RESEARCH REPORT 2691

Development 140, 2691-2696 (2013) doi:10.1242/dev.094318© 2013. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd

Decoupling of amniote gastrulation and streak formation
reveals a morphogenetic unity in vertebrate mesoderm
induction
Cantas Alev, Yuping Wu, Yukiko Nakaya and Guojun Sheng*
SUMMARY
Mesoderm is formed during gastrulation. This process takes place at the blastopore in lower vertebrates and in the primitive streak(streak) in amniotes. The evolutionary relationship between the blastopore and the streak is unresolved, and the morphogenetic andmolecular changes leading to this shift in mesoderm formation during early amniote evolution are not well understood. Using thechick model, we present evidence that the streak is dispensable for mesoderm formation in amniotes. An anamniote-likecircumblastoporal mode of gastrulation can be induced in chick and three other amniote species. The induction requires cooperative
activation of the FGF and Wnt pathways, and the induced mesoderm field retains anamniote-like dorsoventral patterning. We proposethat the amniote streak is homologous to the blastopore in lower vertebrates and evolved from the latter in two distinct steps: an
initial pan-amniote posterior restriction of mesoderm-inducing signals; and a subsequent lineage-specific morphogenetic modificationof the pre-ingression epiblast.
KEY WORDS: Amniotes, Avian, Blastopore, Gastrulation, Mesoderm, Primitive streak

Laboratory for Early Embryogenesis, RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology,
2-2-3 Minatojima-minamimachi, Chuo-Ku, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0047, Japan.
*Author for correspondence (sheng@cdb.riken.jp)
Accepted 10 April 2013

mesoderm mimics that in anamniote blastopore. Using additional
avian and reptilian species, we demonstrated that the ability to
uncouple mesoderm and streak formation, and to generate
mesoderm in an ancestral ‘circumblastoporal’ mode, is conserved
among amniotes. Finally, we presented a model to explain theevolutionary shift from a radial to a dorsally restricted mode of
mesoderm formation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Subgerminal cavity injection

Fertilized chicken, quail, emu and turtle eggs were purchased from local
farms. The following growth factors were used: FGF4 (#235-F4, R&D
Systems; final concentration 50 ng/μl), FGF2 (#03-0002, Stemgent; 50 ng/μl),
FGF8 (#F6926, Sigma; 50 ng/μl), activin A (#338-AC, R&D Systems; 50
ng/μl) and Wnt3a (#1324-WN, R&D Systems; 10 ng/μl). SB431542 was from
Sigma (#S4317-5MG; 25 μM). Growth factors/chemical inhibitors werediluted in Pannett-Compton to their final concentrations, together with FastGreen for visualization (#061-00031, Wako; final 0.1%). After brief warm-up(30 minutes at 38.5°C), chicken eggs were opened and their content
transferred to pre-cut foster shells. For quail, emu and turtle eggs, host shells
were cut with a drill or small scissors to leave the cut-edges smooth. A volumeof 1-2 μl was injected by mouth-pipetting using a pulled glass capillary (#2000-050, Drummond). The subgerminal cavity can hold up to 5 μl (Petitte etal., 1990; Sang, 2004; van de Lavoir et al., 2006) and control-injected embryos
developed normally. Afterwards, shells were filled up with thin albumen,covered with thin cling-film (from Nippon Paper-Pak), and assembled using
plastic rings (Showa Furanki Company) and rubber bands (supplementarymaterial Fig. S1). Eggs were incubated horizontally at 38.5°C in a humidified
incubator. Turtle eggs were incubated at 32°C vertically after covering
injected embryos with cling-film.
Embryology and imaging

In situ hybridization for chicken, quail, emu and turtle embryos followed
standard chicken protocol (Nagai et al., 2011; Stern, 1998), as with paraffinembedded sectioning (10 μm, Microm-HM325 microtome), whole-mountembryo imaging (Olympus-SZX12; Olympus-DP70) and section imaging(Olympus-BX51; Olympus-DP70). For immunofluorescence (Fig. 1;
supplementary material Fig. S1), unincubated embryos were fixed in ovo(4% paraformaldehyde), collected and stained with phalloidin (AlexaFluor-

