RESEARCH ARTICLE 1561

Development 134, 1561-1569 (2007) doi:10.1242/dev.000836

The negative regulation of Mesp2 by mouse Ripply2 isrequired to establish the rostro-caudal patterning within asomiteMitsuru Morimoto1,*,†, Nobuo Sasaki1,†, Masayuki Oginuma2, Makoto Kiso1, Katsuhide Igarashi3,
Ken-ichi Aizaki3, Jun Kanno3 and Yumiko Saga1,2,‡
The Mesp2 transcription factor plays essential roles in segmental border formation and in the establishment of rostro-caudal
patterning within a somite. A possible Mesp2 target gene, Ripply2, was identified by microarray as being downregulated in the
Mesp2-null mouse. Ripply2 encodes a putative transcriptional co-repressor containing a WRPW motif. We find that Mesp2 binds to
the Ripply2 gene enhancer, indicating that Ripply2 is a direct target of Mesp2. We then examined whether Ripply2 is responsible forthe repression of genes under the control of Mesp2 by generating a Ripply2-knockout mouse. Unexpectedly, Ripply2-null embryos
show a rostralized phenotype, in contrast to Mesp2-null mice. Gene expression studies together with genetic analyses further
revealed that Ripply2 is a negative regulator of Mesp2 and that the loss of the Ripply2 gene results in the prolonged expression of
Mesp2, leading to a rostralized phenotype via the suppression of Notch signaling. Our study demonstrates that a Ripply2-Mesp2
negative-feedback loop is essential for the periodic generation of the rostro-caudal polarity within a somite.
KEY WORDS: Somitogenesis, Notch signaling, Presomitic mesoderm, Segmentation

INTRODUCTION
Somites are generated by sequential segregation of cell masses fromthe anterior part of the unsegmented presomitic mesoderm (PSM),
in both a spatially and temporally coordinated manner every twohours (Iulianella et al., 2003; Pourquie, 2003; Saga and Takeda,
2001). The somites provide the basic axial structures that underlie
the segmental architecture of not only the vertebra, ribs and muscles,
which are all somite derivatives, but also of the vascular and nervous
systems (Borycki and Emerson, 2000; Brand-Saberi and Christ,
2000; Monsoro-Burq and Le Douarin, 2000). Periodicity is
generated by Notch signal oscillations linked to the segmentation
clock (Bessho et al., 2001; Huppert et al., 2005; Morimoto et al.,2005; Rida et al., 2004). The temporal information that results fromthis is translated into spatial patterns in the anterior PSM, which isdefined by the so-called determination front (Dubrulle and Pourquie,
2004).
The Mesp2 transcription factor plays important roles duringsomitogenesis (Saga et al., 1997), and its expression isperiodically activated by cyclic Notch signaling and Tbx6 at theanterior PSM in the determination front (Yasuhiko et al., 2006).
Mesp2 demarcates the next segmental boundary and defines the
rostro-caudal identity of somites (Takahashi et al., 2000). It has
been shown that Mesp2-null embryos fail to segment and that theresulting non-segmented somites show caudalized properties(Saga et al., 1997). Previously, we have shown that Mesp2

suppresses Notch activity via the activation of Lfng, which might
function as a negative regulator of Notch signaling (Morimoto etal., 2005). In addition, Mesp2 acts as the transcriptional activatorof Epha4 in the anterior PSM (Nakajima et al., 2006). Mesp2 isalso known to be a strong suppressor of genes such as Dll1 andUncx4.1 that confer caudal properties upon the somitic cells via
Notch signaling (Takahashi et al., 2000). However, the manner inwhich the caudal genes are suppressed is currently unknown. In
our current study, which aimed to elucidate the molecularmechanisms underlying the regulation of somitogenesis by
Mesp2, we have compared the gene expression patterns ofMesp2+/– and Mesp2–/– embryos, and found that several genes areaffected by the Mesp2 knockout. Among the downregulated genesthat we identified in the Mesp2-null embryo, we focused on aputative transcriptional repressor. This gene turned out to be
Ripply2, which was recently reported as a mouse homolog ofzebrafish ripply1 (Kawamura et al., 2005). Morpholino-mediatedknockdown analysis revealed that ripply1 is required for theproper transition from the PSM to somites. We generated a
Ripply2-knockout mouse and now show that Ripply2 is activatedby Mesp2, but also functions negatively toward Mesp2 to regulate
the levels of Notch signaling in the anterior PSM. This negative
regulation is required for the periodic generation of the rostrocaudal patterning within a somite.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

1Division of Mammalian Development, National Institute of Genetics and
SOKENDAI, Yata 1111, Mishima 411-8540, Japan. 3Cellular and Molecular
Toxicology Division, National Institute of Health Sciences, 1-18-1 Kamiyoga,
Setagayaku, Tokyo 158-8501, Japan.

2*Present address: Department of Molecular Biology and Pharmacology, Washington
University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA†
These authors contributed equally to this work‡
Author for correspondence (e-mail: ysaga@lab.nig.ac.jp)
Accepted 14 February 2007

Total RNA was purified from cells corresponding to the S–1 to S2 somites
and PSM of wild-type, Mesp2-GFP knock-in heterozygous andhomozygous embryos at E10.5 using the RNeasy Mini Kit (Qiagen)according to the manufacturer’s instructions. First-strand cDNAs weresynthesized by incubating 5 ␮g of total RNA with 200 U SuperScript IIreverse transcriptase (Invitrogen) and 100 pmol T7-(dT)24 primer [5⬘GGCCAGTGAATTGTAATACGACTCACTATAGGGAGGCGG-(dT)243⬘]. After second-strand synthesis, the double-stranded cDNAs were purified
using a GeneChip Sample Cleanup Module (Affymetrix), according to the
manufacturer’s instructions. Our detailed methods for the labeling of the

