Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2025 Jun 23;21(6):e1011747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011747

A genetic modifier links integrin α5 to the phenotypic variation in fibronectin 1a mutant zebrafish

Samuel J Capon 1,2,3,*, Anastasia Maroufidou 1,2, McKenna Feltes 4, Yanli Xu 1,2,3, Darpan Kaur Matharoo 1,2, Dörthe Jülich 5, Scott A Holley 5, Steven A Farber 4, Didier Y R Stainier 1,2,3,*
Editor: Ophir Klein6
PMCID: PMC12212883  PMID: 40549824

Abstract

Phenotypic variation is often observed in individuals with the same mutation. However, the mechanisms that contribute to this variation remain largely unknown. Fibronectin mutants in both mouse and zebrafish fail to form a functional cardiovascular system, although the penetrance and expressivity of this phenotype vary depending on the genetic background. Here we investigate the variation of the zebrafish natter phenotype, which is caused by a nonsense mutation in fibronectin 1a (fn1a). natter/fn1a mutants exhibit incompletely penetrant cardia bifida, a phenotype caused by the failure of cardiac progenitors to migrate to the midline. To examine whether this variation is related to the nonsense mutation, we first generated a large deletion in fn1a that removes the proximal promoter and first 17 exons. Characterisation of this allele found that mutants display variable cardiac phenotypes indistinguishable from those observed in natter/fn1a mutants. As phenotypic variation is often associated with changes in paralogous gene expression, we next examined the expression of the fn1a paralogue, fn1b, and observed its upregulation specifically in the natter/fn1a mutants that exhibit a severe phenotype. However, overexpression and double mutant analyses suggest that fn1b expression levels do not modulate the natter/fn1a mutant phenotype. During these studies, we observed a small proportion of natter/fn1a mutants with a wild-type (WT)-like phenotype. Selectively raising WT looking mutant larvae increased the proportion of natter/fn1a mutants displaying the WT-like phenotype from 1.7% to 38.6% in just three generations, indicating the selection of a genetic modifier of the mutant phenotype. We mapped this modifier to the integrin alpha 5 (itgα5) locus through whole-genome sequencing. Furthermore, we found that manipulating itgα5 expression influenced the severity of the fn1a mutant phenotype, and that the variance in itgα5 expression was increased in fn1a mutants exhibiting a severe phenotype. Taken together, these results indicate that itgα5 modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype.

Author summary

Recent studies have identified apparently healthy individuals with mutations that would be expected to lead to disease. Why these individuals are disease resistant is not understood. Studies in zebrafish and other organisms have revealed that environmental factors, stochastic fluctuations in gene expression, and genetic modifiers can contribute to such phenotypic variation. However, the precise mechanisms underlying phenotypic variation are likely unique to each mutation. Here, we present an analysis of zebrafish natter/fibronectin 1a (fn1a) mutants. These mutants display variable cardiac, brain, and somite defects. Fibronectin mutants in mouse display similar phenotypes, and compelling evidence that they are affected by a genetic modifier has been reported. We find that the zebrafish natter/fn1a mutant phenotype is dependent on developmental temperature, a genetic modifier, and an age-dependent parental factor. Using a simple breeding strategy, we selected for mutants that display milder phenotypes. Coupling selection with whole-genome sequencing, we mapped a genetic modifier to the integrin alpha 5 (itgα5) gene, the primary receptor for Fibronectin. Further analyses of itgα5 expression in fn1a mutants and manipulating itgα5 expression in fn1a mutants indicate that itgα5 modifies the natter/fn1a mutant phenotype. The results presented here provide new insights into the mechanisms regulating phenotypic variation in natter/fn1a mutants.

Introduction

Phenotypic variability, the propensity of a phenotype to vary, and phenotypic variation, the actual differences observed [1], are commonly reported in the characterisation of mutant phenotypes. However, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. Phenotypic variation can manifest itself as incomplete penetrance, where a proportion of mutants do not display the phenotype, as well as variable expressivity, where the strength of the phenotype varies between individual mutants [2]. In the most extreme cases, identical mutations can vary in their effect, from being lethal in one individual to having no observable effect in another. In line with this idea, recent studies have identified mutations that would be expected to give rise to severe and fully-penetrant disorders in apparently healthy humans [3,4]. How these individuals, nicknamed the superheroes of disease resistance [5], achieve this remarkable feat is unknown. Additional analyses have estimated that every human genome harbours approximately 100 loss-of-function (LoF) mutations leading to the complete inactivation of approximately 20 genes [4, 6], suggesting that disease resistance may be more widespread than previously appreciated. Consistent with this thinking, it was recently reported that the mean penetrance of over 5000 dominant, LoF, pathogenic variants is as low as 6.9% [7]. These findings highlight the importance of studying the mechanisms underlying phenotypic variation in order to better understand the genotype–phenotype relationships.

The mechanisms contributing to phenotypic variation are likely diverse and potentially specific to each pathogenic variant; and therefore, detailed studies in suitable model systems are needed. Zebrafish have been used extensively to study early development owing to their high fecundity, facile genetics, optical transparency, and ex utero development. These characteristics, as well as the heterogeneity of the zebrafish genome [8,9], also lend themselves to studying phenotypic variation. Previous work in zebrafish and other organisms have revealed that genetic modifiers, stochastic fluctuations in gene expression, and environmental factors contribute to phenotypic variation [1015]. A common theme emerging from this work is that variable paralogous gene expression is linked to phenotypic variation. An intuitive interpretation is that upregulation of functionally related genes compensates for the mutated gene [16,17].

The early embryonic heart is composed of two cell types, the inner endocardial cells and the outer myocardial cells, with the myocardium powering the rhythmic contractions of the heart [18]. During vertebrate development, cardiac progenitors are bilaterally localised in the lateral margins of the anterior lateral plate mesoderm and migrate to the midline to form the linear heart tube [1923]. Fibronectin is a large extracellular matrix protein involved in a number of developmental and regenerative processes [2434]. In zebrafish, Fibronectin is encoded by the fibronectin 1a (fn1a) and fibronectin 1b (fn1b) genes owing to the teleost specific whole-genome duplication [35,36]. fn1a is expressed in endocardial precursors during cardiac progenitor cell migration in zebrafish [37,38] and is required for myocardial cell migration to the midline, with natter/fn1atl43c mutants displaying a cardia bifida phenotype [25,28]. However, the penetrance of the cardia bifida phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c mutants is variable, with developmental temperature and genetic background altering the phenotype [25,28]. No defects have been observed in fn1b mutants, suggesting that it is dispensable for development [39]. However, fn1a; fn1b double mutants display a more severe phenotype than fn1a single mutants, suggesting that fn1b can, at least partially, compensate for fn1a function and vice versa [39]. Cells interact with Fibronectin through Integrin receptors on their cell surface, and the Itgα5/Itgβ1 heterodimer is the primary Fibronectin receptor [40]. The integrin alpha 5 (itgα5) gene is expressed in both the developing endocardium and myocardium in zebrafish [41]. Although itgα5 mutants do not display cardia bifida, itgα5; itgα4 double mutants do, with variable penetrance and expressivity [41], similar to natter/fn1atl43c mutants. Altogether, these studies indicate that, in zebrafish, Fibronectin signalling through integrin receptors is required for myocardial cell migration to the midline.

Similar findings have been reported in rodent models: Fibronectin 1 (Fn1) is expressed in endocardial progenitors in rat embryos [42] and mouse mutants display a variable cardia bifida phenotype [24,43,44]. Moreover, Fn1 mutant mice on the 129/Sv genetic background display a severe phenotype, and yet the same mutant allele on a C57BL/6J background displays only mild defects [43]. Further examination of the cardiac phenotype in mouse identified a locus on chromosome 4 linked to the severity of the myocardial migration defect [44], suggestive of a genetic modifier of the Fn1 mutant phenotype. However, the precise variant and underlying mechanisms remain unknown.

Based on all these findings, we hypothesised that a genetic modifier influences the penetrance and expressivity of the cardia bifida phenotype in zebrafish natter/fn1atl43c mutants. Here, we first report that the variation of the fn1a mutant phenotype is regulated by developmental temperature, genetic modifiers, and an age-dependent parental factor. We then used a simple breeding strategy to select for genetic modifiers of the fn1a mutant phenotype, and whole-genome sequencing analysis led to the identification of a modifier in the itgα5 locus. Additional data further indicate that itgα5 modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype, with increased variance in itgα5 expression observed in fn1a mutants with a more severe phenotype.

Results

natter/fn1atl43c mutants display a variable cardiac phenotype

To investigate the variable phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c mutants, we first performed in situ hybridisation (ISH) on 24 hours post fertilisation (hpf) embryos from single pair heterozygous intercrosses with a myl7 probe to label the cardiomyocytes. Wild-type (WT) siblings form a linear heart tube as expected, whereas natter/fn1atl43c mutants display variable cardiac phenotypes (Fig 1A). The most severe phenotype observed was cardia bifida, whereby the myocardial progenitors fail to migrate to the midline. However, we also observed mutants where the myocardial progenitors had fused at the midline. We further classified these mutants according to whether the fused progenitors formed a symmetric or asymmetric structure. The symmetric phenotype more closely resembles the cardiac disc structure observed in WT embryos at an earlier stage, suggesting that the migration and cohesion of myocardial progenitors is less affected in these embryos, although further analysis would be needed to test this hypothesis. Surprisingly, 6/41 mutant embryos formed a linear heart tube indistinguishable from that of WT siblings (Fig 1A and 1B). Comparison of the cardiac phenotype in four natter/fn1atl43c clutches revealed significant variation in both penetrance and expressivity (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. natter/fn1atl43c mutants display a variable cardiac phenotype.

Fig 1

(A) In situ hybridisation with the myocardial marker myl7 was performed on 24 hpf natter/fn1atl43c mutant embryos and WT siblings from four single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercrosses. The proportion of embryos matching the image shown is indicated in the top right corner of each image. The remaining 6/41 mutant embryos displayed a linear heart tube phenotype as noted in (B). Dorsal views are shown with anterior to the top. (B) Quantification of the 24 hpf myocardial migration phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c mutants and WT siblings shown in (A). (C) Representative images of a 100 hpf homozygous WT sibling as well as a WT-like, a mild, and a severe natter/fn1atl43c mutant larva from a single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercross. Lateral views are shown with anterior to the left. The mild mutant phenotype is distinguishable by mild pericardial oedema (white arrowhead). The severe mutant phenotype is distinguishable by a small head, pronounced pericardial oedema, and disorganised trunk muscle fibres (white arrows). (D) Confocal images of three hearts representative of each phenotype were selected from imaging 12 WT-like, 6 mild, and 6 severe Tg(myl7:EGFP) mutants from a single pair natter/fn1atl43c mutant incross at 100 hpf. For the fn1a+/+ and fn1a+/tl43c siblings, referred to collectively as fn1a+/?, three representative images were selected from imaging 12 WT fn1a+/? siblings from a single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercross at 100 hpf. (E) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c mutants and WT siblings from three single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercrosses. The numbers on each bar in (B) and (E) indicate the total number of larvae assessed. All p-values were calculated using chi-squared tests. Scale bars, 100 µm in (A) and (D), and 1 mm in (C).

