4.2 Article

Comparative biological responses to human Sonic, Indian, and Desert hedgehog

Journal

MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENT
Volume 106, Issue 1-2, Pages 107-117

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0925-4773(01)00427-0

Keywords

Sonic; Indian; Desert; hedgehog; patched; C3H10T1/2; nodal; digit duplication; chondrocyte differentiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comprehensive comparison of Sonic (Shh), Indian (Ihh), and Desert (Dhh) hedgehog biological activities has not previously been undertaken. To test whether the three higher vertebrate Hh proteins have distinct biological properties, we compared recombinant forms of the N-terminal domains of human Shh, lhh, and Dhh in a variety of cell-based and tissue explant assays in which their activities could be assessed at a range of concentrations. While we observed that the proteins were similar in their affinities for the Hh-binding proteins; Patched (Ptc) and Hedgehog-interacting protein (Hip), and were equipotent in their ability to induce Islet-1 in chick neural plate explant; there were dramatic differences in their potencies in several other assays. Most dramatic were the Hh-dependent responses of C3H10T1/2 cells, where relative potencies ranged from 80 nM for Shh, to 500 nM for lhh, to >5 muM for Dhh. Similar trends in potency were seen in the ability of the three Hh proteins to induce differentiation of chondrocytes in embryonic mouse limbs, and to induce the expression of nodal in the lateral plate mesoderm of early chick embryos. However, in a chick embryo digit duplication assay used to measure polarizing activity, Ihh was the least active, and Dhh was almost as potent as Shh. These findings suggest that a mechanism for fine-tuning the biological actions of Shh, lhh, and Dhh, exists beyond the simple temporal and spatial control of their expression domains within the developing and adult organism. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available