DEVELOPMENT

GeneChip analysis

1562 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development 134 (8)double-stranded cDNAs and hybridization to a GeneChip Mouse Genome
430 2.0 Array (Affymetrix), and the subsequent washing, staining and data
analysis have been described previously (Kanno et al., 2006). All of thesedata are also now available online at the National Institute of Health Sciences(http://www.nihs.go.jp/tox/TtgSubmitted.htm).
Identification of the Ripply2 somite enhancer

Highly conserved Ripply2 upstream regions were identified using a crossspecies DNA sequence comparison using the PipMaker website(http://pipmaker.bx.psu.edu/pipmaker/). We cloned a 5⬘ upstream
genomic sequence of Ripply2 from a bacterial artificial clone (RP23)
contained in a mouse genomic library. A 1.5 kb DNA fragment containing
the 171 bp highly conserved region was isolated by EcoRI and BamHI
digestion and then subcloned into the hsp-nlacZ reporter construct.
Fertilized eggs from B6C3F1 female mice were collected for pronuclear
injection and the injected eggs were then implanted into ICR female mice.
Foster mothers were sacrificed at E10.5 and stained for ␤-galactosidase(␤-gal) activity with X-Gal. The genotypes of the embryos were thenidentified by PCR using DNA prepared from the yolk sac.
Luciferase assay

For luciferase reporter analysis under the control of the 1.5 kb Ripply2
anterior-PSM enhancer (EcoRI-BamHI) fragment (20 ng), reporter
constructs were co-transfected with the expression vectors 3xFLAGMesp2 (0, 30, 100 ng) and 3xFLAG-E47 (0, 50 ng) into NIH3T3 cells(0.25⫻105 cells per well in 24-multiwell plates) using Lipofectamine Plus
(Invitrogen), following the manufacturer’s instructions. The vector
containing the Renilla luciferase gene under the control of the thymidine
kinase promoter (1 ng) was co-transfected as an internal standard tonormalize for transfection efficiency, and the amount of total plasmid was
adjusted with pcDNA3.1. After 36 hours, luciferase activities were
measured using a Dual Luciferase Assay Kit (Promega).
Electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA)

A 3xFLAG-Mesp2 protein was produced using the FreeStyle 293 Expression
System (Invitrogen) and then collected via a nuclear extraction method.
Double-stranded DNA oligonucleotide probes were end-labeled with DIG andprotein-DNA complexes were detected using a DIG Gel Shift Kit (Roche).
Binding reactions were carried out for 30 minutes on ice, and protein-DNA
complexes were analyzed on 6% native polyacrylamide gels.
Ripply2 gene targeting strategy

Gene expression and histochemical analysis

Methods for gene expression analysis by in situ hybridization of wholemount samples and by skeletal staining have been described previously(Takahashi et al., 2000). The probes used in this study have been described
previously (Takahashi et al., 2000; Takahashi et al., 2003; NomuraKitabayashi et al., 2002). For the Ripply2 RNA probe, we used a full-length
cDNA clone containing intron 1. Section in situ hybridization andimmunohistochemical detection of proteins were performed as previously
described (Morimoto et al., 2005). For whole-mount detection of Mesp2venus, embryos were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS overnight at
4°C, incubated with rabbit anti-GFP (MBL; 1:1000), followed by Alexa488-conjugated goat anti-rabbit IgG (Molecular Probes; 1:400) and observed
using a fluorescent microscope (Olympus BX61).

Fig. 1. Analysis of the of Ripply2 expression pattern.
(A) Comparison of the mRNA expression patterns of Mesp2 andRipply2 during mouse development. Positive expression is indicated byan arrowhead. (B) Comparison of the spatial expression patterns ofMesp2 and Ripply2 as revealed by section double in situ hybridization.
Two representative examples are shown for Mesp2 (green) and Ripply2(magenta), and merged images of these expression patterns are shown
beneath. The green signals in the periphery are artifacts and do not
represent Mesp2 expression. In some cases, only a single band could beobserved for each gene, and these bands are merged in the image
shown in the left-hand bottom panel. Two bands were sometimes
visible for Ripply2, the posterior band of which merges with that ofMesp2 (right-hand bottom panel). All samples were prepared fromE10.5 embryos. (C) Whole-mount in situ hybridization showing that
Ripply2 expression is lost in the E9.5 Mesp2-null embryo.

RESULTS
Ripply2 is a possible direct target of Mesp2
Mesp2 is known to function as a transcriptional activator of genes,
such as Epha4 and Lfng, which are expressed in the rostral half ofthe presumptive somite (Morimoto et al., 2005; Nakajima et al.,2006). Moreover, expression of the Dll1 and Uncx4.1 genes, which
are expressed in the caudal half of the somite (Bettenhausen et al.,DEVELOPMENT

The mouse Ripply2 gene consists of four exons, the first of which harbors
two putative in-frame translational initiation codons. We generated atargeting vector with a floxed neo cassette to remove a portion of exon 1,
which would introduce a termination codon just after the second initiation
codon and produce a null allele. The resulting linearized vector (25 ␮g)
was then electroporated into TT2 ES cells (Yagi et al., 1993). G418resistant cell clones were further selected by PCR. Correct homologous
recombination was confirmed by Southern blotting, and targeted cellclones were aggregated with ICR 8-cells and then transferred topseudopregnant female recipients. The resulting chimeric mice werebred with ICR females. Germline transmission of the targeted allele
was confirmed by PCR. The floxed neomycin cassette was later removed
by breeding with a CAG-Cre transgenic mouse (Sakai and Miyazaki,1997).

