Skip Navigation

Human Molecular Genetics 2008 17(R1):R60-R66; doi:10.1093/hmg/ddn119
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gaulden, J.
Right arrow Articles by Reiter, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gaulden, J.
Right arrow Articles by Reiter, J. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

This article appears in the following Human Molecular Genetics issue: Stem Cells and Regeneration [View the issue table of contents]

Neur-ons and neur-offs: regulators of neural induction in vertebrate embryos and embryonic stem cells

Julie Gaulden and Jeremy F. Reiter*

Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94158-2324, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +1 4155028528; Fax: +1 4154760526; Email: jreiter{at}biochem.ucsf.edu

Received January 10, 2008; Revised March 27, 2008; Accepted April 9, 2008


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Although the spatial and temporal orchestration of early vertebrate embryogenesis is missing from cell culture systems, recent work suggests that many of the same signals affecting neural induction in vertebrate embryos also regulate embryonic stem (ES) cell neurogenesis. One key regulatory mechanism involved in both in vivo and in vitro neural induction is the inhibition of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signals. Wnts and Fibroblast Growth Factors represent additional regulatory influences, which may affect the adoption of neural fates through both BMP-dependent and BMP-independent mechanisms. Insights into neural induction in vivo help to guide paradigms for promoting neural differentiation by ES cells. Conversely, insights into the mechanisms by which ES cells adopt neural fates may provide an improved understanding of neural induction in the early embryo.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
It is a truism that embryonic stem (ES) cells hold tremendous promise as an inexhaustible source for novel cell-based therapies for diseases for which treatments are imperfect or non-existent. Work over the past 25 years has aimed at understanding the properties of stem cells, especially the means to derive specific differentiated cell types from stem cells. One of the first lineages to be generated from ES cells was neural (1–4), and many subsequent studies have succeeded in promoting the differentiation of ES cells toward the neural lineage to create various kinds of neuronal and glial subtypes. This work reached an important milestone with the demonstration that neural cells derived from ES cells can be transplanted back into vertebrate embryos and integrate into many areas of the central nervous system (5,6).

Beyond the therapeutic implications, neural differentiation by ES cells can also provide insights into the mechanisms of neural induction, the initial steps by which uncommitted cells begin differentiating along the neural lineage. Several recent reviews have focused on the properties of neural stem cells and neural differentiation along defined pathways (7–9). Here, we contrast neural induction in vertebrate model organisms with neural induction in ES cells. Similarities and differences between in vivo and in vitro neural induction may lend insights into the molecular signals that direct neural induction in the embryo. Additionally, a better understanding of the signaling and tissue dynamics that underlie neural induction in vivo may lead to more efficient ways of deriving neural subtypes in vitro.


   NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP ANTAGONISM
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Neural induction has fascinated scientists since Spemann and Mangold established the presence of an organizer in amphibians capable of conferring neural identity to ectoderm (10). The presence of similar organizers in other species, such as the embryonic shield in teleosts, Hensen's node in birds and the node in mice, suggests that the mechanisms by which the organizer imparts neural identity are at least partly conserved in vertebrates (11–13). The first clues to the molecular nature of the organizer's inductive influence came from studies of a receptor for TGFβ superfamily members, and Noggin, a secreted factor expressed by the organizer (14–16). The ectodermal region of the early Xenopus embryo animal pole normally gives rise to both epidermis and neurectoderm (Fig. 1A). However, if this region is physically isolated as an animal cap, it does not form neural tissue, though expression of either a dominant negative form of a TGFβ receptor or Noggin is sufficient to generate neural cells from animal caps (14–16). Noggin and other factors that can induce neural fates in animal caps such as Chordin and Follistatin share the ability to bind to and inhibit the activity of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), TGFβ superfamily members (17–19). The finding that these factors specify neural identity by inhibiting the repressive influence of BMPs suggests that it is the absence of repressive influences, and not an active promoting influence, that may be essential for neural induction (20). This so-called default model of neural induction is further supported by the finding that dissociated Xenopus animal caps, deprived of extensive intercellular contacts and communication, adopt neural fates (21–24) and that isolated animal caps of some amphibians differentiate into neural tissue (25).


Figure 1
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. In vivo neural induction. The dorsal organizer in Xenopus (A) and similarly the shield in zebrafish (B) express many factors that protect the ectodermal domain that will give rise to neural fates from activators of the BMP, Nodal and Wnt pathways. The combined functions of secreted agonists of these pathways and the inhibitors produced by the dorsal organizer give rise to gradients that both pattern the embryo and specify the domain of neural induction.