DEVELOPMENTINTRODUCTION
The mesoderm is one of the three principle germ layers and isformed during gastrulation. Mesoderm induction is regulated byevolutionarily conserved molecular mechanisms (Harvey et al.,2010; Kimelman, 2006), yet morphogenetic events during its
formation vary in different vertebrate clades (Arendt and NüblerJung, 1999; Meinhardt, 2006; Shook and Keller, 2008; SolnicaKrezel, 2005). In lower vertebrates (anamniotes), mesoderm cells
are induced radially at the blastopore. This circumblastoporal modeof mesoderm formation was lost during early amniote evolution. In
birds and mammals, mesoderm cells are generated exclusively fromthe streak, a transitory structure unique to the amniotes. The
evolutionary origin of the streak has long been debated and its
relationship to the blastopore remains unresolved. The reptiles, thestem amniote lineage from which both the mammals and birds
evolved, do not have a streak (Bertocchini et al., 2013).
Furthermore, mammals and birds have been hypothesized to
employ different cellular mechanisms to generate a streak (Arnold
and Robertson, 2009; Chuai and Weijer, 2008; Stern, 2004;
Voiculescu et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2012).
In this work, we used the chick model and examined therelationship between streak formation and mesoderm induction andthat between the streak and blastopore. We found that irrespectiveof whether a streak forms or not, mesoderm cells can be induced
radially (‘circumblastoporally’) in the marginal zone. These
ectopically formed mesoderm cells undergo migration and initiate
terminal differentiation. This capacity to generate mesoderm
radially was revealed by manipulating the availability of mesoderm
inducer FGF and requires cooperative activation of the FGF and
Wnt signaling pathways. Dorsoventral patterning in the induced

2692 RESEARCH REPORT

Development 140 (13)568 phalloidin, #A12380, Invitrogen), cryosectioned (14 μm, LEICACM3050S), mounted with ProLongGold-Antifade with DAPI (#P36931,
Invitrogen) and imaged using Olympus FV1000 microscope.
Electroporation of GFP (Momose et al., 1999), CA-FGFR2 (Nakazawa etal., 2006) and CA-β-catenin (Shin et al., 2009) was performed ex ovo using
TSS20-Ovodyne electroporator (Intracel, UK; 3×50 ms pulses of 5 V with
250 ms intervals). Heparin acrylic beads (#H5263, Sigma) were used forgraft experiments. Time-lapse movie (supplementary material Movie 1) was
taken using NIKON AZ-C1 macro laser confocal microscope.
In situ hybridization probes

Chicken Brachyury probe corresponds to GGU67086 nucleotides 301-602,
used also for quail Brachyury in situ hybridization. Emu Brachyury probecorresponds to HQ336494 nucleotides 43-409 (Nagai et al., 2011). Turtle
Brachyury fragment (420 bp) was cloned by PCR and the sequence has been
deposited in the NCBI database (Accession Number JN022614). Other in situ
probes used here correspond to the following sequences: FGF4 (nucleotides
285-585, NM_001031546), FGF8 (nucleotides 1-650, U41467.1; for bothchicken and quail), Wnt8C (nucleotides 747-1704, NM_205531), Cdx1
(nucleotides 1779-2295, NM_204676), Chordin (2385-3191, AF031230),
Snai2 (nucleotides 138-945, XM_419196), Eomes (nucleotides 630-1089,
XM_426003), Mixl1 (nucleotides 173-788, NM_204990), Sprouty2(nucleotides 902-1869, NM_204800), HoxB1 (nucleotides 954-1426,
X68353), Gsc (nucleotides 282-936, NM_205331), FoxA2 (nucleotides 13671834, NM_204770), Vg1 (nucleotides 54-683, GGU73003), Nodal(nucleotides 233-702, XM_424385), Lmo2 (nucleotides 7-962, NM_204271)
and dHAND (nucleotides 167-1135, BBSRC chickEST #333817.4).

RESULTS
The streak is not essential for amniote mesoderm
formation
Using the chick model, we asked whether it was possible touncouple mesoderm formation from streak formation and generate

