rise to DA1 founders and EPCs now only produce EPCs. Overexpression of numb or loss-of-spdo-function result in a failure to generate EPCs but allow for the formation of DA1 muscles. Similarly, expression of constitutively active Notch leads to a failure of DA1 muscle formation and an increase in the number of EPCs. Studies of double mutants indicate that spdo is epistatic to numb (in numb;spdo double mutant embryos, the spdo phenotype is apparent), suggesting that it acts downstream of numb. These results suggest that asymmetric cell
divisions, in addition to the previously-documented inductive mechanisms, play a major role in cardiac
and somatic muscle patterning. In addition, the cytoskeleton may have a role in the
asymmetrical localization of cell fate determinants (Park, 1998).
This paper defines temporal and spatial subdivisions of the embryonic head mesoderm and describes the fate of the main lineages derived from this tissue. During gastrulation, only a fraction of the head mesoderm (primary head mesoderm; PHM) invaginates as the anterior part of the ventral furrow. The PHM can be subdivided into four linearly arranged domains, based on the expression of different combinations of genetic markers (tinman, heartless, snail, serpent, mef-2, zfh-1). The anterior domain (PHMA) produces a variety of cell types, among them the neuroendocrine gland (corpus cardiacum). PHMB, forming much of the'T-bar' of the ventral furrow, migrates anteriorly and dorsally and gives rise to the dorsal pharyngeal musculature. PHMC is located behind the T-bar and forms part of the anterior endoderm, besides contributing to hemocytes. The most posterior domain, PHMD, belongs to the anterior gnathal segments and gives rise to a few somatic muscles, but also to hemocytes. The procephalic region flanking the ventral furrow also contributes to head mesoderm (secondary head mesoderm, SHM) that segregates from the surface after the ventral furrow has invaginated, indicating that gastrulation in the procephalon is much more protracted than in the trunk. This study distinguishes between an early SHM (eSHM) that is located on either side of the anterior endoderm and is the major source of hemocytes, including crystal cells. The eSHM is followed by the late SHM (lSHM), which consists of an anterior and posterior component (lSHMa, lSHMp). The lSHMa, flanking the stomodeum anteriorly and laterally, produces the visceral musculature of the esophagus, as well as a population of tinman-positive cells that is interpreted as a rudimentary cephalic aorta ('cephalic vascular rudiment'). The lSHM contributes hemocytes, as well as the nephrocytes forming the subesophageal body, also called garland cells (de Velasco, 2005).
The mesoderm is a morphologically distinct cell layer that can be recognized in early embryos of most bilaterian phyla and that gives rise to tissues interposed between ectodermal and endodermal epithelia, including muscle, connective, blood, vascular, and excretory tissue. Besides the differentiative fate of tissues derived from it, the mesoderm shares several common properties in regard to its formation during gastrulation. The anlage of the mesoderm is sandwiched in between the anlage of the endoderm and the neurectoderm. This has been documented in most detail in anamniote vertebrates, where signals from the vegetal blastomeres (the anlage of the endoderm) act on the adjacent marginal zone of the future ectoderm to induce mesoderm. Although gastrulation proceeds quite differently in arthropods from the way it does in chordates, the proximity of the mesodermal anlage to future endoderm and neurectoderm is conserved, and numerous signaling pathways and transcriptional regulators that share similar function and expression patterns in arthropods and chordates have been identified (de Velasco, 2005 and references therein).
Following gastrulation, the mesoderm is subdivided along the dorso-ventral axis into several subdivisions laid out in a distinct dorso-ventral order. In vertebrates, cells located in the dorsal part of the mesoderm anlage give rise to notochord and somites, which in turn produce muscular, skeletal, and connective tissue. Next to the somitic mesoderm is the intermediate mesoderm that will form the excretory and reproductive system. The ventral mesoderm (lateral plate) gives rise to blood, vascular system, visceral musculature, and coelomic cavity. In arthropods, fundamentally similar mesodermal subdivisions can be recognized, and similarities extend to the relative positions these domains obtain relative to each other and relative to the adjacent neurectoderm. For example, precursors of visceral muscles, vascular system, and blood are at the edge of the mesoderm facing away from the neural primordium (ventral in vertebrates, dorsal in arthropods (de Velasco, 2005 and references therein).
The subdivision of the vertebrate mesoderm into distinct longitudinal tissue columns with different fates is seen throughout the trunk and head of the embryo. However, several significant differences between the head and the trunk are immediately apparent. For example, cells derived from the anterior neurectoderm form the neural crest that migrates laterally and gives rise to many of the tissues that are produced by mesoderm in the trunk. As a result, the fates taken over by the head mesoderm are more limited than those of the trunk mesoderm. In contrast, the head mesoderm produces several unique lineages, such as the heart (cardiac mesoderm) and a population of early differentiating macrophages. Moreover, some of the signaling pathways responsible for inducing different mesodermal fates in the trunk appear to operate in a different manner in the head. A recently described example is the Wnt signal that induces somatic musculature in the trunk, but inhibits the same fate in the head (de Velasco, 2005 and references therein).
The head mesoderm of arthropods, like that of vertebrates, also appears to deviate in many ways from the trunk mesoderm. For example, specialized lineages like embryonic blood cells and nephrocytes forming the subesophageal body (also called garland cells) arise exclusively in the head. That being said, very little is known about how the arthropod head mesoderm arises and what types of tissues derive from it. The existing literature mainly uses histology, which severely limits the possibilities of following different cell types forward or backward in time. In this paper, several molecular markers have been used to initiate more detailed studies of the head mesoderm in Drosophila. The goal was to establish temporal and spatial subdivisions of the head mesoderm and, using molecular markers expressed from early stages onward, to follow the fate of the lineages derived from this embryonic tissue. Besides hemocytes and pharyngeal muscles described earlier, the head mesoderm also gives rise to several other lineages, including visceral muscle, putative vascular cells, nephrocytes, and neuroendocrine cells. The development of the head mesoderm is discussed in comparison with the trunk mesoderm and in the broader context of insect embryology (de Velasco, 2005).