RESEARCH ARTICLE 1563

Fig. 2. Mesp2 can directly bind to the enhancer element of the Ripply2 gene and activate its transcription. (A) Comparison of the
genomic sequences around the Ripply2 gene in mouse (top line) with those in human, dog and chick using MultiPipMaker sequence alignment
software. A conserved region (framed in red) is evident across these species. (B) Sequence alignment of the 171 bp region conserved among the
Ripply2 genes, within which a highly conserved E-box is located. HC E-box, highly conserved E-box. (C) The genomic organization of the mouse
Ripply2 gene and the corresponding construct used in the transgenic analyses. A 1.5 kb DNA fragment containing this highly conserved 171 bp
stretch (shown in A) of the Ripply2 upstream region was ligated to a cassette composed of the hsp promoter and nlacZ (lacZ harboring a nuclear
localization signal). E, EcoRI; B, BamHI; N, NcoI. (D) The Ripply2 enhancer drives lacZ reporter gene expression in somitic mesoderm cells at E11.0.
The inset shows high magnification of the somitic region. (E) Luciferase reporter assay for Mesp2 activation, with or without E47, using constructs
harboring either the 1.5 kb Ripply2 enhancer (left) or six repeats of the conserved 171 bp fragment (right). The addition of E47 had negative effects
upon transactivation. The data represent the means±s.d. from four separate experiments. *P<0.01, **P<0.04. (F) EMSA analyses revealing that a
DNA fragment containing the conserved E-box (Region B, light-blue shading) from the Ripply2 upstream region can bind Mesp2 in the absence of
E47. This binding of Mesp2 thus appears to be different from its binding to the Epha4 enhancer, which is dependant upon E47. Non-specific bands
are indicated by the asterisk. (G) The binding specificity of Mesp2 was confirmed by successful competition with cold probe, but not with an E-box
mutant probe (shown in B).

DEVELOPMENT

Negative regulation of Mesp2 by Ripply2

1564 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development 134 (8)Fig. 3. The targeting strategy used for the Ripply2 gene and theexternal morphology of the resulting knockout mouse. (A) The
top line shows the genomic organization of the Ripply2 gene, thesecond line represents the structure of the targeting vector, and thebottom two lines show the predicted structure of the Ripply2 locus
following homologous recombination. The first exon of Ripply2 waspartially deleted and replaced with a floxed neo cassette (thearrowheads on the line represent loxP sites). A germline chimeric mouse
was then generated from recombinant ES cells containing the targeted
allele and crossed with a CAG-Cre mouse to remove the neo cassetteand establish the Ripply2-knockout mouse line. Ssp, SspI; E, EcoRI; B,
BamHI; H, HindIII; N, NcoI; K, KpnI; X, XhoI. (B) The Ripply2-null mouse
dies soon after birth and the external morphology at E17.5 is similar to
those of segmentation-defective mutants, featuring a short trunk withrudimental tails.

Fig. 4. The Ripply2-knockout mouse exhibits
segmentation defects. (A-D) Ripply2+/– andRipply2–/– embryos (n=3 at E10.5) were comparedby external morphology (A,B) and by the
Hematoxylin and Eosin staining of parasagittal
sections of tail regions (C,D). Ripply2–/– embryos
display irregularly sized myotomes, and an unclear
segmental border. (E-G) Skeletal preparations at
E17.5 stained with Alizarin Red-Alcian Blue revealthat the Ripply2–/– fetus harbors fewer pedicles ofneural arches and lacks components of the proximal
ribs (F; n=4), which is similar to the aberrant
phenotype of the Psen1-null fetus (G; n=2).

DEVELOPMENT

1995; Leitges et al., 2000), is increased in the Mesp2-null mouse,indicating that Mesp2 is required for their suppression (Takahashi etal., 2000). However, the molecular mechanisms underlying this are
unknown. To identify novel genes that operate downstream ofMesp2, we performed GeneChip analysis using RNAs preparedfrom both wild-type and Mesp2-null embryos. Among the genes thatshowed a reduction in expression in the Mesp2-null embryos (seeTable S1 in the supplementary material), we selected a cDNA clone(corresponding to RIKEN cDNA C030002E08) that showed an
identical expression pattern to that of Mesp2 by in situ screening of
11.5 dpc embryos. This cDNA was subsequently revealed to be themouse Ripply2 gene recently reported by Kawamura et al.
(Kawamura et al., 2005). The initial expression of Mesp2 was foundto be restricted to the nascent mesoderm at E7.0, but Ripply2
expression appeared to be absent or very weak prior tosomitogenesis (Fig. 1A). However, its expression became evident in
the anterior PSM as a pair of bands by 8.0 dpc, similar to Mesp2

Negative regulation of Mesp2 by Ripply2

RESEARCH ARTICLE 1565

(Fig. 1A). The expression of Ripply2 then continued until 12.5 dpc,
during the somite-forming period (Fig. 1A and data not shown). The
expression domains of Mesp2 and Ripply2 were next compared bydouble in situ hybridization of embryonic tail sections. Two typical
patterns are shown in Fig. 1B. One shows single bands that arecompletely merged, whereas the other is of a single Mesp2 band and
two Ripply2 bands in which the caudal band is merged with a distinct
Mesp2 band. This observation indicates that Mesp2 expression
precedes that of Ripply2, but that Ripply2 persists for longer. In
addition, Ripply2 expression was lost in the Mesp2-null embryo(Fig. 1C), as predicted from our GeneChip analysis. These data thus
indicated that Ripply2 might be a target of Mesp2.
To examine this possibility, we searched for possible cisregulatory sequences in the Ripply2 gene by comparing mouse,
human, dog and chick genomic sequences using MultiPipMaker
sequence alignment software (Fig. 2A). From these analyses, we
identified a conserved region (–6917 to –6747, Fig. 2B). To
investigate whether the 1.5 kb region containing this conserved 171
bp sequence (Fig. 2B) possessed enhancer activity, we performed
transient transgenic analyses using a ␤-gal reporter (Fig. 2C). In fiveout of nine PCR-positive embryos, we detected specific ␤-gal
expression in several segmented somites (Fig. 2D), which is a typical
pattern for genes expressed in the anterior PSM, including Mesp2
and Epha4 (Haraguchi et al., 2001; Nakajima et al., 2006). We next

