The development of the posterior spiracles of Drosophila may serve as a model to link patterning genes and morphogenesis. A genetic cascade of transcription factors downstream of the Hox gene Abdominal-B subdivides the primordia of the posterior spiracles into two cell populations that develop using two different morphogenetic mechanisms. The inner cells that give rise to the spiracular chamber invaginate by elongating into 'bottle-shaped' cells. The surrounding cells give rise to a protruding stigmatophore by changing their relative positions in a process similar to convergent extension. In the larvae the spiracular chamber forms a very refractile filter, the filzkorper. The opening of the spiracular chamber, the stigma, is surrounded by four sensory organs; the spiracular hairs. Clones labeling the spiracular hairs show that each one is formed by four cells related by lineage, two neural and two support cells, the typical structure of a type I external sensory organ. When the larva is buried in the semi-liquid medium on which it feeds, the stigmatophore periscopes out of the medium allowing the larva to continue breathing. The genetic cascades regulating spiracular chamber, stigmatophore, and trachea morphogenesis are different but coordinated to form a functional tracheal system. In the posterior spiracle, this coordination involves the control of the initiation of cell invagination that starts in the cells closer to the trachea primordium and spreads posteriorly. As a result, the opening of the tracheal system shifts back from the spiracular branch of the trachea into the posterior spiracle cells (Hu, 1999).

Downstream of Abd-B the cascade can be subdivided into various levels. The activation of six genes -- cut, empty spiracles (ems), nubbin (nub), klumpfuss (klu), and spalt (sal) -- does not require expression any of the other genes studied, suggesting that these six genes are at the top of the cascade under Abd-B regulation. The cut, ems, nub, and klu genes are expressed in the spiracular chamber in overlapping patterns. The sal gene is not expressed in the spiracular chamber but in the cells that surround it and will form the stigmatophore. The exclusion of sal from the spiracular chamber is partly due to repression by cut, because in cut mutants sal is expressed at low levels in the internal part of the spiracle. Downstream of these putative Abd-B targets other genes are activated. These include the transcription factors grainyhead (grh), trachealess (trh) and engrailed (en) (Hu, 1999).

The spiracle phenotypes in mutants for the early Abd-B downstream genes have been analyzed. In sal mutants the stigmatophore does not form, resulting in embryos with a normal spiraclular chamber that does not protrude. Conversely, mutations in ems and cut affect the spiracular chamber but not the stigmatophore. Mutations for ems result in a spiracular chamber that lacks a filzkorper and is not connected to the trachea. In cut mutants the filzkorper is almost completely missing, but the trachea is still connected to the spiracular chamber and the spiracular hairs are also missing. In trh mutants, where the tracheal pits do not form and there is no tracheal network, the spiracular chamber cells still invaginate, forming a filzkorper. However, this filzkorper is shorter than that of the wild type probably due to a secondary requirement of trh, which is also expressed in the spiracular chamber cells. These results show that the spiracular chamber, the stigmatophore, and the trachea develop independently of one another. No phenotypes for either klu or nub could be detected, indicting that although these genes are expressed in the spiracle, they are either redundant or their function is not required for spiracle morphogenesis (Hu, 1999).

Reducing the activity of the Drosophila Runx protein Lozenge (Lz) during pupal development causes a decrease in cell death in the eye. Lz-binding sites were identified in introns of argos (aos) and klumpfuss (klu); these genes were shown to be directly activated targets of Lz. Loss of either aos or klu reduces cell death, suggesting that Lz promotes apoptosis at least in part by regulating aos and klu. These results provide novel insights into the control of programmed cell death (PCD) by Lz during Drosophila eye development (Wildonger, 2005).

These findings, together with what is known about aos and klu, support the following model: Lz induces aos expression in cone cells, wherefrom Aos diffuses to antagonize EGFR activity in the surrounding 2° and 3° cells. The expression pattern of aos⁹²³-lacZ indicates that Lz also regulates aos expression in 2° and 3° cells, suggesting that these cells may also send antisurvival signals. The data further suggest that within the 2° and 3° cells, Lz activates klu, which antagonizes EGFR signaling downstream of the receptor. Lz also activates klu expression in cone and 1° cells, but it is unclear what function klu has in these cells. Although two phases of PCD during retinal development have been proposed, these experiments support a role for Lz in promoting only the EGFR-dependent phase. An alternative possibility is that the decrease in cell death in lz mutant retinas is due to an increase in 2° and 3° cell differentiation stimulated by an increase in EGFR signaling. However, given the large body of evidence demonstrating that lz normally functions to promote differentiation, a model in which lz acts to suppress differentiation is not favored (Wildonger, 2005).