The Drosophila head mesoderm, as traditionally defined, includes all mesoderm cells originating anterior to the cephalic furrow. The formation of the head mesoderm is complicated by the fact that (unlike the mesoderm of the trunk) only part of it invaginates with the ventral furrow; by far, the majority of head mesoderm cells, recognizable in a stage 10 or 11 embryo, segregate from the surface epithelium of the head after the ventral furrow has formed. Another complicating factor is that head mesoderm cells derived from different antero-posterior levels adopt very different fates, unlike the situation in the trunk where mesodermal fates within different segments along the AP axis are fairly homogenous, with obvious exceptions such as the gonadal mesoderm that is derived exclusively from a subset of abdominal segments. Using several different markers, this study has followed the origin, migration pathways, and later, fates of head mesoderm cells (de Velasco, 2005).
The anterior part of the ventral furrow, called primary head mesoderm (PHM) in the following, includes cells that will contribute to diverse tissues, including muscle, hemocytes, endoderm, and several ill-defined cell populations closely associated with the brain and neuroendocrine system. For clarification, the anterior ventral furrow will be divided into the following domains:
The anterior lip of the T-bar (PHMA) is the source of the corpus cardiacum, as well as other gt-positive cells that at least in part end up as nerve cells flanking the frontal connective and frontal ganglion. These cells continue the expression of giant throughout late embryonic development; they represent a hitherto unknown class of nonneuroblast-derived neurons (de Velasco, 2005).
The posterior lip of the T-bar (PHMB) can be followed towards later stages by its continued expression of htl. These cells, called the procephalic somatic mesoderm, form a bilateral cluster that moves dorso-anteriorly into the labrum and becomes the dorsal pharyngeal musculature. Htl expression almost disappears in these cells around late stage 11, but is reinitiated at stage 12 and stays strong until stage 14, when the dorsal pharyngeal muscles differentiate. Many of the genes expressed in the somatic musculature of the trunk and its precursors (Dmef2, beta-3-tubulin) are also expressed in the procephalic somatic mesoderm (de Velasco, 2005).
The part of the ventral furrow posteriorly adjacent to the T-bar (PHMC) expresses srp, forkhead (fkh), and other endoderm/hemocyte markers. After the ventral furrow closes in the ventral midline (stage 7/8), these cells form a compact median mass, most of which represents part of the anterior endoderm that gives rise to the midgut epithelium. Starting at around this stage, the lateral part of the hemocyte-forming 'secondary head mesoderm' ingresses in between the endoderm and the surface ectoderm. It is likely that some of the PHMC cells invaginating already with the ventral furrow, along with the cells that form the anterior endoderm, also give rise to hemocytes. Precursors of hemocytes and midgut are difficult to distinguish during and shortly after ventral furrow invagination since both express srp and other markers shared between hemocytes and midgut precursors. At around stage 9, the two populations of precursors disengage. The endoderm remains a compact mesenchyme attached to the invaginating stomodeum; hemocyte precursors move dorsally and take on the shape of expanding vertical plates interposed in between endoderm and ectoderm (de Velasco, 2005).
Domain PHMD, the short portion of the ventral furrow situated posterior to the endoderm, along with a considerable portion of the mesoderm behind the cephalic furrow, forms the mesoderm of the three gnathal segments (mandible, maxilla, labium). The gnathal mesoderm in many ways behaves like the mesoderm of thoracic and abdominal segments. It gives rise to somatic muscle (the lateral pharyngeal muscles), visceral muscle, and fat body. Unlike trunk mesoderm, gnathal mesoderm does not produce cardioblasts and pericardial cells. Instead, a large proportion of gnathal mesoderm cells, joining the anteriorly adjacent secondary procephalic mesoderm, adopt the fate of hemocytes (de Velasco, 2005).
Besides the ventral furrow, other parts of the ventral procephalon produce head mesoderm in a complex succession of delamination and ingression events. The head mesoderm that forms from outside the ventral furrow will be called 'secondary mesoderm' (SHM) in the following. Based on the time of formation and the position relative to the stomodeum, the following phases and domains of secondary head mesoderm development can be distinguished.
Following the obliteration of the ventral furrow at stage 8, the eSHM delaminates from the ventral surface 'meso-ectoderm' (considering that this epithelium still contains mesodermal progenitors!) flanking the endodermal mass. The eSHM forms two monolayered sheets that gradually move dorsally and posteriorly; by stage 9, the eSHM cells line the basal surface of the emerging head neuroblasts. An undefined number of primary head mesoderm cells derived from domain PHMC of the ventral furrow are mingled together with the eSHM cells. The ultimate fate of the eSHM is that of hemocytes: they express srp, followed slightly later by other blood cell markers (e.g., peroxidasin and asrij). A subset of hemocytes, called crystal cells, derive from precursors that form a morphologically conspicuous cluster at the dorsal edge of the eSHM, identifiable from early stage 10 onward by the expression of lz. The mechanism by which at least part of the eSHM delaminates is unique. Thus, it is formed by the vertically oriented division of the surface epithelium, whereby the inner daughters will become eSHMe and the outer ones ectoderm. The focus of vertical mitosis has named the procephalic domain in which it occurs 'mitotic domain #9' (de Velasco, 2005).
From late stage 9 onward, the early SHMs are followed inside the embryo by the closely adjacent posterior late SHMs. One cluster of posterior late secondary head mesoderm (lSHMp) cells delaminates from the surface epithelium flanking the posterior lip of the stomodeum; a second lSHMp cluster appears at the same stage at a slightly more posterior level. The first cluster seems to contribute to the hemocyte population; the posterior cluster gives rise to the nephrocytes forming the subesophageal body (also called garland cells; labeled by CG32094). Garland cell precursors are initially arranged as a paired cluster latero-ventrally of the esophagus primordium; subsequently, the clusters fuse in the midline and form a crescent underneath the esophagus. Garland cells are distinguished from crystal cells by their size, location, and arrangement: crystal cells are large, round cells grouped in an oblong cloud dorso-anterior to the proventriculus. Garland cells are smaller, closely attached to each other, and lie ventral of the esophagus
(de Velasco, 2005).