employed a luciferase reporter assay system to ascertain whether theenhancer activity was dependant upon Mesp2. Two reporter
constructs were generated – one containing the 1.5 kb genomic
fragment and the other harboring six repeats of the 171 bp consensus
sequence. Both constructs were activated by the addition of Mesp2,
but not in conjunction with E47 (also known as Tcfe2a – Mouse
Genome Informatics) (Fig. 2E). This result was different from thefindings of our previous study of the Epha4 enhancer (Nakajima etal., 2006), in which Mesp2 was observed to bind and transactivate
the reporter activity only in the presence of E47, a possible
heterodimeric partner. Since Mesp2 belongs to the bHLH-typetranscription factor family, which is known to bind either to E-box
or N-box motifs, we screened the 171 bp Ripply2 gene consensus
sequence for E-boxes, or for an N-box which is capable of binding
to Mesp2 with or without E47. We identified a DNA fragment
containing a highly conserved E-box CATCTG sequence, andconfirmed that this binds to Mesp2, whereas a mutated form did not(Fig. 2F,G). E47 was also found to bind to this E-box, but this might
not be functional binding as no associated activity was detectable byluciferase reporter assay. Furthermore, the binding of Mesp2 was
weakened by the addition of E47. These results are consistent with
the idea that Mesp2 binds to this E-box in the enhancer of the
Ripply2 gene, and that this enhancer does not require E47 forsubsequent transactivation.

DEVELOPMENT

Fig. 5. Altered gene expression in the Ripply2null embryos. Whole-mount in situ hybridizations
were employed to characterize somitogenesis in the
Ripply2–/– embryo. The expression of caudal genes
such as Uncx4.1 (A,B) and Dll1 (C,D) was found to
be reduced, whereas rostral genes such as Tbx18(E,F) and Epha4 (G,H) show an expanded pattern in
Ripply2–/– embryos at E11.5. (I-N) Comparisons of
the expression patterns of Mesp2 mRNA, detectedby exon (I,J) and intron (K,L) probes, and protein
levels (M,N), at E10.5. An additional Mesp2
expression band appears rostrally in the Ripply2–/–embryos (J,L). Mesp2 protein expression, visualized
by Mesp2-venus, was compared between the
Ripply2+/– (M, n=2) and Ripply2–/– (N, n=3) genetic
backgrounds. The confocal images were visualized
by fluorescence, detected using anti-GFP antibodies.
(O,P) Comparison of the Lfng expression patterns at
different cyclic phases (indicated by I to III) at E10.5.
The oscillatory expression of Lfng (asterisks) in theposterior PSM was unaffected, but the rostral-mostexpression bands (brackets) are slightly expanded in
the Ripply2–/– embryos (P), as compared with the
Ripply2+/– embryos (O). (Q,R) The prolonged
expression of Lfng in the anterior PSM. The PSM of
E10.5 Ripply2+/– (Q) and Ripply2–/– (R) embryos was
separated into two halves, with one being fixed
immediately and the other fixed after explant
culturing for 20 minutes. Both were then analyzed
for Lfng mRNA. The expression of Lfng in theanterior PSM is maintained for longer in the
Ripply2–/– embryos.

1566 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Development 134 (8)Fig. 6. Notch signaling is reduced in the anterior PSM in the
Ripply2–/– embryo. (A-F) Notch1 mRNA (A, n=2; B, n=2), Notch1
protein (C, n=2; D, n=2) and Hes5 mRNA (E, n=2; F, n=4) expression
patterns were compared between wild-type (A,C,E) and Ripply2–/–(B,D,F) embryos at E11.0. (G-I) Double immunostaining with anti-Mesp2(green) and anti-active Notch1 (magenta; the white lines indicate
activities in the anterior PSM) antibodies using sections of wild-type (G)and Ripply2–/– (H,I) E11.0 embryos. In the Ripply2–/– background, Mesp2
expression is upregulated but Notch activity is reduced.

The Ripply2-knockout mouse exhibits a rostralized
phenotypeBecause Mesp2 confers rostral properties to the somites and is
involved in the formation of the somite boundary, we speculated
whether Ripply2 might function in this Mesp2 pathway duringsomitogenesis. To elucidate this possibility, we generated Ripply2knockout mice using ES cell-mediated gene targeting (Fig. 3A).
Since the heterozygous mice were found to be normal, we
performed timed intercross matings to analyze the phenotypes of thehomozygotes. As expected from the expression patterns, theRipply2–/– embryos failed to proceed through normal somitogenesis
and the embryos displayed no clear segmental borders (Fig. 4A-D).
These homozygous mice also died soon after birth. The morphologyof the 17.5-dpc fetus was found to be similar to that of the Mesp2null embryo, with a short trunk and tail (Fig. 3B) (Saga et al., 1997).
However, the vertebral phenotype of the Ripply2–/– embryos, as
revealed by skeletal staining, differed from that of Mesp2-nullembryos as it features extensive fusion of the pedicles in the neuralarches owing to the caudalized characteristics of the somitic
mesoderm (Saga et al., 1997).