As this analysis identified mutant embryos with a linear heart tube, we next examined whether mutant larvae could develop a fully functional heart. To this aim, we intercrossed heterozygous natter/fn1atl43c zebrafish and raised the embryos at 28.5°C. Gross phenotypic analysis of mutant larvae at 100 hpf identified significant phenotypic variation (Fig 1C). Most natter/fn1atl43c mutants developed a severe phenotype consisting of pronounced pericardial oedema, a small head, and disorganised trunk muscle fibres (white arrows, Fig 1C). However, some mutants developed a milder phenotype where the only distinguishing feature was a less pronounced pericardial oedema (white arrowhead, Fig 1C). Again, we noted that a small proportion of mutants displayed a phenotype that was nearly identical to that of WT siblings. We were able to raise most of these WT looking mutants to adulthood under standard conditions and without any intervention. These mutant adults did not display any overt defects and were fertile. To further analyse these phenotypes, we imaged the hearts of mutants displaying the WT-like phenotype as well as those displaying a mild or a severe phenotype, as defined by the extent of pericardial oedema, from a Tg(myl7:EGFP); natter/fn1atl43c mutant incross at 100 hpf. For comparison, we also imaged WT siblings from a natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercross at the same stage. The expressivity of the cardiac phenotypes varied considerably (Fig 1D). Most WT looking mutants displayed subtle morphological defects in the heart, specifically in the outer curvature of the ventricle, as well as in the size and shape of the atrium. Mild mutants exhibited more pronounced cardiac defects, while severe mutants developed the stringy heart phenotype associated with pronounced pericardial oedema. Quantification of the 100 hpf mutant phenotype from three clutches revealed significant variation in both penetrance and expressivity (Fig 1E), as previously noted for the 24 hpf phenotype.

fn1abns692 mutants also display a variable cardiac phenotype

natter/fn1atl43c mutants harbour a nonsense mutation in the second exon of the fn1a gene, which is predicted to lead to nonsense-mediated decay. Recent results from our lab and others have found that mutations that lead to premature termination codons can activate genetic compensation via a protein-independent mechanism known as transcriptional adaptation (TA) [4547]. In an attempt to avoid TA in this study, we generated a large deletion in the fn1a locus that removes the proximal promoter as well as the first 17 exons (Figs 2A, and S1), hereafter referred to as the fn1abns692 allele. The expression of fn1a in fn1abns692 mutants relative to WT siblings is just 0.5 ± 0.07% (S2A–C Fig), compared with natter/fn1atl43c mutants where the relative expression is 25.4 ± 1.1% of WT siblings (S2G–I Fig). However, although we were unable to detect fn1a expression in 5/12 bns692 mutant larvae examined using a primer pair inside the deleted region, and the remaining 7/12 mutant larvae displayed Cq values higher than those of no RT controls (S2D Fig), two primer pairs outside the deleted region consistently detected low levels of transcripts from the intact exons (S2E and S2F Fig). These results suggest that the fn1abns692 allele is not a completely RNA-less allele and could therefore still trigger TA. However, any protein produced from this allele would lack the signal peptide as well as the N-terminal 70 kDa fragment that plays important roles in cell and protein interactions [40], likely resulting in a non-functional protein if translated. We next examined the phenotype in fn1abns692 mutants by ISH at 24 hpf with a myl7 probe as well as by gross phenotypic analysis at 100 hpf, and found that fn1abns692 mutants phenocopy natter/fn1atl43c mutants, including the variable penetrance and expressivity (Fig 2BD).

Fig 2. fn1abns692 mutants also display a variable cardiac phenotype.

Fig 2

(A) Schematic showing the WT, natter/tl43c, and bns692 fn1a alleles. Exons (n = 46) are indicated by black boxes. The start codons are represented by a green triangle and the stop codons by a red octagon. (B) In situ hybridisation with the myocardial marker myl7 was performed on 24 hpf fn1abns692 mutant embryos and WT siblings from four single pair fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses. The proportion of embryos matching the image shown is indicated in the top right corner of each image. The remaining 5/49 mutant embryos displayed a linear heart tube phenotype as noted in (C). Dorsal views are shown with anterior to the top. (C) Quantification of the 24 hpf myocardial migration phenotype in fn1abns692 mutants and WT siblings shown in (B). (D) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in fn1abns692 mutants and WT siblings from three single pair fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses. The numbers on each bar in (C) and (D) indicate the total number of larvae assessed. All p-values were calculated using chi-squared tests. Scale bars, 100 µm.

fn1b expression levels correlate with the severity of the fn1a mutant cardiac phenotype

Recent studies have shown that paralogous gene expression is linked to phenotypic variation in zebrafish and other species [1015]. Zebrafish possess two fibronectin genes, fn1a and fn1b. To examine fn1b expression in fn1a mutants, we first performed RT-qPCR for fn1b in fn1a mutants as well as WT siblings collected from natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses at the protruding mouth stage (72 hpf). We observed a clear upregulation of fn1b in fn1a mutants with the severe phenotype for both the natter/tl43c and bns692 alleles relative to their homozygous WT siblings (Fig 3A). Notably, we never observed fn1b upregulation in mutant larvae with a WT-like phenotype, or even a mild phenotype. To examine the spatial pattern of this upregulation, we performed ISH with an fn1b probe in protruding mouth stage fn1abns692 mutants and homozygous WT siblings (Fig 3B and 3C). This analysis revealed, in a subset of mutants, a clear upregulation of fn1b expression over the yolk, where fn1b is expressed in WT siblings, as well as ectopic expression in the cardiac region, where fn1b expression was not observed in WT siblings. To further examine fn1b expression in the heart, we dissected fn1abns692 mutant larvae at the protruding mouth stage and pooled the hearts of mutant larvae displaying the WT-like and mild phenotypes together, and hearts of mutant larvae displaying the severe phenotype in a separate pool. We also collected the remaining bodies from these dissections for comparison. RT-qPCR analysis revealed similar fn1b upregulation in both the hearts and bodies of severe mutants from three independent single pair fn1abns692 homozygous incrosses (S3F Fig). These results confirm that fn1b is upregulated in the heart of severe mutants.

Fig 3. fn1b expression levels correlate with the severity of the natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 mutant cardiac phenotype.

Fig 3

(A) fn1b mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in individual 72 hpf protruding mouth stage larvae collected from single pair natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. Eight clutches were examined for each allele from experiments described in S2 and S4 Figs. (B, C) In situ hybridisation for fn1b was performed on 72 hpf larvae from two single pair fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses. The proportion of larvae matching the image shown is indicated in the top right corner of each image. (B) Lateral views with anterior to the left. (C) Ventral views with anterior to the top. (D) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in mutant larvae injected with 350 pg fn1b mRNA and uninjected controls from five single pair fn1abns692 mutant incrosses. (E) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in fn1abns692; fn1bya14Tg mutants and siblings from three single pair fn1abns692; fn1bya14Tg double heterozygous intercrosses. The numbers on each bar in (D) and (E) indicate the total number of larvae assessed. For (A), p-values were calculated by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons; for (D), p-values were calculated with chi-squared tests; and for (E), p-values were calculated by Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Scale bars, 1 mm in (B) and 100 µm in (C).

To investigate whether the upregulation of fn1b drives the severe mutant phenotype, we next injected fn1b mRNA into 1-cell stage embryos from single pair natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 homozygous mutant incrosses. For comparison, we also injected fn1a mRNA. Injection of either fn1b or fn1a significantly rescued the mutant phenotype in both the natter/tl43c and bns692 alleles (Figs 3D and S3A–C). Furthermore, injecting fn1a mRNA also normalised the upregulation of fn1b observed in fn1abns692 mutants (S3D and S3E Fig), suggesting that the upregulation of fn1b in fn1a mutants is a result of the loss of Fn1a protein. We then crossed the fn1abns692 allele to the fn1bya14Tg allele [34,39] and examined the phenotype of double mutant larvae and siblings from fn1abns692; fn1bya14Tg double heterozygous intercrosses. This analysis found that even a single copy of the fn1b mutant allele significantly increased the severity of the fn1a mutant phenotype (Fig 3E), while two copies of the fn1b mutant allele did not further increase this phenotypic severity. Taken together, these results indicate that while fn1b is specifically upregulated in fn1a mutants with the severe phenotype, this upregulation is not the cause of the increased severity.

The phenotypic variation of fn1a mutants is determined by developmental temperature, a genetic modifier, and an age-dependent parental factor

The penetrance of the cardia bifida phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c mutants has been reported to be dependent on developmental temperature and genetic background [25,28]. To investigate the effect of temperature, we conducted single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercrosses and raised the embryos at 28.5°C. At the bud stage (10 hpf), we shifted one dish of embryos from each clutch to 22°C, another to 32°C, and left a third dish at 28.5°C. We phenotyped the larvae once they reached the equivalent of a 100 hpf stage larva raised at 28.5°C, and collected them for genotyping. In line with the previous reports, we observed that mutant larvae displayed a more severe phenotype with increasing temperature in all clutches examined for both the natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 alleles (S4A and S4B Fig). However, this increase in severity reached statistical significance in only one of the three clutches examined, likely due to the low number of mutants obtained.

We next examined the hypothesis that the temperature sensitivity is due to increased mRNA levels of the mutated gene at lower temperatures (e.g., from increased stability) by repeating the temperature shift experiment and collecting larvae at the protruding mouth stage (i.e., 72 hpf when raised at 28.5°C) for RT-qPCR analysis. While we observed statistically significant changes in fn1a mRNA levels relative to WT siblings for both the natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 alleles (S4CH Fig and S1 Table), these changes were small and inconsistent between alleles, and thus unlikely to explain the phenotypic variation (20.2% ± 0.4% at 22°C, 19.7% ± 0.9% at 28.5°C, 17.6% ± 0.7% at 32°C, for natter/fn1atl43c mutants; 0.4% ± 0.04% at 22°C, 0.6% ± 0.04% at 28.5°C, 0.9% ± 0.1% at 32°C, for fn1abns692 mutants).

We next tested whether we could breed for the WT-like mutant phenotype using a simple survival strategy (Fig 4A). We initially took advantage of the temperature sensitivity to generate F1 populations of mutant adults for each allele. F1 mutant adults were then incrossed and the progeny raised at 28.5°C to minimise the effect of temperature in all subsequent experiments. At 100 hpf, the larvae were phenotyped according to our previously established criteria (Fig 1). We did not observe differences between the zygotic and maternal zygotic phenotypes; however, we did observe a small proportion of WT looking mutant larvae at 100 hpf, as noted previously (Figs 1E and 2D). We raised these WT looking F2 mutant larvae in our aquarium under standard conditions to generate F2 mutant adults. Incrossing F2 mutants and raising the progeny at 28.5°C increased the proportion of mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype from 1.7% in F1 to 8.9% in F2 natter/fn1atl43c incrosses (Fig 4A), and from 6.1% in F1 to 6.9% in F2 fn1abns692 incrosses (Fig 4A). Repeating this experiment with F3 mutants increased the proportion of mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype to 25.6% in natter/fn1atl43c incrosses and 16.8% in fn1abns692 incrosses. We also applied additional selection pressure to a separate population of F3 natter/fn1atl43c mutant larvae by shifting the temperature to 32°C during development and raising the WT looking mutant larvae as before. Incrossing these F3 [32°C] mutant adults further increased the proportion of mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype to 38.6% (Fig 4A). These data indicate that one can rapidly select for genetic modifiers of the fn1a mutant phenotype using a simple survival strategy.

Fig 4. A genetic modifier links itgα5 to the phenotypic variation in fn1a mutants.

Fig 4

(A) Outline of the breeding scheme to select fn1a mutants that display milder phenotypes. Multi-pair mutant incrosses were performed and the embryos raised at 28.5°C. Larvae were phenotyped at 100 hpf and the WT looking larvae raised to establish the next generation. Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c (A’) and fn1abns692 (A”) mutants from single pair mutant incrosses over 3 generations. natter/fn1atl43c F3 [28.5°C] and F3 [32°C] zebrafish were raised during development at 28.5°C and 32°C, respectively. (B) Outline of the breeding strategy used to map the genetic modifier in natter/fn1atl43c mutants, see materials and methods for a detailed description. A single dominant linkage peak was identified on chromosome 23 (B’) mapping to the itgα5 locus (B”). 4 additional peaks with a SNP index ≥0.5 were identified on chromosomes 1, 3, and 23 (B’). (C) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and 1 ng itgα5 MO injected mutant larvae from five single pair fn1abns692 mutant incrosses. (D) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and 250 pg itgα5 mRNA injected mutant larvae from five single pair fn1abns692 mutant incrosses. The numbers on each bar in (C) and (D) indicate the total number of larvae assessed. (E) itgα5 mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in individual 72 hpf protruding mouth stage larvae collected from single pair natter/fn1atl43c and fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. Eight clutches were examined for each allele from experiments described in S2 and S4 Figs. (E’) The data from (E) are displayed with a shortened Y-axis to show the increased variance in itgα5 mRNA levels in severe mutants. For (C) and (D), p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test; and for (A) p-values were calculated by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons.