mesoderm precursors radially in the marginal zone. Brachyury, apan-mesoderm-precursor marker, starts its expression in theposterior marginal zone at late stage HH1 (~6-8 hours of incubation)(Knezevic et al., 1997) and Brachyury+ cells ingress through thestreak from HH3 (~12 hours) (Fig. 1A,B; supplementary material
Fig. S1A-D). We devised a new protocol for in ovo subgerminalcavity injection (supplementary material Fig. S1E-I) to modulate
globally the activity of Wnt, TGFβ or FGF pathway before
Brachyury expression. These three pathways are known to regulate
both mesoderm induction and streak formation (Bertocchini et al.,
2004; Harvey et al., 2010; Kimelman, 2006; Stern, 2004; Voiculescu
et al., 2007). Control injection did not affect embryo morphology,
growth rate or Brachyury expression (Fig. 1C, top). Wnt3a did not
elicit strong effect on either streak morphology or Brachyury
expression (supplementary material Fig. S2A). Activin A produced
a drastic dorsalizing phenotype, with the axial marker Gsc expressedin the central epiblast as a pocket and weak Brachyury at its rim(supplementary material Fig. S2B-D). Activation of the FGF
pathway (FGF4, Fig. 1C, middle and bottom) generated a ring of
Brachyury-positive cells in the marginal zone. Induction by FGF4
was highly efficient (70/72; 97%), with the streak recognizable in
42% of the cases (Fig. 1C, middle) and absent in the remainder(Fig. 1C, bottom). Regardless of whether the streak formed or not,induced mesoderm precursors expressed the epithelialmesenchymal transition (EMT) marker Snai2 (Fig. 1D) (Nieto etal., 1994) and gave rise to migratory mesoderm cells(supplementary material Fig. S3; Movie 1) as in normal gatrulation
EMT (Nakaya et al., 2008). Growth of FGF4-injected embryos did
not exceed HH7 (Fig. 1E), possibly owing to its pleiotropic effecton somitogenesis and axial elongation (Bénazéraf et al., 2010).
Taken together, FGF injections (FGF4 in Fig. 1C, and FGF2 andDEVELOPMENT

Fig. 1. FGF induces a mesoderm ring in themarginal zone. (A) Sagittal section of anunincubated chick embryo (supplementarymaterial Fig. S1C) stained with phalloidin (red)and DAPI (cyan), showing tissue organization inanterior, middle and posterior regions.
(B) Schematic comparison of mesoderm
formation (blue) in anamniotes and amniotes.
an, animal; veg, vegetal. a.o., area opaca; a.p.,
area pellucida. (C) FGF4-induced mesoderm
rings shown schematically (left) and stained for
Brachyury (right). Top, control injected; middle
and bottom, FGF4 injected. White line indicatessection level shown in supplementary material
Fig. S3A. (D) Snai2 expression in control-injected(left) and FGF4-injected (right) embryos.
(E) Brachyury expression in an embryo grown for
36 hours after FGF4 injection (equivalent to
HH7).

Gastrulation without a streak

RESEARCH REPORT 2693

Fig. 2. Induced mesoderm ring exhibits
anamniote-like dorsoventral patterning.
(A) Chordin expression. (B) Cdx1 expression.
(C) Mesoderm dorsoventral patterning incontrol-injected (left) and FGF-injected(right) embryos. Red, dorsal; green, ventral.
(D) Tbx6 expression. (E) Mixl1 expression.
(F) Eomes expression. (G) Gsc expression.
(H) FoxA2 expression. (I) HoxB1 expression.
Control injected on the left and FGF4
injected on the right.

The induced mesoderm ring shows an anamniotelike dorsoventral polarity
We next investigated the dorsoventral patterning in ectopicallygenerated mesoderm cells. Expression analysis of FGF4-treatedembryos for Chordin (Fig. 2A) and Cdx1 (Fig. 2B) revealed that theinduced mesoderm field had a dorsoventral polarity similar to thatseen in anamniotes (Fig. 2C), with its dorsal side at the posterior
where the rudimentary streak forms and the ventral side at theanterior. This observation was further supported by the analyses
using additional pan-mesoderm (Tbx6) (Fig. 2D), mesendoderm(Mixl1, Eomes) (Fig. 2E,F), dorsal (Gsc, FoxA2) (Fig. 2G,H) andventral (HoxB1) (Fig. 2I) markers.

Wnt and FGF pathways act cooperatively during
mesoderm induction
FGFs are known to be potent mesoderm inducers (Amaya et al.,
1991; Böttcher and Niehrs, 2005; Dorey and Amaya, 2010;
Kimelman et al., 1988; Slack et al., 1987), and their essential rolein avian mesoderm formation has also been reported (Chuai et al.,2006; Mitrani et al., 1990; Stern, 1992). In our assay, central epiblast
cells exposed to FGFs did not express Brachyury, suggesting that
FGF activation alone is insufficient. Sprouty2, an early response
gene of the FGF pathway (Chambers and Mason, 2000; Nutt et al.,2001), was induced as a ring after overnight culture (Fig. 3A),
similar to Brachyury (Fig. 1C). Progressive shortening of postinjection incubation time revealed a pan-epiblast induction of
Sprouty2 after 4 hours (Fig. 3B), indicating that the central epiblastis capable of rapid response to FGF signaling. Similar time-series
experiments with Brachyury showed no induction after 4 hours(Fig. 3C), and robust induction was seen only in the marginal zone
Fig. 3. Induction requires both FGF and Wnt
activities. (A) Sprouty2 expression 16 hours after
FGF4 injection. Inset shows Sprouty2 expression 16
hours after control injection. (B) Sprouty2 expression
4 hours after FGF4 injection. (C) Brachyury expression
4 hours after FGF4 injection. (D) Brachyury expression
8 hours after FGF4 injection. (E) FGF4-soaked beads(circles) induce Brachyury only in the marginal zone.
(F-H) Pan-epiblast induction of Brachyury (F), Tbx6 (G)and Mixl1 (H) after co-injection of FGF4 and Wnt3a.
(I) Constitutively active FGFR or β-catenin does not
induce Brachyury expression in central epiblast; coexpression does.