Ripply2 is a negative regulator of Mesp2
expression
As we have previously reported, the rostro-caudal polarity of thesomites is generated by the interaction between Mesp2 and theNotch signaling pathway in the anterior PSM (Morimoto et al.,2005). To identify the underlying cause of the rostralized phenotype
in the Ripply2-null embryo, the Mesp2 gene expression profile was
examined. During somitogenesis in the anterior PSM, both wildtype and Ripply2+/– embryos generally showed either a single Mesp2
expression band of variable width or no band, depending on thecyclic expression stage (Fig. 5I and data not shown). However, weobserved that Mesp2 is expressed in the Ripply2–/– embryo as either
one or two bands (Fig. 5J). In other words, an additional band was
frequently observed in the more-rostral region (four out of six
examined). In addition, we did not observe any Ripply2–/– embryos
without Mesp2 expression, suggesting either that Mesp2 expression
is prolonged or that the Mesp2 transcripts are stabilized in a
Ripply2–/– background. To distinguish these possibilities, we
performed in situ hybridization using an intron probe. Although thesignal obtained was low, we frequently detected two bands in the
Ripply2–/– embryos (Fig. 5L; in all three examined), but only one
band in the Ripply2+/– embryos (Fig. 5K). Hence, the transcriptionof Mesp2 appears to be prolonged in the absence of Ripply2,
although the possibility that differences exist in their mRNA stability
cannot yet be excluded.
We next examined how the expression of the Mesp2 protein is
influenced in the Ripply2–/– background. As we have shown
previously, Mesp2-venus can be used to visualize functional
Mesp2 proteins in vivo because the homozygous knock-in mouseis viable and shows normal somitogenesis (Morimoto et al.,2005). In a typical case, a single Mesp2-venus band was
detectable in the area just caudal to the next presumptive
segmental border in the Ripply2+/– background (Fig. 5M).
However, in the Ripply2–/– embryo, two broader andinterconnected bands could be discerned (Fig. 5N). These data

DEVELOPMENTThe Ripply2–/– mouse fetus showed fewer pedicles of neuralarches (Fig. 4E,F), and the phenotype resembled that of thepresenilin 1 (Psen1)-null mouse (Fig. 4G), which lacks Notch
signaling (Koizumi et al., 2001). The findings of our gene expression
studies using both rostral and caudal molecular markers are
consistent with these skeletal defects. In Ripply2+/– embryos, theexpression of the caudal markers Uncx4.1 and Dll1 in the segmented
somites was restricted to the caudal compartments of the somites(Fig. 5A,C). The expression of these genes is increased and more
expansive in Mesp2-null embryos (Takahashi et al., 2000), but was
greatly reduced in the Ripply2-null embryos, (Fig. 5B,D). In
addition, no Dll1 stripe could be observed within the somitic region
or in the anterior PSM, although the expression in the posterior PSM
was intact in the Ripply2–/– embryo (Fig. 5D). By contrast, the rostralmarkers were found to be present in the Ripply2–/– embryo (Fig. 5EH). Tbx18, which is known to be involved in the maintenance of therostral properties of the somites (Bussen et al., 2004; Kraus et al.,2001), was expressed in the rostral compartment of the segmented
somites (Fig. 5E). In Ripply2–/– embryos, this expression was
expanded throughout the entire somite region and no clear segmental
pattern was evident (Fig. 5F). In addition, Epha4 was expressed in
the rostral compartment of S0 and S1 somites in the Ripply2+/–embryo (Fig. 5G), and this expression in the Ripply2–/– embryo wasincreased and the expression domain expanded as compared with thewild type (Fig. 5H). We thus conclude that the Ripply2-null mouse
displays a rostralized phenotype.

Negative regulation of Mesp2 by Ripply2

RESEARCH ARTICLE 1567

suggest that Mesp2 is negatively regulated by Ripply2, and thatthese factors form a negative-feedback loop to restrict the levelsof Mesp2.
We previously reported that Lfng expression is activated by
Mesp2 in the anterior PSM and is subsequently involved in the
suppression of Notch signaling. Moreover, Lfng expression showsa cyclic wave-like pattern in the posterior PSM, but its expression
in the anterior PSM is similar to that of Mesp2 in Ripply2+/–embryos. The width of this Lfng band becomes thinner before
disappearing from the rostral end of the expression domain in the
Ripply2+/– embryo (Fig. 5O). However, in the Ripply2–/– embryos,
the anterior-most Lfng band was found to be wider and to persist
for much longer as compared with the Ripply2+/– embryos (Fig.
5P). This persistent expression of Lfng was also evident from 20minute explant culture experiments with a half-PSM (Fig. 5Q,R).
These results suggest that Notch signaling might be suppressed,
even in the presumptive caudal compartment of the somites, byprolonged Mesp2 and/or Lfng expression in the Ripply2–/–embryo.
Mesp2, but not Lfng, is responsible for the Notch
suppression necessary for rostro-caudal
patterning
In somite-stage embryos, Notch activity oscillates in the posterior
PSM and stabilizes as a clear stripe in the anterior PSM withelevated activity (Huppert et al., 2005; Morimoto et al., 2005). To
further understand the molecular events operating in the anterior
PSM of Ripply2–/– embryos, we first examined the expression of

Notch1 mRNA (Fig. 6A,B) and Notch1 protein (Fig. 6C,D) in theseembryos. Interestingly, these expression patterns were found to be
expanded in the anterior PSM in the Ripply2–/– embryo (Fig. 6B,D),
but the Notch activity appeared to be lost as judged from the fact thatthe expression of Hes5, a Notch target gene (Ohtsuka et al., 1999),
was absent (Fig. 6E,F). To further confirm this reduced Notch1
activity and its relationship to Mesp2 expression, we conducteddouble immunostaining analysis using anti-active Notch1 and antiMesp2 antibodies in both wild-type and Ripply2–/– embryos. In thewild-type embryos, the Notch activity in the anterior PSM exhibiteda sharp boundary with Mesp2 that determines the next segmental
boundary (Fig. 6G). In addition, the contrast between Notch
activities leads to the generation of future rostral and caudal
compartments of the somites, whereby the Notch active site
becomes the future caudal compartment. In the Ripply2–/– embryo,the Notch1 signals oscillated normally in the posterior PSM (Fig.
6H,I). However, the elevation of Notch activity in the anterior PSM
appeared to be repressed in these null embryos, whereas the Mesp2
expression banding was found to upregulated, as shown previously(Fig. 6H,I).
Since the expression of Lfng is under the control of Mesp2, we
speculated that the suppression of Notch signaling might be theresult of the prolonged activation of Lfng in the Ripply2–/–embryo. To test this possibility, we generated a Ripply2/Lfng
double-knockout embryo from which we prepared skeletal
specimens, and then examined the somite properties by analyzing
the expression of the caudal molecular marker Uncx4.1 (Fig. 7).
Intriguingly, the vertebral morphology of the Ripply2/Lfng