 
Given the central role that inhibition of BMP plays in neural induction, it is somewhat surprising that mouse embryos mutant for Chordin, Noggin or Follistatin do not display gross defects in neural plate formation (26–28). Indeed, individual loss of these BMP inhibitors, as well as others including Twisted gastrulation, Gremlin and Cerberus-like, does not dramatically affect neural allocation in mice (29–31). However, loss of multiple BMP antagonists, such as both Chordin and Noggin, results in neural deficits, indicating functional overlap among BMP inhibitors (30,32). Consistent with this interpretation, Xenopus or zebrafish embryos depleted of multiple BMPs, or mouse embryos lacking BMPR1a, a component of the principle BMP receptor during early embryonic development, display increased and early neural differentiation (33,34). The similarity of these phenotypes suggests that inhibition of BMP activity through the overlapping functions of several BMP antagonists play a critical role in vertebrate neural induction (Fig. 1).


   BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
The default model may be too simple to completely describe neural induction (35,36). For example, additional influences, such as Wnt signals, have complex roles in promoting, inhibiting and patterning neural tissue at discrete times during embryogenesis. Xenopus and zebrafish both require an initial activation of the β-catenin-dependent Wnt signaling pathway during the blastula stage for specification of the organizer, and therefore for subsequent BMP antagonism (37–40). In Xenopus, this early Wnt signaling depends on Wnt11 (41).

Although this initial Wnt signaling is required early in embryo development for subsequent neural induction, both the Wnt and BMP pathways must be inhibited later in development for neural induction to occur, consistent with the central tenant of the default model. At gastrulation stages, Wnt signals collaborate with BMPs to ventralize frog and fish embryos and inhibit neural fates (Fig. 1) (42–45). Similarly, Wnt signaling inhibits neural fates in the chick epiblast, and inhibition of Wnt signaling is sufficient to induce neural differentiation in regions normally fated to become epidermis (46).

This inhibitory role for Wnts may be conserved in mammals, as genetic studies support a repressive function for Wnt signaling in mouse neural induction. Mouse mutants lacking effectors of β-catenin-dependent Wnt signaling, such as Wnt3a, display increased neural tissue and even ectopic neural tubes (47). Similarly, mutation of the Wnt co-receptors Lrp5 and Lrp6 results in an expansion of anterior neuroectoderm (48). Consistent with this negative regulatory role, loss of Dickkopf (Dkk), a Wnt inhibitor, prevents forebrain development (49).

However, mammalian Wnt signaling is involved in both anteroposterior patterning and cell movement in the primitive streak raising the possibility that the neural phenotypes of Wnt pathway mutants may reflect indirect consequences of disregulated Wnt signaling. Indeed, ectopic neural tubes similar to those caused by the loss of Wnt3a can result from defective cell movement in the primitive streak (50).

In addition to BMP inhibitors such as Chordin, Noggin and Follistatin, the Xenopus organizer expresses Frzb-1, Crescent, SFRP2, Dkk1, Cerberus and Lefty (Fig. 1), inhibitors of the Wnt and Nodal pathways (51). The production of so many signaling pathway inhibitors by the organizer substantiates the underlying supposition of the default model. So, is there no role for positive signaling in neural induction?

At least in non-mammalian vertebrates, there is a substantial evidence that activation of the MAPK pathway promotes neural induction. For example, neural induction in isolated salamander animal caps depends on the MAPK pathway (52), and the members of one class of MAPK activators, Fibroblast Growth Factors (FGFs), induce early neural plate markers, such as Sox3 and ERNI (53–56). In support of the involvement of FGFs in neural induction, FGFs can act cooperatively with BMP inhibition to promote Xenopus neural induction (33). One possible molecular mechanism for this functional cooperation is through MAPK pathway convergence on BMP signaling through the differential phosphorylation of Smad1, an important BMP effector (57). GSK3, a component and inhibitor of the Wnt pathway, promotes additional phosphorylation and degradation of Smad1 after a priming phosphorylation by MAPK, which may similarly explain the anti-neuralizing properties of Wnts (58). However, mutation of the MAPK phosphorylation site of Smad1 does not overtly abrogate neural induction in mice, suggesting that this interaction is not essential for the effects of FGFs on neural induction (59). Another possibility is that early FGF signals downregulate expression of BMPs in the prospective neural domain, allowing neural differentiation to proceed (60,61). A third possibility is that early FGF signaling promotes neural fate through a parallel, BMP-independent mechanism (62,63). One BMP-independent mechanism may involve Wnts which, as described above, can inhibit neural induction during gastrulation stages (46). However, addition of multiple FGFs, BMP antagonists and Wnt antagonists to the chick embryonic epiblast is not sufficient to induce the expression of the neural marker Sox2, suggesting that still other pathways regulate neural induction (63).

Although these data from amphibians and birds suggest that FGFs are positive effectors of vertebrate neural induction, to date there has not been genetic confirmation in fish or mice. For example, mouse epiblast cells lacking the FGF receptor, Fgfr1, can adopt neural fates (50). Also, inhibition of FGF signaling in the pre-gastrula mouse embryo does not block neural induction (34). It is possible that the involvement of an early FGF signal in neural induction does not pertain to mammals, or may be redundant with other inputs into the MAPK pathway.