DEVELOPMENT

FGF8 in supplementary material Fig. S2E,F) led to potent
mesoderm induction throughout the marginal zone and to thedisruption of streak formation, suggesting that chick mesoderm canbe generated irrespective of streak morphogenesis.

and after 6-8 hours (Fig. 3D), suggesting that the FGF pathway acts
indirectly in mesoderm induction.
Among all the major pathways, only canonical Wnt signaling wasreported to be active radially (Roeser et al., 1999; Skromne andStern, 2001). We confirmed Wnt8C radial expression in unincubatedembryos (supplementary material Fig. S4A), which quickly
becomes restricted to the posterior marginal zone by late HH1(supplementary material Fig. S4B). To test whether Wnt and FGF
pathways act cooperatively in mesoderm induction, we grafted
FGF4-soaked beads either in the marginal zone, which induced
Brachyury potently, or in the central epiblast, which did not(Fig. 3E). Co-electroporation of constructs expressing constitutively
active-FGFR (CA-FGFR2) and CA-β-catenin in central epiblast
cells activated Brachyury expression strongly, whereas either CAFGFR2 or CA-β-catenin alone did not (Fig. 3I). Co-injection of
FGF4 and Wnt3a into the subgerminal cavity transformed the entire
epiblast into mesoderm precursors (Brachyury, Fig. 3F; Tbx6,
Fig. 3G; Mixl1, Fig. 3H). These data showed that co-activation of
the FGF and Wnt pathways is sufficient for the anamniote-likeradial and pan-epiblast mesoderm induction.
TGFβ signaling contributes to mesoderm
dorsalization and EMT
We next asked what role the TGFβ pathway plays in this induction.
Chicken Vg1 and Nodal, two endogenous TGFβ molecules, regulate
mesoderm dorsalization and streak formation (Bertocchini and
Stern, 2002; Bertocchini and Stern, 2012; Roeser et al., 1999;
Skromne and Stern, 2001). The dorsalizing effort was supported by
our Activin A injection data (supplementary material Fig. S2C,D).
Interestingly, both Vg1 and Nodal were induced as a ring by FGF4

Development 140 (13)injection (supplementary material Fig. S4C,D). Most of the Vg1and Nodal-positive cells were located in the ventral territory(Fig. 2B,C), reflecting their roles in pan-mesoderm EMT after initial
dorsoventral patterning (Acloque et al., 2009; Skromne and Stern,2001). Supporting this notion, co-injection of FGF4 and a strong
TGFβ pathway inhibitor SB431542 still led to radial expression ofBrachyury (supplementary material Fig. S4E). In this case, however,Brachyury+ cells were located only in the ectoderm (supplementarymaterial Fig. S4F,G, arrowheads), and those few ingressed
mesoderm cells failed to migrate away from the ingression site
(supplementary material Fig. S4F,G, arrows). Collectively, thesedata suggest that mesoderm induction requires active FGF and Wnt
signaling, whereas the TGFβ pathway contributes mainly todorsalization and internalization; and each of these three pathways
is required for proper mesoderm formation.
Ability to uncouple mesoderm generation andstreak formation is evolutionary conserved
We next asked whether the potential to uncouple mesoderm
generation from streak formation is unique to the chick model or
evolutionarily conserved. All extant birds form a streak in their early
development, whereas reptiles have a blastopore and primitive plate
together acting as a ‘primitive’ primitive streak. To test whether thephenomena observed in chick can be extrapolated to amniotes ingeneral, we performed similar experiments in two other avian
species, the quail (Coturnix japonica) and emu (Dromaius
novehollandiae). In both cases, a mesoderm ring was induced in themarginal zone by FGF4 (Fig. 4A,B). Embryos of the Chinese softshelled turtle (Pelodiscus sinensis), a reptilian species that does notform a streak in its early development (Bertocchini et al., 2013;
Fig. 4. The potential to generate circumblastoporal
mesoderm is conserved among amniotes. (A) Quailembryo with control (left) or FGF4 (right) injection andstained for Brachyury. (B) Emu embryo with control(left) or FGF4 (right) injection and stained for Brachyury.
(C) Turtle embryo with control (third panel) or FGF4
(right panel) injection stained for Brachyury. First panel
shows turtle and chicken eggs; second panel shows
unincubated turtle egg with open shell (arrow
indicates embryo). (D) Anamniote-to-amniotetransition in mesoderm formation. W, Wnt; F, FGF; T,
TGFβ. Red, dorsal; green, ventral. Anamniotes have Wnt
and FGF activities radially and mesoderm is induced
circumblastoporally. A shift in FGF signals results inposterior marginal zone-restricted mesoderm
induction in ancestral amniotes. Secondary andindependent modifications in epiblast morphogenetic
movement lead to formation of a streak in birds andmammals, and a blastopore/primitive plate in reptiles.