The mammalian homolog of Lz, Runx1 (also known as AML1), is also a transcriptional regulator. In humans, translocations that affect Runx1 are associated with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), which is characterized by the proliferation of undifferentiated hematopoietic cells. Effects on cell cycle regulators have been implicated in contributing to this overproliferation, but it is likely that PCD also plays a role . Changes in the amount of the apoptotic regulator Wilms Tumor 1 (WT1) are often found in AML patients. lz promotes cell death in the Drosophila eye in part by activating the expression of klu, the Drosophila homolog of WT1. It is suggested that these findings may be relevant to how Runx1 chimeras lead to the development of AML in humans. Furthermore, they suggest that WT1 may be a direct target of Runx1 (Wildonger, 2005).

Overexpression of the Notch antagonist Hairless (H) during imaginal development in Drosophila is correlated with tissue loss and cell death. Together with the co-repressors Groucho (Gro) and C-terminal binding protein (CtBP), H assembles a repression complex on Notch target genes, thereby downregulating Notch signalling activity. This study investigated the mechanisms underlying H-mediated cell death in S2 cell culture and in vivo during imaginal development in Drosophila. First, the domains within the H protein that are required for apoptosis induction in cell culture were mapped. These include the binding sites for the co-repressors, both of which are essential for H-mediated cell death during fly development. Hence, the underlying cause of H-mediated apoptosis seems to be a transcriptional downregulation of Notch target genes involved in cell survival. In a search for potential targets, transcriptional downregulation of rho-lacZ and EGFR signalling output were noted. Moreover, the EGFR antagonists lozenge, klumpfuss and argos were all activated upon H overexpression. This result conforms to the proapoptotic activity of H, as these factors are known to be involved in apoptosis induction. Together, the results indicate that H induces apoptosis by downregulation of EGFR signalling activity. This highlights the importance of a coordinated interplay of Notch and EGFR signalling pathways for cell survival during Drosophila development (Protzer, 2008).

This work allows two important conclusions: that overexpression of H induces cell-autonomous apoptosis, and that H requires the co-repressors Gro and CtBP for its proapoptotic activity. It is known that H assembles a repression complex together with the two co-repressors, resulting in transcriptional downregulation of Notch target genes. Hence, the ability of H to induce cell death is most likely a consequence of the repression of Notch target genes that are involved in cell survival. It is noted, however, that not every cell that receives an overdose of H dies. One simple explanation for this observation is that the only cells that die are those in which the relevant Notch target genes are normally active, as these cells require a Notch signal for survival. As H results in a repression of Notch activity, these cells would be driven into cell death, whereas those cells that do not depend on higher Notch levels for survival would be resistant to an H overdose. How is this effect of H realised at the molecular level? So far, it has not been possible to narrow down the analyses towards one target gene, the repression of which by the H repressor complex induces apoptosis. The most straightforward idea, repression of the anti-apoptotic protein Diap1, is not supported by the data. Instead, it was found that EGFR signalling activity is downregulated as a consequence of the upregulation of several negative regulators of EGFR (Protzer, 2008).

The existence of a densely woven network of genetic interactions between the EGFR and Notch signalling pathways is well established. This intensive cross-talk harmonises many developmental processes, such as proliferation, differentiation, cell fate specification, morphogenesis and programmed cell death. Still, the molecular basis of this genetic interplay remains largely obscure. So far, few molecular intersections between the Notch and EGFR pathways have been revealed. For example, EGFR signalling causes phosphorylation of the co-repressor Gro, thereby negatively modulating the transcriptional outputs of Notch signalling via the Enhancer of split [E(spl)] genes. Conversely, a myc-Gro complex was shown to inhibit EGFR signalling during neural development in the Drosophila embryo. Although mutual antagonism is probably the most prominent relationship in EGFR-Notch interactions, in some developmental situations both pathways cooperate to potentiate each other's signalling activities. One such example with regard to cell survival has been described in the retina of rugose mutant flies, where cell type-specific cell death could be reversed by an increase in Notch or EGFR signalling activity, indicating that both pathways adopt an anti-apoptotic function in this developmental context. Also, R7 photoreceptor cell specification requires the combined input of both Notch and EGFR signals. Moreover, Notch defines the scope of rho expression in the Drosophila embryo, thereby activating the EGFR pathway required for early ectodermal patterning. Also, during the development of mouse embryonic fibroblast, the Notch receptor-processing γ-secretase presenilin acts as a positive regulator of ERK basal level activity (Protzer, 2008).