   ES CELLS: ALL CASES ARE UNIQUE, AND VERY SIMILAR TO OTHERS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Partially because of ease of manipulation, ES cells represent an attractive model for studying early embryonic differentiation in general, and neural induction in particular. ES cells can be differentiated spontaneously to embryoid bodies or along specific lineages by addition of extrinsic factors or by genetic manipulation.

The relevance of ES cell differentiation to in vivo events is often unclear. For example, retinoic acid is one of the most potent inducers of neural differentiation in both mouse and human ES cells (64,65), but there is little evidence for a role for retinoic acid in embryonic neural induction. Nevertheless, in ES cells, retinoic acid has dosage-dependent effects whereby high concentrations drive ES cells toward a neural lineage and low retinoic acid concentrations cause cardiac differentiation (66).

In contrast, other neural influences are conserved between ES cells and in vivo systems (Fig. 2). Given that mouse and human ES cells have markedly different growth factor requirements for maintaining pluripotency, it is interesting that they both respond relatively similar to BMP and BMP inhibitors with regard to neural induction. In both mouse and human ES cells, high-level BMP signaling blocks neural differentiation (67–71). For these reasons, most neural differentiation protocols require that ES cells be grown in low- or no-serum conditions to mitigate the effect of BMPs found in serum. Further evidence that BMPs inhibit ES cell neural induction comes from a recent study showing that mouse ES cells lacking Smad4 preferentially differentiate down the neural lineage (72). As Smad4 is required for all signaling by TGFβ superfamily members, and not just by BMPs, it is possible that this finding reflects inhibitory influences by Nodal or other TGFβ superfamily members in addition to BMPs. Indeed, Nodal signaling may inhibit neural differentiation as mouse ES cells mutant for Cripto, a Nodal co-receptor, and human ES cells overexpressing Lefty or a truncated version of Cerberus, Nodal pathway inhibitors, display increased neural induction (72–74). Also, mouse Nodal mutants show early and ectopic adoption of neural fates (75).


Figure 2
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2. In vitro neural induction. Many in vivo neural inducers that act as inhibitors of BMPs, Nodal and Wnt signaling also promote ES cell differentiation to committed neural cells. In contrast, RA, which promotes neural induction in ES cells, is not known to be important for neural induction in vivo.

 
Although it is clear that BMPs inhibit neural differentiation in vitro, it is ambiguous whether adding BMP inhibitors increases neural induction beyond that caused by serum starvation. For example, treatment of mouse ES cells with Noggin does not affect neural induction in ES cells differentiated as embryoid bodies or as an adherent monolayer (67,69,76,77). Moreover, neither the addition of Chordin nor Follistatin significantly affects ES cell neural differentiation (68,78). On the other hand, Noggin increases the differentiation of mouse ES cells to neurospheres (70) and can enhance neural differentiation by mouse and human ES cells (78–81).

The requirement for BMPs in maintaining mouse ES cell pluripotency is not shared by human ES cells, for which even low-level BMP signaling promotes trophoblast differentiation (71). These different requirements may reflect different cells of origin for mouse and human ES cells; most mouse ES cell lines are derived at the late inner cell mass stage, whereas human ES cell lines are derived at the blastocyst stage. Indeed, mouse ES cells that, like human ES cells, are derived from blastocysts require growth factors and display gene expression profiles similar to human ES cells (82,83).

Like the BMPs, Wnts appear to affect neural induction by ES cells in ways similar to those observed in vivo. For example, activating the Wnt pathway in differentiating mouse ES cells, either with Wnt1 or with an inhibitor of GSK3, inhibits neural differentiation (84). Consistent with a negative role for Wnts in neural induction, genetic manipulations that increase Wnt signaling, such as loss of the extracellular Wnt inhibitor Dkk1, or both GSK3{alpha} and GSK3β, abrogate neural differentiation (85,86). Conversely, treatment with Dkk1, or overexpression of another Wnt inhibitor, SFRP2, enhances mouse ES cell neural differentiation (84,87). These data suggest that high-level Wnt signaling prevents neural differentiation, whereas the inhibition of Wnt signaling enhances neural differentiation, closely paralleling in vivo mouse models.

However, others have found that inducing Wnt signaling can increase neural differentiation in mouse ES cells (88). The discrepant effects of both Wnts and BMP inhibitors among various protocols may be attributable to differences in culture media, which can contain BMPs, Wnts and/or additional signaling inhibitors. Another possible explanation is that BMP inhibitors or Wnts may influence neural differentiation only under specific conditions, such as the presence of FGF signaling or the absence of Nodal signaling. A third possibility may reflect the complex involvement of these factors in both ES maintenance and differentiation. For example, in addition to inhibiting neural induction, intermediate levels of BMP signaling maintain mouse ES cell pluripotency (89). Similarly, Wnt signaling may promote ES cell pluripotency (90). Because some of the factors required for ES cell pluripotency and survival are the same factors that promote neural fates, it is difficult to discern if these factors act primarily to induce neural differentiation or to simply enhance progenitor survival or proliferation. This uncertainty reflects the artificiality inherent in ES cell culture systems, as maintenance of pluripotency does not occur outside of the germline in vivo.