In addition, while incrossing F3 natter/fn1atl43c mutants, we noted that the penetrance and expressivity of the mutant phenotype varied from week-to-week in repeated incrosses of the same mating pair (S5 Fig). With increasing age, five out of the eleven analysed pairs displayed a consistent decline in the proportion of mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype. Although the other six pairs did not follow a consistent decline, they did follow the same general trend with more severe phenotypic outcomes observed in the progeny of older zebrafish. Taken together, these results reveal that the variation of the fn1a mutant phenotype is complex, being determined by a combination of developmental temperature, genetic modifiers, and age-dependent parental factors.

A genetic modifier links itgα5 to the phenotypic variation in fn1a mutants

To identify genetic modifiers of the fn1a mutant phenotype, we first incrossed a single pair of the F2 natter/fn1atl43c mutant zebrafish described in Fig 4A and raised the embryos at room temperature. The WT looking larvae from this incross were raised under standard conditions to generate a mapping population of 18 F3 natter/fn1atl43c mutant adult zebrafish descendent from a single F2 mating pair, thereby minimising the number of alleles in this population. This F3 population was separated by sex and placed in groups of 3–4 zebrafish resulting in two groups of males and three groups of females. Each group was housed separately over the course of the experiment. A round-robin breeding scheme was used whereby each group of males was set up with each group of females in multi-pair matings over three successive weeks to ensure that the embryos were collected from as many different animals as possible. From each clutch, we collected 100 embryos at 10 hpf as controls, as well as all of the mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype at 100 hpf (Fig 4B). DNA was extracted from these populations and equal proportions from each clutch were combined to generate 1) a control sample that could serve to estimate allele frequencies in this mutant population, and 2) a WT-like sample to examine which variants were enriched in mutants displaying the WT-like phenotype. We then used the WheresWalker mapping pipeline [48] to identify the loci under selection in the mutants displaying the WT-like phenotype.

This analysis identified five peaks with a SNP index ≥ 0.5, indicating linkage to the WT-like mutant phenotype (Fig 4B). Two peaks were found on chromosome 1 (14.44 - 25.81 Mbp, maximum SNP index = 0.68; 38.58 - 53.21 Mbp, maximum SNP index = 0.68); a single peak on chromosome 3 (43.82 - 47.49 Mbp, maximum SNP index = 1.16); and two peaks on chromosome 23 (6.65 - 13.96 Mbp, maximum SNP index = 1.78; 29.69 - 36.77 Mbp, maximum SNP index = 3.09). The linkage peak on chromosome 23 between 29.69 - 36.77 Mbp had the highest SNP index and was prioritised for further analysis. We examined the genes in this region and found that the peak was centred on the itgα5 locus (Fig 4B), and that there were 75,138 unique variants in this region (S2 Table). We next used Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor [49] to predict the consequences of each variant. This analysis found that 74,132 of these variants were associated exclusively with non-coding sequences; 638 variants were associated with both non-coding and coding sequences; and just 368 variants were associated exclusively with coding sequences. Most variants were biallelic, although we also detected some loci with 3 variants, suggesting that there were at least 3 alleles in our mapping population. We focused on the coding variants in itgα5 given its relationship with Fn1 signalling. 16 variants were identified in the itgα5 coding sequence; however, just 3 of these lead to non-synonymous changes (Q619R; H848Q; T923S) and none are predicted to significantly impact protein function based on their SIFT score [50]. Each of these 3 non-synonymous variants was detected in the control sample, with the WT-like mutant sample homozygous for the reference allele. The allele frequency was similar for each of these variants suggesting that it is possible, although unlikely, that all 3 of these variants were in the same allele.

This result prompted us to test the hypothesis that itgα5 expression modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype. To this end, we utilised a previously published itgα5 morpholino oligonucleotide (MO) [51]. WT larvae injected with 5 ng of itgα5 MO failed to inflate their swim bladder, developed craniofacial defects and pericardial oedema (white arrowheads, S6A Fig), and displayed defects in somitogenesis (S6B Fig), all consistent with the published mutant phenotypes [51]. By contrast, injecting just 1 ng of itgα5 MO did not lead to observable defects in the majority of larvae, although a small proportion developed U-shaped somites similar to those observed in itgα5 mutants (white arrows, S6B Fig). As injecting 1 ng of itgα5 MO had little effect on cardiac development, we repeated these injections in embryos from single pair fn1abns692 homozygous mutant incrosses to examine whether a reduction in Itgα5 expression could modify the fn1a mutant phenotype. We observed a statistically significant increase in the severity of the mutant phenotype in 4/5 clutches examined, with the severity of the fn1a mutant phenotype also increasing in the 5th clutch without reaching statistical significance (Fig 4C).

We next injected 250 pg of itgα5 mRNA into embryos from single pair fn1abns692 homozygous mutant incrosses to examine whether itgα5 overexpression could modify the fn1a mutant phenotype. We observed a statistically significant decrease in the severity of the mutant phenotype in 3/5 clutches examined, with the severity of the fn1a mutant phenotype also decreasing in the remaining clutches without reaching statistical significance (Fig 4D). In addition, we examined itgα5 mRNA levels by RT-qPCR in the same samples used to examine fn1b expression in Fig 3A. We did not observe a significant change in overall expression levels of itgα5 in fn1a mutants with the severe phenotype (Fig 4E). However, further examination of these data revealed increased variance in the mutants with the severe phenotype relative to the WT-like and mild phenotypes (itgα5 expression variance in WT looking mutants = 0.12; in mild mutants = 0.01; and in severe mutants = 0.81) (Fig 4E). Taken together, these results indicate that itgα5 modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype, with increased variance in itgα5 mRNA levels associated with increased severity.

Discussion

Our analysis of fn1a mutant zebrafish found that the phenotypic variation observed in these animals is determined by developmental temperature, genetic modifiers, and age-dependent parental factors. To gain a mechanistic understanding of how these factors influence the fn1a mutant phenotype, we focused on the role of genetic modifiers. Linkage analysis identified a strong peak centred on the itgα5 locus, and data from partial knockdown of Itgα5 as well as itgα5 mRNA overexpression indicate that itgα5 expression modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype. Furthermore, our expression analysis revealed that increased variance in itgα5 mRNA levels is associated with the more severe fn1a mutant phenotype.

To our knowledge, the mechanisms that regulate temperature sensitive phenotypes in zebrafish remain largely unknown. Interestingly, the fn1abns692 allele appeared to be less sensitive to a change in temperature from 28.5°C to 32°C in all three clutches. These results suggest that the temperature sensitivity of these alleles may be influenced by the specific mutation, although further experiments are needed with larger sample sizes to address this observation. We did not observe consistent changes in fn1a mRNA levels for either allele over the temperatures examined in our experiments, suggesting that some other parameter(s) causes the temperature sensitivity of fn1a mutants, e.g., changes in the expression or function of other genes and/or proteins. Heat-shock proteins are a promising candidate in this context. One hypothesis suggests that these proteins are diverted from their usual role in buffering against cryptic genetic variation [52, 53] to manage increased protein misfolding during the heat-shock response [54], thereby revealing cryptic variants that alter the mutant phenotype. However, it is also possible that heat-shock proteins modify the fn1a mutant phenotype by regulating the expression and/or function of genes/proteins involved in the compensatory response directly, or even that heat-shock proteins do not play a role in the temperature sensitivity of the mutant phenotype. Interestingly, it has also been found that in zebrafish, a hypomorphic s1pr2 mutant as well as gata5 and mixl1 morphants display temperature sensitive cardia bifida phenotypes associated with changes in the expression of genes encoding extracellular matrix components, including fn1a [55]. These results suggest that myocardial cell migration in zebrafish is an inherently temperature dependent process, although the exact mechanism remains unclear.

Similarly, while we found that the fn1a phenotype is altered by age-related parental factors, little is known about the impact of parental age on mutant phenotypes in zebrafish. An age-dependent phenotype has been reported for the janus mutant [56, 57], and it is likely that many more remain unreported. Interestingly, the janus mutant phenotype is also temperature dependent, suggesting a possible mechanistic link between temperature sensitivity and the impact of parental age on mutant phenotypes. One hypothesis is that the maternally derived yolk may be affected by age. The yolk-syncytial layer (YSL) has previously been found to influence myocardial cell migration, at least in part through the regulation of Fibronectin expression and extracellular matrix assembly [5860]. Furthermore, small heat-shock proteins are expressed in the YSL [61] and YSL specific depletion of these proteins leads to a variable cardia bifida phenotype [61, 62]. Despite these observations, further experiments are clearly needed to address how parental age, and developmental temperature, modulate the fn1a mutant phenotype.

An emerging concept in the study of phenotypic variation is that it is intertwined with the regulation of paralogous gene expression [1015]. An intuitive interpretation of these results is that upregulation of functionally related gene(s) compensates for the mutated gene [16, 17]. Surprisingly, however, we found that upregulation of fn1b in fn1a mutants is strongly correlated with detrimental outcomes, at least in larvae. We found that overexpression of fn1a abolishes this upregulation of fn1b, which we observed in most of the severe fn1a mutant larvae at 72 hpf. These results suggest that this late fn1b upregulation is most likely the result of the loss of Fn1a protein. Furthermore, we found that fn1b overexpression also rescues the fn1a mutant phenotype, and that just one copy of a fn1b mutant allele is sufficient to significantly increase the severity of the fn1a mutant phenotype. Taken together, these results suggest that the upregulation of endogenous fn1b we observed in fn1a mutant larvae is a consequence, rather than a cause, of the severe phenotype.

A study in mouse identified a genetic modifier of the Fn1 mutant phenotype on chromosome 4 [44]; however, Itgα5 is located on chromosome 15 (at approximately 103 Mbp). In this study [44], the distal-most marker used to examine linkage on chromosome 15 is located at 88,250,634 Mbp (Sophie Astrof, personal communication). Thus, an association with Itgα5 in mouse may have been missed due to a lack of sufficient coverage, although it is of course possible that the mouse and zebrafish modifiers are different. It will be interesting to reexamine the mouse linkage data in light of our results.

We observed, in our linkage analysis, 4 additional peaks with a SNP index ≥ 0.5 on chromosomes 1, 3, and 23. Analysing the synteny between these loci and the mouse modifier locus on chromosome 4 using the NCBI Comparative Genome Viewer [63] does not suggest that any of these zebrafish loci correspond to the mouse modifier. However, while analysing the SNP frequency in our data, we found that the modifier allele in the itgα5 locus was present in ~75% of the reads in the control population. This observation indicates that we selected for modifier alleles in the initial F1 and F2 populations prior to performing our mapping experiment, and therefore may have also missed modifier loci in our analysis. It is, therefore, challenging to make direct comparisons between the mouse and zebrafish modifiers in the absence of further data. However, based on the identification of 5 linkage peaks on 3 different chromosomes in our data, and the absence of Itgα5 in the identified mouse modifier locus, we suggest that there are multiple genetic modifiers of the fn1a/Fn1 phenotype.

Although we cannot rule out that the variants in the itgα5 coding sequence may alter Itgα5 conformation or activity, our analyses did not support this possibility. In addition, our knockdown and overexpression experiments suggest that itgα5 expression levels regulate phenotypic variation in fn1a mutants. In support of this possibility, our analysis of itgα5 mRNA levels found that increased variance in itgα5 expression is associated with the more severe fn1a mutant phenotype. These results are consistent with the modifier we have identified being a non-coding variant that regulates itgα5 expression, potentially expression variance rather than absolute expression levels. A recent report found that gene expression variance is functionally constrained in human populations [64], suggesting that variance can indeed be regulated by genetic variants. It will be interesting to investigate whether the variance we observed in itgα5 mRNA levels between individual larvae extrapolates to single cells, as it would likely disrupt collective cell behaviours such as myocardial cell migration and cardiac morphogenesis. Regardless, further experiments are necessary to determine how itgα5 modifies the fn1a mutant phenotype in zebrafish, and to examine whether this process is conserved in mouse.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All procedures performed on animals were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the European Parliament Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes and have been approved by the Animal Protection Committee (Tierschutzkommission) of the Regierungspräsidium Darmstadt (reference: B2/1218 and B2/9000).