During stages 10 and 11, cells delaminate beside and anterior to the stomodeum, originating from the anlage of the esophagus and the epipharynx (labrum). These cells, called anterior late secondary head mesoderm cells (lSHMa), can be followed by their expression of tin. Two groups can be distinguished. The tin-positive cells delaminating from the esophageal anlage (es) give rise to the visceral musculature (vm) surrounding the esophagus. These cells lose tin expression soon after their segregation, but can be recognized by other visceral mesoderm markers such as anti-Connectin. More dorsally, in the anlage of the clypeolabrum (cl) delaminate, the dorsal subpopulation of the lSHMas, which rapidly migrates posteriorly on either side and slightly dorsal of the esophagus, can be found. These cells retain expression of tin into the late embryo. They assemble into two longitudinal rows stretching alongside the roof of the esophagus primordium. During late embryogenesis, they move posteriorly along with the esophagus towards a position behind the brain commissure. Many of the tin-positive SHMs apparently undergo apoptosis: initially counting approximately 25 on either side, they decrease to 12-15 at stage 14 to finally form a single, irregular row of about 15 cells total in the late embryo. These cells come into contact with the anterior tip of the dorsal vessel. This formation of previously undescribed cells, for which the term 'procephalic vascular cells', is proposed, is interpreted as a rudiment of the head aorta, which forms a prominent part of the dorsal vessel in many insect groups (de Velasco, 2005).
On the basis of additional molecular markers, the tin-positive procephalic vascular cells are further subdivided into two populations. The first subpopulation expresses the muscle and cardioblast-specific marker Dmef2; the second type is Dmef2-negative. In the dorsal vessel of the trunk, tin-positive cells also fall into a Dmef2-positive and a Dmef2-negative population. Dmef2-positive cells of the trunk represent the cardioblasts, myoendothelial cells lining the lumen of the dorsal vessel. Dmef2-negative/tin-positive cells form a somewhat irregular double row of cells attached to the ventral wall of the dorsal vessel. The ultimate fate of these cells has not been explored yet. However, preliminary data suggest that they develop into a muscle band that runs alongside the larval dorsal vessel. This would correspond to the situation in other insects in which such a ventral cardiac muscle band has been described (de Velasco, 2005).
The role of tinman in the formation of the procephalic vascular rudiment was investigated by assaying tin-mutant embryos for the expression of Dmef2. Similar to the cardioblasts of the trunk, the Dmef2-positive cells of the procephalic vascular rudiment are absent in tin mutants. It is quite likely that the (Dmef2-negative) remainder of the procephalic vascular rudiment is affected as well by loss of tin, but in the absence of appropriate markers (besides tin itself, which is not expressed in the mutant), it was not possible to substantiate this proposal (de Velasco, 2005).
At the time of appearance of the ventral furrow, segmental markers such as hh do not allow the distinction between distinct 'preoral' segments. Thus, hh is expressed in a wide procephalic stripe in front of the regularly sized mandibular stripe. During stage 7, the procephalic hh stripe splits into an anterior, antennal stripe and a posterior, short, intercalary stripe. The anterior lip of the ventral furrow (domain PHMA) coincides with the anterior boundary of the antenno-intercalary stripe. Thus, the primary head mesoderm and endoderm originating from within the anterior ventral furrow can be considered a derivative of the antennal and intercalary segments. This interpretation is supported by the expression of the homeobox gene labial (lab) found in the intercalary segment. The labial domain covers much of the anterior ventral furrow, including domains PHMB-C (de Velasco, 2005).
Morphogenetic movements in the ventral head, associated with the closure of the ventral furrow, the formation of the stomodeal placode, and the subsequent invagination of the stomodeum result in a shift of head segmental boundaries. The antennal segment tilts backward, as can be seen from the orientation of the antennal hh stripe that from stage 8 onward forms an almost horizontal line, connecting the cephalic furrow with the sides of the stomodeal invagination (which falls within the ventral realm of the antennal segment, in Drosophila as well as other insects). Since the expression of hh, like that of engrailed (en), coincides with the posterior boundary of a segment, the territory located ventral to the antennal hh stripe falls within the intercalary segment. This implies that most, if not all, of the posterior late SHM, is intercalary in origin. It is further plausible to consider that the anterior lSHM belongs to the intercalary and antennal segment. The vascular cells of the head, a conspicuous derivative of the anterior lSHM in Drosophila, are derived from the antennal mesoderm in other insects. The labrum, with which much of the anterior lSHM is associated, represents a structure that has always been difficult to integrate in the segmental organization of the head. Most likely the labrum represents part of the intercalary segment; this would help explain some of the unusual characteristics of the head mesoderm (de Velasco, 2005).
In conclusion, several fundamental similarities are found between the mesoderm of the head and that of the trunk regarding the tissues they give rise to, and possibly the signaling pathways deciding over these fates. After an initial phase of structural and molecular homogeneity, the trunk mesoderm becomes subdivided into a dorsal and a ventral domain by a Dpp-signaling event that emanates from the dorsal ectoderm. The dorsal domain, characterized by the Dpp-dependent continued expression of tinman, becomes the source of visceral and cardiogenic mesoderm, among other cell types. A role of Dpp/BMP signaling in cardiogenesis seems to be conserved among insects and vertebrates. Subsequent signaling steps, involving both Wingless and Notch/Delta, separate between these two fates and further subdivide the cardiogenic mesoderm into several distinct lineages, such as cardioblast, pericardial cells, and secondary hemocyte precursors (lymph gland). As a result of these signaling events, Tinman and several other fate-determining transcription factors become restricted to their respective lineages: tin to the cardioblasts, odd to pericardial cells and hemocyte precursors, zfh1 and srp to hemocyte precursors and fat body. Dmef2 and several other transcription factors become restricted to various combinations of muscle types (somatic, visceral, cardiac) (de Velasco, 2005).
