3.9 Article

The twisted pharynx phenotype in C-elegans

Journal

BMC DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-213X-7-61

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [R24 RR012596, RR 12596] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIH HHS [R24 OD010943] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The pharynx of C. elegans is an epithelial tube whose development has been compared to that of the embryonic heart and the kidney and hence serves as an interesting model for organ development. Several C. elegans mutants have been reported to exhibit a twisted pharynx phenotype but no careful studies have been made to directly address this phenomenon. In this study, the twisting mutants dig-1, mig-4, mnm-4 and unc-61 are examined in detail and the nature of the twist is investigated. Results: We find that the twisting phenotype worsens throughout larval development, that in most mutants the pharynx retains its twist when dissected away from the worm body, and that double mutants between mnm-4 and mutants with thickened pharyngeal domains (pha-2 and sma-1) have less twisting in these regions. We also describe the ultrastructure of pharyngeal tendinous organs that connect the pharyngeal basal lamina to that of the body wall, and show that these are pulled into a spiral orientation by twisted pharynges. Within twisted pharynges, actin filaments also show twisting and are longer than in controls. In a mini screen of adhesionmolecule mutants, we also identified one more twisting pharynx mutant, sax-7. Conclusion: Defects in pharyngeal cytoskeleton length or its anchor points to the extracellular matrix are proposed as the actual source of the twisting force. The twisted pharynx is a useful and easy-to-score phenotype for genes required in extracellular adhesion or organ attachment, and perhaps forgenes required for cytoskeleton regulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available