Given the diverse roles that FGFs play in regulating proliferation, self-renewal, survival and differentiation, it is perhaps unsurprising that FGFs similarly have complex effects on ES cell neural induction. FGF2 and FGF4 are used in several neural differentiation protocols (69,70,91), but it is unclear whether they promote differentiation, proliferation and/or survival of neural precursor cells. This ambiguity is especially relevant to human ES cells, as FGF2 is used to maintain human ES cell pluripotency.

Consistent with a role for FGF signaling in promoting neural induction, treatment of differentiating mouse ES cells with a pharmacological inhibitor of FGF signaling, PD184352, arrests neural differentiation at an early stage (76). In contrast, treatment with a different pharmacological inhibitor of FGF signaling, SU5402, does not affect early neural differentiation (but may affect survival of neural precursors), and mouse ES cells lacking Fgfr1 are able to differentiate down the neural lineage similarly to wild-type cells (79). PD184352 inhibits the activity of MEK, a component of the MAPK cascade, whereas SU5402 inhibits the tyrosine kinase activity of Fgfr1, suggesting that MAPK pathway activation through an Fgfr1-independent mechanism may be important for ES cell neural induction. Insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) can also activate the MAPK pathway and promote neural fates in Xenopus (92), raising the possibility that IGFs are the activators of the MAPK pathway relevant to neurogenesis in mammals.


   CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 
Two of the remarkable properties of ES cells are pluripotency and a capacity for genetic modification. The potential to use ES cells to create cell-based therapies has received much attention, and neural and glial derivatives of ES cells are likely to be important for treating traumatic injuries and degenerative diseases affecting the nervous system. The same remarkable properties are also valuable for creating cellular models of human diseases critical both for elucidating disease pathogenesis and for testing potential therapies. Neural and glial derivatives of ES cells are already providing insights into the molecular and cellular bases of neurodegenerative disorders such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (93). Also, expression of alleles associated with Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases in ES cells has provided insights into the underlying molecular pathogenesis of these disorders (94,95).

One important step toward realizing potential biomedical advances is the development of a better understanding of neural induction by ES cells. The study of neural induction has a long history that provides extensive knowledge of early neural differentiation in several different vertebrate embryos. Common themes have emerged from these developmental model organisms, suggesting that early low-level FGF signals, combined with protective influences from the dorsal organizer shielding the ectoderm from Wnt and BMP signals, are critical for neural induction. Several of these influences are reflected in the requirements of ES cells for neural differentiation, although important differences between neural induction in vivo and in vitro are demonstrable. Better understanding of the regulatory influences that control neural induction, especially in mammals, may provide additional means of promoting neural induction and differentiation in ES cells. Conversely, better understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which ES cells adopt neural fates may provide new insights into the regulation of neural induction in the early vertebrate embryo.


   FUNDING
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by funding from the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the National Institutes of Health (R01AR054396).


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 
Authors thank the members of the Reiter lab for their helpful discussions.

Conflict of Interest statement. None declared.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 NEURAL INDUCTION THROUGH BMP...
 BEYOND THE DEFAULT MODEL
 ES CELLS: ALL CASES...
 CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES
 FUNDING
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Martin G.R., Evans M.J. Differentiation of clonal lines of teratocarcinoma cells: formation of embryoid bodies in vitro. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1975) 72:1441–1445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. Evans M.J., Kaufman M.H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature (1981) 292:154–156.[CrossRef][Medline]

  3. Martin G.R. Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1981) 78:7634–7638.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  4. Thomson J.A., Itskovitz-Eldor J., Shapiro S.S., Waknitz M.A., Swiergiel J.J., Marshall V.S., Jones J.M. Embryonic stem cell lines derived from human blastocysts. Science (1998) 282:1145–1147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  5. Brustle O., Spiro A.C., Karram K., Choudhary K., Okabe S., McKay R.D. In vitro-generated neural precursors participate in mammalian brain development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (1997) 94:14809–14814.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  6. Wichterle H., Garcia-Verdugo J.M., Herrera D.G., Alvarez-Buylla A. Young neurons from medial ganglionic eminence disperse in adult and embryonic brain. Nat. Neurosci. (1999) 2:461–466.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  7. Temple S. The development of neural stem cells. Nature (2001) 414:112–117.[CrossRef][Medline]

  8. Zhang S.C. Neural subtype specification from embryonic stem cells. Brain Pathol. (2006) 16:132–142.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  9. Merkle F.T., Alvarez-Buylla A. Neural stem cells in mammalian development. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. (2006) 18:704–709.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  10. Spemann H.M. Über Induktion von Embryonanlagen durch Implantation artfremder Organisatoren. Wilhelm Roux Arch. Entw. Mech. Organ. (1924) 100:599–638.