DEVELOPMENT

Fig. 7. Genetic analyses using doubleknockouts of Ripply2 and either Lfng
or Mesp2. The skeletal morphologies andUncx4.1 expression patterns werecompared among wild-type (A), Lfng-null(B), Ripply2/Lfng double-null (C), Mesp2null (D) and Ripply2/Mesp2 double-null (E)E17.5 fetuses or E9.5 embryos. The
skeletal defects in the Ripply2–/– fetus were
found to be further enhanced by theadditional loss of Lfng, and the pedicles of
the neural arches were almost completely
absent in this compound-null fetus (C). By
contrast, the Ripply2/Mesp2 double-nullfetus (E) shows a similar morphology tothat of the Mesp2 single-null fetus (D). The
Uncx4.1 expression pattern was
independently examined at E10.5 (A, n=2;
B, n=2; C, n=1) and E9.5 (A, n=4; B, n=2;
C, n=2; D, n=4; E, n=2). Only
representative images of E9.5 embryos areshown.

1568 RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ripply2

was found to be very similar to the Mesp2 single-null fetus, andexhibited a caudalized phenotype (Fig. 7D,E). The expression of
Uncx4.1 was also upregulated to similar levels as in the Mesp2-nullembryo (Fig. 7E). These results clearly showed that Mesp2
suppresses the expression of this gene independent of Ripply2, andthat the defect observed in the Ripply2–/– mouse can be attributed to
the function of Mesp2.

Notch signaling

Tbx6

Mesp2
Dll1
L-fng

proteasome mediated pathway

B

anterior

posterior

S+1

S0

S-1

Mesp2

Dll1

wild type

Mesp2
Dll1 Ripply2

Ripply2

Notch
Notch
signaling signaling

rostralcaudalMesp2

Ripply2

-/-

Mesp2
Dll1

Dll1

Notch
signalingNotchsignaling

rostral caudal
Fig. 8. Genetic cascades in the anterior PSM regulating
somitogenesis. (A) Schematic of the positive (red line) and negative(blue line) regulation surrounding Mesp2. The transcription of Mesp2 isenhanced by both Notch signaling and Tbx6. At the same time, Mesp2
suppresses Notch signaling by activating Lfng and suppressing Dll1
expression. Mesp2 proteins are also rapidly degraded via a proteasomedependent pathway. We herein propose a new negative regulatory
system for Mesp2 via Ripply2. (B) Schematic illustrating how the rostrocaudal polarity is established or disrupted in the anterior PSM of thewild type and Ripply2–/– mutants. In the anterior PSM, Mesp2 islocalized in the rostral compartment of S–1 and suppresses Notch
signaling through the suppression of Dll1. By contrast, in the caudal
compartment of S0, both Dll1 expression and Notch signaling are
retained because of the lack of Mesp2. In the Ripply2–/– embryo, Mesp2
expression persists for a longer period in both the rostral and caudal
compartments, although the suppression on Notch signaling is
incomplete. This results in the expansion of the rostral properties within
the somites.

double-knockout mouse was not recovered, and was more
rostralized as compared with either the Ripply2–/– (compare Fig.
4F with Fig. 7C) or Lfng-null fetus (Fig. 7B). The expression of
Uncx4.1 was also not recovered by the additional loss of Lfng
(compare Fig. 5B with Fig. 7C), and was found to be completely
diminished in the double-knockout embryos.
To determine whether the suppression of Notch signaling is
mainly due to the function of Mesp2, we also generated
Mesp2/Ripply2 double-null mice and analyzed the resulting skeletal
phenotypes. As expected, the vertebral morphology of these fetuses