In the head mesoderm, the above genes are associated with similar fates. Tin and Dmef2 appear widely in the procephalic ventral furrow and the anterior lSHM before getting restricted to the procephalic vascular rudiment and/or the pharyngeal musculature, respectively. In contrast with the initially ubiquitous expression of Tin and Dmef2 in the trunk mesoderm, those parts of the head mesoderm giving rise to hemocytes (PHMC, posterior lSHM) never express these mesodermal genes. Previous work has shown that the head gap gene buttonhead (btd) is responsible for the early repression of tin in the above mentioned domains of the head mesoderm. The early absence of Tin and Dmef2 in the head mesodermal hemocyte precursors is paralleled by the presence of Srp and Zfh1 in these cells. Interestingly, Srp/Zfh-positive cells of the head produce only hemocytes and no fat body, suggesting that an as-yet-uncharacterized signaling step prevents the formation of fat body in the head. It is tempting to speculate that there exists within the mesoderm a 'blood/fat body equivalence group'. Blood cells and fat body share not only the expression of fate-determining genes such as srp and zfh1, but also, later, functional properties that have to do with immunity. In the trunk, the blood/fat body equivalence group gives rise mostly to fat body, producing only a limited number of hemocyte precursors in the dorsal mesoderm of the thoracic segments. In the head, on the other hand, all cells of the equivalence group become hemocytes (de Velasco, 2005).
Attention is drawn to another mesodermal lineage that produces related, yet not identical, cell types in the trunk and the head: the nephrocytes. Nephrocytes are defined by their characteristic ultrastructure (membrane invaginations sealed off by junctions) that attests to their excretory function. In the trunk, nephrocytes are represented by the pericardial cells that settle beside the cardioblasts; a newly discovered nephrocyte population ('star cells') invading the Malpighian tubules is derived from the mesoderm of the tail segments. In the head, nephrocytes aggregate near the junction between esophagus and proventriculus as the subesophageal body, also called garland cells. The fact that from the early stages of development onward different transcription factors are expressed in garland cells and pericardial cells suggests that these cells perform similar, yet not fully overlapping, functions (de Velasco, 2005).
Drosophila metamorphosis is characterized by diverse
developmental phenomena, including cellular proliferation, tissue
remodeling, cell migration, and programmed cell death. Cells undergo
one or more of these processes in response to the hormone
20-hydroxyecdysone (ecdysone), which initiates metamorphosis at the end
of the third larval instar and before puparium formation (PF) via a
transcriptional hierarchy.
Additional pulses of ecdysone further coordinate these processes during
the prepupal and pupal phases of metamorphosis. Larval tissues such as
the gut, salivary glands, and larval-specific muscles undergo
programmed cell death and subsequent histolysis. The imaginal discs
undergo physical restructuring and differentiation to form rudimentary
adult appendages such as wings, legs, eyes, and antennae. Ecdysone also
triggers neuronal remodeling in the central nervous system (White, 1999).
Wild-type patterns of gene expression in
D. melanogaster during early metamorphosis were examined by assaying whole
animals at stages that span two pulses of ecdysone. Microarrays were constructed containing
6240 elements that included more than 4500 unique cDNA expressed
sequence tag (EST) clones along with a number of
ecdysone-regulated control genes having predictable expression
patterns. These ESTs represent
approximately 30% to 40% of the total estimated number of genes in the
Drosophila genome. In order to gauge
expression levels, microarrays were hybridized with fluorescent probes
derived from polyA+ RNA isolated from developmentally
staged animals. The time points examined are relative to PF, which
last approximately 15 to 30 min, during which time the larvae cease to move
and evert their anterior spiracles. Nineteen arrays were examined representing
six time points relative to PF: one time point before the late larval
ecdysone pulse; one time
point just after the initiation of this pulse (4 hours BPF), and time
points at 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours after PF (APF). The prepupal pulse of
ecdysone occurs 9 to 12 hours APF (White, 1999).
In order to manage, analyze, and disseminate the large amount of data,
a searchable database was constructed that includes
the average expression differential at each time point. The analysis
set consists of all elements that reproducibly fluctuate in
expression threefold or more at any time point relative to PF, leaving
534 elements containing sequences represented by 465 ESTs and control
genes. More than 10% of the genes represented by the
ESTs display threefold or more differential expression during early
metamorphosis. This may be a conservative estimate of the percentage of
Drosophila genes that change in expression level during
early metamorphosis, because of the stringent criteria used for their
selection (White, 1999).
To interpret these data, genes were grouped according to similarity of
expression patterns by two methods. The first relied on pairwise
correlation statistics, and the second relied on the use
of self-organizing maps (SOMs). Differentially expressed genes fall into two main categories. The first
category contains genes that are expressed at >18 hours BFP (before
the late larval ecdysone pulse) but then fall to low or undetectable
levels during this pulse. These genes are potentially repressed by ecdysone and
make up 44% of the 465 ESTs identified in this set. The second
category consists of genes expressed at low or undetectable levels
before the late larval ecdysone pulse but then are induced during this pulse. These genes are
potentially induced by ecdysone and make up 31% of the 465 ESTs.
Consequently, 75% of genes that changed in expression by threefold or
more do so during the late larval ecdysone pulse that marks the
initial transition from larva to prepupa. This result is consistent
with the extreme morphological changes that are about to occur in these
animals. There are clearly discrete subdivisions of gene expression within these
categories (White, 1999).