DEVELOPMENT

2694 RESEARCH REPORTRESEARCH REPORT 2695

Gastrulation without a streak

DISCUSSION
The streak in birds and mammals is generally seen as the anatomicalcorrelate of gastrulation and germ layer formation. However, theontogenetic relationship between the streak and mesoderm, and its
phylogenetic association with the anamniote blastopore are not wellunderstood. Mesoderm precursors in birds and mammals are known
to be specified in the posterior marginal zone prior to streak
formation. Their ingression/internalization from the epiblast is
considered to occur only after the streak has appeared. For thisreason, streak formation has often been equated with mesoderm
formation. In this work, we demonstrated that the streak is not aprerequisite for gastrulation or mesoderm formation in amniotes.
The potent radial induction of mesoderm throughout the marginalzone following FGF injection, in the absence of a properly formed
streak, revealed that mesoderm and streak formation can be
uncoupled, and that the streak is dispensable for the generation of
mesoderm.
Cells in the induced mesoderm ring could not only express
mesoderm marker genes, but undergo EMT and migration, establish
dorsoventral patterning (Figs 1, 2; supplementary material Fig. S3)
and initiate terminal differentiation (supplementary material Fig.
S5A,B). This supports the hypothesis that the marginal zone inamniotes is evolutionarily homologous to the blastopore inanamniotes and that the streak is a morphogenetic adaptation of theposterior marginal zone (Fig. 4D). Molecular and morphologicalsimilarities observed in a few experimental species, however, should
not be taken as direct evidence for a common evolutionary origin.
Further support for this model would require comparative molecularstudies in diverse non-model vertebrate groups (e.g. urodeles,
caecilians, reptiles and prototherians). Moreover, the observations
that cell movement leading to streak formation differs in mammals
and birds, and that extant reptiles do not have a streak, suggest that
this morphogenetic adaptation is not a conserved feature inamniotes. We propose that during amniote diversification, the streak
evolved secondarily and independently in mammalian and avian
lineages. We also propose that an evolutionarily conserved featureof amniote mesoderm formation is the restriction of the mesoderm
precursor fate to the posterior marginal zone (Fig. 4D).
Tendency for such posterior marginal zone-restricted mesoderm
formation is not limited to anamniote ancestors of amniotes.
Mesoderm precursors, defined by Brachyury expression, areinduced radially in most anamniote species examined so far, but astrong dorsal marginal zone preference has been reported for
mesoderm precursor internalization in dogfish (Sauka-Spengler etal., 2003), axolotl (Shook and Keller, 2008; Swiers et al., 2010) andlamprey (Takeuchi et al., 2009), and to a certain extent suchpreference is also seen in most other anamniote species. Therefore,
the stereotypic, circumblastoporal mode of anamniote mesoderm
formation is evolutionarily prone to morphogenetic modification.
Embryological causes for such modification likely vary in different
vertebrate lineages. In ancestral amniotes, additional lineagespecific adaptations, such as the increase in yolk amount and theneed to form extra-embryonic tissues, may be causally linked to theposterior marginal zone-restriction of mesoderm formation.
Molecular cause for such a restriction is unclear. In the avian
lineage, this can be partially accounted for by a restriction in