Zebrafish husbandry and lines

Adult zebrafish were maintained in 3.5 l tanks at a stocking density of 10 zebrafish/l with the following parameters: water temperature: 27–27.5°C; light:dark cycle: 14:10; pH: 7.0–7.5; conductivity: 750–800 µS/cm. The zebrafish were fed with granulated and live food (Artemia salina) 3–5 times per day, depending on their age. Health was monitored twice a year.

Zebrafish embryos and larvae were maintained in egg water (0.3 g/l instant ocean (Aquarium Systems, cat. no. 216030), 75 mg/l calcium sulfate dihydrate (Merck, cat. no. C3771), with 0.000025% w/v methylene blue (Merck, cat. no. M9140)). Larvae were raised under standard conditions. Embryonic and early larval development was staged according to the series described in [65].

The following previously published transgenic and mutant lines were used in this study: Tg(myl7:EGFP)twu26 [66], fn1atl43c [25], and fn1bya14Tg [34]. The fn1abns692 mutant allele was generated for this study. All lines were maintained by backcrossing to WT AB zebrafish.

To help keep track of the various matings performed, we refer to matings between animals with the same heterozygous genotype as intercrosses and matings between animals with the same homozygous genotype as incrosses.

Generation of the fn1abns692 allele

CRISPR/Cas9 target sites were designed targeting fn1a (ENSDARG00000019815; ENSDART00000124346.4) from the GRCz11 assembly using CHOPCHOP [67]. Guide RNAs (gRNAs) were synthesised as described in [68] with Cas9 mRNA produced as described in [69]. 1 nl of an injection mix containing 100 ng/µl of Cas9 mRNA, 50 ng/µl gRNA, and 0.1% w/v phenol red (Merck, cat. no. P0290) in nuclease-free water was injected into 1-cell stage zebrafish embryos. gRNA efficiency was determined using a T7 endonuclease I assay [70], briefly, the genomic target was amplified by PCR. Purified PCR product was denatured and reannealed, then incubated with T7 Endonuclease I (New England Biolabs, cat. no. M0302L) for 60 minutes at 37°C. DNA was then run on a gel to estimate cutting efficiency using the formula: Efficiency=100×(1(1fractioncleaved)12) as described in [71].

Two guides, one upstream of the transcription start site (target sequence: CTAGATGCATCAAGGTTCGGGGG; cutting efficiency = 26.8%) and the other in intron 17 (target sequence: GATGCTAACAAATGTCCATGTGG; cutting efficiency = 13.1%), were selected based on cutting efficiency. 1 nl of an injection mix containing 100 ng/µl of Cas9 mRNA, 50 ng/µl of each gRNA, and 0.1% w/v phenol red in nuclease-free water was injected into 1-cell stage zebrafish embryos. Embryos were screened for the presence of a large deletion using a primer pair flanking the target sites. Clutches where the deletion was present were raised to adulthood. Germline transmitting founder zebrafish were identified by incrossing and screening pooled embryos for the deletion by PCR. Identified founders were then outcrossed and F1 adults screened by PCR for the presence of the deletion. A single positive F1 zebrafish was chosen at random and outcrossed to establish the fn1abns692 allele.

In situ hybridisation

In situ hybridisation was performed as previously described [72] using published myl7 [20] and fn1b [39] probes. myl7 expression was analysed in four clutches for each fn1a allele. fn1b expression was analysed in two clutches for the fn1abns692 allele. Following post-staining fixation and dehydration, samples were cleared in BABB solution (a 2:1 ratio of benzyl benzoate:benzyl alcohol) and imaged using a Zeiss Axio Imager A2 widefield microscope. All images were processed using Fiji [73]. Approximately 48 embryos, depending on the number of embryos available, were imaged from each clutch in a blinded experiment and subsequently collected in a 96-well plate for genotyping.

Brightfield imaging

Larvae were anaesthetised with 0.01% tricaine and mounted in 3% w/v methyl cellulose (Merck, cat. no. M0512) in egg water. All images were acquired using a Nikon SMZ25 stereo microscope and processed using Fiji.

Confocal imaging

Larvae were anaesthetised with 0.01% w/v tricaine and mounted in 0.5% w/v low-melting agarose in egg water. All images were acquired using a Zeiss LSM 800 Examiner confocal microscope and processed using Fiji.

Genotyping

Genomic DNA was extracted from embryos, larvae, and fin clips using a published protocol [74]. In brief, samples were collected in PCR tubes or 96-well plates, egg water was removed using a pipette, and 50 µl DNA extraction buffer (50 mM KCl, 10 mM Tris pH8, 1 mM EDTA, 0.3% IGEPAL, 0.3% Tween20, 500 µg/ml proteinase K) added. Samples were then incubated at 55°C for 2 hours followed by 99°C for 5 minutes to deactivate the proteinase K. 1 µl of this solution was used in all genotyping assays.

The natter/fn1atl43c allele was genotyped using a custom KASP assay (LGC genomics, aliquot ID: 1217782728). The fn1abns692 allele was genotyped by PCR using one forward primer (5’-AACATCTGGCCTGGGAAT-3’) and two reverse primers (5’-AGCACTTAGACGCTTTTGC-3’; 5’-AGTGGTTGATTACCCGCC-3’) in a single reaction. The 455 bp WT and 529 bp mutant alleles were subsequently separated by gel electrophoresis. The fn1bya14Tg allele was genotyped by PCR using forward (5’-GGAGCGTTGCTATGATGACTCACTGG-3’) and reverse (5’-GCTACAAAGTCATGAAAGAGGAATG-3’) primers. The 243 bp WT and 310 bp mutant alleles were subsequently separated by gel electrophoresis.

Single larva RNA/DNA extraction

Single larvae were anaesthetised and collected at the desired stage in 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tubes. Egg water was removed using a pipette and 100 µl TRIzol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. no. 15596018) added per tube along with a small number of 0.5 mm RNase free homogeniser beads (Next Advance, cat. no. ZrOB05-RNA). These tubes were immediately placed in a Bullet Blender homogeniser (Centaur, cat. no. BB24-Au) for 3 minutes at speed 8, after which time the tubes were stored at -80°C prior to extraction. To extract RNA and DNA, samples were first centrifuged at 12000 xg for 5 minutes at 4°C and the supernatant transferred to a new tube leaving behind the homogeniser beads. 20 µl chloroform was then added to each sample and vortexed briefly followed by a 3 minute incubation at room temperature. Samples were centrifuged at 12000 xg for 15 minutes at 4°C and the aqueous phase transferred to a new tube for RNA purification. RNA was purified from the aqueous phase using the RNA Clean & Concentrator-5 kit (Zymo research, cat. no. R016) with on-column DNase digestion according to manufacturer’s protocol. To purify DNA, 30 µl of 100% non-denatured ethanol was added to the remaining inter- and organic phases to precipitate the DNA and washes performed according to manufacturer’s protocol. In brief, two washes were performed with 0.1 M sodium citrate in 10% v/v non-denatured ethanol, pH 8.5, and one wash was performed with 75% v/v non-denatured ethanol. After centrifugation, ethanol was evaporated by drying at 37°C for 5–30 minutes and the DNA resuspended in 20 µl of 8 mM NaOH.

RT-qPCR

8 µl of RNA from a 10 µl eluate was reverse transcribed using the Maxima First Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. no. K1672). For each clutch, one heterozygous sample was split in two to be used as a no reverse transcriptase (RT) control for genomic DNA contamination whereby one half of the original sample was reverse transcribed as normal while the other half was treated identically with the exception that no reverse transcriptase enzyme was added. These no RT controls were analysed in parallel to empirically determine the detection limit for our experiments. 0.5 µl of a 1:10 dilution of the resulting cDNA samples was used in 10 µl reactions with DyNAmo Colour Flash SYBR Green (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. no. F416XL) and 0.25 µM forward and reverse primers in a QuantStudio 7 Pro RealTime thermocycler (Thermo Fisher Scientific). All reactions were performed in technical triplicate and a minimum of three biological replicates were examined in all experiments. Cq values, the PCR cycle where the sample’s reaction curve crosses the background threshold level, were automatically determined using the Design & Analysis Software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, v2.8) with default settings. The amplification efficiency of all primer pairs was determined in separate experiments. Expression was normalised to rpl13a in each sample using equations described in [75] with custom R scripts. The variance in itgα5 expression was calculated in R using the var() function.

The following primer sequences were used to amplify target genes: fn1a RT-qPCR F1 – 5’-GTGCAGTGTATGCCGAAAG-3’, fn1a RT-qPCR R1 – 5’-TGTCCGTCCATAACACATCC-3’; fn1a RT-qPCR F2 – 5’-CCACCCACTGATCTGAACCT-3’, fn1a RT-qPCR R2 – 5’-TCACTCTGTAGCCCGTGATG-3’; fn1a RT-qPCR F3 – 5’-AGAACCTTCGCGTCCATC-3’, fn1a RT-qPCR R3 – 5’-AGGGGGAAGCTGCTCAAT-3’; fn1b RT-qPCR F – 5’-CAGGGGTCAAGTGTAGATCC-3’, fn1b RT-qPCR R – 5’-TATCCTTTGGTCGCTCGTAG-3’; itgα5 F – 5’-ACGGCAGAGCTCATTGAA-3’, itgα5 R – 5’-AGTTTCAGGTCAGGGACG-3’; rpl13a RT-qPCR F – 5’-TGGAGGACTGTAAGAGGTATGC-3’, rpl13a RT-qPCR R – 5’-ACGCACAATCTTGAGAGCAG-3’. rpl13a primers are described in [76], and fn1a primer pair 2 in [77].

mRNA overexpression

fn1a and fn1b sequences from WT cDNA obtained from mixed staged AB embryos were cloned into the pCS2 + expression vector using NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly Master Mix (New England Biolabs, cat. no. E2621S). The itgα5 coding sequence was previously cloned into the pCS2 + plasmid [51]. mRNA was transcribed from NotI linearised plasmid templates using the mMESSAGE mMACHINE SP6 Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. no. AM1340) and purified with Phenol:Chloroform:Isoamyl Alcohol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat.no. 15593031) followed by isopropanol precipitation according to manufacturer’s protocol. Purified mRNA was aliquoted and stored at -80°C. For injections, an aliquot of mRNA was defrosted on ice, and an injection mix prepared with a final concentration of 250 or 350 ng/µl mRNA and 0.1% w/v phenol red in nuclease-free water. 1 nl of this injection mix was injected into 1-cell stage zebrafish embryos.

Temperature shift experiments

Embryos were collected in petri dishes with egg water 15 minutes after removing dividers from mating tanks. Embryos were allowed to develop at 28.5°C until mid-blastula stages before sorting. Up to 60 fertilised embryos were placed in each of three clean petri dishes with fresh, pre-heated egg water and allowed to continue developing at 28.5°C until the bud stage (10 hpf). Embryos were sorted at the bud stage to remove embryos with defects as well as those displaying asynchronous development. One dish from each clutch was then transferred to a 32°C incubator, another dish returned to the 28.5°C incubator; and the remaining dish allowed to develop outside the incubator at approximately 22°C. Dishes were gently agitated at regular intervals for 30 minutes following this transfer to ensure even temperature throughout the dish. Depending on the experiment, embryos were allowed to develop until they reached the protruding mouth stage (72 hpf when raised at 28.5°C), or the equivalent of a 100 hpf larvae when raised at 28.5°C. Once they reached the desired stage, larvae were collected for RNA/DNA extraction, or imaged and collected for genotyping.