  11. Waddington C.H. Experiments on the development of chick and duck embryos, cultivated in vitro. Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. (1932) 179–230.

  12. Oppenheimer J. Structures developed in amphibians by implantation of living fish organizer. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. (1936) 34:461–464.[CrossRef]

  13. Beddington R.S. Induction of a second neural axis by the mouse node. Development (1994) 120:613–620.[Abstract]

  14. Hemmati-Brivanlou A., Melton D.A. A truncated activin receptor inhibits mesoderm induction and formation of axial structures in Xenopus embryos. Nature (1992) 359:609–614.[CrossRef][Medline]

  15. Smith W.C., Harland R.M. Expression cloning of noggin, a new dorsalizing factor localized to the Spemann organizer in Xenopus embryos. Cell (1992) 70:829–840.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  16. Lamb T.M., Knecht A.K., Smith W.C., Stachel S.E., Economides A.N., Stahl N., Yancopolous G.D., Harland R.M. Neural induction by the secreted polypeptide noggin. Science (1993) 262:713–718.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  17. Zimmerman L.B., De Jesus-Escobar J.M., Harland R.M. The Spemann organizer signal noggin binds and inactivates bone morphogenetic protein 4. Cell (1996) 86:599–606.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  18. Hemmati-Brivanlou A., Kelly O.G., Melton D.A. Follistatin, an antagonist of activin, is expressed in the Spemann organizer and displays direct neuralizing activity. Cell (1994) 77:283–295.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  19. Sasai Y., Lu B., Steinbeisser H., Geissert D., Gont L.K., De Robertis E.M. Xenopus chordin: a novel dorsalizing factor activated by organizer-specific homeobox genes. Cell (1994) 79:779–790.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  20. Hemmati-Brivanlou A., Melton D. Vertebrate neural induction. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. (1997) 20:43–60.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  21. Born J., Janeczek J., Schwarz W., Tiedemann H., Tiedemann H. Activation of masked neural determinants in amphibian eggs and embryos and their release from the inducing tissue. Cell Differ. Dev. (1989) 27:1–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  22. Godsave S.F., Slack J.M. Clonal analysis of mesoderm induction in Xenopus laevis. Dev. Biol. (1989) 134:486–490.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  23. Grunz H., Tacke L. Neural differentiation of Xenopus laevis ectoderm takes place after disaggregation and delayed reaggregation without inducer. Cell Differ. Dev. (1989) 28:211–217.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  24. Sato S.M., Sargent T.D. Development of neural inducing capacity in dissociated Xenopus embryos. Dev. Biol. (1989) 134:263–266.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  25. Barth L.G. Neural differentiation without organizer. J. Exp. Zool. (1941) 371–384.

  26. Brunet L.J., McMahon J.A., McMahon A.P., Harland R.M. Noggin, cartilage morphogenesis, and joint formation in the mammalian skeleton. Science (1998) 280:1455–1457.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  27. Bachiller D., Klingensmith J., Shneyder N., Tran U., Anderson R., Rossant J., De Robertis E.M. The role of chordin/Bmp signals in mammalian pharyngeal development and DiGeorge syndrome. Development (2003) 130:3567–3578.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  28. Matzuk M.M., Lu N., Vogel H., Sellheyer K., Roop D.R., Bradley A. Multiple defects and perinatal death in mice deficient in follistatin. Nature (1995) 374:360–363.[CrossRef][Medline]

  29. Gazzerro E., Canalis E. Bone morphogenetic proteins and their antagonists. Rev. Endocr. Metab. Disord. (2006) 7:51–65.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  30. Bachiller D., Klingensmith J., Kemp C., Belo J.A., Anderson R.M., May S.R., McMahon J.A., McMahon A.P., Harland R.M., Rossant J., et al. The organizer factors Chordin and Noggin are required for mouse forebrain development. Nature (2000) 403:658–661.[CrossRef][Medline]

  31. Khokha M.K., Hsu D., Brunet L.J., Dionne M.S., Harland R.M. Gremlin is the BMP antagonist required for maintenance of Shh and Fgf signals during limb patterning. Nat. Genet. (2003) 34:303–307.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  32. Khokha M.K., Yeh J., Grzmmer T.C., Harland R.M. Depletion of three Bmp antogonists from spemann's organizer leads to a catastrophic loss of dorsal structures. Dev. Cell (2005) 8:401–411.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  33. Reversade B., Kuroda H., Lee H., Mays A., De Robertis E.M. Depletion of Bmp2, Bmp4, Bmp7 and Spemann organizer signals induces massive brain formation in Xenopus embryos. Development (2005) 132:3381–3392.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  34. Di-Gregorio A., Sancho M., Stuckey D.W., Crompton L.A., Godwin J., Mishina Y., Rodriguez T.A. BMP signalling inhibits premature neural differentiation in the mouse embryo. Development (2007) 134:3359–3369.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  35. Kuroda H., Fuentealba L., Ikeda A., Reversade B., De Robertis E.M. Default neural induction: neuralization of dissociated Xenopus cells is mediated by Ras/MAPK activation. Genes Dev. (2005) 19:1022–1027.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  36. Stern C.D. Neural induction: 10 years on since the ‘default model. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. (2006) 18:692–697.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  37. Pelegri F., Maischein H.M. Function of zebrafish beta-catenin and TCF-3 in dorsoventral patterning. Mech. Dev. (1998) 77:63–74.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  38. Kelly C., Chin A.J., Leatherman J.L., Kozlowski D.J., Weinberg E.S. Maternally controlled (beta)-catenin-mediated signaling is required for organizer formation in the zebrafish. Development (2000) 127:3899–3911.[Abstract]