Gene expression changes during metamorphosis also foreshadow both
larval muscle breakdown and adult myogenesis. At approximately 2 hours
APF, the anterior larval musculature begins to break down. This breakdown lasts until approximately 6 hours APF. Genes encoding both structural and regulatory components of muscle formation are down-regulated as early as 4 hours BPF (see Muscle-specific genes regulated during metamorphosis). In
addition to the repression of genes encoding components of thin and
thick filaments, genes encoding other muscle-specific molecules are
also repressed, including factors that compose the mesh in which these
filaments lie and regulatory factors involved in the specification of
muscle tissue. The mRNAs of all these repressed genes
decrease substantially many hours before histolysis of the anterior
larval muscles and therefore predict the occurrence of this
morphological event well before it begins. Twenty-four hours APF, adult myogenesis is well underway. The genes DMef-2, bagpipe, and tinman are all up-regulated at 12 hours APF from the baseline at PF, coincident with the prepupal pulse
of ecdysone. It is suggested that induction of these regulatory factors
initiates the development of the adult musculature, which will establish
itself several hours later (White, 1999).
Schneider SL2 cells activate the myogenic program in response to the ectopic expression of daughterless alone, as indicated
by exit from the cell cycle, syncytia formation, and the presence of muscle myosin fibrils. Myogenic conversion can be
potentiated by the coexpression of Drosophila Mef2 and nautilus with daughterless. In RT-PCR assays Schneider cells express two
mesodermal markers, Nautilus and Mef2 mRNAs, as well as very low levels of Daughterless mRNA but no Twist.
Full-length RT-PCR products for Nautilus and Mef2 encode immunoprecipitable proteins. RNA-i was used to demonstrate
that both endogenous nautilus expression and Mef2 expression are required for the myogenic conversion of Schneider
cells by daughterless. Coexpression of twist blocks conversion by daughterless but twist dsRNA has no effect. These results
indicate that Schneider cells are of mesodermal origin and that myogenic conversion with ectopic expression of
daughterless occurs by raising the levels of Daughterless protein sufficiently to allow the formation of Nautilus/Daughterless heterodimers. The effectiveness of RNA-i is dependent upon protein half-life. Genes encoding proteins with
relatively short half-lives (10 h), such as Nautilus or Hsf, are efficiently silenced, whereas more stable proteins, such as
cytoplasmic actin or beta-galactosidase, are less amenable to the application of RNA-i. These results support the conclusion
that Nautilus is a myogenic factor in Drosophila tissue culture cells with a functional role similar to that of vertebrate
MyoD. This is discussed with regard to the in vivo functions of Nautilus (Wei, 2000).
Apitz, H., Strunkelnberg, M., de Couet, H. G. and Fischbach, K. F. (2005). Single-minded, Dmef2, Pointed, and Su(H) act on identified regulatory sequences of the roughest gene in Drosophila melanogaster.
Dev. Genes Evol. 215(9): 460-69. 16096801
Apitz, H., Kambacheld, M., Höhne, M., Ramos, R. G. P., Straube, A. and Fischbach, K. F. (2004). Identification of regulatory modules mediating specific
expression of the roughest gene in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev. Genes Evol. 214: 453-459. 15278452
Artero, R., et al. (1998). The muscleblind gene participates in the organization of Z-Bands and epidermal attachments of Drosophila muscles and is regulated by Dmef2. Dev. Biol. 195(2): 131-143.
Bagni, C., et al. (2002). The Drosophila zinc finger transcription factor CF2 is a myogenic marker downstream of MEF2 during muscle development
Mech. Dev. 117: 265-268. 12204268
Bi, W., Drake, C. J. and Schwarz, J. J. (1999). The transcription factor MEF2C-null mouse exhibits complex vascular malformations and
reduced cardiac expression of angiopoietin 1 and VEGF. Dev. Biol. 211(2): 255-67.
Blais, A., et al. (2005). An initial blueprint for myogenic differentiation.
Genes Dev. 19: 553-569. 15706034
Bour, B. A., et al. (1995). Drosophila MEF2, a transcription factor that is essential
for myogenesis. Genes Dev. 9: 730-741 Carvajal, J. J., Keith, A. and Rigby, P. W. (2008). Global transcriptional regulation of the locus encoding the skeletal muscle determination genes Mrf4 and Myf5. Genes Dev. 22(2): 265-76. PubMed citation: 18198342
Chang, C. I., et al. (2002). Crystal structures of MAP kinase p38 complexed to the docking sites on its nuclear substrate MEF2A and activator MKK3b. Molec. Cell 9: 1241-1249. 12086621
Chen, S. L., et al. (2000). The steroid receptor coactivator, GRIP-1, is necessary for MEF-2C-dependent gene expression and skeletal muscle differentiation. Genes Dev. 14: 1209-1228
Cripps, M. R., et al. (1998). The myogenic regulatory gene Mef2 is a direct target for
transcriptional activation by Twist during Drosophila myogenesis. Genes Dev. 12(3): 422-434
Cripps, R. M., Zhao, B. and Olson, E. N. (1999). Transcription of the myogenic regulatory gene Mef2 in cardiac, somatic, and visceral muscle
cell lineages Is regulated by a Tinman-dependent core enhancer. Dev. Biol. 215(2): 420-430
Damm C., et al. (1998). Independent regulatory elements in the upstream region of the Drosophila beta 3 tubulin gene (beta Tub60D) guide expression in
the dorsal vessel and the somatic muscles. Dev. Biol. 199(1): 138-149.
De Val, S., et al. (2004). Mef2c is activated directly by Ets transcription factors through an evolutionarily conserved endothelial cell-specific enhancer. Dev. Bio. 275: 424-434. 15501228
de Velasco, B., Mandal, L., Mkrtchyan, M. and Hartenstein, V. (2006). Subdivision and developmental fate of the head mesoderm in Drosophila melanogaster.
Dev. Genes Evol. 216(1): 39-51. 16249873
Dichoso, D., et al. (2000). The MADS-box factor CeMEF2 is not essential
for Caenorhabditis elegans myogenesis
and development. Dev. Bio. 223: 431-440.
