Divergent roles for Eph and ephrin in avian cranial neural crest

Abstract

Background. As in other vertebrates, avian hindbrain neural crest migrates in streams to specific branchial arches. Signalling from Eph receptors and ephrins has been proposed to provide a molecular mechanism that guides the cells restricting them to streams. In mice and frogs, cranial neural crest express a combination of Eph receptors and ephrins that appear to exclude cells from adjacent tissues by forward and reverse signalling. The objective of this study was to provide comparative data on the distribution and function of Eph receptors and ephrins in avian embryos. Results. To distinguish neural crest from bordering ectoderm and head mesenchyme, we have co-labelled embryos for Eph or ephrin RNA and a neural crest marker protein. Throughout their migration avian cranial neural crest cells express EphA3, EphA4, EphA7, EphB1, and EphB3 and move along pathways bordered by non-neural crest cells expressing ephrin-B1. In addition, avian cranial neural crest cells express ephrin-B2 and migrate along pathways bordered by non-neural crest cells expressing EphB2. Thus, the distribution of avian Eph receptors and ephrins differs from those reported in other vertebrates. In stripe assays when explanted cranial neural crest were given the choice between FN or FN plus clustered ephrin-B1 or EphB2 fusion protein, the cells strongly localize to lanes containing only FN. This preference is mitigated in the presence of soluble ephrin-B1 or EphB2 fusion protein. Conclusion. These findings show that avian cranial neural crest use Eph and ephrin receptors as other vertebrates in guiding migration. However, the Eph receptors are expressed in different combinations by neural crest destined for each branchial arch and ephrin-B1 and ephrin-B2 appear to have opposite roles to those reported to guide cranial neural crest migration in mice. Unlike many of the signalling, specification, and effector pathways of neural crest, the roles of Eph receptors and ephrins have not been rigorously conserved. This suggests diversification of receptor and ligand expression is less constrained, possibly by promiscuous binding and use of common downstream pathways. © 2008 Mellott and Burke; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.