  39. Nojima H., Shimizu T., Kim C.H., Yabe T., Bae Y.K., Muraoka O., Hirata T., Chitnis A., Hirano T., Hibi M. Genetic evidence for involvement of maternally derived Wnt canonical signaling in dorsal determination in zebrafish. Mech. Dev. (2004) 121:371–386.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  40. Wessely O., Agius E., Oelgeschlager M., Pera E.M., De Robertis E.M. Neural induction in the absence of mesoderm: beta-catenin-dependent expression of secreted BMP antagonists at the blastula stage in Xenopus. Dev. Biol. (2001) 234:161–173.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  41. Tao Q., Yokota C., Puck H., Kofron M., Birsoy B., Yan D., Asashima M., Wylie C.C., Lin X., Heasman J. Maternal wnt11 activates the canonical wnt signaling pathway required for axis formation in Xenopus embryos. Cell (2005) 120:857–871.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  42. Erter C.E., Wilm T.P., Basler N., Wright C.V., Solnica-Krezel L. Wnt8 is required in lateral mesendodermal precursors for neural posteriorization in vivo. Development (2001) 128:3571–3583.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  43. Lekven A.C., Thorpe C.J., Waxman J.S., Moon R.T. Zebrafish wnt8 encodes two wnt8 proteins on a bicistronic transcript and is required for mesoderm and neurectoderm patterning. Dev. Cell (2001) 1:103–114.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  44. Baker J.C., Beddington R.S., Harland R.M. Wnt signaling in Xenopus embryos inhibits bmp4 expression and activates neural development. Genes Dev. (1999) 13:3149–3159.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  45. Heeg-Truesdell E., LaBonne C. Neural induction in Xenopus requires inhibition of Wnt-beta-catenin signaling. Dev. Biol. (2006) 298:71–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  46. Wilson S.I., Rydstrom A., Trimborn T., Willert K., Nusse R., Jessell T.M., Edlund T. The status of Wnt signalling regulates neural and epidermal fates in the chick embryo. Nature (2001) 411:325–330.[CrossRef][Medline]

  47. Yoshikawa Y., Fujimori T., McMahon A.P., Takada S. Evidence that absence of Wnt-3a signaling promotes neuralization instead of paraxial mesoderm development in the mouse. Dev. Biol. (1997) 183:234–242.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  48. Kelly O.G., Pinson K.I., Skarnes W.C. The Wnt co-receptors Lrp5 and Lrp6 are essential for gastrulation in mice. Development (2004) 131:2803–2815.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  49. Mukhopadhyay M., Shtrom S., Rodriguez-Esteban C., Chen L., Tsukui T., Gomer L., Dorward D.W., Glinka A., Grinberg A., Huang S.P., et al. Dickkopf1 is required for embryonic head induction and limb morphogenesis in the mouse. Dev. Cell (2001) 1:423–434.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  50. Ciruna B.G., Schwartz L., Harpal K., Yamaguchi T.P., Rossant J. Chimeric analysis of fibroblast growth factor receptor-1 (Fgfr1) function: a role for FGFR1 in morphogenetic movement through the primitive streak. Development (1997) 124:2829–2841.[Abstract]

  51. De Robertis E.M., Kuroda H. Dorsal-ventral patterning and neural induction in Xenopus embryos. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. (2004) 20:285–308.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  52. Hurtado C., De Robertis E.M. Neural induction in the absence of organizer in salamanders is mediated by MAPK. Dev. Biol. (2007) 307:282–289.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  53. Lamb T.M., Harland R.M. Fibroblast growth factor is a direct neural inducer, which combined with noggin generates anterior-posterior neural pattern. Development (1995) 121:3627–3636.[Abstract]

  54. Storey K.G., Goriely A., Sargent C.M., Brown J.M., Burns H.D., Abud H.M., Heath J.K. Early posterior neural tissue is induced by FGF in the chick embryo. Development (1998) 125:473–484.[Abstract]

  55. Alvarez I.S., Araujo M., Nieto M.A. Neural induction in whole chick embryo cultures by FGF. Dev. Biol. (1998) 199:42–54.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  56. Kengaku M., Okamoto H. Basic fibroblast growth factor induces differentiation of neural tube and neural crest lineages of cultured ectoderm cells from Xenopus gastrula. Development (1993) 119:1067–1078.[Abstract]