Dodou, E., et al. (2004). Mef2c is a direct transcriptional target of ISL1 and GATA factors in the anterior heart field during mouse embryonic development. Development 131: 3931-3942. 15253934
Duan, H., Skeath, J. B. and Nguyen, H. T. (2001). Drosophila Lame duck, a novel member of the Gli superfamily, acts as a key regulator of myogenesis by controlling fusion-competent myoblast development. Development 128: 4489-4500. 11714674
Dunn, S. E., Chin, E. R. and Michel, R. N. (2000). Matching of calcineurin activity to upstream effectors is critical for
skeletal mmuscle fiber growth. J. Cell Biol. 151: 663-672. 11062266
Gajewski, K., et al. (1998). Combinatorial control of Drosophila mef2 gene expression in
cardiac and somatic muscle cell lineages. Dev. Genes Evol. 208(7): 382-92.
Gajewski, K., et al. (1999). The zinc finger proteins Pannier and GATA4 function as cardiogenic factors in Drosophila. Development 126: 5679-5688
Gajewski, K., et al. (2001). Pannier is a transcriptional target and partner
of Tinman during Drosophila cardiogenesis. Dev. Bio. 233: 425-436. 11336505
Gong, X., et la. (2003). Cdk5-mediated inhibition of the protective effects of transcription factor MEF2 in neurotoxicity-induced apoptosis. Neuron 38: 33-46. 12691662
Gunthorpe, D., Beatty, K. E. and Taylor, M. V. (1999). Different levels, but not different isoforms, of the Drosophila transcription factor DMEF2 affect
distinct aspects of muscle differentiation. Dev. Biol. 215(1): 130-45.
Hadchoue, J., et al. (2003). Analysis of a key regulatory region upstream of the Myf5 gene reveals multiple phases of myogenesis, orchestrated at each site by a combination of elements dispersed throughout the locus. Development 130: 3415-3426. 12810589
Han, A., et al. (2003). Sequence-specific recruitment of
transcriptional co-repressor Cabin1
by myocyte enhancer factor-2. Nature 422(6933): 730-4. 12700764
Han, T. H. and Prywes, R. (1995). Regulatory role of MEF2D in serum induction of the
c-jun promoter. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15 (6): 2907-2915.
Hinits, Y. and Hughes, S. M. (2007). Mef2s are required for thick filament formation in nascent muscle fibres. Development 134: 2511-2519. Medline abstract: 17537787
Huang, K., et al. (2000). Solution structure of the MEF2A-DNA complex: structural basis for
the modulation of DNA bending and specificity by MADS-box
transcription factors. EMBO J. 19: 2615-2628.
Junion, G., et al. (2005). Mapping Dmef2-binding regulatory modules by using a ChIP-enriched in silico targets approach. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102(51): 18479-84. 16339902
Kaushal, S., et al. (1994). Activation of the myogenic lineage by MEF2A, a factor that induces and cooperates with MyoD. Science 266: 1236-1240
Kato, Y., et al. (1997). BMK1/ERK5 regulates serum-induced early gene
expression through transcription factor MEF2C. EMBO J. 16(23): 7054-7066
Kelly, K. K., Meadows, S. M. and Cripps, R. M. (2002). Drosophila MEF2 is a direct regulator of Actin57B transcription in cardiac, skeletal, and visceral muscle lineages. Mech. Dev. 110(1-2): 39-50. 11744367
Krainc, D., et al. (1998). Synergistic activation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor subunit
1 promoter by myocyte enhancer factor 2C and Sp1. J. Biol. Chem. 273(40): 26218-24.
Kwon, C., Han, Z., Olson, E. N. and Srivastava. D. (2005). MicroRNA1 influences cardiac differentiation in Drosophila and regulates Notch signaling.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102(52): 18986-91. 16357195
Lazaro, J.-B., Bailey, P. J. and Lassar, A. B. (2002). Cyclin D-cdk4 activity modulates the subnuclear localization and interaction of MEF2 with SRC-family coactivators during skeletal muscle differentiation. Genes Dev. 16: 1792-1805. 12130539
Lee, Y., et al. (1997). Myocyte-specific enhancer factor 2 and thyroid hormone receptor
associate and synergistically activate the alpha-cardiac myosin heavy-chain gene. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17: 2745-2755.
Lilly, B., et al. (1994). D-MEF2: a MADS box transcription factor expressed in
differentiating mesoderm and muscle cell lineages during
Drosophila embryogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91: 5662-6
Lin, M.-H., et al. (1996). Myocyte-specific enhancer factor 2 acts cooperatively with a muscle activator region to regulate Drosophila tropomyosin gene muscle expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93: 4623-28
Lin, M.-H., et al. (1997). Ectopic expression of MEF2 in the epidermis induces epidermal expression of muscle genes and abnormal muscle development in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 182: 240-255
Lin, S. C., et al. (1997a). PDP1, a novel Drosophila PAR domain bZIP transcription factor
expressed in developing mesoderm, endoderm and ectoderm, is a
transcriptional regulator of somatic muscle genes. Development 124(22): 4685-4696.
Lin, S.- C. and Storti, R. V. (1997b). Developmental regulation of the Drosophila Tropomyosin I (TmI) gene is controlled by a muscle activator enhancer region that
contains multiple cis-elements and binding sites for multiple proteins. Dev. Genet. 20(4): 297-306.
Lin, Q., et al. (1998). Requirement of the MADS-box transcription factor MEF2C for
vascular development. Development 125(22): 4565-74.