Generating fn1a mutant adults

To generate the F1 populations of mutants for the natter/tl43c and bns692 fn1a alleles, heterozygous zebrafish were intercrossed and the embryos raised at approximately 22°C until they inflated their swim bladder. Larvae were then sorted and the WT looking larvae raised under standard conditions. F1 adults were fin clipped and genotyped to identify mutants. The F2 and subsequent generations (with the exception of the natter/fn1atl43c F3 [32°C] generation) were generated by incrossing mutant adults and raising the progeny at 28.5°C under standard conditions until they reached 100 hpf, when they were phenotyped and the WT looking larvae selected for raising as before. The natter F3 [32°C] generation was generated by temperature shifting F3 larvae at 32°C from the bud stage until they inflated their swim bladder, then sorting and raising WT looking larvae as before.

Sample collection for modifier mapping

A single mating pair of natter/fn1atl43c F2 mutants were incrossed and the resulting progeny raised at approximately 22°C until they had inflated their swim bladder. The WT looking larvae were selected and raised under standard conditions to generate an F3 mapping population consisting of 18 adult zebrafish. This population was separated by sex and placed in groups of 3–4 zebrafish resulting in two groups of males and three groups of females. Each group was housed separately over the course of the experiment. A round-robin breeding scheme was used whereby each group of males was set up with each group of females in multi-pair matings over three successive weeks to ensure that the embryos were collected from as many different animals as possible. F3 matings were repeated at weekly intervals and all progeny raised at 28.5°C. Embryos were collected in petri dishes with egg water 15 minutes after removing dividers and immediately transferred to a 28.5°C incubator. At mid-blastula stages, up to 60 fertilised embryos were placed in each petri dish with fresh, pre-heated egg water. As many fertilised embryos as possible were collected from each clutch. At the bud stage (10 hpf), approximately 100 embryos were collected from each clutch to estimate allele frequencies in the F3 mutant population. The remaining embryos were allowed to develop until 100 hpf when mutants displaying the WT-like phenotype were collected to examine which variants were enriched in this population. After collection of each population in a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube, egg water was removed with a pipette and the collected tubes immediately frozen at -80°C. In total, 687 embryos at 10 hpf and 97 larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype at 100 hpf were collected from a total of 2,520 fertilised embryos obtained from 6 clutches. After all samples had been collected, they were defrosted and homogenised by hand with sterile plastic pestles (Axygen, cat. no. PES-15-B-SI). Genomic DNA was extracted from homogenised samples using the QIAamp DNA mini kit (Qiagen, cat. no. 51304) according to manufacturer’s protocol and the concentrations determined using a Qubit 4 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, cat. no. Q33226).

Whole-genome sequencing and linkage analysis

Genomic DNA from each clutch was pooled separately in equal amounts for both 10 hpf control embryos as well as 100 hpf WT looking mutant larvae. The resulting pooled samples were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 with 2x 150 bp paired-end reads by CeGaT (Tübingen, Germany). Sequencing coverage was 73.59x and 77.77x for 10 hpf control and 100 hpf WT-like samples, respectively.

Sequenced raw reads were analysed using the WheresWalker mapping pipeline. In brief, POLCA from the MaSuRCA toolkit was used to align the reads to GRCz11 and to identify variants [78]. The resulting VCF files were inputted to WheresWalker [48], which calculates a SNP index to quantify the relative heterozygosity between the two samples such that the genomic regions that are more homozygous in mutant larvae displaying the WT-like phenotype have an elevated SNP index. The linkage peak on chromosome 23 between 29.69 - 36.77 Mbp had the highest SNP index and was selected by the pipeline for further analysis. Additional lower intensity peaks were identified by examining the genome-wide SNP index. Variants were retrieved from the VCF files and annotated using Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor [49]. Variants were filtered based on their predicted consequence to identify non-synonymous coding variants in itga5, and the SIFT score [50] used to interpret their potential impact on protein function.

Morpholino injection

A published translation blocking itgα5 morpholino oligonucleotide (MO) (5’-TAACCGATGTATCAAAATCCACTGC-3’) [51] was ordered from Gene Tools (Philomath, U.S.A.), resuspended in nuclease-free water, and aliquoted at 10 ng/nl (1.191 mM/l). Prior to injection, the desired number of aliquots were defrosted, heated at 65°C for 5 minutes, and an injection mix prepared with a final concentration of 1 or 5 ng/nl MO and 0.1% w/v phenol red in nuclease-free water. 1 nl of this mix was injected into 1-cell stage embryos.

Statistics

All statistical analyses were performed in R [79] using custom scripts with the following packages: tidyverse, ggtext, shadowtext, ggsignif, viridisLite, broom, and openxlsx.

A chi-squared test was used to test the association between genotype and phenotype in each clutch in Figs 1B, 1E, 2C and 2D; the association between phenotype and the injection condition in each clutch in Figs 3, 4C and S3A-C; the association between phenotype and developmental temperature in each clutch in S4A and S4B Fig; the association between phenotype and filial generation in Fig 4A and 4A’‘; and the association between phenotype and the age of the zebrafish at spawning in S5 Fig.

Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used to test the association between genotype and phenotype in Fig 3E.

One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons was used to test the association between genotype and fn1a expression levels in S2A–C, S2G–I, S3D, S3E, S4C–H Figs and S1 Table; and the association between mutant phenotype and fn1b expression levels in Fig 3A.

A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to test the association between mutant phenotype and fn1b expression levels in S3F Fig.

The significance level, α, was defined as 0.05 in all experiments. A result was considered to be statistically significant when p ≤ α.

Use of artificial intelligence tools and technologies

ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI, San Francisco, U.S.A.) was used for writing the code used in this study and for editing the manuscript.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The fn1abns692 allele has a large deletion removing the proximal promoter and the first 17 exons of fn1a.

(A) Schematic showing the fn1abns692 27,664 bp deletion. Exons (n = 46) are indicated by black boxes. The 5’ and 3’ UTRs are indicated by open boxes. The position of the deletion as well as of the PCR primers used to genotype fn1abns692 mutants (blue), to test for the possible reintegration of the deleted region (red), and for the RT-qPCR analysis (green) is indicated. (B) Genotyping of fn1abns692 homozygous WT, heterozygous, and mutant embryos by PCR. (C) Three primer pairs were used to test for the possible reintegration of the deleted region by PCR. GeneRuler 100 bp DNA ladder is present in all gels.

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s001.tif (16.4MB, tif)
S2 Fig. The fn1abns692 allele is not an RNA-less allele.

fn1a mRNA levels were examined in 72 hpf larvae with three sets of RT-qPCR primers (see annotation in S1 Fig). Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. Two clutches were collected from single pair fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses in (A-F), and single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercrosses in (G-L). All primer pairs reveal an almost complete loss of fn1a expression in fn1abns692 mutants (A-C) when compared with WT siblings and with natter/fn1atl43c mutants (G-I). However, the Cq values indicate that low mRNA levels are detectable from the 3’ fn1a sequence in fn1abns692 mutants – compare (D) with (E) and (F), whereas Cq values are consistent for all three primer pairs used in natter/fn1atl43c mutants (J-L). All p-values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons.

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s002.tif (21.4MB, tif)
S3 Fig

fn1a and fn1b mRNA injections rescue the fn1a mutant cardiac phenotype. Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and fn1a (A), or fn1b (B) mRNA injected mutant larvae from five single pair natter/fn1atl43c mutant incrosses. (C) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and fn1a mRNA injected mutant larvae from five single pair fn1abns692 mutant incrosses. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of larvae assessed. fn1b mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in uninjected (D) and 350 pg fn1a mRNA injected (E) 72 hpf fn1abns692 mutant larvae and WT siblings collected from two single pair heterozygous intercrosses. Two clutches were collected and analysed. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. (F) fn1b mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in the hearts and bodies of dissected 72 hpf fn1abns692 mutant larvae collected from single pair mutant incrosses. Each data point represents pooled tissue; 5–10 larvae were dissected for each pool. Mutants displaying the WT-like and mild phenotypes were pooled together. Severe mutants were pooled separately. Expression is relative to the WT-like/mild mutant pool in each clutch. For (A-C), p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test; for (D-E), p-values were calculated by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons; and for (F), p-values were calculated by a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s003.tif (46.8MB, tif)
S4 Fig. The fn1a mutant cardiac phenotype is temperature dependent, but temperature does not alter the relative expression of fn1a.

Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c (A) and fn1abns692 (B) mutants from three single pair heterozygous intercrosses. Each clutch was split into three dishes at an early blastula stage and raised at 28.5°C until the embryos reached the bud stage (10 hpf). Dishes were then incubated at different temperatures until the larvae reached the equivalent of a 100 hpf larva raised at 28.5°C, and were then phenotyped. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of mutant larvae assessed. fn1a mRNA levels were examined at the protruding mouth stage (72 hpf when raised at 28.5°C) in two clutches from single pair natter/fn1atl43c (C-E) and fn1abns692 (F-H) heterozygous intercrosses. Each clutch was split into three dishes at an early blastula stage and raised at 28.5°C until they reached the bud stage (10 hpf). Dishes were then incubated at 22°C (C, F), 28.5°C (D, G), or 32°C (E, H) until they reached the protruding mouth stage, and were then collected for RT-qPCR analysis. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test in (A) and (B), and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons for (C-H).

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s004.tif (45.1MB, tif)
S5 Fig. The natter/fn1atl43c mutant cardiac phenotype varies with parental age.

Single pair F3 [28.5°C] (A) and F3 [32°C] (B) natter/fn1atl43c mutants were repeatedly incrossed over multiple weeks and the resulting larvae phenotyped at 100 hpf. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of larvae assessed. All p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test.

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s005.tif (34.7MB, tif)
S6 Fig. An itgα5 MO leads to dose dependent somite, cardiac, and craniofacial defects.

(A) Images of 100 hpf uninjected, 1 ng itgα5 MO injected, and 5 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae from single pair WT incrosses are shown. Outlined regions in (A) are enlarged in (B) to show the somite phenotype. While the majority of 1 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae resembled the uninjected control, a small proportion developed U-shaped somite boundaries (white arrows in (B)) as pictured. 5 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae failed to inflate their swim bladder, developed pericardial oedema and craniofacial defects (white arrowheads in (A)), and displayed defects in somitogenesis. Lateral views are shown with anterior to the left. The proportion of larvae matching the image shown is indicated in the top right corner of each image. Scale bars, 1 mm.

(TIF)

pgen.1011747.s006.tif (38.1MB, tif)
S1 Table. Pairwise comparison of relative fn1a mRNA levels in fn1a mutants raised at different temperatures.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011747.s007.xlsx (9.4KB, xlsx)
S2 Table. Annotated list of all variants identified in the chromosome 23:31.29 - 35.29 Mbp linkage region.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011747.s008.xlsx (14MB, xlsx)
S3 Table. List of all oligonucleotide sequences used in this study.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011747.s009.xlsx (10.4KB, xlsx)
S4 Table. Phenotyping counts for all figures.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011747.s010.xlsx (143KB, xlsx)
S5 Table. Cq values for all samples.

(XLSX)

pgen.1011747.s011.xlsx (100.5KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Richard Hynes and Sophie Astrof for discussion at early stages of this project, Douglas Adamoski Meira and Lara Falcucci for comments on the manuscript, and Carmen Büttner, Denis Grabski, Hans-Martin Maischein, Simon Perathoner, and all of the zebrafish facility staff for technical support.

