4.7 Article

A major role for zygotic hunchback in patterning the Nasonia embryo

期刊

DEVELOPMENT
卷 132, 期 16, 页码 3705-3715

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/dev.01939

关键词

Nasonia; hunchback; axis formation; evolution of development; Hymenoptera; Drosophila

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [5 T32 HD07520] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM064864] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Developmental genetic analysis has shown that embryos of the parasitoid wasp Nasonia vitripennis depend more on zygotic gene products to direct axial patterning than do Drosophila embryos. In Drosophila, anterior axial patterning is largely established by bicoid, a rapidly evolving maternal-effect gene, working with hunchback, which is expressed both maternally and zygotically. Here, we focus on a comparative analysis of Nasonia hunchback function and expression. We find that a lesion in Nasonia hunchback is responsible for the severe zygotic headless mutant phenotype, in which most head structures and the thorax are deleted, as are the three most posterior abdominal segments. This defines a major role for zygotic Nasonia hunchback in anterior patterning, more extensive than the functions described for hunchback in Drosophila or Tribolium. Despite the major zygotic role of Nasonia hunchback, we find that it is strongly expressed maternally, as well as zygotically. Nasonia Hunchback embryonic expression appears to be generally conserved; however, the mRNA expression differs from that of Drosophila hunchback in the early blastoderm. We also find that the maternal hunchback message decays at an earlier developmental stage in Nasonia than in Drosophila, which could reduce the relative influence of maternal products in Nasonia embryos. Finally, we extend the comparisons of Nasonia and Drosophila hunchback mutant phenotypes, and propose that the more severe Nasonia hunchback mutant phenotype may be a consequence of differences in functionally overlapping regulatory circuitry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据