Liotta, D., Han, J., Elgar, S., Garvey, C., Han, Z. and Taylor, M. V. (2007). The Him gene reveals a balance of inputs controlling muscle differentiation in Drosophila. Current Biol. 17: 1409-1413. Medline abstract: 17702578
Lovato, T. L., Benjamin, A. R. and Cripps, R. M. (2005). Transcription of Myocyte enhancer factor-2 in adult Drosophila myoblasts is induced by the steroid hormone ecdysone. Dev. Biol. 288(2): 612-21. 16325168
Lu, J., et al. (2000). Regulation of skeletal myogenesis by association of the
MEF2 transcription factor with class II histone deacetylases. Molec. Cell 6: 233-244
Liu, Z. P., et al. (2001). CHAMP, a novel cardiac-specific helicase
regulated by MEF2C. Dev. Bio. 234: 497-509. 11397016
Maeda, T., Chapman, D. L. and Stewart, A. F. (2002). Mammalian Vestigial-like 2, a cofactor of TEF-1 and MEF2 transcription factors that promotes skeletal muscle differentiation. J. Biol. Chem. 277(50): 48889-98. 12376544
Mantrova, E. Y., Schulz, R. A. and Hsu, T. (1999). Oogenic function of the myogenic factor D-MEF2: Negative regulation
of the Decapentaplegic receptor gene thick veins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96: 11889-11894.
Marco-Ferreres, R., et al. (2005). Co-operation between enhancers modulates quantitative expression from the Drosophila Paramyosin/miniparamyosin gene in different muscle types. Mech. Dev. 122(5): 681-94. 15817225
McKinsey, T. A., Zhang, C. L., Lu, J. and Olson, E. N. (2000). Signal-dependent nuclear export of a histone deacetylase regulates muscle differentiation. Nature 408: 106-111. 11081517
Michael, L. F., et al. (2001). Restoration of insulin-sensitive glucose transporter (GLUT4) gene expression in muscle cells by the transcriptional coactivator PGC-1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98(7): 3820-5. 11274399
Miska, E. A., et al. (1999). HDAC4 deacetylase associates with and represses the MEF2
transcription factor. EMBO J. 18: 5099-5107.
Misquitta, L. and Paterson, B. M. (1999). Targeted disruption of gene function in Drosophila by RNA
interference (RNA-i): A role for nautilus in embryonic
somatic muscle formation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96(4): 1451-6.
Molkentin, J. D., et al. (1996a). MEF2B is a potent transactivator expressed in early myogenic lineages. Mol. Cell. Biol. 16: 3814-3824
Molkentin, J. D. and Olson, E. N. (1996b). Combinatorial control of muscle development by basic helix-loop-helix and MADS-box transcription factors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 93: 9366-73
Morin, S., et al. (2000). GATA-dependent recruitment of MEF2 proteins to target promoters. EMBO J. 19: 2046-2055
Nakagawa, O., et al. (2005). Centronuclear myopathy in mice lacking a novel muscle-specific protein kinase transcriptionally regulated by MEF2.
Genes Dev. 19: 2066-2077. 16140986
Naya, F. J., et al. (1999). Transcriptional activity of MEF2 during mouse
embryogenesis monitored with a MEF2-dependent transgene. Development 126(10): 2045-2052.
Nguyen, H. T. and Xu, X. (1998). Drosophila mef2 expression during mesoderm development is
controlled by a complex array of cis-acting regulatory modules. Dev. Biol. 204(2): 550-66.
Okamoto, S.-I., et al. (2000). Antiapoptotic role of the p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase-myocyte enhancer factor 2 transcription factor pathway during neuronal
differentiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 97: 7561-7566.
Park, M., Yaich, L. E. and Bodmer, R. (1998). Mesodermal cell fate decisions in Drosophila are under the control of the lineage genes numb, Notch, and sanpodo. Mech. Dev. 75(1-2): 117-26.
Penn, B. H., et al. (2004). A MyoD-generated feed-forward circuit temporally patterns gene expression during skeletal muscle differentiation. Genes Dev. 18: 2348-2353. 15466486
Phan, D., et al. (2005). BOP, a regulator of right ventricular heart development, is a direct transcriptional target of MEF2C in the developing heart. Development 132(11): 2669-78. 15890826
Postigo, A. A. and Dean, D. C. (1997). ZEB, a vertebrate homolog of Drosophila Zfh-1, is a negative
regulator of muscle differentiation. EMBO J. 16(13): 3935-3943.
Postigo, A. A., Ward, E., Skeath, J. B. and Dean, D. C. (1999). zfh-1, the Drosophila homologue of ZEB, is a transcriptional repressor that regulates somatic myogenesis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19(10): 7255-63. 10490660
Prokop, A., et al. (1996). Presynaptic development at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction: assembly and localization of presynaptic active zones. Neuron 17: 617-626
Ranganayakulu, G., Zhao, B., Dokidis, A., Molkentin, J.D., Olson, E.N. and Schulz, R.A. (1995). A series of mutation in the D-MEF2 transcription factor reveal multiple functions in larval and adult myogenesis in Drosophila. Dev. Biol. 171: 169-181
Rushton, E., et al. (1995). Mutations in a novel gene, myoblast city, provide evidence in support of the founder cell hypothesis for Drosophila muscle development. Development 121: 1979-1988
Russo, S., et al. (1998). Myogenic conversion of NIH3T3 cells by exogenous MyoD family members: dissociation of terminal differentiation from myotube formation. J. Cell Sci. 111(6): 691-700.
Sandmann, T., et al. (2006). A temporal map of transcription factor activity: Mef2 directly regulates target genes at all stages of muscle development.
Dev. Cell 10(6): 797-807. 16740481
Sandmann, T., et al. (2007). A core transcriptional network for early mesoderm development in Drosophila melanogaster. Genes Dev. 21: 436-449. Medline abstract: 17322403
Sartorelli, V., et al. (1997). Molecular mechanisms of myogenic coactivation by p300: Direct interaction with the activation domain of MyoD and with the MADS box of MEF2C. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17: 1010-26.