mesoderm inducers like FGFs. The FGF molecules, expressedradially in anamniotes, are secreted in chick from asymmetrically
distributed hypoblast cells at HH1 (FGF8 shown in supplementarymaterial Fig. S5C,D) (Streit et al., 2000). The initial radial Wnt
expression in germ wall deep-layer cells is restricted quickly to theposterior marginal zone (supplementary material Fig. S4A,B).
Mutual positive regulation of these two pathways and Brachyury
leads to posterior marginal zone-restricted mesoderm induction. The
fact that co-activation of Wnt and FGF pathways resulted inwidespread Brachyury expression in the epiblast suggests that thesetwo pathways play a major and cooperative role in mesoderm
induction. Interestingly, our data also indicate that the TGFβ
signaling pathway appears to be mainly involved in dorsalizationand EMT. However, it is possible that low levels of TGFβ pathway
activity acts as a permissive signal for mesoderm induction by theother two pathways, and precise molecular mechanism for thisposterior restriction of mesoderm induction may vary among
different amniote lineages.
Although our model predicts that a similar radial mesoderm
induction is possible for mammalian embryos, this has not beentested owing to technical difficulties. Embryo topography ofeutherian mammals has undergone dramatic changes as aconsequence of yolk reduction and placentation. Sources formesoderm-inducing signals may have undergone likewise changes.
Prototherians, the primitive mammals with yolky embryos moresimilar to birds and reptiles than to eutherians, would be an ideal
model for such tests in the future. Despite these differences,
however, an avian-like Brachyury expression has been reported inseveral mammalian species (Guillomot et al., 2004; Hassoun et al.,2009; Tam and Loebel, 2007; Viebahn et al., 2002). Interestingly,
mouse embryos in normal development exhibit weak and transitory
radial expression of Brachyury (Perea-Gomez et al., 2004; RiveraPérez and Magnuson, 2005) and mesoderm fate can be induced
radially in the proximal epiblast margin in mouse mutants with an
AVE migration defect (Ding et al., 1998).
In summary, we have shown that the streak is not a prerequisite
for mesoderm formation in amniotes. Our data reveal a hidden unity
in vertebrate mesoderm induction and suggest that the streak is nota defining feature of amniote mesoderm formation. Because thestreak is an important criterion in ethical debates surrounding theuse and in vitro culture of human stem cells (Daley et al., 2007), theembryological definition and evolutionary significance of the streakdeserve re-evaluation.
Acknowledgements
We thank Drs Kagami and Usui (Shinshu University, Japan) for help with thetechnique shown in supplementary material Fig. S1; and Drs Aizawa andKuratani (RIKEN CDB, Japan), and Dr Du (Hangzhou Normal University, China)
for sharing information on commercial resources of Chinese soft-shell turtle
eggs.
Funding
This work was supported by RIKEN.
Competing interests statement
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Author contributions
C.A. and G.S. designed the experiments; C.A., Y.W., Y.N. and G.S. performed
the experiments; C.A., Y.W., Y.N. and G.S. analyzed the data; C.A. and G.S.
wrote the paper.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material available online at
http://dev.biologists.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1242/dev.094318/-/DC1
References
Acloque, H., Adams, M. S., Fishwick, K., Bronner-Fraser, M. and Nieto, M. A.
(2009). Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions: the importance of changing cellstate in development and disease. J. Clin. Invest. 119, 1438-1449.