A significant decrease was observed in the levels of activated MAPK (diP-ERK), which provides a good assessment of EGFR pathway activation, upon induction of H. Activated MAPK directly phosphorylates two transcription factors, Aop (Yan) and Pointed (Pntp2). Phosphorylation inactivates Aop, which in the unmodified state, represses EGFR targets. At the same time, phosphorylation activates Pointed, which then causes EGFR target gene transcription. As H is a well-defined transcriptional repressor of Notch target genes, it is most unlikely that it impedes EGFR activity at the level of phosphorylation. Moreover, it is not thought that H acts at the level of transcriptional regulation of EGFR target genes, even though combinatorial and antagonistic activities of the nuclear effectors of the EGFR and Notch signalling pathways have been described during eye development. Instead, the hypothesis is favored that H represses the transcription of EGFR activators, or might indirectly provoke the activation of EGFR repressors that affect, for example, the production of EGFR ligands or signal transduction (Protzer, 2008).

Rho activity is required for a timely and spatially regulated release of EGFR ligands. Accordingly, the expression of rho is highly dynamic during Drosophila development, and precedes the appearance of EGFR-induced activated MAPK. Hence, downregulation of rho by H would eventually result in lower levels of activated MAPK (diP-Erk). In contrast to other components of the EGFR signalling pathway, ectopic expression of rho results in EGFR activation in a wide range of tissues, indicating that Rho is an essential and limiting factor. So far, transcriptional control is the only known means of rho regulation. The complex array of enhancers regulating rho expression reflects the dynamic pattern of EGFR activation throughout Drosophila development (Protzer, 2008).

Interestingly, a transcriptional repression of rho-lacZ was observed in H gain-of-function clones that was dependent on the co-repressors Gro and CtBP. This effect might very well be direct, because it was shown previously that rho transcription is regulated by Su(H) in the neuroectoderm as well as in the gut of the Drosophila embryo. As mentioned above, Notch signalling has also been shown to regulate rho expression in the embryonic ectoderm. Moreover, during egg development, a band of Notch activity establishes the boundary between the two dorsal appendage tube cell types, whereby Notch levels are high in rho-expressing cells. In accordance with this, potential Su(H)-binding sites are present in the regulatory regions of rho1 and rho3, making a direct regulation of rho during eye development via the Notch-Su(H)-H complex very likely. It is noted, however, that the downregulation of rho-lacZ and of activated MAPK were focussed at the morphogenetic furrow, where primary photoreceptor cells are specified and ommatidia are founded. Regulation of rho by H would then be expected to interfere with photoreceptor formation rather than with cell survival, which is in agreement with the disturbed cellular architecture of H gain-of-function flies (Protzer, 2008).

Most interestingly, upon H overexpression, ectopic induction of lz, klu and aos was observed. All three genes are known to be involved in cell death induction during pupal eye development. There it was shown that the Runx protein Lz binds to the regulatory regions of klu and aos, resulting in the direct transcriptional activation of these target genes. Therefore, one might speculate that H executes its effect on klu and aos activity via the activation of lz. Moreover, as klu and aos are well-known inhibitors of EGFR signalling activity, this in itself suggests that H impedes EGFR signalling activity via these factors. This interpretation helps to explain why aos expression is induced in H gain-of-function clones, although it is well known that aos is triggered by EGFR signalling, thereby forming an inhibitory loop that acts on EGFR activity. The high levels of Lz still activate aos in H gain-of-function clones, keeping activity of the EGFR pathway low. Alternatively, aos and klu levels might be increased as a consequence of the downregulation, by H, of an as yet unknown repressor. Since H behaves as a kind of 'multi-adaptor protein', which not only recruits the transcriptional silencers Gro and CtBP to Notch targets but also binds other proteins such as Pros26.4, it is also possible that H interacts with positive regulators of lz, klu and aos (Protzer, 2008).

However, a model is favored whereby H influences EGFR signalling activity on two levels. On the one hand, through transcriptional repression of rho, H causes a loss of EGFR signalling output that interferes with cell specification. On the other hand, by interfering with their repressor(s), H relieves the restriction on lz, klu and aos expression, causing their accumulation. In consequence, the survival/death balance is tipped towards apoptosis in those cells that are susceptible to the effects of a lowered EGFR signal. Those cells that do not depend on high Notch and EGFR activity levels for survival would be resistant to an H overdose (Protzer, 2008).

Finally, one can envisage that a downregulation of Notch and EGFR signalling activities, resulting from the overexpression of H, might leave a cell in a state of 'uncertainty' that does not allow any further differentiation towards a certain cell type, but leaves the cell vulnerable to the apoptotic programme (Protzer, 2008).