  57. Pera E.M., Ikeda A., Eivers E., De Robertis E.M. Integration of IGF, FGF, and anti-BMP signals via Smad1 phosphorylation in neural induction. Genes Dev. (2003) 17:3023–3028.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  58. Fuentealba L.C., Eivers E., Ikeda A., Hurtado C., Kuroda H., Pera E.M., De Robertis E.M. Integrating patterning signals: Wnt/GSK3 regulates the duration of the BMP/Smad1 signal. Cell (2007) 131:980–993.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  59. Aubin J., Davy A., Soriano P. In vivo convergence of BMP and MAPK signaling pathways: impact of differential Smad1 phosphorylation on development and homeostasis. Genes Dev. (2004) 18:1482–1494.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  60. Wilson S.I., Graziano E., Harland R., Jessell T.M., Edlund T. An early requirement for FGF signalling in the acquisition of neural cell fate in the chick embryo. Curr. Biol. (2000) 10:421–429.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  61. Furthauer M., Van Celst J., Thisse C., Thisse B. Fgf signalling controls the dorsoventral patterning of the zebrafish embryo. Development (2004) 131:2853–2864.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  62. Delaune E., Lemaire P., Kodjabachian L. Neural induction in Xenopus requires early FGF signalling in addition to BMP inhibition. Development (2005) 132:299–310.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  63. Linker C., Stern C.D. Neural induction requires BMP inhibition only as a late step, and involves signals other than FGF and Wnt antagonists. Development (2004) 131:5671–5681.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  64. Bain G., Kitchens D., Yao M., Huettner J.E., Gottlieb D.I. Embryonic stem cells express neuronal properties in vitro. Dev. Biol. (1995) 168:342–357.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  65. Schuldiner M., Yanuka O., Itskovitz-Eldor J., Melton D.A., Benvenisty N. Effects of eight growth factors on the differentiation of cells derived from human embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA (2000) 97:11307–11312.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  66. Rohwedel J., Guan K., Wobus A.M. Induction of cellular differentiation by retinoic acid in vitro. Cells Tissues Organs (1999) 165:190–202.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  67. Finley M.F., Devata S., Huettner J.E. BMP-4 inhibits neural differentiation of murine embryonic stem cells. J. Neurobiol. (1999) 40:271–287.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  68. Kawasaki H., Mizuseki K., Nishikawa S., Kaneko S., Kuwana Y., Nakanishi S., Nishikawa S.I., Sasai Y. Induction of midbrain dopaminergic neurons from ES cells by stromal cell-derived inducing activity. Neuron (2000) 28:31–40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  69. Ying Q.L., Stavridis M., Griffiths D., Li M., Smith A. Conversion of embryonic stem cells into neuroectodermal precursors in adherent monoculture. Nat. Biotechnol. (2003) 21:183–186.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  70. Tropepe V., Hitoshi S., Sirard C., Mak T.W., Rossant J., van der Kooy D. Direct neural fate specification from embryonic stem cells: a primitive mammalian neural stem cell stage acquired through a default mechanism. Neuron (2001) 30:65–78.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  71. Xu R.H., Chen X., Li D.S., Li R., Addicks G.C., Glennon C., Zwaka T.P., Thomson J.A. BMP4 initiates human embryonic stem cell differentiation to trophoblast. Nat. Biotechnol. (2002) 20:1261–1264.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  72. Sonntag K.C., Simantov R., Bjorklund L., Cooper O., Pruszak J., Kowalke F., Gilmartin J., Ding J., Hu Y.P., Shen M.M., et al. Context-dependent neuronal differentiation and germ layer induction of Smad4-/- and Cripto-/- embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. (2005) 28:417–429.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  73. Smith J.R., Vallier L., Lupo G., Alexander M., Harris W.A., Pedersen R.A. Inhibition of Activin/Nodal signaling promotes specification of human embryonic stem cells into neuroectoderm. Dev. Biol. (2008) 313:107–117.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  74. Vallier L., Reynolds D., Pedersen R.A. Nodal inhibits differentiation of human embryonic stem cells along the neuroectodermal default pathway. Dev. Biol. (2004) 275:403–421.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  75. Camus A., Perea-Gomez A., Moreau A., Collignon J. Absence of Nodal signaling promotes precocious neural differentiation in the mouse embryo. Dev. Biol. (2006) 295:743–755.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  76. Stavridis M.P., Lunn J.S., Collins B.J., Storey K.G. A discrete period of FGF-induced Erk1/2 signalling is required for vertebrate neural specification. Development (2007) 134:2889–2894.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  77. Conley B.J., Ellis S., Gulluyan L., Mollard R. BMPs regulate differentiation of a putative visceral endoderm layer within human embryonic stem-cell-derived embryoid bodies. Biochem. Cell Biol. (2007) 85:121–132.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  78. Pera M.F., Andrade J., Houssami S., Reubinoff B., Trounson A., Stanley E.G., Ward-van Oostwaard D., Mummery C. Regulation of human embryonic stem cell differentiation by BMP-2 and its antagonist noggin. J. Cell Sci. (2004) 117:1269–1280.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  79. Smukler S.R., Runciman S.B., Xu S., van der Kooy D. Embryonic stem cells assume a primitive neural stem cell fate in the absence of extrinsic influences. J. Cell Biol. (2006) 172:79–90.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  80. Sonntag K.C., Pruszak J., Yoshizaki T., van Arensbergen J., Sanchez-Pernaute R., Isacson O. Enhanced yield of neuroepithelial precursors and midbrain-like dopaminergic neurons from human embryonic stem cells using the bone morphogenic protein antagonist noggin. Stem Cells (2007) 25:411–418.[CrossRef][Medline]