DEVELOPMENT

Coolen et al., 2008), were also able to generate an anamniote-like‘circumblastoporal’ Brachyury ring after FGF4 injection (Fig. 4C).

Amaya, E., Musci, T. J. and Kirschner, M. W. (1991). Expression of a dominantnegative mutant of the FGF receptor disrupts mesoderm formation in
Xenopus embryos. Cell 66, 257-270.
Arendt, D. and Nübler-Jung, K. (1999). Rearranging gastrulation in the name ofyolk: evolution of gastrulation in yolk-rich amniote eggs. Mech. Dev. 81, 3-22.
Arnold, S. J. and Robertson, E. J. (2009). Making a commitment: cell lineage
allocation and axis patterning in the early mouse embryo. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell
Biol. 10, 91-103.
Bénazéraf, B., Francois, P., Baker, R. E., Denans, N., Little, C. D. and Pourquié,O. (2010). A random cell motility gradient downstream of FGF controls
elongation of an amniote embryo. Nature 466, 248-252.
Bertocchini, F. and Stern, C. D. (2002). The hypoblast of the chick embryo
positions the primitive streak by antagonizing nodal signaling. Dev. Cell 3, 735744.
Bertocchini, F. and Stern, C. D. (2012). Gata2 provides an early anterior bias anduncovers a global positioning system for polarity in the amniote embryo.
Development 139, 4232-4238.
Bertocchini, F., Skromne, I., Wolpert, L. and Stern, C. D. (2004). Determinationof embryonic polarity in a regulative system: evidence for endogenous
inhibitors acting sequentially during primitive streak formation in the chickembryo. Development 131, 3381-3390.
Bertocchini, F., Alev, C., Nakaya, Y. and Sheng, G. (2013). A little winningstreak: the reptilian-eye view of gastrulation in birds. Dev. Growth Differ. 55, 5259.
Böttcher, R. T. and Niehrs, C. (2005). Fibroblast growth factor signaling during
early vertebrate development. Endocr. Rev. 26, 63-77.
Chambers, D. and Mason, I. (2000). Expression of sprouty2 during early
development of the chick embryo is coincident with known sites of FGF
signalling. Mech. Dev. 91, 361-364.
Chuai, M. and Weijer, C. J. (2008). The mechanisms underlying primitive streak
formation in the chick embryo. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 81, 135-156.
Chuai, M., Zeng, W., Yang, X., Boychenko, V., Glazier, J. A. and Weijer, C. J.
(2006). Cell movement during chick primitive streak formation. Dev. Biol. 296,
137-149.
Coolen, M., Nicolle, D., Plouhinec, J. L., Gombault, A., Sauka-Spengler, T.,
Menuet, A., Pieau, C. and Mazan, S. (2008). Molecular characterization of thegastrula in the turtle Emys orbicularis: an evolutionary perspective on
gastrulation. PLoS ONE 3, e2676.
Daley, G. Q., Ahrlund Richter, L., Auerbach, J. M., Benvenisty, N., Charo, R.
A., Chen, G., Deng, H. K., Goldstein, L. S., Hudson, K. L., Hyun, I. et al.
(2007). Ethics. The ISSCR guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research.
Science 315, 603-604.
Ding, J., Yang, L., Yan, Y. T., Chen, A., Desai, N., Wynshaw-Boris, A. and Shen,
M. M. (1998). Cripto is required for correct orientation of the anterior-posterior
axis in the mouse embryo. Nature 395, 702-707.
Dorey, K. and Amaya, E. (2010). FGF signalling: diverse roles during earlyvertebrate embryogenesis. Development 137, 3731-3742.
Guillomot, M., Turbe, A., Hue, I. and Renard, J. P. (2004). Staging of ovine
embryos and expression of the T-box genes Brachyury and Eomesoderminaround gastrulation. Reproduction 127, 491-501.
Harvey, S. A., Tümpel, S., Dubrulle, J., Schier, A. F. and Smith, J. C. (2010). no
tail integrates two modes of mesoderm induction. Development 137, 11271135.
Hassoun, R., Schwartz, P., Feistel, K., Blum, M. and Viebahn, C. (2009). Axial
differentiation and early gastrulation stages of the pig embryo. Differentiation
78, 301-311.
Kimelman, D. (2006). Mesoderm induction: from caps to chips. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7,
360-372.
Kimelman, D., Abraham, J. A., Haaparanta, T., Palisi, T. M. and Kirschner, M.
W. (1988). The presence of fibroblast growth factor in the frog egg: its role as anatural mesoderm inducer. Science 242, 1053-1056.
Knezevic, V., De Santo, R. and Mackem, S. (1997). Two novel chick T-box genes
related to mouse Brachyury are expressed in different, non-overlapping
mesodermal domains during gastrulation. Development 124, 411-419.
Meinhardt, H. (2006). Primary body axes of vertebrates: generation of a nearCartesian coordinate system and the role of Spemann-type organizer. Dev.
Dyn. 235, 2907-2919.
Mitrani, E., Gruenbaum, Y., Shohat, H. and Ziv, T. (1990). Fibroblast growth
factor during mesoderm induction in the early chick embryo. Development
109, 387-393.
Momose, T., Tonegawa, A., Takeuchi, J., Ogawa, H., Umesono, K. andYasuda, K. (1999). Efficient targeting of gene expression in chick embryos bymicroelectroporation. Dev. Growth Differ. 41, 335-344.
Nagai, H., Mak, S. S., Weng, W., Nakaya, Y., Ladher, R. and Sheng, G. (2011).
Embryonic development of the emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae. Dev. Dyn.
240, 162-175.