Schulz, R. A., et al. (1996). Expression of the D-MEF2 transcription in the Drosophila brain
suggests a role in neuronal cell differentiation. Oncogene 12: 1827-1831
Skerjanc, I. S., et al. (1998). Myocyte enhancer factor 2C and Nkx2-5 up-regulate each other's
expression and initiate cardiomyogenesis in P19 cells. J. Biol. Chem. 273(52): 34904-10.
Sparrow, B. D., et al. (1999). MEF-2 function is modified by a novel co-repressor, MITR. EMBO J. 18: 5085-5098.
Spicer, D. B., et al. (1996). Inhibition of myogenic bHLH and MEF2 transcription factors by the bHLH protein Twist. Science 272: 1476-80
Spring, J., et al. (2002). Conservation of Brachyury, Mef2, and Snail in the myogenic lineage of jellyfish: A connection
to the mesoderm of bilateria. Dev. Biol. 244: 372-384. 11944944
Stronach, B. E., et al. (1999). Muscle LIM proteins are associated with muscle sarcomeres and require dMEF2 for their
expression during Drosophila myogenesis. Mol. Biol. Cell 10: 2329-2342
Takeuchi, J. K., et al. (2005).
Tbx20 dose-dependently regulates transcription factor networks required for mouse heart and motoneuron development. Development 132(10): 2463-74. 15843409
Taylor, M. V., et al. (1995). Drosophila MEF2 is regulated by twist and is expressed
in both the primordia and differentiated cells of the
embryonic somatic, visceral and heart musculature. Mech. Dev. 50: 29-41
Taylor, M. V. (2000). A novel Drosophila, mef2-regulated muscle gene
isolated in a subtractive hybridisation-based
molecular screen using small amounts
of zygotic mutant RNA. Dev. Biol. 220: 37-52
Thai, M. V., et al. (1998). Myocyte enhancer factor 2 (MEF2)-binding site is
required for GLUT4 gene expression in transgenic mice.
Regulation of mef2 DNA binding activity in
insulin-deficient diabetes. J. Biol. Chem. 273(23): 14285-14292.
Tokusumi, T., et al. (2007). U-shaped protein domains required for repression of cardiac gene expression in Drosophila. Differentiation 75: 166-174. Medline abstract: 17316386
von Both, I., et al. (2004). Foxh1 is essential for development of the anterior heart field. Dev. Cell 7: 331-345. 15363409
Wang, D.-Z., et al. (2001). The Mef2c gene is a direct transcriptional target of myogenic bHLH and MEF2 proteins during skeletal muscle development. Development 128: 4623-4633. 11714687
Wei, Q., Marchler, G., Edington, K., Karsch-Mizrachi, I. and Paterson, B. M. (2000). RNA interference demonstrates a role for nautilus
in the myogenic conversion of Schneider cells
by daughterless. Dev. Bio. 228: 239-255.
West, A. G., Shore, P. and Sharrocks, A. D. (1997). DNA binding by MADS-box transcription factors: a molecular mechanism fo differential DNA bending. Mol. Cell. Biol. 17: 2876-87.
White, K., et al. (1999). Microarray analysis of Drosophila development during
metamorphosis. Science 286: 2179-2184.
Wong, M. W., et al. (1994). Activation of Xenopus MyoD transcription by members of
the MEF2 protein family. Dev Biol 166: 683-695
Wu, H., er al. (2000). MEF2 responds to multiple calcium-regulated signals in the control of
skeletal muscle fiber type. EMBO J. 19: 1963-1973
Wu, H., et al. (2001). Activation of MEF2 by muscle activity is mediated through a calcineurin-dependent pathway. EMBO J. 20: 6414-6423. 11707412
Yang, J., et al. (2002). Repression through a distal TCF-3 binding site restricts Xenopus myf-5 expression in gastrula mesoderm. Mech. Dev. 115: 79-89. 12049769
Yang, S. H., Galanis, A. and Sharrocks, A. D. (1999). Targeting of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases to MEF2
transcription factors. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19(6): 4028-38.
Youn, H. D., Grozinger, C. M. and Liu, J. O. (2000a). Calcium regulates transcriptional repression of myocyte enhancer factor 2 by histone deacetylase 4. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 22563-22567. 10825153
Youn, H. D. and Liu, J. O. (2000b). Cabin1 represses MEF2-dependent Nur77 expression and T cell apoptosis by controlling association of histone deacetylases and acetylases with MEF2. Immunity 13: 85-94. 10933397
Youn, H.-D., Chatila, T. A. and Liu, J. (2000c). Integration of calcineurin and MEF2 signals by the coactivator p300
during T-cell apoptosis. EMBO J. 19: 4323-4331.
Zetser, A., Gredinger, E. and Bengal E. (1999). p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway promotes skeletal
muscle differentiation. Participation of the Mef2c transcription
factor. J. Biol. Chem. 274(8): 5193-200.
Zhang, C. L., et al. (2001). Association of COOH-terminal-binding protein (CtBP) and MEF2-interacting transcription repressor (MITR) contributes to transcriptional repression of the MEF2 transcription factor. J. Biol. Chem. 276(1): 35-9. 11022042
Zhang, C. L., et al. (2002). Class II histone deacetylases act as signal-responsive repressors of cardiac hypertrophy. Cell 110: 479-488. 12202037
Zhao, M., et al. (1999). Regulation of the MEF2 family of transcription factors by p38. Mol. Cell. Biol. 19(1): 21-30.
Zhao, X., et al. (2005). Regulation of MEF2 by histone deacetylase 4- and SIRT1 deacetylase-mediated lysine modifications. Mol. Cell. Biol. 25(19): 8456-64. 16166628
Myocyte enhancer factor 2:
Biological Overview
| Evolutionary Homologs
| Regulation
| Targets of Activity and Protein Interactions
| Developmental Biology
| Effects of Mutation
date revised: 17 January 2008
Home page: The Interactive Fly © 1997 Thomas B. Brody, Ph.D.
The Interactive Fly resides on the
Society for Developmental Biology's Web server.