DISCUSSION
Our current study establishes the hypothesis that the negativefeedback regulation of Mesp2 by Ripply2 constitutes a corecomponent of the regulatory network involved in establishing rostrocaudal patterning. The periodicity of somitogenesis is established bymechanisms based on the negative regulation of several genes in themouse posterior PSM (Rida et al., 2004), in which the clock genes
Hes7 and Lfng are negatively regulated by several mechanisms,
including transcriptional suppression, protein degradation anddestabilization of mRNA (Bessho et al., 2003; Chen et al., 2005;
Cole et al., 2002; Hirata et al., 2004; Morales et al., 2002). In theanterior PSM, the levels of Mesp2 are strictly regulated to achieve
the periodic suppression of Notch signaling, and also to establish thecorrect rostro-caudal polarity. During this activation step, thecooperation between Tbx6 and cyclic activated Notch-signaling is
crucial for the periodic induction of Mesp2 (Yasuhiko et al., 2006)(Fig. 8A). However, these processes must be regulated by bothactivation and inhibition. Previously, we reported that Mesp2 isregulated negatively by the proteasome pathway (Morimoto et al.,2006). In addition, our current study has identified Ripply2 as apotent negative regulator of Mesp2 transcription, and as a factor thatis required for the correct establishment of rostro-caudal patterning.
In the absence of Ripply2, Mesp2 expression is maintained over alonger period and leads to the suppression of caudal properties (Fig.
8B). It is noteworthy in this regard that Ripply2 might function
exclusively to negatively regulate Mesp2, because the phenotype of
the Ripply2-knockout mouse is almost completely reversed by theadditional loss of Mesp2.
The Ripply2-null mutant exhibits not only an expansion of
rostral marker genes but also a reduction in the expression of
caudal markers. Immunohistochemical analysis further revealed adecrease in the activated form of Notch1 in the anterior PSM inthese Ripply2-null embryos. Previously, we have shown thatMesp2 suppresses Notch signaling to establish segmental
boundaries via the activation of Lfng. However, Lfng appears not
to be crucial for the suppression of Notch signaling in the Ripply2null embryo as this suppression was not rescued by the additionalloss of Lfng, and, in fact, this results in a further reduction in Notch
signaling activity. We speculate that this is caused by the functionof Lfng during Mesp2 distribution, based upon our observations of
the Mesp2-venus knock-in mouse. In the wild-type embryo, theMesp2-venus expression pattern shows a clear gradient, being
higher in the presumptive rostral compartment. However, in theabsence of Lfng, such a biased gradient is not generated, and theMesp2-venus pattern shows a diffuse distribution in thisbackground (our unpublished data). The phenotype of the
Ripply2/Lfng double-knockout mouse appears also to reflect this
distribution defect. In this double-null mouse, the expression of
Mesp2 is prolonged owing to the lack of Ripply2, and is distributed
across a much wider area along the anterior-posterior axis becauseof the lack of Lfng. This in turn enhances the function of Mesp2
that suppresses Notch signaling in the anterior PSM, and results inthe somites becoming completely rostralized in these double
mutants.

DEVELOPMENTA

Development 134 (8)The mechanisms underlying the suppression of Mesp2 by
Ripply2 are currently unknown. Ripply2 appears to be required forthe termination of Mesp2 expression at an appropriate time.
Moreover, because Ripply2 has no apparent DNA-binding domain,
it is plausible to assume that it suppresses Mesp2 by recruiting theGroucho homolog Tle1 and/or Tle3 via the WRPW motif, as
revealed previously by in vitro assays in both zebrafish and mouse(Kawamura et al., 2005) (data not shown). Tle1 and Tle3 are known
to be expressed in the PSM, but their expression patterns are notsegmental (Dehni et al., 1995) (our unpublished data), and no lossof-function studies have yet been reported. In the zebrafish, ripply1
morphants also display upregulation of mespb in their somitic
regions, and this is accompanied by the upregulation of tbx24,
deltaC and deltaD. This might also account for the upregulation of
mespb (Kawamura et al., 2005). We have previously identified a 300
bp upstream region of the Mesp2 gene as a promoter-enhancer
sequence required for the faithful expression of Mesp2 in the anterior
PSM where T-box factor binding in combination with Notch
signaling is involved in the gene activation (Yasuhiko et al., 2006).
However, Tbx6 expression is unchanged (data not shown) and theDll1 expression profile is somewhat decreased in the Ripply2-nullembryos. Hence, although the impact of the loss of Ripply proteins
upon Mesp gene expression appears to be similar between mouseand zebrafish, the underlying mechanisms might well be different.
We are particularly thankful to Yuki Takahashi and Aya Satoh for their valuable
technical support and for maintaining the mice used in this study. We thankRandy Johnson for generously providing the Lfng-knockout mouse and Masaru
Tamura for permitting us to use the FreeStyle 293 expression system. This work
was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Science Research on Priority Areas (B), theOrganized Research Combination System and National BioResource Project of
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material for this article is available at
http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/134/8/1561/DC1
References
Bessho, Y., Sakata, R., Komatsu, S., Shiota, K., Yamada, S. and Kageyama, R.
(2001). Dynamic expression and essential functions of Hes7 in somite
segmentation. Genes Dev. 15, 2642-2647.
Bessho, Y., Hirata, H., Masamizu, Y. and Kageyama, R. (2003). Periodic
repression by the bHLH factor Hes7 is an essential mechanism for the somite
segmentation clock. Genes Dev. 17, 1451-1456.
Bettenhausen, B., Hrabe de Angelis, M., Simon, D., Guenet, J. L. andGossler, A. (1995). Transient and restricted expression during mouseembryogenesis of Dll1, a murine gene closely related to Drosophila Delta.
Development 121, 2407-2418.
Borycki, A. G. and Emerson, C. P., Jr (2000). Multiple tissue interactions andsignal transduction pathways control somite myogenesis. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol.
48, 165-224.
Brand-Saberi, B. and Christ, B. (2000). Evolution and development of distinct celllineages derived from somites. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 48, 1-42.
Bussen, M., Petry, M., Schuster-Gossler, K., Leitges, M., Gossler, A. andKispert, A. (2004). The T-box transcription factor Tbx18 maintains theseparation of anterior and posterior somite compartments. Genes Dev. 18,
1209-1221.
Chen, J., Kang, L. and Zhang, N. (2005). Negative feedback loop formed by
Lunatic fringe and Hes7 controls their oscillatory expression duringsomitogenesis. Genesis 43, 196-204.
Cole, S. E., Levorse, J. M., Tilghman, S. M. and Vogt, T. F. (2002). Clockregulatory elements control cyclic expression of Lunatic fringe duringsomitogenesis. Dev. Cell 3, 75-84.
Dehni, G., Liu, Y., Husain, J. and Stifani, S. (1995). TLE expression correlateswith mouse embryonic segmentation, neurogenesis, and epithelial
determination. Mech. Dev. 53, 369-381.