Data Availability

The whole-genome sequencing data reported in this paper have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under accession number PRJEB89164. All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by funds from the Max Planck Society as well as awards from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s research and innovation programs (AdG 694455-ZMOD and AdG 101021349-TAaGC) awarded to D.Y.R.S.; and NIH grants F32GM144223 to M.F., R01DK093399 to S.A.F., and R35GM148348 to S.A.H. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wagner GP, Altenberg L. Perspective: complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution. 1996;50(3):967–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb02339.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nadeau JH. Modifier genes in mice and humans. Nat Rev Genet. 2001;2(3):165–74. doi: 10.1038/35056009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chen R, Shi L, Hakenberg J, Naughton B, Sklar P, Zhang J, et al. Analysis of 589,306 genomes identifies individuals resilient to severe Mendelian childhood diseases. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(5):531–8. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Karczewski KJ, Francioli LC, Tiao G, Cummings BB, Alföldi J, Wang Q, et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature. 2020;581(7809):434–43. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2308-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.MacArthur D. Superheroes of disease resistance. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(5):512–3. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3555 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.MacArthur DG, Balasubramanian S, Frankish A, Huang N, Morris J, Walter K, et al. A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes. Science. 2012;335(6070):823–8. doi: 10.1126/science.1215040 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Forrest IS, Chaudhary K, Vy HMT, Petrazzini BO, Bafna S, Jordan DM, et al. Population-Based Penetrance of Deleterious Clinical Variants. JAMA. 2022;327(4):350–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.23686 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Butler MG, Iben JR, Marsden KC, Epstein JA, Granato M, Weinstein BM. SNPfisher: tools for probing genetic variation in laboratory-reared zebrafish. Development. 2015;142(8):1542–52. doi: 10.1242/dev.118786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Balik-Meisner M, Truong L, Scholl EH, Tanguay RL, Reif DM. Population genetic diversity in zebrafish lines. Mamm Genome. 2018;29(1–2):90–100. doi: 10.1007/s00335-018-9735-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Raj A, Rifkin SA, Andersen E, van Oudenaarden A. Variability in gene expression underlies incomplete penetrance. Nature. 2010;463(7283):913–8. doi: 10.1038/nature08781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Burga A, Casanueva MO, Lehner B. Predicting mutation outcome from early stochastic variation in genetic interaction partners. Nature. 2011;480(7376):250–3. doi: 10.1038/nature10665 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nichols JT, Blanco-Sánchez B, Brooks EP, Parthasarathy R, Dowd J, Subramanian A, et al. Ligament versus bone cell identity in the zebrafish hyoid skeleton is regulated by mef2ca. Development. 2016;143(23):4430–40. doi: 10.1242/dev.141036 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sucharov J, Ray K, Brooks EP, Nichols JT. Selective breeding modifies mef2ca mutant incomplete penetrance by tuning the opposing Notch pathway. PLoS Genet. 2019;15(12):e1008507. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bailon-Zambrano R, Sucharov J, Mumme-Monheit A, Murry M, Stenzel A, Pulvino AT, et al. Variable paralog expression underlies phenotype variation. Elife. 2022;11:e79247. doi: 10.7554/eLife.79247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Keseroglu K, Zinani OQH, Keskin S, Seawall H, Alpay EE, Özbudak EM. Stochastic gene expression and environmental stressors trigger variable somite segmentation phenotypes. Nat Commun. 2023;14(1):6497. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-42220-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.El-Brolosy MA, Stainier DYR. Genetic compensation: A phenomenon in search of mechanisms. PLoS Genet. 2017;13(7):e1006780. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jakutis G, Stainier DYR. Genotype–Phenotype Relationships in the Context of Transcriptional Adaptation and Genetic Robustness. Annu Rev Genet. 2021;55(1):71–91. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-071719-020342 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ashe M, Bader D. Development of the vertebrate heart. In: Runge MS, Patterson C. Principles of molecular cardiology. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. 2005;83–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Stainier DY, Fishman MC. Patterning the zebrafish heart tube: acquisition of anteroposterior polarity. Dev Biol. 1992;153(1):91–101. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(92)90094-w [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yelon D, Horne SA, Stainier DY. Restricted expression of cardiac myosin genes reveals regulated aspects of heart tube assembly in zebrafish. Dev Biol. 1999;214(1):23–37. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1999.9406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sizarov A, Ya J, de Boer BA, Lamers WH, Christoffels VM, Moorman AFM. Formation of the building plan of the human heart: morphogenesis, growth, and differentiation. Circulation. 2011;123(10):1125–35. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.980607 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ivanovitch K, Temiño S, Torres M. Live imaging of heart tube development in mouse reveals alternating phases of cardiac differentiation and morphogenesis. Elife. 2017;6:e30668. doi: 10.7554/eLife.30668 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shewale B, Dubois N. Of form and function: Early cardiac morphogenesis across classical and emerging model systems. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2021;118:107–18. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2021.04.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.George EL, Georges-Labouesse EN, Patel-King RS, Rayburn H, Hynes RO. Defects in mesoderm, neural tube and vascular development in mouse embryos lacking fibronectin. Development. 1993;119(4):1079–91. doi: 10.1242/dev.119.4.1079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen JN, Haffter P, Odenthal J, Vogelsang E, Brand M, van Eeden FJ, et al. Mutations affecting the cardiovascular system and other internal organs in zebrafish. Development. 1996;123:293–302. doi: 10.1242/dev.123.1.293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jiang YJ, Brand M, Heisenberg CP, Beuchle D, Furutani-Seiki M, Kelsh RN, et al. Mutations affecting neurogenesis and brain morphology in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. Development. 1996;123:205–16. doi: 10.1242/dev.123.1.205 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sakai T, Johnson KJ, Murozono M, Sakai K, Magnuson MA, Wieloch T, et al. Plasma fibronectin supports neuronal survival and reduces brain injury following transient focal cerebral ischemia but is not essential for skin-wound healing and hemostasis. Nat Med. 2001;7(3):324–30. doi: 10.1038/85471 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Trinh LA, Stainier DYR. Fibronectin regulates epithelial organization during myocardial migration in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2004;6(3):371–82. doi: 10.1016/s1534-5807(04)00063-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Koshida S, Kishimoto Y, Ustumi H, Shimizu T, Furutani-Seiki M, Kondoh H, et al. Integrinalpha5-dependent fibronectin accumulation for maintenance of somite boundaries in zebrafish embryos. Dev Cell. 2005;8(4):587–98. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2005.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pulina MV, Hou S-Y, Mittal A, Julich D, Whittaker CA, Holley SA, et al. Essential roles of fibronectin in the development of the left-right embryonic body plan. Dev Biol. 2011;354(2):208–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.03.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hayes JM, Hartsock A, Clark BS, Napier HRL, Link BA, Gross JM. Integrin α5/fibronectin1 and focal adhesion kinase are required for lens fiber morphogenesis in zebrafish. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23(24):4725–38. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E12-09-0672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Konstandin MH, Toko H, Gastelum GM, Quijada P, De La Torre A, Quintana M, et al. Fibronectin is essential for reparative cardiac progenitor cell response after myocardial infarction. Circ Res. 2013;113(2):115–25. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.113.301152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wang J, Karra R, Dickson AL, Poss KD. Fibronectin is deposited by injury-activated epicardial cells and is necessary for zebrafish heart regeneration. Dev Biol. 2013;382(2):427–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.08.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Guillon E, Das D, Jülich D, Hassan A-R, Geller H, Holley S. Fibronectin is a smart adhesive that both influences and responds to the mechanics of early spinal column development. Elife. 2020;9:e48964. doi: 10.7554/eLife.48964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Amores A, Force A, Yan YL, Joly L, Amemiya C, Fritz A, et al. Zebrafish hox clusters and vertebrate genome evolution. Science. 1998;282(5394):1711–4. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5394.1711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Howe K, Clark MD, Torroja CF, Torrance J, Berthelot C, Muffato M, et al. The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature. 2013;496(7446):498–503. doi: 10.1038/nature12111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Palencia-Desai S, Kohli V, Kang J, Chi NC, Black BL, Sumanas S. Vascular endothelial and endocardial progenitors differentiate as cardiomyocytes in the absence of Etsrp/Etv2 function. Development. 2011;138(21):4721–32. doi: 10.1242/dev.064998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Capon SJ, Uribe V, Dominado N, Ehrlich O, Smith KA. Endocardial identity is established during early somitogenesis by Bmp signalling acting upstream of npas4l and etv2. Development. 2022;149(9):dev190421. doi: 10.1242/dev.190421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jülich D, Holley SA. Live imaging of Fibronectin 1a-mNeonGreen and Fibronectin 1b-mCherry knock-in alleles during early zebrafish development. Cells Dev. 2024;177:203900. doi: 10.1016/j.cdev.2024.203900 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Singh P, Carraher C, Schwarzbauer JE. Assembly of fibronectin extracellular matrix. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2010;26:397–419. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100109-104020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schumacher JA, Wright ZA, Owen ML, Bredemeier NO, Sumanas S. Integrin α5 and Integrin α4 cooperate to promote endocardial differentiation and heart morphogenesis. Dev Biol. 2020;465(1):46–57. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2020.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Suzuki HR, Solursh M, Baldwin HS. Relationship between fibronectin expression during gastrulation and heart formation in the rat embryo. Dev Dyn. 1995;204(3):259–77. doi: 10.1002/aja.1002040305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.George EL, Baldwin HS, Hynes RO. Fibronectins are essential for heart and blood vessel morphogenesis but are dispensable for initial specification of precursor cells. Blood. 1997;90(8):3073–81. doi: 10.1182/blood.v90.8.3073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Astrof S, Kirby A, Lindblad-Toh K, Daly M, Hynes RO. Heart development in fibronectin-null mice is governed by a genetic modifier on chromosome four. Mech Dev. 2007;124(7–8):551–8. doi: 10.1016/j.mod.2007.05.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rossi A, Kontarakis Z, Gerri C, Nolte H, Hölper S, Krüger M, et al. Genetic compensation induced by deleterious mutations but not gene knockdowns. Nature. 2015;524(7564):230–3. doi: 10.1038/nature14580 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.El-Brolosy MA, Kontarakis Z, Rossi A, Kuenne C, Günther S, Fukuda N, et al. Genetic compensation triggered by mutant mRNA degradation. Nature. 2019;568(7751):193–7. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1064-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ma Z, Zhu P, Shi H, Guo L, Zhang Q, Chen Y, et al. PTC-bearing mRNA elicits a genetic compensation response via Upf3a and COMPASS components. Nature. 2019;568(7751):259–63. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1057-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Feltes M, Zimin AV, Angel S, Pansari N, Hensley MR, Anderson JL, et al. WheresWalker: a pipeline for rapid mutation mapping using whole genome sequencing. PLOS Genetics. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.McLaren W, Gil L, Hunt SE, Riat HS, Ritchie GRS, Thormann A. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biology. 2016;17(1):122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ng PC, Henikoff S. Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions. Genome Res. 2001;11(5):863–74. doi: 10.1101/gr.176601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Jülich D, Geisler R, Holley SA, Tübingen 2000 Screen Consortium. Integrinalpha5 and delta/notch signaling have complementary spatiotemporal requirements during zebrafish somitogenesis. Dev Cell. 2005;8(4):575–86. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2005.01.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rutherford SL, Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor for morphological evolution. Nature. 1998;396(6709):336–42. doi: 10.1038/24550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Queitsch C, Sangster TA, Lindquist S. Hsp90 as a capacitor of phenotypic variation. Nature. 2002;417(6889):618–24. doi: 10.1038/nature749 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Alagar Boopathy LR, Jacob-Tomas S, Alecki C, Vera M. Mechanisms tailoring the expression of heat shock proteins to proteostasis challenges. J Biol Chem. 2022;298(5):101796. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.101796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lin C-Y, Huang C-C, Wang W-D, Hsiao C-D, Cheng C-F, Wu Y-T, et al. Low temperature mitigates cardia bifida in zebrafish embryos. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e69788. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Abdelilah S, Solnica-Krezel L, Stainier DY, Driever W. Implications for dorsoventral axis determination from the zebrafish mutation janus. Nature. 1994;370(6489):468–71. doi: 10.1038/370468a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Abdelilah S, Driever W. Pattern formation in janus-mutant zebrafish embryos. Dev Biol. 1997;184(1):70–84. doi: 10.1006/dbio.1997.8517 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sakaguchi T, Kikuchi Y, Kuroiwa A, Takeda H, Stainier DYR. The yolk syncytial layer regulates myocardial migration by influencing extracellular matrix assembly in zebrafish. Development. 2006;133(20):4063–72. doi: 10.1242/dev.02581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Osborne N, Brand-Arzamendi K, Ober EA, Jin S-W, Verkade H, Holtzman NG, et al. The spinster homolog, two of hearts, is required for sphingosine 1-phosphate signaling in zebrafish. Curr Biol. 2008;18(23):1882–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fukui H, Terai K, Nakajima H, Chiba A, Fukuhara S, Mochizuki N. S1P-Yap1 signaling regulates endoderm formation required for cardiac precursor cell migration in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2014;31(1):128–36. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.08.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Lahvic JL, Ji Y, Marin P, Zuflacht JP, Springel MW, Wosen JE, et al. Small heat shock proteins are necessary for heart migration and laterality determination in zebrafish. Dev Biol. 2013;384(2):166–80. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.10.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Rosenfeld GE, Mercer EJ, Mason CE, Evans T. Small heat shock proteins Hspb7 and Hspb12 regulate early steps of cardiac morphogenesis. Dev Biol. 2013;381(2):389–400. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.06.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Rangwala SH, Rudnev DV, Ananiev VV, Oh D-H, Asztalos A, Benica B, et al. The NCBI Comparative Genome Viewer (CGV) is an interactive visualization tool for the analysis of whole-genome eukaryotic alignments. PLoS Biol. 2024;22(5):e3002405. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Wolf S, Melo D, Garske KM, Pallares LF, Lea AJ, Ayroles JF. Characterizing the landscape of gene expression variance in humans. PLoS Genet. 2023;19(7):e1010833. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010833 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR, Ullmann B, Schilling TF. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev Dyn. 1995;203(3):253–310. doi: 10.1002/aja.1002030302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Huang C-J, Tu C-T, Hsiao C-D, Hsieh F-J, Tsai H-J. Germ-line transmission of a myocardium-specific GFP transgene reveals critical regulatory elements in the cardiac myosin light chain 2 promoter of zebrafish. Dev Dyn. 2003;228(1):30–40. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.10356 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Labun K, Montague TG, Krause M, Torres Cleuren YN, Tjeldnes H, Valen E. CHOPCHOP v3: expanding the CRISPR web toolbox beyond genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47(W1):W171–4. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Gagnon JA, Valen E, Thyme SB, Huang P, Akhmetova L, Pauli A, et al. Efficient mutagenesis by Cas9 protein-mediated oligonucleotide insertion and large-scale assessment of single-guide RNAs. PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e98186. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0098186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Jao L-E, Wente SR, Chen W. Efficient multiplex biallelic zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR nuclease system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(34):13904–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1308335110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mashal RD, Koontz J, Sklar J. Detection of mutations by cleavage of DNA heteroduplexes with bacteriophage resolvases. Nat Genet. 1995;9(2):177–83. doi: 10.1038/ng0295-177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Guschin DY, Waite AJ, Katibah GE, Miller JC, Holmes MC, Rebar EJ. A rapid and general assay for monitoring endogenous gene modification. In: Mackay JP, Segal DJ. Engineered zinc finger proteins: methods and protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. 2010;247–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Thisse C, Thisse B. High-resolution in situ hybridization to whole-mount zebrafish embryos. Nat Protoc. 2008;3(1):59–69. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.514 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Dahlem TJ, Hoshijima K, Jurynec MJ, Gunther D, Starker CG, Locke AS, et al. Simple methods for generating and detecting locus-specific mutations induced with TALENs in the zebrafish genome. PLoS Genet. 2012;8(8):e1002861. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Simon P. Q-Gene: processing quantitative real-time RT-PCR data. Bioinformatics. 2003;19(11):1439–40. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Tang R, Dodd A, Lai D, McNabb WC, Love DR. Validation of zebrafish (Danio rerio) reference genes for quantitative real-time RT-PCR normalization. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2007;39(5):384–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-7270.2007.00283.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Jenkins MH, Alrowaished SS, Goody MF, Crawford BD, Henry CA. Laminin and Matrix metalloproteinase 11 regulate Fibronectin levels in the zebrafish myotendinous junction. Skelet Muscle. 2016;6:18. doi: 10.1186/s13395-016-0089-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Zimin AV, Salzberg SL. The genome polishing tool POLCA makes fast and accurate corrections in genome assemblies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2020;16(6):e1007981. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2023. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fengwei Yu