  81. Zhou J.M., Chu J.X., Chen X.J. An improved protocol that induces human embryonic stem cells to differentiate into neural cells in vitro. Cell Biol. Int. (2008) 32:80–85.[CrossRef][Medline]

  82. Brons I.G., Smithers L.E., Trotter M.W., Rugg-Gunn P., Sun B., Chuva de Sousa Lopes S.M., Howlett S.K., Clarkson A., Ahrlund-Richter L., Pedersen R.A., et al. Derivation of pluripotent epiblast stem cells from mammalian embryos. Nature (2007) 448:191–195.[CrossRef][Medline]

  83. Tesar P.J., Chenoweth J.G., Brook F.A., Davies T.J., Evans E.P., Mack D.L., Gardner R.L., McKay R.D. New cell lines from mouse epiblast share defining features with human embryonic stem cells. Nature (2007) 448:196–199.[CrossRef][Medline]

  84. Aubert J., Dunstan H., Chambers I., Smith A. Functional gene screening in embryonic stem cells implicates Wnt antagonism in neural differentiation. Nat. Biotechnol. (2002) 20:1240–1245.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  85. Verani R., Cappuccio I., Spinsanti P., Gradini R., Caruso A., Magnotti M.C., Motolese M., Nicoletti F., Melchiorri D. Expression of the Wnt inhibitor Dickkopf-1 is required for the induction of neural markers in mouse embryonic stem cells differentiating in response to retinoic acid. J. Neurochem. (2007) 100:242–250.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  86. Doble B.W., Patel S., Wood G.A., Kockeritz L.K., Woodgett J.R. Functional redundancy of GSK-3alpha and GSK-3beta in Wnt/beta-catenin signaling shown by using an allelic series of embryonic stem cell lines. Dev. Cell. (2007) 12:957–971.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  87. Lindsley R.C., Gill J.G., Kyba M., Murphy T.L., Murphy K.M. Canonical Wnt signaling is required for development of embryonic stem cell-derived mesoderm. Development (2006) 133:3787–3796.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  88. Otero J.J., Fu W., Kan L., Cuadra A.E., Kessler J.A. Beta-catenin signaling is required for neural differentiation of embryonic stem cells. Development (2004) 131:3545–3557.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  89. Ying Q.L., Nichols J., Chambers I., Smith A. BMP induction of Id proteins suppresses differentiation and sustains embryonic stem cell self-renewal in collaboration with STAT3. Cell (2003) 115:281–292.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  90. Sato N., Meijer L., Skaltsounis L., Greengard P., Brivanlou A.H. Maintenance of pluripotency in human and mouse embryonic stem cells through activation of Wnt signaling by a pharmacological GSK-3-specific inhibitor. Nat. Med. (2004) 10:55–63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  91. Zhang S.C., Wernig M., Duncan I.D., Brustle O., Thomson J.A. In vitro differentiation of transplantable neural precursors from human embryonic stem cells. Nat. Biotechnol. (2001) 19:1129–1133.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  92. Pera E.M., Wessely O., Li S.Y., De Robertis E.M. Neural and head induction by insulin-like growth factor signals. Dev. Cell (2001) 1:655–665.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  93. Di Giorgio F.P., Carrasco M.A., Siao M.C., Maniatis T., Eggan K. Non-cell autonomous effect of glia on motor neurons in an embryonic stem cell-based ALS model. Nat. Neurosci. (2007) 10:608–614.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  94. Martinat C., Shendelman S., Jonason A., Leete T., Beal M.F., Yang L., Floss T., Abeliovich A. Sensitivity to oxidative stress in DJ-1-deficient dopamine neurons: an ES- derived cell model of primary Parkinsonism. PLoS Biol. (2004) 2:e327.[CrossRef][Medline]

  95. Lorincz M.T., Detloff P.J., Albin R.L., O'Shea K.S. Embryonic stem cells expressing expanded CAG repeats undergo aberrant neuronal differentiation and have persistent Oct-4 and REST/NRSF expression. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. (2004) 26:135–143.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gaulden, J.
Right arrow Articles by Reiter, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gaulden, J.
Right arrow Articles by Reiter, J. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?