RESEARCH ARTICLE 1569
Dubrulle, J. and Pourquie, O. (2004). Coupling segmentation to axis formation.
Development 131, 5783-5793.
Haraguchi, S., Kitajima, S., Takagi, A., Takeda, H., Inoue, T. and Saga, Y.
(2001). Transcriptional regulation of Mesp1 and Mesp2 genes: differential usageof enhancers during development. Mech. Dev. 108, 59-69.
Hirata, H., Bessho, Y., Kokubu, H., Masamizu, Y., Yamada, S., Lewis, J. andKageyama, R. (2004). Instability of Hes7 protein is crucial for the somite
segmentation clock. Nat. Genet. 36, 750-754.
Huppert, S. S., Ilagan, M. X., De Strooper, B. and Kopan, R. (2005). Analysis of
Notch function in presomitic mesoderm suggests a gamma-secretaseindependent role for presenilins in somite differentiation. Dev. Cell 8, 677-688.
Iulianella, A., Melton, K. R. and Trainor, P. A. (2003). Somitogenesis: breaking
new boundaries. Neuron 40, 11-14.
Kanno, J., Aisaki, K., Igarashi, K., Nakatsu, N., Ono, A., Kodama, Y. andNagao, T. (2006). “Per cell” normalization method for mRNA measurement by
quantitative PCR and microarrays. BMC Genomics 7, 64.
Kawamura, A., Koshida, S., Hijikata, H., Ohbayashi, A., Kondoh, H. and
Takada, S. (2005). Groucho-associated transcriptional repressor ripply1 isrequired for proper transition from the presomitic mesoderm to somites. Dev.
Cell 9, 735-744.
Koizumi, K., Nakajima, M., Yuasa, S., Saga, Y., Sakai, T., Kuriyama, T.,
Shirasawa, T. and Koseki, H. (2001). The role of presenilin 1 during somite
segmentation. Development 128, 1391-1402.
Kraus, F., Haenig, B. and Kispert, A. (2001). Cloning and expression analysis of
the mouse T-box gene Tbx18. Mech. Dev. 100, 83-86.
Leitges, M., Neidhardt, L., Haenig, B., Herrmann, B. G. and Kispert, A.
(2000). The paired homeobox gene Uncx4.1 specifies pedicles, transverse
processes and proximal ribs of the vertebral column. Development 127, 22592267.
Monsoro-Burq, A. H. and Le Douarin, N. (2000). Duality of molecular signaling
involved in vertebral chondrogenesis. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 48, 43-75.
Morales, A. V., Yasuda, Y. and Ish-Horowicz, D. (2002). Periodic Lunatic fringe
expression is controlled during segmentation by a cyclic transcriptional enhancer
responsive to notch signaling. Dev. Cell 3, 63-74.
Morimoto, M., Takahashi, Y., Endo, M. and Saga, Y. (2005). The Mesp2
transcription factor establishes segmental borders by suppressing Notch activity.
Nature 435, 354-359.
Morimoto, M., Kiso, M., Sasaki, N. and Saga, Y. (2006). Cooperative Mesp
activity is required for normal somitogenesis along the anterior-posterior axis.
Dev. Biol. 300, 687-698.
Nakajima, Y., Morimoto, M., Takahashi, Y., Koseki, H. and Saga, Y. (2006).
Identification of Epha4 enhancer required for segmental expression and theregulation by Mesp2. Development 133, 2517-2525.
Nomura-Kitabayashi, A., Takahashi, Y., Kitajima, S., Inoue, T., Takeda, H.
and Saga, Y. (2002). Hypomorphic Mesp allele distinguishes establishment ofrostrocaudal polarity and segment border formation in somitogenesis.
Development 129, 2473-2481.
Ohtsuka, T., Ishibashi, M., Gradwohl, G., Nakanishi, S., Guillemot, F. andKageyama, R. (1999). Hes1 and Hes5 as notch effectors in mammalian
neuronal differentiation. EMBO J. 18, 2196-2207.
Pourquie, O. (2003). The segmentation clock: converting embryonic time into
spatial pattern. Science 301, 328-330.
Rida, P. C., Le Minh, N. and Jiang, Y. J. (2004). A Notch feeling of somite
segmentation and beyond. Dev. Biol. 265, 2-22.
Saga, Y. and Takeda, H. (2001). The making of the somite: molecular events invertebrate segmentation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 835-845.
Saga, Y., Hata, N., Koseki, H. and Taketo, M. M. (1997). Mesp2: a novel mousegene expressed in the presegmented mesoderm and essential for segmentation
initiation. Genes Dev. 11, 1827-1839.
Sakai, K. and Miyazaki, J. (1997). A transgenic mouse line that retains Cre
recombinase activity in mature oocytes irrespective of the cre transgene
transmission. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 237, 318-324.
Takahashi, Y., Koizumi, K., Takagi, A., Kitajima, S., Inoue, T., Koseki, H. and
Saga, Y. (2000). Mesp2 initiates somite segmentation through the Notch
signalling pathway. Nat. Genet. 25, 390-396.
Takahashi, Y., Inoue, T., Gossler, A. and Saga, Y. (2003). Feedback loops
comprising Dll1, Dll3 and Mesp2, and differential involvement of Psen1 areessential for rostrocaudal patterning of somites. Development 130, 4259-4268.
Yagi, T., Tokunaga, T., Furuta, Y., Nada, S., Yoshida, M., Tsukada, T., Saga, Y.,
Takeda, N., Ikawa, Y. and Aizawa, S. (1993). A novel ES cell line, TT2, withhigh germline-differentiating potency. Anal. Biochem. 214, 70-76.
Yasuhiko, Y., Haraguchi, S., Kitajima, S., Takahashi, Y., Kanno, J. and Saga,
Y. (2006). Tbx6-mediated Notch signaling controls somite-specific Mesp2
expression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 3651-3656.

DEVELOPMENT

Negative regulation of Mesp2 by Ripply2