PGENETICS-D-25-00099

A genetic modifier links integrin α5 to the phenotypic variability of fibronectin 1a mutant zebrafish

PLOS Genetics

Dear Dr. Stainier,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Genetics. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Genetics's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 30 days Apr 12 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosgenetics@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ophir Klein

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Fengwei Yu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Journal Requirements:

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines: 

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/s/figures

3) Please ensure that the supplementary Figures are uploaded separately with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

4) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Please confirm (a) that you are the photographer of 1, and S6, or (b) provide written permission from the photographer to publish the photo(s) under our CC BY 4.0 license.

5) Please ensure that the funders and grant numbers match between the Financial Disclosure field and the Funding Information tab in your submission form. Note that the funders must be provided in the same order in both places as well. Currently, "the Max Planck Society" is missing from the Funding Information tab.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #1: The manuscript from Capon et al examines genetic modifiers of zebrafish fibronectin 1a (fn1a) mutants. Understanding genetic modifiers can help understand the etiology of diseases. However, we lack considerable understanding of genetic modifiers that may positively or negatively influence disease in animal models as well as humans. It is long been understood that the fn1a/natter mutants have significant variability in penetrance and expression of their cardiac defects with some mutant hearts looking almost WT. The study creates a new fn1a allele and shows that phenotypic variability is not unique to the natter allele and is also observed with the new allele, a large deletion compared with the missense mutation of natter. The authors confirm that increased temperature and show that parental age both can lead to increased penetrance of severe cardiac defects in fn1a mutations. While fn1b, a zebrafish fn1a paralog, has increased expression associated with the sever cardiac defects, it’s mRNA overexpression instead rescues the cardiac defects similar to fn1a mRNA overexpression. As effects on fn1b are likely not the cause of increase severity in fn1a mutants, the authors find they can select for carriers that have more WT-like hearts. They then perform genetic mapping to identify different modifiers linked with better phenotypic outcome (WT-like in mutants). They find itga5, a known interactor and mediator of fn1a, has mutations that are linked with WT-like mutants. Depleting itga5 is sufficient to increase the severity of the cardiac defects in fn1a mutants. Thus, they conclude that decreased itga5 expression contributes to variability found in fn1a mutants.

Many experiments of the manuscript are of high quality and the experiments overall support the authors’ conclusions. Work of this type is a step in the right direction for understanding phenotypic variability in animal models and the nature of cardiac defects. However, there are a few areas that could strengthen the manuscript.

Major issues:

1. The itga5 mutations identified were linked to the WT-like mutant phenotype. While depleting itga5 is sufficient to worsen the cardiac defects, the authors fail to show that itga5 expression is affected in the mutants with WT-like cardiac defects.

a. Was the expression of itga5 transcripts checked in the WT-like and severe mutants compared to WT controls like for fn1b in Figure 3A? Wouldn’t one predict higher levels of itga5 expression in the WT-like mutants? The authors may already have samples they are able to perform the analysis with. If expression is affected, would this suggest a SNP in a non-coding region that affects expression?

b. Is itga5 mRNA overexpression sufficient to rescue or reduce the penetrance of the severe defects similar to fn1a or -b mRNA overexpression? Is there an alteration in the ability of itga5 mRNA with the linked mutations that affect the coding sequence to rescue the fn1a mutant cardiac defects? Just because the mutations are predicted to not impact function does not mean that is the case.

2. While both fn1a alleles show temperature sensitivity as stated on line 247, they are not exactly the same. Natter mutants show more sensitivity from 28.5C to 32C, while the deletion allele shows sensitivity between 22C and 28.5C. This may be a minor point. However, it is something that should more explicitly be acknowledged in the manuscript.

Minor issues:

1. In Figure 3C and 3B, standard in situ is not really quantitative. While it is understood that the data shown fit with the quantification inf Figure 3A, use of a more quantitative in situ method, such as HCR or RNAscope, may allow for a better illustration of this observation.

2. Lines 167-169 indicate that they used natter mutants, indicating they can raise natter mutants. Can you please reference that these mutants with WT-like hearts can be raised? If this has not been shown previously, this statement and use of natter mutants needs a little more background for the reader. It is not clear this can be done until later in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Capon and colleagues investigate the fascinating topic of the genetic basis for phenotypic variability. This is an important and timely area of study, with potential relevance to our comprehension of the distinct outcomes seen for patients with comparable genotypes. To make progress toward this level of comprehension, the field needs more concrete examples of genetic modifiers that underlie phenotypic variation. Here, the authors have selected an interesting and convenient scenario for the study of variation: as shown by prior studies, mutation of the zebrafish fn1a gene results in phenotypes that are lethal when severe and undetectable at their most mild. Through a series of cleverly designed and clearly presented experiments, they demonstrate several contributors to variation in zebrafish fn1a mutants — temperature, an age-dependent parental factor, and genetic modifiers — and they present evidence supporting the conclusion that a genetic modifier in the itga5 locus contributes to the phenotypic variability in fn1a mutants. This interesting set of analyses will be of high interest to readers interesting in the genetic basis for variability, and it seems likely to inspire other studies of this type that would be focused on other loci. Value to readers could be enhanced by a few additions or clarifications. Specifically:

1) Have the authors examined whether itga5 expression levels are higher or lower in fn1a mutants with mild or severe phenotypes? An experiment parallel to that shown in Fig. 3A for fn1b would be helpful, even if the results do not show a correlation between itga5 expression levels and phenotypic severity.

2) Along similar lines, does heterozygosity for a mutation in itga5 modify the fn1a mutant phenotype?

3) The authors have focused their attention on scoring variability in the cardiac phenotype in fn1a mutants. This is a reasonable choice, although readers will likely be interested in how the other aspects of the fn1a mutant phenotype, such as the disorganization of skeletal muscle, are modified by temperature, parental factors, and itga5. While other phenotypic features may not have been monitored closely, any available information could be valuable to provide.

4) Could the authors clarify the significance of the “symmetric” and “asymmetric” cardiac phenotypes, as highlighted in Fig. 1A,B? It seems to be implied that symmetric is the “more normal” scenario. What do the authors think that the cardiac cells are doing in the asymmetric scenario?

5) When discussing the basis for the temperature-dependent variation seen in fn1a mutants, would the authors want to consider making reference to a PLoS One article by Lin et al. (2013), “Low temperature mitigates cardiac bifida in zebrafish embryos”? This article seems to make the case that multiple cardia bifida phenotypes (caused by mutations in s1pr2, gata5, or bon) are modified by temperature. Perhaps these variable phenotypes also relate to an impact on fn1a, or perhaps the process of cardiomyocyte migration is inherently temperature-dependent?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript by Capon and colleagues, the authors address the important topic of phenotypic variation often observed among individuals with the same genetic mutation. This is a broad topic with very high importance to all researchers in the field. The manuscript is rigorous in that they rule out several hypotheses before using WGS to identify a putative modifier of the fn1a phenotype. They follow up on this sequencing hit with morpholino induced knockdown demonstrating that downregulating itga5 can phenocopy the severe condition. In addition to this partial mechanism of variation, they also observe parental age effects, temperature sensitivity, and unexpected paralog upregulation that correlates with more severe phenotypes. As such, a large portion of this paper is “phenomenological” rather than mechanistic, which is just fine with this reviewer. Especially because the phenomena appear to be rigorously demonstrated and very interesting. For the more mechanistic portion, the modifier mapping to the interval containing the itga5 locus has a few issues that need to be addressed which are detailed below. Most importantly, are the putatively causative modifier SNP alleles that are reported to rescue the phenotype ever detected in the severe individuals? Overall this is an exciting paper, with some mechanistic insight as well as other more preliminary fascinating observations that will lead to follow up studies in the future outside the scope of the current work.

fn1b upregulation:

The authors make the surprising and interesting finding that the fn1b paralog is upregulated in severe fn1a mutants compared with mild fn1a mutants. Then go on to show that this upregulation is not causative of the phenotypic differences. This is one of many examples of high rigor in this paper ruling out various hypotheses which is important.