Development 140 (13)Nakaya, Y., Sukowati, E. W., Wu, Y. and Sheng, G. (2008). RhoA andmicrotubule dynamics control cell-basement membrane interaction in EMT
during gastrulation. Nat. Cell Biol. 10, 765-775.
Nakazawa, F., Nagai, H., Shin, M. and Sheng, G. (2006). Negative regulation ofprimitive hematopoiesis by the FGF signaling pathway. Blood 108, 3335-3343.
Nieto, M. A., Sargent, M. G., Wilkinson, D. G. and Cooke, J. (1994). Control ofcell behavior during vertebrate development by Slug, a zinc finger gene.
Science 264, 835-839.
Nutt, S. L., Dingwell, K. S., Holt, C. E. and Amaya, E. (2001). Xenopus Sprouty2
inhibits FGF-mediated gastrulation movements but does not affect mesoderm
induction and patterning. Genes Dev. 15, 1152-1166.
Perea-Gomez, A., Camus, A., Moreau, A., Grieve, K., Moneron, G., Dubois,
A., Cibert, C. and Collignon, J. (2004). Initiation of gastrulation in the mouseembryo is preceded by an apparent shift in the orientation of the anteriorposterior axis. Curr. Biol. 14, 197-207.
Petitte, J. N., Clark, M. E., Liu, G., Verrinder Gibbins, A. M. and Etches, R. J.
(1990). Production of somatic and germline chimeras in the chicken bytransfer of early blastodermal cells. Development 108, 185-189.
Rivera-Pérez, J. A. and Magnuson, T. (2005). Primitive streak formation in miceis preceded by localized activation of Brachyury and Wnt3. Dev. Biol. 288, 363371.
Roeser, T., Stein, S. and Kessel, M. (1999). Nuclear beta-catenin and thedevelopment of bilateral symmetry in normal and LiCl-exposed chickembryos. Development 126, 2955-2965.
Sang, H. (2004). Prospects for transgenesis in the chick. Mech. Dev. 121, 1179-1186.
Sauka-Spengler, T., Baratte, B., Lepage, M. and Mazan, S. (2003).
Characterization of Brachyury genes in the dogfish S. canicula and the lamprey
L. fluviatilis. Insights into gastrulation in a chondrichthyan. Dev. Biol. 263, 296307.
Shin, M., Nagai, H. and Sheng, G. (2009). Notch mediates Wnt and BMP signals
in the early separation of smooth muscle progenitors and blood/endothelial
common progenitors. Development 136, 595-603.
Shook, D. R. and Keller, R. (2008). Epithelial type, ingression, blastopore
architecture and the evolution of chordate mesoderm morphogenesis. J. Exp.
Zool. B 310B, 85-110.
Skromne, I. and Stern, C. D. (2001). Interactions between Wnt and Vg1
signalling pathways initiate primitive streak formation in the chick embryo.
Development 128, 2915-2927.
Slack, J. M., Darlington, B. G., Heath, J. K. and Godsave, S. F. (1987).
Mesoderm induction in early Xenopus embryos by heparin-binding growth
factors. Nature 326, 197-200.
Solnica-Krezel, L. (2005). Conserved patterns of cell movements duringvertebrate gastrulation. Curr. Biol. 15, R213-R228.
Stern, C. D. (1992). Mesoderm induction and development of the embryonicaxis in amniotes. Trends Genet. 8, 158-163.
Stern, C. D. (1998). Detection of multiple gene products simultaneously by insitu hybridization and immunohistochemistry in whole mounts of avian
embryos. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 36, 223-243.
Stern, C. D. (2004). Gastrulation: From Cells to Embryo. Cold Spring Harbor, NY:
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.
Streit, A., Berliner, A. J., Papanayotou, C., Sirulnik, A. and Stern, C. D. (2000).
Initiation of neural induction by FGF signalling before gastrulation. Nature 406,
74-78.
Swiers, G., Chen, Y. H., Johnson, A. D. and Loose, M. (2010). A conserved
mechanism for vertebrate mesoderm specification in urodele amphibians andmammals. Dev. Biol. 343, 138-152.
Takeuchi, M., Takahashi, M., Okabe, M. and Aizawa, S. (2009). Germ layer
patterning in bichir and lamprey; an insight into its evolution in vertebrates.
Dev. Biol. 332, 90-102.
Tam, P. P. and Loebel, D. A. (2007). Gene function in mouse embryogenesis: getset for gastrulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 368-381.
van de Lavoir, M. C., Diamond, J. H., Leighton, P. A., Mather-Love, C., Heyer,
B. S., Bradshaw, R., Kerchner, A., Hooi, L. T., Gessaro, T. M., Swanberg, S. E.
et al. (2006). Germline transmission of genetically modified primordial germ
cells. Nature 441, 766-769.
Viebahn, C., Stortz, C., Mitchell, S. A. and Blum, M. (2002). Low proliferativeand high migratory activity in the area of Brachyury expressing mesoderm
progenitor cells in the gastrulating rabbit embryo. Development 129, 23552365.
Voiculescu, O., Bertocchini, F., Wolpert, L., Keller, R. E. and Stern, C. D.
(2007). The amniote primitive streak is defined by epithelial cell intercalation
before gastrulation. Nature 449, 1049-1052.
Williams, M., Burdsal, C., Periasamy, A., Lewandoski, M. and Sutherland, A.
(2012). Mouse primitive streak forms in situ by initiation of epithelial tomesenchymal transition without migration of a cell population. Dev. Dyn. 241,270-283.

DEVELOPMENT

2696 RESEARCH REPORT