The authors state on line 208 that : “Notably, we never observed fn1b upregulation in mutant larvae with no phenotype, or even a mild phenotype” However, in the in situ images in figure 3C it appears that one animal in the middle panel may not have overall increased expression, however the pattern appears different compared with the genetic wild type in the left panel. Can the authors clarify if they interpret this to be identical expression compared with the genetic wild type? I’m assuming this is a mild mutant and not a wild type-like, but the expression pattern does appear slightly different. Please clarify.

Although the authors cannot rule out transcriptional adaptation with the deletion allele, it is interesting that it still produces upregulation of fn1b. Additional discussion of potential mechanisms underlying this observation is warranted. How “this upregulation [fn1b] is most likely the result of the loss of Fn1a protein” needs to be further fleshed out. Can the authors clarify further what they think the mechanism is? The authors indicate that fn1b can compensate so upregulation is a consequence of a severe phenotype but don’t suggest a mechanism of upregulation or if there might be a difference in the upregulation seen between the different fn1a mutant alleles. If some other gene in the pathway were disabled (perhaps itga5), indirectly inhibiting fn1a activity, then would the upregulation of fn1b be predicted?

It is a bit confusing that the primers that sit inside the deleted region still amplify product in the deletion animals when these sequences are not present in the genome of these animals. Perhaps I’m not understanding but the authors state “however careful analysis of the cq values associated with primer pairs inside and outside the deleted region detected low levels of transcript from intact exons.” Are the levels of genetic material in primer pair #1 (inside deletion) simply noise, while the other pairs are detectable RNA? Could the low levels of transcript from primer pairs within the deletion be detection of maternally deposited wild type mRNA that is being detected? Please clarify.

It is good that the authors speculate why the fn1a protein would be predicted to be nonfunctional from the deletion, even if some protein is produced.

Transcriptional adaptation

I applaud the authors for generating an allele that is not likely to undergo NMD and induce TA. The authors then determine that this allele is not an RNAless allele as some transcript is detected. However, the levels are significantly lower than wild type. Could this in fact be due to NMD? Even if unlikely, the authors could complete this analysis by blocking NMD to determine if this has any effect on the phenotype and confirm that the downregulation of transcript in their alleles (including the deletion allele) is at least partially due to NMD, in addition to the proximal promoter deletion. This would help to further rule out NMD-induced TA.

Rigorous methodology

The authors formulated and tested numerous hypotheses to understand the fn1a phenotype variation, including a new deletion allele to assess what might be the null condition to complement the initial findings made with the allele recovered in the ‘96 screen.

Temperature sensitivity

“raised at the standard temperature” in the abstract comes out of nowhere and more context is needed for the reader to understand why this is relevant without reading the entire manuscript.

Early on the authors say that the temperature sensitivity might be due to transcript stability but then later say that they don’t see differences in transcript stability. In the same paragraph, they say the temperature sensitivity is due to protein loss but don’t actually test this. The authors could consider some protein detection assay to formally test this hypothesis and confirm or rule out this model.

Selective breeding

Selective breeding is a very powerful way to study phenotypic variation and compare animals that are sensitive or resilient to a given mutation. The selective breeding for mutants with wild type phenotypes is outstanding. However, also selecting and purifying for families that are severe might allow for a better comparison to further understand the mechanisms. More on this topic below.

Modifier mapping

It is very impressive and exciting the authors mapped to regions of the genome that they think underlie phenotype severity. It is remarkable that they had the power to get to a likely causative genomic region that perhaps segregates with severity. However, because the authors compare the wild type like mutants to the unselected background they cannot be sure that the alleles they recovered actually segregate with the wild type like mutant phenotype. To make stronger, the authors could hybridize their selectively bred strain to an unselected background, then resegregate to make sure these SNPs aren’t just inherited by descent but are actually segregating with severity. These analyses would be stronger had the authors compared severe individuals to their selectively bred families rather than comparing with the mixed or background condition.

In this similar vein, are the alleles of the SNPs that they think confer the mild/wild type like phenotype ever detected in severe individuals? This is important because the SNPs may be fully sufficient to confer the mild phenotype, or (more likely) that they are one part of a broader buffering mechanism that may not always segregate with the mild or severe condition.

How can itga5 rescue? Is there a molecular mech? They do speculate that might affect binding or just be expression. This is very speculative but still interesting. This should be fleshed out and more rigorously tested in future studies.

It is strong that they mechanistically test if the changes in itga5 expression are functional with morpholino injection. Since the MO matches the published mutant phenotype and they use a low dose that doesn’t produce heart defects in wild type this approach is ok but this experiment would be stronger with a germline genetic loss of function. Although I understand that a loss of function coding mutant may not be the perfect experiment since (if I understand the model correctly) the authors think the SNP confers itga5 expression differences which may be difficult to recapitulate with a germline transmitting allele that affects expression.

Parental age effects

This is a very surprising and interesting observation. I appreciated and enjoyed looking at the references that indicate a similar phenomenon in the janus mutant which I was not familiar with. It is so striking that penetrance and expressivity of a given mating pair varies from cross to cross becoming more severe as the parents age. I look forward to future work fleshing out the mechanism behind this fascinating observation.

Minor comments

Authors use the terms variability and variation interchangeably. These two terms have different meanings, variability is defined as the propensity to vary, while variation is a measurable statistic as defined by Gunter Wagner 1996 “complex adaptations…evolvability” (maybe his earlier works too).

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: No:  It is not clear that the whole genome sequencing data have been deposited. If it is required by the journal, they should deposit the raw data.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Fengwei Yu

Dear Dr Stainier,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "A genetic modifier links integrin α5 to the phenotypic variation in fibronectin 1a mutant zebrafish" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Ophir Klein

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Fengwei Yu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository . As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website .

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly: 

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-25-00099R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy  requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org .

Acceptance letter

Fengwei Yu

PGENETICS-D-25-00099R1

A genetic modifier links integrin α5 to the phenotypic variation in fibronectin 1a mutant zebrafish

Dear Dr Stainier,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "A genetic modifier links integrin α5 to the phenotypic variation in fibronectin 1a mutant zebrafish" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Anita Estes

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The fn1abns692 allele has a large deletion removing the proximal promoter and the first 17 exons of fn1a.

    (A) Schematic showing the fn1abns692 27,664 bp deletion. Exons (n = 46) are indicated by black boxes. The 5’ and 3’ UTRs are indicated by open boxes. The position of the deletion as well as of the PCR primers used to genotype fn1abns692 mutants (blue), to test for the possible reintegration of the deleted region (red), and for the RT-qPCR analysis (green) is indicated. (B) Genotyping of fn1abns692 homozygous WT, heterozygous, and mutant embryos by PCR. (C) Three primer pairs were used to test for the possible reintegration of the deleted region by PCR. GeneRuler 100 bp DNA ladder is present in all gels.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s001.tif (16.4MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. The fn1abns692 allele is not an RNA-less allele.

    fn1a mRNA levels were examined in 72 hpf larvae with three sets of RT-qPCR primers (see annotation in S1 Fig). Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. Two clutches were collected from single pair fn1abns692 heterozygous intercrosses in (A-F), and single pair natter/fn1atl43c heterozygous intercrosses in (G-L). All primer pairs reveal an almost complete loss of fn1a expression in fn1abns692 mutants (A-C) when compared with WT siblings and with natter/fn1atl43c mutants (G-I). However, the Cq values indicate that low mRNA levels are detectable from the 3’ fn1a sequence in fn1abns692 mutants – compare (D) with (E) and (F), whereas Cq values are consistent for all three primer pairs used in natter/fn1atl43c mutants (J-L). All p-values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s002.tif (21.4MB, tif)
    S3 Fig

    fn1a and fn1b mRNA injections rescue the fn1a mutant cardiac phenotype. Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and fn1a (A), or fn1b (B) mRNA injected mutant larvae from five single pair natter/fn1atl43c mutant incrosses. (C) Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in uninjected and fn1a mRNA injected mutant larvae from five single pair fn1abns692 mutant incrosses. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of larvae assessed. fn1b mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in uninjected (D) and 350 pg fn1a mRNA injected (E) 72 hpf fn1abns692 mutant larvae and WT siblings collected from two single pair heterozygous intercrosses. Two clutches were collected and analysed. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. (F) fn1b mRNA levels were analysed by RT-qPCR in the hearts and bodies of dissected 72 hpf fn1abns692 mutant larvae collected from single pair mutant incrosses. Each data point represents pooled tissue; 5–10 larvae were dissected for each pool. Mutants displaying the WT-like and mild phenotypes were pooled together. Severe mutants were pooled separately. Expression is relative to the WT-like/mild mutant pool in each clutch. For (A-C), p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test; for (D-E), p-values were calculated by one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons; and for (F), p-values were calculated by a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s003.tif (46.8MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. The fn1a mutant cardiac phenotype is temperature dependent, but temperature does not alter the relative expression of fn1a.

    Quantification of the 100 hpf cardiac phenotype in natter/fn1atl43c (A) and fn1abns692 (B) mutants from three single pair heterozygous intercrosses. Each clutch was split into three dishes at an early blastula stage and raised at 28.5°C until the embryos reached the bud stage (10 hpf). Dishes were then incubated at different temperatures until the larvae reached the equivalent of a 100 hpf larva raised at 28.5°C, and were then phenotyped. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of mutant larvae assessed. fn1a mRNA levels were examined at the protruding mouth stage (72 hpf when raised at 28.5°C) in two clutches from single pair natter/fn1atl43c (C-E) and fn1abns692 (F-H) heterozygous intercrosses. Each clutch was split into three dishes at an early blastula stage and raised at 28.5°C until they reached the bud stage (10 hpf). Dishes were then incubated at 22°C (C, F), 28.5°C (D, G), or 32°C (E, H) until they reached the protruding mouth stage, and were then collected for RT-qPCR analysis. Each data point represents an individual larva. Expression is relative to homozygous WT siblings in each clutch. p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test in (A) and (B), and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons for (C-H).

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s004.tif (45.1MB, tif)
    S5 Fig. The natter/fn1atl43c mutant cardiac phenotype varies with parental age.

    Single pair F3 [28.5°C] (A) and F3 [32°C] (B) natter/fn1atl43c mutants were repeatedly incrossed over multiple weeks and the resulting larvae phenotyped at 100 hpf. The numbers on each bar indicate the total number of larvae assessed. All p-values were calculated using a chi-squared test.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s005.tif (34.7MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. An itgα5 MO leads to dose dependent somite, cardiac, and craniofacial defects.

    (A) Images of 100 hpf uninjected, 1 ng itgα5 MO injected, and 5 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae from single pair WT incrosses are shown. Outlined regions in (A) are enlarged in (B) to show the somite phenotype. While the majority of 1 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae resembled the uninjected control, a small proportion developed U-shaped somite boundaries (white arrows in (B)) as pictured. 5 ng itgα5 MO injected larvae failed to inflate their swim bladder, developed pericardial oedema and craniofacial defects (white arrowheads in (A)), and displayed defects in somitogenesis. Lateral views are shown with anterior to the left. The proportion of larvae matching the image shown is indicated in the top right corner of each image. Scale bars, 1 mm.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1011747.s006.tif (38.1MB, tif)
    S1 Table. Pairwise comparison of relative fn1a mRNA levels in fn1a mutants raised at different temperatures.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011747.s007.xlsx (9.4KB, xlsx)
    S2 Table. Annotated list of all variants identified in the chromosome 23:31.29 - 35.29 Mbp linkage region.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011747.s008.xlsx (14MB, xlsx)
    S3 Table. List of all oligonucleotide sequences used in this study.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011747.s009.xlsx (10.4KB, xlsx)
    S4 Table. Phenotyping counts for all figures.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011747.s010.xlsx (143KB, xlsx)
    S5 Table. Cq values for all samples.

    (XLSX)

    pgen.1011747.s011.xlsx (100.5KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: 2025-05-20_revised_cover_letter.pdf

    pgen.1011747.s013.pdf (154.3KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    The whole-genome sequencing data reported in this paper have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under accession number PRJEB89164. All other relevant data are within the manuscript and its supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES