Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2019 Sep 18;17(9):e3000460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000460

The evolution of a new cell type was associated with competition for a signaling ligand

Charles A Ettensohn 1,*, Ashrifia Adomako-Ankomah 1
Editor: Marianne E Bronner2
PMCID: PMC6768484  PMID: 31532765

Abstract

There is presently a very limited understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the evolution of new cell types. The skeleton-forming primary mesenchyme cells (PMCs) of euechinoid sea urchins, derived from the micromeres of the 16-cell embryo, are an example of a recently evolved cell type. All adult echinoderms have a calcite-based endoskeleton, a synapomorphy of the Ambulacraria. Only euechinoids have a micromere-PMC lineage, however, which evolved through the co-option of the adult skeletogenic program into the embryo. During normal development, PMCs alone secrete the embryonic skeleton. Other mesoderm cells, known as blastocoelar cells (BCs), have the potential to produce a skeleton, but a PMC-derived signal ordinarily prevents these cells from expressing a skeletogenic fate and directs them into an alternative developmental pathway. Recently, it was shown that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling plays an important role in PMC differentiation and is part of a conserved program of skeletogenesis among echinoderms. Here, we report that VEGF signaling, acting through ectoderm-derived VEGF3 and its cognate receptor, VEGF receptor (VEGFR)-10-Ig, is also essential for the deployment of the skeletogenic program in BCs. This VEGF-dependent program includes the activation of aristaless-like homeobox 1 (alx1), a conserved transcriptional regulator of skeletogenic specification across echinoderms and an example of a “terminal selector” gene that controls cell identity. We show that PMCs control BC fate by sequestering VEGF3, thereby preventing activation of alx1 and the downstream skeletogenic network in BCs. Our findings provide an example of the regulation of early embryonic cell fates by direct competition for a secreted signaling ligand, a developmental mechanism that has not been widely recognized. Moreover, they reveal that a novel cell type evolved by outcompeting other embryonic cell lineages for an essential signaling ligand that regulates the expression of a gene controlling cell identity.


How do new cell types evolve? This study shows that mesoderm cells in sea urchin embryos diversified, at least in part, through a heterochronic shift in the expression of a key transcription factor, which led to competition for a signaling ligand and subsequent gene regulatory independence of the two cell types.

Introduction

Although all adult echinoderms possess calcite-based endoskeletal elements, only euechinoid sea urchins form micromeres and primary mesenchyme cells (PMCs). This newly evolved cell type is rigidly specified early in development through the activity of localized maternal factors and deploys a well-characterized gene regulatory network (GRN) that controls the morphogenetic behaviors and biomineral-forming properties of PMCs [13]. Much evidence suggests that the evolutionary appearance of this mesodermal cell lineage was associated with the co-option of an ancestral, adult program of skeletogenesis into the early embryo [35]. The regulation of skeletogenesis by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling was likely a component of this ancestral program [4,68]. In euechinoid sea urchins, although VEGF signaling is not involved in the maternally entrained, cell-autonomous specification of the micromere-PMC lineage, it plays an important role later in embryogenesis when PMC migration and skeletogenesis come under the regulatory influence of VEGF3 produced by ectoderm cells [912]. Morgulis and coworkers [13] recently used whole-embryo RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) to show that VEGF signaling regulates hundreds of genes, including many biomineralization genes expressed selectively by PMCs, and they propose that VEGF regulates an ancient program of tubulogenesis shared by echinoderms and vertebrates.

In contrast to PMCs, which are rigidly committed to a single (skeletogenic) fate, blastocoelar cells (BCs) are multipotent. These cells ordinarily give rise to a heterogeneous population of migratory, immunocyte-like cells [14]. They also possess skeletogenic potential, but during normal development, a signal from PMCs suppresses this potential and directs BCs to express an immunocyte fate (Fig 1). If PMCs are ablated at or about the time of ingression, BCs undergo a striking change in phenotype; they adopt PMC-specific morphogenetic behaviors and secrete a correctly patterned skeleton [1518]. This change in cell phenotype is associated with the molecular reprogramming of BCs, which ectopically deploy the skeletogenic GRN while extinguishing the expression of two regulatory genes, stem cell leukemia (scl) and GATA-binding factor c (gatac), that are associated with the immunocyte fate [14,19]. Although this cellular interaction was first described more than 50 years ago [20], the molecular nature of the PMC-derived signal has not been determined.

Fig 1. PMC-derived signals suppress the skeletogenic potential of BCs.

Fig 1

Upper panel: Each pBC is multipotent and can adopt either a skeletogenic (PMC-like) or BC (immunocyte) fate. Ordinarily, a signal from PMCs (red bar) suppresses the skeletogenic potential of pBCs and causes them to adopt an immunocyte fate. Lower panels: Ablation of PMCs (red cells) at the late (mesenchyme) blastula stage leads to transfating of BCs (green cells). In these PMC(−) embryos, BCs ingress late in gastrulation but migrate to PMC-specific target sites on the blastocoel wall (indicated by white arrows), fuse to form a syncytium, and synthesize a correctly patterned skeleton, beginning with the formation of two triradiate skeletal primordia (shown in yellow). BC, blastocoelar cell; pBC, presumptive BC; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell.

Results

VEGFR signaling is required for the activation and maintenance of the skeletogenic network in BCs

There are two VEGF receptor (VEGFR) genes in sea urchins: vegfr-10-Ig is ordinarily expressed at high levels (peak expression > 3,000 transcripts/embryo), whereas vegfr-7-Ig is expressed at much lower levels (<150 transcripts/embryo) [21,22]. During normal development, vegfr-10-Ig is expressed selectively by presumptive PMCs beginning at the early blastula stage [9]. In PMC(−) embryos, however, vegfr-10-Ig is expressed robustly in BCs [19]. The spatial expression pattern of vegfr-7-Ig is not known in detail but, unlike vegfr-10-Ig, this gene is not differentially expressed by PMCs [23,24].

Axitinib is a highly selective inhibitor of VEGF receptors at nanomolar concentrations [25,26]. The effects of axitinib on sea urchin development mimic those of VEGF3 and VEGFR-10-Ig knockdowns, confirming that axitinib is a specific inhibitor of VEGF/VEGFR signaling in this system [9,11]. We found that PMC(−) Lytechinus variegatus embryos treated continuously with axitinib (75 nM) beginning at the time of PMC removal failed to form a skeleton, even after prolonged culture (48 hours postfertilization [hpf]) (Fig 2A and 2A’). Axitinib-treated embryos swam vigorously and gastrulated at the same time as untreated, PMC(−) embryos but never extended arms. Polarization microscopy showed that these embryos completely lacked birefringent skeletal elements (Fig 2B and 2B’). This phenotype was reproducible and highly penetrant; >95% of axitinib-treated, PMC(−) embryos showed this effect across many batches.

Fig 2. Axitinib blocks BC transfating.

Fig 2

PMCs were removed from mesenchyme blastula–stage embryos, and the resultant PMC(−) embryos were separated into two cohorts. One cohort was left in plain seawater, whereas the other was transferred to 5 nM axitinib immediately after PMC removal. (A-G) Control PMC(−) embryos. (A’-G’) Axitinib-treated PMC(−) embryos. Axitinib treatment blocked the formation of birefringent skeletal elements (A-B’) and the expression of early skeletogenic regulatory genes by BCs as shown by WMISH analysis of Lv-alx1 (C,C’) and Lv-tbr (D,D’) expression. The expression of skeletogenic effector genes downstream of alx1 was also blocked, as indicated by WMISH analysis of Lv-p58a (E,E’) and Lv-msp130rel2 (F,F’), and by immunostaining with mAb 6a9 (G,G’). Arrowheads indicate expression of skeletogenic genes by transfating BCs. Panel H shows quantification of 6a9-positive cells in control and axitinib-treated PMC(−) embryos at 12 hpd (two independent trials from separate matings). Statistical significance of the data was assessed by two-sided t tests, and p-values < 0.05 are indicated by asterisks. Raw data can be found in S1 Data. BC, blastocoelar cell; DIC, differential interference contrast microscopy; hpd, hours post–PMC depletion; Lv-alx1, L. variegatus aristaless-like 1; Lv-tbr, L. variegatus t-brain; mAb, monoclonal antibody; msp130rel2, L. variegatus mesenchyme specific protein 130-related 2; POL, polarized light microscopy; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; WMISH, whole-mount in situ hybridization.

Early molecular events in BC transfating include the activation of aristaless-like homeobox 1 (alx1) and t-brain (tbr), two regulatory (i.e., transcription factor-encoding) genes that function early in the PMC GRN and are ordinarily expressed only in the large micromere-PMC lineage [17,19]. Alx1 is a critically important regulator of the skeletogenic GRN both in the PMC lineage and in transfating BCs, whereas tbr plays a less prominent role [17,24,2730]. The activation of these two genes in transfating BCs is detectable by whole-mount in situ hybridization (WMISH) as early as 2 hours post–PMC depletion [19]. We confirmed that L. variegatus alx1 (Lv-alx1) and L. variegatus tbr (Lv-tbr) were expressed robustly in the anterior region of the archenteron in control PMC(−) embryos but found that expression of both genes was greatly reduced in embryos that were placed in axitinib at the time of PMC removal (Fig 2C–2D’) (3 trials, n = 15–30 embryos/trial). This effect was readily apparent by 3 hours post–PMC depletion when assayed by conventional (histochemical) WMISH. These findings demonstrated that the expression of alx1 and tbr in BCs was dependent upon VEGF/VEGFR signaling. Consistent with this finding, the expression of two terminal biomineralization genes, p58a and L. variegatus mesenchyme specific protein 130-related 2 (msp130rel2), that receive positive regulatory inputs from alx1 [24,31,32], was also greatly reduced in axitinib-treated, PMC(−) embryos (Fig 2E–2F’, >90% of embryos, n > 40). We also immunostained embryos with monoclonal antibody (mAb) 6a9, a widely used marker of PMC differentiation that recognizes the biomineralization protein MSP130 [15,33,34], and observed a dramatic reduction in the numbers of 6a9(+) cells in axitinib-treated, PMC(−) embryos (Fig 2G and 2H). Culturing such embryos for an additional 24 hours did not increase the numbers of 6a9(+) cells, indicating that axitinib was not simply delaying BC transfating.

We next asked whether VEGFR signaling was required only at the onset of BC transfating (i.e., whether it acted like a trigger) or was required continuously during the transfating process. We removed PMCs from mesenchyme blastula–stage embryos and allowed them to develop for varying periods of time before adding axitinib to the medium (Fig 3A). At 12 hours post–PMC depletion, embryos were fixed and immunostained with mAb 6a9. As the time interval between PMC depletion and the addition of axitinib increased, the numbers of 6a9(+) cells increased progressively (Fig 3B). This suggested that VEGFR signaling was required continuously during the first several hours after PMC depletion. Surprisingly, even when axitinib was added 5–6 hours post–PMC depletion, several hours after the activation of skeletogenic regulatory genes in BCs, we observed a significant reduction in the numbers of 6a9(+) cells. This finding raised the question of whether, once activated, early regulatory genes maintained their expression in the presence of axitinib. We removed PMCs at the mesenchyme blastula stage and allowed the resulting PMC(−) embryos to develop for 4–5 hours, sufficient time for alx1 to be activated ectopically in BCs (Fig 3C). Transfer of PMC(−) embryos into 75 nM axitinib at that time led to a decline in alx1 expression to undetectable levels in most embryos (10/13, or 77%) within 5 hours, whereas expression was maintained (or increased) in sibling, untreated, PMC(−) embryos (Fig 3D and 3E). These observations showed that VEGFR signaling was required not only to activate but also to maintain the expression of alx1 in transfating BCs.

Fig 3. Time course of axitinib sensitivity during BC transfating.

Fig 3

(A) Experimental design. Solid horizontal bars indicate the duration of axitinib (5 nM) treatment. Start times are shown as a 1-hour interval because microsurgical removal of PMCs required approximately 1 hour for each cohort of embryos. (B) Counts of 6a9-positive cells. Data shown were collected from several independent trials, and untreated controls from all trials were pooled. For all time periods tested, we observed a significant reduction in 6a9(+) cells in axitinib-treated PMC(−) embryos relative to untreated PMC(−) controls. Raw data can be found in S1 Data. (C-E) Signaling through VEGFR is required for the maintenance of Lv-alx1 expression in BCs during reprogramming. PMC(−) embryos were treated with axitinib for 5 hours beginning at 4–5 hpd. At the start of axitinib treatment, Lv-alx1 was expressed robustly by BCs at the tip of the archenteron (arrow in C, 10/11 embryos). Five hours later (9–10 hpd), alx1 continued to be expressed in untreated PMC(−) embryos (arrow in D, 5/5 embryos), but expression was undetectable in most axitinib-treated PMC(−) embryos (E, 10/13 embryos). BC, blastocoelar cell; hpd, hours post–PMC depletion; Lv-alx1, L. variegatus aristaless-like homeobox 1; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; VEGFR, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.

VEGFR signaling acts through VEGFR-10-Ig and VEGF3

Because vegfr-10-Ig is expressed at high levels during embryogenesis and because it has been shown to regulate PMC skeletogenesis, it seemed likely that this receptor was the primary target of axitinib. Using WMISH, we first examined the expression of L. variegatus vegfr-10-Ig (Lv-vegfr-10-Ig) in control embryos. We confirmed that vegfr-10-Ig was expressed robustly in PMCs, as previously reported [9], but also observed faint expression in the wall of the archenteron at the early gastrula stage (S1 Fig). This region represents the presumptive nonskeletogenic mesoderm, including the presumptive BCs. Expression in the nonskeletogenic mesoderm was observed in multiple batches of embryos; however, this expression was apparent in only 30%–40% of embryos in each batch and was not detectable at later developmental stages, suggesting that expression was highly transient. In PMC(−) embryos, we originally documented high levels of expression of vegfr-10-Ig in transfating BCs at a relatively late stage, 10–11 hours post–PMC depletion, several hours after alx1 activation [19]. Cheng and coworkers [35], however, used quantitative PCR (QPCR) and WMISH to show that in micromere(−) embryos, which resemble PMC(−) embryos in many respects, expression of vegfr-10-Ig and alx1 was up-regulated at almost the same time. We therefore reexamined the timing of vegfr-10-Ig activation in PMC(−) embryos. We found that within 2 hours after PMC removal, vegfr-10-Ig mRNA was expressed robustly in the vegetal region of >90% of PMC(−) embryos, in an area that included the BC domain (Fig 4A and 4B) (2 trials, 10–20 embryos/trial). Expression remained strong at 7 hours post–PMC depletion (Fig 4C). The timing of vegfr-10-Ig up-regulation in BCs following PMC removal therefore closely paralleled the timing of alx1 and tbr activation, in agreement with the findings of Cheng and coworkers [35].

Fig 4. Lv-vegfr-10-Ig expression during BC transfating.

Fig 4

(A) Control gastrula. Lv-vegfr-10-Ig is expressed at high levels by PMCs (arrow), as previously reported [9]. (B) PMC(−) embryo, 2 hpd. Expression of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig is evident in the invaginating vegetal plate (arrow), a region that includes presumptive BCs (32/37 embryos). (C) PMC(−) embryo, 7 hpd. Expression of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig is apparent in the wall of the archenteron (arrow). (D) Emetine-treated PMC(−) embryo, 2 hpd. Inhibition of protein synthesis did not prevent the robust expression of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig in the vegetal plate following PMC removal (16/20 embryos). BC, blastocoelar cell; hpd, hours post–PMC depletion; Lv-vegfr-10-Ig, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-10-Ig; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell.

The rapidity with which vegfr-10-Ig mRNA accumulated after PMC removal argued against the possibility that activation occurred via a relay mechanism that involved the transcriptional activation of an intermediate regulatory gene. Such a relay mechanism would require new protein synthesis in order to produce the relevant regulatory factor. To explore this possibility, we treated embryos with 100 μM emetine, which rapidly (<25 minutes) blocks >95% of protein synthesis in L. variegatus embryos [36]. Microsurgery was carried out in the presence of the inhibitor, and PMC(−) embryos were allowed to develop for an additional 2 hours in emetine-containing seawater before they were processed for WMISH. Longer incubation times were not possible, as embryos disaggregated when exposed to emetine for longer than approximately 2.5 hours. We observed a strong activation of vegfr-10-Ig in >90% of emetine-treated PMC(−) embryos (3 trials, 10–20 embryos/trial) (Fig 4D), arguing against a transcriptional relay mechanism.

To test whether signaling through VEGFR-10-Ig was required for BC transfating, we inhibited the expression of the receptor using a splice-blocking morpholino (MO), following the strategy of Duloquin and coworkers [9] (Fig 5A). Embryos injected with the Lv-vegfr-10-Ig MO showed reduced levels of correctly spliced, wild-type mRNA and expressed high levels of an alternatively spliced RNA species that contained intron 2 (Fig 5B). We cloned and sequenced the prominent 1.1-kb PCR product shown in Fig 5B and confirmed that intron 2 was present, resulting in the introduction of multiple stop codons in all three reading frames. Less abundant PCR products were also detectable (asterisks in Fig 5B), which may reflect utilization of cryptic splice sites within exon 2 and/or intron 2. We concluded that the splice-blocking MO resulted in a marked, but incomplete, knockdown of VEGFR-10-Ig.

Fig 5. Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig is required for BC transfating.

Fig 5

(A) MO knockdown strategy. Following the approach of Duloquin and coworkers [9], an MO was directed at the exon 2/intron 2 splice junction of the Lv-vegfr-10-Ig primary transcript. (B) RT-PCR analysis of morphant embryos. The Lv-vegfr-10-Ig MO produced a significant reduction in the level of wild-type mRNA and the appearance of a prominent splicing isoform that included intron 2, as verified by cloning and sequencing of the PCR product. Inclusion of intron 2 resulted in multiple stop codons in all reading frames and the production of a truncated, nonfunctional receptor. Low levels of other mis-spliced forms of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig mRNA (asterisks) were also detected. (C-D) BC transfating and skeletogenesis were suppressed in PMC(−), morphant embryos, as revealed by DIC and polarization microscopy at 40 hpd (C-D’) and by immunostaining with mAb 6a9 at 12 hpd (E-F). BC reprogramming was not affected by an equivalent concentration of an MO directed against Lv-IgTM, a PMC-specific protein that regulates skeletal branching [37]. Statistical significance of the data was assessed by two-sided t tests and p-values < 0.05 are indicated by asterisks. Raw data can be found in S1 Data. BC, blastocoelar cell; DIC, differential interference contrast microscopy; hpd, hours post–PMC depletion; Lv-vegfr-10-Ig, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-10-Ig; Lv-IgTM, L. variegatus Ig and transmembrane domain protein; mAb, monoclonal antibody; MO, morpholino; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; POL, polarized light microscopy; RT-PCR, reverse transcription PCR.

Knockdown of VEGFR-10-Ig in PMC(−) embryos produced a phenotype indistinguishable from axitinib treatment. Morphant PMC(−) embryos gastrulated normally and developed a tripartite gut, ciliary band, pigment cells, and coelomic pouches but lacked birefringent skeletal elements (Fig 5C–5D’). We also observed a striking decrease in the number 6a9(+) cells in PMC(−) morphant embryos (Fig 5E and 5F). This effect was not due to a delay in transfating, as shown by immunostaining morphant embryos at later time points (20 hours post–PMC depletion). In addition, the effect was specific to the VEGFR MO, as injection of an equivalent concentration of an MO complementary to IgTM, a protein that regulates skeletal branching [37], had no effect on BC transfating (Fig 5F). Previous work showed that delta MO also had no effect of BC transfating [19]. These studies showed that signaling through VEGFR-10-Ig was required for BCs to express a skeletogenic fate. They suggested that axitinib blocked transfating by inhibiting the function of this receptor in BCs, where the gene is expressed robustly following PMC removal.

Three genes in the sea urchin genome—vegf, vegf2, and vegf3—encode ligands in the VEGF family [21]. During gastrulation, vegf3 is expressed at high levels (peak expression > 1,200 transcripts/embryo), whereas vegf and vegf2 are expressed at very low levels or not at all (<20 transcripts/embryo) [22]. vegf3 is expressed in localized regions of the ectoderm and functions along with vegfr-10-Ig as an essential mediator of PMC migration and skeletogenesis [913]. VEGF3 was therefore a likely candidate for the ligand that interacted with VEGFR-10-Ig to activate the skeletogenic GRN in transfating BCs. To test this hypothesis, we knocked down VEGF3 expression using a translation-blocking MO characterized previously [11]. Knockdown of VEGF3 in PMC(−) embryos produced a phenotype indistinguishable from VEGFR-10-Ig knockdown and axitinib treatment. PMC(−) morphant embryos gastrulated on schedule and gave rise to normal, prism-like larvae that lacked arms and birefringent skeletal elements (Fig 6A–6B’). These embryos also contained reduced numbers of 6a9(+) cells (Fig 6C and 6D). Our observations demonstrated that VEGF3 (like VEGFR-10-Ig) was required for BC transfating and strongly supported the hypothesis that VEGF3 is the ligand that interacts with VEGFR-10-Ig.

Fig 6. Lv-VEGF3 is required for BC transfating.

Fig 6

A previously characterized translation-blocking MO was used to interfere with Lv-vegf3 expression [11]. PMC(−) morphant embryos failed to form skeletal elements even at 48 hpd (A-B’), and very few 6a9(+) cells were detectable at 12 hpd (C-D), indicating that BC transfating was largely blocked. Statistical significance of cell count data was assessed by two-sided t tests, and p-values < 0.05 are indicated by asterisks. Raw data can be found in S1 Data. BC, blastocoelar cell; DIC, differential interference contrast microscopy; hpd, hours post–PMC depletion; Lv-vegf3, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor 3; mAb, monoclonal antibody; MO, morpholino; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; POL, polarized light microscopy.

PMCs suppress the skeletogenic potential of BCs by sequestering VEGF3

The finding that signaling through the VEGF pathway, mediated by VEGF3 and VEGFR-10-Ig, was essential for the activation of the skeletogenic pathway in BCs suggested a possible mechanism for PMC-to-BC signaling. As noted above, PMCs ordinarily express high levels of vegfr-10-Ig during gastrulation. Our results suggested that PMCs might outcompete BCs for VEGF3, thereby preventing the activation of the skeletogenic program by BCs and directing them into an alternative (immunocyte) pathway.

This model generated two testable predictions. First, lowering the level of VEGFR-10-Ig on the PMC surface should reduce the ability of the cells to suppress BC transfating. We tested this hypothesis by generating chimeric embryos in which VEGFR-10-Ig expression was knocked down selectively in PMCs (Fig 7A–7E). The entire complement of PMCs was removed from host embryos, and varying numbers of labeled, donor PMCs were transplanted into the host embryos. PMCs were labeled by incubating donor embryos in a reactive dye, rhodamine isothiocyanate (RITC), which results in the covalent attachment of rhodamine to lysine residues on cell surface proteins [15]. The fluorescently tagged proteins do not readily diffuse from cell to cell after fusion; therefore, this method persistently labels the donor cells. Donor PMCs from control (uninjected) and VEGFR-10-Ig morphant embryos were tested separately. It was shown previously that the number of BCs that express a skeletogenic fate is inversely proportional to the number of PMCs in the blastocoel [15], a finding that we confirmed (Fig 7F). Significantly, we observed that PMCs with reduced expression of VEGFR-10-Ig were much less effective than control PMCs in suppressing the skeletogenic potential of BCs (Fig 7F). The residual signaling activity of morphant PMCs was consistent with the incomplete nature of the VEGFR-10-Ig knockdown (Fig 5B). These experiments showed that signaling by PMCs was dependent upon their expression of VEGFR-10-Ig.

Fig 7. Knockdown of Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig in PMCs reduces their ability to suppress BC transfating.

Fig 7

(A) Experimental design. The entire complement of PMCs was removed from a recipient embryo and replaced with 15–40 RITC-labeled PMCs from control or Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig morphant donor embryos. Then, 10.5 hours after transplantation, recipient embryos were fixed and immunostained with mAb 6a9 and a DyLight 488 goat anti-mouse secondary antibody. Donor PMCs were identified by (red + green) fluorescence, whereas transfated BCs exhibited only green fluorescence. (B-E) A representative embryo after immunostaining, viewed with DIC (B) or epifluorescence optics. (C) mAb 6a9 immunostaining showing all skeletogenic cells (donor PMCs and transfated BCs). (D) Rhodamine fluorescence showing donor PMCs. (E) Overlay of the two fluorescent channels. Cells that are green but not red are transfated BCs. (F) Quantification of the numbers of transfated BCs following PMC transplantation. Control PMCs (orange) were more potent at suppressing BC transfating than PMCs that had reduced expression of Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig (teal). In both cases, the number of transfated cells was inversely related to the number of PMCs in the blastocoel. Each point represents a single recipient embryo. Lines of best fit are indicated, and 95% confidence intervals are shown in gray. Raw data can be found in S2 Data. BC, blastocoelar cell; DIC, differential interference contrast microscopy; Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-10-Ig; mAb, monoclonal antibody; pBC, presumptive BC; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; RITC, rhodamine isothiocyanate.

Both control and morphant PMCs migrated actively and accumulated at typical PMC target sites near the embryo equator; however, in about 50% of embryos, morphant PMCs remained localized predominantly at PMC target sites on one side of the blastocoel, in contrast to control PMCs, which formed a bilaterally symmetrical PMC ring pattern. This indicated that knockdown of VEGFR-10-Ig partially compromised PMC migration and/or patterning, as previously reported [9,11]. To test whether VEGFR-10-Ig MO affected signaling indirectly by perturbing PMC migration, we agglutinated PMCs by microinjecting wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) into the blastocoel at the mesenchyme blastula stage [38]. In most embryos, the PMCs quickly (<2 hours) coalesced into 1–2 large masses that persisted for >12 hours (28/31 embryos) (S2 Fig). Nevertheless, PMCs were still capable of fully suppressing BC transfating, as shown by the absence of any 6a9(+) cells at the archenteron tip during gastrulation. Injection of WGA into PMC(−) embryos did not by itself prevent BC transfating, and 6a9(+) cells appeared normally (34/34 embryos). These studies showed that the reduced signaling potency of morphant PMCs could not be attributed to the compromised migratory capacity of these cells.

A second prediction of the competition model was that overexpression of VEGF3 should saturate receptors on the PMC surface and provide sufficient unbound ligand to activate the skeletogenic program in BCs. During normal development, expression of VEGF3 is limited to small patches of ectoderm that overlie sites of skeletal growth. We overexpressed VEGF3 by microinjecting mRNA encoding full-length Lv-VEGF3 into fertilized eggs, causing the ligand to be expressed throughout the embryo. Injection of VEGF3 mRNA led to a concentration-dependent increase in the number of skeletogenic (6a9-positive) cells at the late prism stage (24 hpf) (Fig 8A, 8A’ and 8D). The spatial patterning of 6a9(+) cells was markedly perturbed in embryos overexpressing VEGF3, consistent with the role of this molecule in PMC guidance [9]. Strikingly, when we examined Lv-vegf3 mRNA–injected embryos several hours earlier in development, we observed ectopic activation of Lv-alx1 (14/18 embryos, or 78%) and Lv-tbr (24/32 embryos, or 75%) in the wall of the archenteron, in a relatively broad territory that included presumptive mesoderm and possibly also presumptive endoderm cells (Fig 8B–8C’). Activation in presumptive endoderm is consistent with evidence that under appropriate experimental conditions, these cells can also adopt a skeletogenic fate, probably via the re-specification of a BC-like intermediate state [19,39]. Lv-alx1 and Lv-tbr were not activated at the very anterior tip of the archenteron, the location of the small micromere descendants (future germ cells).

Fig 8. Overexpression of Lv-VEGF3 induces BC transfating.

Fig 8

Capped mRNA encoding Lv-VEGF3 was injected into fertilized eggs. Many supernumerary 6a9(+) cells were observed in such embryos 24 hpf, when sibling control embryos had reached the late prism stage (A, A’). In control embryos, expression of Lv-alx1 and Lv-tbr was restricted to PMCs, as expected (arrows in B and C), whereas injection of Lv-vegf3 mRNA resulted in the ectopic activation of Lv-alx1 and Lv-tbr in the wall of the archenteron (arrows in B’ and C’). The effect of Lv-vegf3 mRNA was dose-dependent (D). Raw data can be found in S1 Data. BC, blastocoelar cell; hpf, hours postfertilization; Lv-alx1, L. variegatus aristaless-like 1; Lv-tbr, L. variegatus t-brain; Lv-VEGF3, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor 3; mAb, monoclonal antibody; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell.

Discussion

It has been proposed that receptor molecules might sequester signaling ligands, thereby influencing their effective range and tissue pattering [40]. In the Drosophila ovary, expression of the Decapentaplegic (Dpp) receptor by escort cells restricts Dpp distribution and its influence on the fates of cells within the stem cell niche [41]. Interactions between Wnt ligands and Frizzled receptors limit the range of Wnt movement in the mammalian intestinal stem cell niche [42]. Other studies have shown that manipulation of Hedgehog and Dpp receptor expression in Drosophila imaginal wing discs influences the range of signaling and subsequent tissue patterning [43,44]. The simplest hypothesis is that receptor molecules sequester ligands, thereby preventing them from reaching more distant cells, although indirect mechanisms may also operate [45]. How widespread such mechanisms are in controlling cell fates, particularly during early embryogenesis, remains an open question.

In the present study, we provide evidence that mesodermal cell fates during sea urchin gastrulation are regulated by direct competition for a paracrine factor, VEGF3. Two different groups of cells (PMCs and BCs) are capable of responding to the ligand, but as a result of competition, only one cell population does so, whereas the other is directed into an alternative developmental pathway (Fig 9). The following observations support the view that PMCs regulate BC fate by outcompeting these cells for VEGF3: (1) signaling through VEGFR-10-Ig, which is up-regulated in the presumptive BCs territory immediately following PMC ablation, is essential for the activation of alx1 and the deployment of the skeletogenic GRN in BCs; (2) VEGF3, produced by the ectoderm, is also required for BCs to express a skeletogenic fate, presumably through the interaction of this ligand with VEGFR-10-Ig; (3) PMCs with reduced levels of vegfr-10-Ig have a reduced ability to suppress BC transfating; and (4) overexpression of VEGF3 is sufficient to override the suppressive influence of PMCs and induce BC transfating. It should be noted that injection of VEGF3 mRNA into fertilized eggs probably results in the secretion of the ligand by most or all cells of the embryo. Therefore, it is possible that the effects we see may be caused by VEGF3 produced by the BCs themselves acting in an autocrine fashion.

Fig 9. A model of the PMC–BC interaction.

Fig 9

During normal development (top panel), PMCs migrate into the blastocoel at the onset of gastrulation, and VEGFR-Ig-10 on their surfaces sequesters VEGF3, which is expressed by ventrolateral ectoderm cells [9,11]. BCs are hypothesized to express low but functional levels of VEGFR-10-Ig. In PMC(−) embryos (bottom panel), VEGF3 is free to diffuse through the blastocoel and interacts with BCs. As a consequence of this signal, the key selector gene, alx1, is activated along with its many targets. At the same time, alx1 suppresses competing regulatory states [24,29]. alx1, aristaless-like homeobox 1; BC, blastocoelar cell; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; VEGFR, VEGF receptor.

What is the mechanism by which vegfr-10-Ig is induced in BCs following PMC ablation? One possibility is that there exists a second mechanism of PMC-to-BC communication, entirely distinct from the proposed competition for VEGF3, that underlies the induction of vegfr-10-Ig in BCs. A much simpler hypothesis, however, is that BCs ordinarily express low levels of VEGFR-10-Ig on their surface, consistent with our finding that these cells transiently express low levels of vegfr-10-Ig mRNA (S1 Fig). We hypothesize that signaling by VEGF3 activates a positive-feedback mechanism that rapidly elevates the expression of vegfr-10-Ig. Notably, a similar mechanism normally operates in PMCs, in which vegfr-10-Ig expression is maintained by signaling through VEGF3 and VEGFR-10-Ig [9,11]. Robust activation of vegfr-10-Ig occurs even in the presence of emetine, arguing against any mechanism that requires the expression of new transcriptional regulators and instead suggesting that posttranslational modification of transcription factors that directly regulate vegfr-10-Ig might be responsible. Positive-feedback regulation of VEGFR expression by VEGF signaling has also been described in mammalian cells and has been attributed to the posttranscriptional regulation of several transcription factors that control VEGFR expression [4648].

An important, unresolved issue is the mechanism by which VEGF signaling activates alx1 in transfating BCs. This may be related to the mechanism by which VEGF3 ordinarily regulates the expression of alx1 (and many other genes) within the PMC syncytium at late developmental stages, although the molecular basis of that control is also unknown. The effects of axitinib on PMC(−) embryos closely resemble those of U0126, an inhibitor of MEK, suggesting that VEGF might act through the MAPK cascade, as it does in other cell types [17,49]. One candidate mediator is E26 transformation-specific 1 (Ets1), an ERK-dependent transcription factor ordinarily expressed by both BCs and PMCs and a positive regulator of alx1 [50].

The processes that have led to the appearance of new embryonic cell types are poorly understood [5155]. Arendt and colleagues [54] recently formalized an evolution-based definition of cell type, which they consider to be a set of cells in an organism that change together through evolution, partially independent of other cells, and that are evolutionarily more closely related to each other than to other cells. According to this view, the key to the origin of a new cell type is gene regulatory independence—i.e., the capacity for regulating and evolving gene expression independently of other cells.

The micromere-PMC lineage is a recent evolutionary invention, and its appearance in euechinoids was associated with the coupling of an ancestral, adult skeletogenic program to the molecular polarity of the oocyte [4]. The intervening steps in the evolutionary appearance of PMCs are difficult to reconstruct, in part because of the great diversity of skeletogenic programs exhibited by modern echinoderms [3]. One hypothesis is that the ancestral echinoid program resembled that of modern cidaroids, the most basal group of living echinoids. These species have variable numbers of micromeres and lack an early-ingressing, skeletogenic mesenchyme; instead, a subpopulation of late-ingressing mesoderm cells produces the embryonic skeleton [56,57]. If this reflects the ancestral echinoid state, then the invention of PMCs may have been associated with mechanisms that suppressed the potential of late-ingressing, skeletogenic cells, thereby shunting them into alternative developmental pathways. It should also be noted that modern euechinoids possess non-micromere-derived, late-ingressing mesoderm cells that express a skeletogenic fate much later in development, after larval feeding begins [58]. This raises the possibility that BCs normally contribute to the late larval or adult skeleton in euechinoids and that PMC removal causes these cells to precociously activate the skeletogenic GRN.

In several respects, the gene regulatory programs of PMCs and BCs of modern euechinoids are similar. Many effector genes associated with a mesenchymal phenotype are coexpressed selectively by these two cell populations [59]. Both cell populations also express ets1 and ets-related gene (erg) [6062], two regulatory genes that provide positive inputs into vegfr-10-Ig in the PMC lineage [29]. The expression of these genes may reflect an ancestral, pan-mesodermal or pan-mesenchymal state, perhaps similar to that seen in the late-ingressing, nonskeletogenic mesenchyme of modern asteroids [63]. One striking exception to this shared pattern of gene expression, however, is the PMC-specific expression of alx1. This gene is activated specifically in the founder cells of the PMC lineage in the first cell cycle after their birth [28]. Alx1 has positive inputs into at least half of the >400 effector genes expressed selectively by PMCs and an even larger proportion of such genes that are expressed at high levels [24]. Recent chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) studies have shown that many of these inputs are direct [64]. Alx1 also functions in PMCs to suppress alternative mesodermal regulatory states [24,29], and misexpression of alx1 in nonskeletogenic mesoderm cells is sufficient to convert them to a PMC-like fate [17]. Moreover, the developmental expression and skeletogenic function of alx1 are conserved across echinoderms [3]. Together, these findings highlight the pivotal role of Alx1 in specifying skeletogenic cell identity and establish this protein as a “terminal selector” [54,65], i.e., a transcription factor that regulates a cell type–specific suite of effector genes while repressing alternative cell identities.

We propose that the evolutionary change that linked alx1 activation to the prefertilization axis of the oocyte bypassed an ancestral mode of regulation that was based on VEGF signaling (Fig 10). The selective coexpression of vegf3, vegfr-10-Ig, and alx1 in embryonic and adult skeletogenic centers in all echinoderms that have been examined strongly suggests that VEGF signaling had an ancient role in skeletogenesis and that expression of both vegfr-Ig-10 and alx1 was associated with the invention of skeletogenic cells very early in echinoderm evolution [4,68,66]. Although the evolutionarily derived, initial phase of alx1 expression in euechinoids is independent of VEGF signaling [11], vestiges of an ancestral regulatory mechanism may persist in the apparent, signal-dependent regulation of alx1 in the ventral domain of the PMC syncytium at the late gastrula stage [12]. We hypothesize that the VEGF-dependent expression of alx1 in transfating BCs (see Figs 2C, 2C’, 8B and 8B’) is a manifestation of an ancestral regulatory mode. We further speculate that this mechanism may have involved feedback control whereby alx1, activated by VEGF3, up-regulated the expression of the cognate receptor, vegfr-10-Ig. An attractive feature of a feedback model is that the heterochronic transfer of the skeletogenic program would have only required a shift in the expression of the VEGF3 ligand, rather than separate, coordinated changes in the expression patterns of both the ligand and receptor, which are expressed in different germ layers. In the micromere-PMC lineage, although the ancestral mode of alx1 activation has been superseded by new, maternally entrained mechanisms, vegfr-10-Ig remains a target of alx1 [24,29,59]. One clear and important outcome of the heterochronic shift of the skeletogenic program was the early, robust developmental expression of vegfr-10-Ig by PMCs. This expression begins at the blastula stage, well before PMC ingression [9,22]. Our findings indicate that the early expression of the receptor allowed PMCs to outcompete BCs for VEGF3, effectively isolating BCs from the powerful influence of alx1 and allowing them to adopt an alternative regulatory state.

Fig 10. A provisional model of skeletogenic cell type evolution in euechinoids.

Fig 10

(A) Ancestral skeletogenic cell, present in the adult of the last common ancestor of all echinoderms. Ancient roles for alx1, vegf3, and vegfr-10-Ig in echinoderm skeletogenesis are inferred from the conserved expression of these genes in adult and embryonic skeletogenic centers in multiple echinoderm clades and from experimental perturbations of gene function in echinoid and holothuroid embryos (see references in [3]). Red lines are inferred from experimentally determined inputs of VEGF3 signaling into vegfr-10-Ig and biomineralization genes in euechinoid PMCs [9,11,13]. The brokenness of the lines indicates that intervening transcription factors have not been identified. Regulation of alx1 by VEGF signaling is hypothesized based on data presented in this study and from the restricted, ventral expression of alx1 at the late gastrula stage in euechinoids [12]. Inputs from alx1 into vegfr-10-Ig and other biomineralization genes (blue arrows) have been revealed by knockdown/overexpression of alx1 in euechinoid and asteroid embryos [24,29,59,67]. (B) During echinoid evolution, the ancestral skeletogenic gene regulatory system was transferred into mesoderm-derived cells of the larva or late embryo. This may have only required a shift in vegf3 expression in the ectoderm if a widely expressed receptor was linked to a feedback mechanism that up-regulated vegfr-10-Ig. In modern euechinoids, at postgastrula stages of development (“late embryo”), alx1, vegfr-10-Ig, and many biomineralization genes are regulated by VEGF signaling, which we suggest reflects the ancestral mode. Essentially the same regulatory machinery operates in BCs when VEGF3 is available, i.e., in PMC(−) embryos. (C) The evolution of PMCs involved the transfer of alx1 expression into the large micromere lineage (“early embryo”) by linking the activation of this gene to maternal β-catenin, its direct target, pmar1, and unequal cleavage [28,68,69]. The early, cell-autonomous activation of alx1 in the large micromere-PMC lineage resulted in the precocious expression of VEGFR-10-Ig, which in modern euechinoids sequesters VEGF3 and isolates BCs from the exclusionary influence of Alx1, allowing these cells to express an alternative regulatory state. Alx1, Aristaless-like homeobox 1; BC, blastocoelar cell; pmar1, paired-class micromere anti-repressor; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; VEGFR, VEGF receptor.

Methods

General methods

L. variegatus embryos were obtained and cultured as previously described [30]. Microsurgical removal of PMCs, PMC transplantation, vital labeling of embryos with RITC, and whole-mount immunostaining with mAb 6a9 were carried out according to Ettensohn and McClay [15]. WMISH using digoxigenin-labeled, antisense RNA probes was carried out as described previously [24]. Treatment with axitinib was carried out according to Adomako-Ankomah and Ettensohn [11].

MO/mRNA injections

Microinjection of MOs and mRNA was carried out as described by Cheers and Ettensohn [70]. The sequence of the Lv-VEGFR-10-Ig splice-blocking MO was 5′-TGATTAGGGATTGCTACTTACCTGA-3′. The Lv-VEGF3 and Lv-IgTM MOs were described previously [11,37]. Working solutions (4 mM) of MOs were loaded into microinjection needles, and approximately 2 pl were injected into each egg. VEGF3 mRNA was synthesized as described by Duloquin and coworkers [9] and injected at 2–4 mg/ml (lower concentrations were also used for dose-response studies, as shown in Fig 8).

Emetine treatments

For emetine treatments, a stock solution of 100 mM emetine dihydrochloride hydrate (Sigma-Aldrich E2375) was prepared in deionized water and stored at −20 °C. Immediately before use, the stock solution was diluted 1:1,000 in ASW (final [emetine] = 100 μM). After embryos were loaded into a microsurgical chamber, the fluid in the chamber was replaced with 100 μM emetine, and microsurgery was carried out in the presence of the inhibitor. PMC(−) embryos were allowed to develop for an additional 2 hours in emetine-containing seawater before they were processed for WMISH.

Injection of WGA into the blastocoel

A 10 mg/ml solution of WGA (Sigma-Aldrich Cat. No. L9640) in seawater was prepared immediately before each use and front-loaded into microinjection pipettes. Control early mesenchyme blastula–stage embryos or PMC(−) embryos were immobilized in microinjection chambers [15], and sufficient WGA solution was injected into the blastocoel of each embryo to cause visible swelling. WGA-injected embryos were marked by co-injecting a droplet of silicon oil into the blastocoel. Embryos were fixed at various time points during gastrulation and immunostained with 6a9 antibody.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Expression of Lv-vegfr-Ig-10 at low levels in the presumptive nonskeletogenic mesoderm.

Whole-mount in situ hybridization analysis of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig expression in control, early gastrula-stage embryos. (A) Lateral view. (B) Vegetal view. Expression in the wall of the archenteron (presumptive nonskeletogenic mesoderm) is indicated by arrows. Lv-vegfr-10-Ig, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-10-Ig.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. BC transfating is not triggered by perturbing PMC migration.

(A) Control early gastrula-stage embryo. PMCs (arrow) have dispersed from the site of ingression and are migrating along the blastocoel wall. (B) Sibling embryo, 4 hours after microinjection of WGA into the blastocoel. The PMCs (arrow) remain in a single mass at the site of ingression. The embryo is marked with an OD. (C) WGA-injected embryo 12 hours after injection, immunostained with 6a9 antibody. WGA has caused the coalescence of the PMCs into a single large mass from which numerous filopodia extend. No other 6a9(+) cells are present at the tip of the archenteron or in the blastocoel, indicating that BC transfating has not occurred. Analysis of WGA-injected, 6a9-stained embryos at multiple stages during gastrulation confirms that no BC cells transfate when PMC migration and patterning is disrupted. (D) PMC(−) embryo injected with WGA immediately after PMC removal and immunostained with antibody 6a9 after 12 hours. Numerous 6a9(+), transfated BCs are apparent, demonstrating that BCs are capable of transfating in the presence of WGA. BC, blastocoelar cell; OD, oil droplet; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; WGA, wheat germ agglutinin.

(TIF)

S1 Data. Counts of 6a9-positive cells.

Raw cell counts for all experiments presented in this paper. Each value represents the number of 6a9-positive cells in a single embryo. The data are shown graphically in the specific figure panels indicated.

(DOCX)

S2 Data. Raw data underlying Fig 7.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Jennifer Guerrero-Santoro for her valuable contributions to this work.

Abbreviations

alx1

aristaless-like homeobox 1

BC

blastocoelar cell

ChIP-seq

chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing

DIC

differential interference contrast microscopy

Dpp

Decapentaplegic

erg

ets-related gene

Ets1

E26 transformation-specific 1

gatac

GATA-binding factor c

GRN

gene regulatory network

hpf

hours postfertilization

Lv-alx1

L. variegatus alx1

Lv-tbr

L. variegatus tbr

Lv-vegfr-10-Ig

L. variegatus vegfr-10-Ig

mAb

monoclonal antibody

MO

morpholino

msp130rel2

L. variegatus mesenchyme specific protein 130-related 2

pmar1

paired-class micromere anti-repressor

PMC

primary mesenchyme cell

POL

polarized light microscopy

QPCR

quantitative PCR

RITC

rhodamine isothiocyanate

RNA-seq

RNA sequencing

RT-PCR

reverse transcription PCR

scl

stem cell leukemia

VEGF

vascular endothelial growth factor

VEGFR

VEGF receptor

WGA

wheat germ agglutinin

WMISH

whole-mount in situ hybridization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Grant IOS-1354973 (CAE). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wilt FH, Ettensohn CA. The morphogenesis and biomineralization of the sea urchin larval skeleton In: Bauerlein E, editor. Handbook of Biomineralization: Biological Aspects and Structure Formation. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH; 2007. p. 183–210. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.McIntyre DC, Lyons DC, Martik M, McClay DR. Branching out: origins of the sea urchin larval skeleton in development and evolution. Genesis. 2014; 52: 173–185. 10.1002/dvg.22756 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Shashikant T, Khor JM, Ettensohn CA. From genome to anatomy: The architecture and evolution of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network of sea urchins and other echinoderms. Genesis. 2018; 56: e23253 10.1002/dvg.23253 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gao F, Davidson EH. Transfer of a large gene regulatory apparatus to a new developmental address in echinoid evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105: 6091–6096. 10.1073/pnas.0801201105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Koga H, Morino Y, Wada H. The echinoderm larval skeleton as a possible model system for experimental evolutionary biology. Genesis. 2014; 52: 186–92. 10.1002/dvg.22758 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Morino Y, Koga H, Tachibana K, Shoguchi E, Kiyomoto M, Wada H. Heterochronic activation of VEGF signaling and the evolution of the skeleton in echinoderm pluteus larvae. Evol Dev. 2012; 14: 428–436. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2012.00563.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gao F, Thompson JR, Petsios E, Erkenbrack E, Moats RA, Bottjer DJ, Davidson EH. Juvenile skeletogenesis in anciently diverged sea urchin clades. Dev Biol. 2015; 400: 148–58. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Erkenbrack EM, Petsios E. A conserved role for VEGF signaling in specification of homologous mesenchymal cell types positioned at spatially distinct developmental addresses in early development of sea urchins. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2017; 328: 423–432. 10.1002/jez.b.22743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Duloquin L, Lhomond G, Gache C. Localized VEGF signaling from ectoderm to mesenchyme cells controls morphogenesis of the sea urchin embryo skeleton. Development. 2007; 134: 2293–2302. 10.1242/dev.005108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Knapp RT, Wu CH, Mobilia KC, Joester D. Recombinant sea urchin vascular endothelial growth factor directs single-crystal growth and branching in vitro. J Am Chem Soc. 2012; 134: 17908–17911. 10.1021/ja309024b [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Adomako-Ankomah A, Ettensohn CA. Growth factor-mediated mesodermal cell guidance and skeletogenesis in the sea urchin embryo. Development. 2013; 140: 4212–4225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sun Z, Ettensohn CA. Signal-dependent regulation of the sea urchin skeletogenic gene regulatory network. Gene Expr Patterns. 2014; 16: 93–103. 10.1016/j.gep.2014.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Morgulis M, Gildor T, Roopin M, Sher N, Malik A, Lalzar M, et al. Possible cooption of a VEGF-driven tubulogenesis program for biomineralization in echinoderms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116: 12353–12362. 10.1073/pnas.1902126116 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Solek CM, Oliveri P, Loza-Coll M, Schrankel CS, Ho EC, Wang G, et al. An ancient role for Gata-1/2/3 and Scl transcription factor homologs in the development of immunocytes. Dev Biol. 2013; 382: 280–92. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.06.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ettensohn CA, McClay DR. Cell lineage conversion in the sea urchin embryo. Dev Biol. 1988; 125: 396–409. 10.1016/0012-1606(88)90220-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ettensohn CA. Cell interactions in the sea urchin embryo studied by fluorescence photoablation. Science. 1990; 248: 1115–1118. 10.1126/science.2188366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ettensohn CA, Kitazawa C, Cheers MS, Leonard JD, Sharma T. Gene regulatory networks and developmental plasticity in the early sea urchin embryo: alternative deployment of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network. Development. 2007; 134: 3077–3087. 10.1242/dev.009092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kiyomoto M, Zito F, Costa C, Poma V, Sciarrino S, Matranga V. Skeletogenesis by transfated secondary mesenchyme cells is dependent on extracellular matrix-ectoderm interactions in Paracentrotus lividus sea urchin embryos. Dev Growth Differ. 2007; 49: 731–741. 10.1111/j.1440-169X.2007.00967.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sharma T, Ettensohn CA. Regulative deployment of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network during sea urchin development. Development. 2011; 138: 2581–2590. 10.1242/dev.065193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fukushi T. The fates of isolated blastoderm cells of sea urchin blastulae and gastrulae inserted into the blastocoel. Bull.Marine Biol Stat Asamushi. 1962; 11: 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lapraz F, Röttinger E, Duboc V, Range R, Duloquin L, Walton K, et al. RTK and TGF-beta signaling pathways genes in the sea urchin genome. Dev Biol. 2006; 300: 132–152. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.08.048 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tu Q, Cameron RA, Davidson EH. Quantitative developmental transcriptomes of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Dev Biol. 2014; 385: 160–167. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2013.11.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Barsi JC, Tu Q, Davidson EH. General approach for in vivo recovery of cell type-specific effector gene sets. Genome Res. 2014; 24: 860–868. 10.1101/gr.167668.113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rafiq K, Shashikant T, McManus CJ, Ettensohn CA. Genome-wide analysis of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network of sea urchins. Development. 2014; 141: 950–961. 10.1242/dev.105585 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hu-Lowe DD, Zou HY, Grazzini ML, Hallin ME, Wickman GR, Amundson K, et al. Nonclinical antiangiogenesis and antitumor activities of axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases 1, 2, 3. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 7272–7283. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ku X, Heinzlmeir S, Helm D, Médard G, Kuster B. New affinity probe targeting VEGF receptors for kinase inhibitor selectivity profiling by chemical proteomics. J Proteome Res. 2014; 13: 2445–2452. 10.1021/pr401247t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fuchikami T, Mitsunaga-Nakatsubo K, Amemiya S, Hosomi T, Watanabe T, et al. T- brain homologue (HpTb) is involved in the archenteron induction signals of micromere descendant cells in the sea urchin embryo. Development. 2002; 129: 5205–5216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ettensohn CA, Illies MR, Oliveri P, De Jong DL. Alx1, a member of the Cart1/Alx3/Alx4 subfamily of Paired-class homeodomain proteins, is an essential component of the gene network controlling skeletogenic fate specification in the sea urchin embryo. Development. 2003; 130: 2917–2928. 10.1242/dev.00511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Oliveri P, Tu Q, Davidson EH. Global regulatory logic for specification of an embryonic cell lineage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008; 105: 5955–5962. 10.1073/pnas.0711220105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Khor JM, Ettensohn CA. Functional divergence of paralogous transcription factors supported the evolution of biomineralization in echinoderms. Elife. 2017; 6 pii: e32728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Adomako-Ankomah A, Ettensohn CA. P58-A and P58-B: novel proteins that mediate skeletogenesis in the sea urchin embryo. Dev Biol. 2011; 353: 81–93. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.02.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Illies MR, Peeler MT, Dechtiaruk AM, Ettensohn CA. Identification and developmental expression of new biomineralization proteins in the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Dev Genes Evol. 2002; 212: 419–431. 10.1007/s00427-002-0261-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Farach-Carson MC, Carson DD, Collier JL, Lennarz WJ, Park HR, Wright GC. A calcium-binding, asparagine-linked oligosaccharide is involved in skeleton formation in the sea urchin embryo. J Cell Biol. 1989; 109: 1289–1299. 10.1083/jcb.109.3.1289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Killian CE, Wilt FH. Endocytosis in primary mesenchyme cells during sea urchin larval skeletogenesis. Exp Cell Res. 2017; 359: 205–214. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.07.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cheng X, Lyons DC, Socolar JE, McClay DR. Delayed transition to new cell fates during cellular reprogramming. Dev Biol. 2014; 391: 147–157. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2014.04.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Weitzel HE, Illies MR, Byrum CA, Xu R, Wikramanayake AH, Ettensohn CA. Differential stability of beta-catenin along the animal-vegetal axis of the sea urchin embryo mediated by dishevelled. Development. 2004; 131: 2947–2956. 10.1242/dev.01152 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ettensohn CA, Dey D. KirrelL, a member of the Ig-domain superfamily of adhesion proteins, is essential for fusion of primary mesenchyme cells in the sea urchin embryo. Dev Biol. 2017; 421: 258–270. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2016.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Spiegel M, Burger MM. Cell adhesion during gastrulation. A new approach. Exp Cell Res. 1982; 139: 377–382. 10.1016/0014-4827(82)90262-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.McClay DR, Logan CY. Regulative capacity of the archenteron during gastrulation in the sea urchin. Development. 1996; 122: 607–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Wilcockson SG, Sutcliffe C, Ashe HL. Control of signaling molecule range during developmental patterning. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2017; 74: 1937–1956. 10.1007/s00018-016-2433-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Luo L, Wang H, Fan C, Liu S, Cai Y. Wnt ligands regulate Tkv expression to constrain Dpp activity in the Drosophila ovarian stem cell niche. J Cell Biol. 2015; 209: 595–608. 10.1083/jcb.201409142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Farin HF, Jordens I, Mosa MH, Basak O, Korving J, Tauriello DV, et al. Visualization of a short-range Wnt gradient in the intestinal stem-cell niche. Nature. 2016; 530: 340–343. 10.1038/nature16937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chen Y, Struhl G. Dual roles for patched in sequestering and transducing Hedgehog. Cell. 1996; 87: 553–563. 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81374-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lecuit T, Cohen SM. Dpp receptor levels contribute to shaping the Dpp morphogen gradient in the Drosophila wing imaginal disc. Development. 1998; 125: 4901–4907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Klein DE, Nappi VM, Reeves GT, Shvartsman SY, Lemmon MA. Argos inhibits epidermal growth factor receptor signaling by ligand sequestration. Nature. 2004; 430: 1040–1044. 10.1038/nature02840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Shen BQ, Lee DY, Gerber HP, Keyt BA, Ferrara N, Zioncheck TF. Homologous up-regulation of KDR/Flk-1 receptor expression by vascular endothelial growth factor in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1998; 273: 29979–29985. 10.1074/jbc.273.45.29979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pillai S, Kovacs M, Chellappan S. Regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors by Rb and E2F1: role of acetylation. Cancer Res. 2010; 70: 4931–4940. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kim K, Kim IK, Yang JM, Lee E, Koh BI, Song S, et al. SoxF transcription factors are positive feedback regulators of VEGF signaling. Circ Res. 2016; 119: 839–852. 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.116.308483 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Simons M, Gordon E, Claesson-Welsh L. Mechanisms and regulation of endothelial VEGF receptor signalling. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016; 17: 611–625. 10.1038/nrm.2016.87 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Röttinger E, Besnardeau L, Lepage T. A Raf/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is required for development of the sea urchin embryo micromere lineage through phosphorylation of the transcription factor Ets. Development. 2004; 131: 1075–1087. 10.1242/dev.01000 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Achim K, Arendt D. Structural evolution of cell types by step-wise assembly of cellular modules. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2014; 27: 102–108. 10.1016/j.gde.2014.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Wagner GP, Kin K, Muglia L, Pavlicev M. Evolution of mammalian pregnancy and the origin of the decidual stromal cell. Int J Dev Biol. 2014; 58: 117–126. 10.1387/ijdb.130335gw [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Green SA, Simoes-Costa M, Bronner ME. Evolution of vertebrates as viewed from the crest. Nature. 2015; 520: 474–482. 10.1038/nature14436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Arendt D, Musser JM, Baker CVH, Bergman A, Cepko C, Erwin DH, et al. The origin and evolution of cell types. Nat Rev Genet. 2016; 17: 744–757. 10.1038/nrg.2016.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Chavan AR, Bhullar BA, Wagner GP. What was the ancestral function of decidual stromal cells? A model for the evolution of eutherian pregnancy. Placenta. 2016; 40: 40–51. 10.1016/j.placenta.2016.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Schroeder TE. Development of a “primitive” sea urchin (Eucidaris tribuloides): irregularities in the hyaline layer, micromeres, and primary mesenchyme. Biol Bull. 1981; 161: 141–151. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wray GA, McClay DR. The origin of spicule-forming cells in a ‘primitive’ sea urchin (Eucidaris tribuloides) which appears to lack primary mesenchyme cells. Development. 1988; 103: 305–315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Yajima M. A switch in the cellular basis of skeletogenesis in late-stage sea urchin larvae. Dev Biol. 2007; 307: 272–281. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.04.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rafiq K, Cheers MS, Ettensohn CA. The genomic regulatory control of skeletal morphogenesis in the sea urchin. Development. 2012; 139: 579–590. 10.1242/dev.073049 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhu X, Mahairas G, Illies M, Cameron RA, Davidson EH, Ettensohn CA. A large-scale analysis of mRNAs expressed by primary mesenchyme cells of the sea urchin embryo. Development. 2001; 128: 2615–2627. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Rizzo F, Fernandez-Serra M, Squarzoni P, Archimandritis A, Arnone MI. Identification and developmental expression of the ets gene family in the sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus). Dev Biol. 2006; 300: 35–48. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Flynn CJ, Sharma T, Ruffins SW, Guerra SL, Crowley JC, Ettensohn CA. High-resolution, three-dimensional mapping of gene expression using GeneExpressMap (GEM). Dev Biol. 2011; 357: 532–540. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.06.033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.McCauley BS, Weideman EP, Hinman VF. A conserved gene regulatory network subcircuit drives different developmental fates in the vegetal pole of highly divergent echinoderm embryos. Dev Biol. 2010; 340: 200–208. 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.11.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Khor JM, Guerrero-Santoro J, Ettensohn CA. Genome-wide identification of binding sites and gene targets of Alx1, a pivotal regulator of echinoderm skeletogenesis. Development. 2019; 146(16): pii: dev180653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hobert O. Regulatory logic of neuronal diversity: terminal selector genes and selector motifs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105: 20067–20071. 10.1073/pnas.0806070105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Erkenbrack EM, Thompson JR. Cell type phylogenetics informs the evolutionary origin of echinoderm larval skeletogenic cell identity. Nat Commun Biol. 2019; 2:160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Koga H, Fujitani H, Morino Y, Miyamoto N, Tsuchimoto J, Shibata TF, et al. Experimental approach reveals the role of alx1 in the evolution of the echinoderm larval skeleton. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(2):e0149067 10.1371/journal.pone.0149067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Oliveri P, Carrick DM, Davidson EH. A regulatory gene network that directs micromere specification in the sea urchin embryo. Dev Biol. 2002; 246: 209–228. 10.1006/dbio.2002.0627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sharma T, Ettensohn CA. Activation of the skeletogenic gene regulatory network in the early sea urchin embryo. Development. 2010; 137: 1149–1157. 10.1242/dev.048652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Cheers MS, Ettensohn CA. Rapid microinjection of fertilized eggs. Methods Cell Biol. 2004; 74: 287–310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Lauren A Richardson

5 Jun 2019

Dear Dr Ettensohn,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The evolution of a new cell type was associated with competition for a signaling ligand" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, ie. by Jun 07 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Lauren A Richardson

2 Jul 2019

Dear Dr Ettensohn,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The evolution of a new cell type was associated with competition for a signaling ligand" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

As you will read, the reviewers all appreciated the potential novelty and importance of your study. In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome resubmission of a revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript may be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Upon resubmission, the editors will assess your revision and if the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we will send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready to submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

Reviews

Reviewer #1:

Summary of the results - In this paper the authors study the molecular mechanisms underlying the change of cell fate from blastocoelar to skeletogenic in sea urchin embryos when the endogenous skeletogenic cells are removed. When the skeletogenic cells are removed, non-skeletogenic lineages change their fate and generate larval skeleton. In this paper, the authors show that in this condition, ectopic expression of skeletogenic regulatory and biomineralization genes as well as VEGFR-10-IG is observed in the non-skeletogenic mesodermal cells and in the endoderm. The authors show that the ectopic expression of the skeletogenic genes and the generation of larval skeleton in these conditions does not happen when VEGFR is inhibited by axitinib, and verify that the specific genes involved are VEGF3 and VEGFR-10-IG (using specific morpholinos). The ectopic expression of VEGFR is not reduced by blocking protein synthesis, which indicates that the protein responsible for the transcriptional activation of VEGFR in these cells was there before the skeletogenic cells were removed. The authors then suggest that the mechanism responsible for blocking the skeletogenic potential of the non-skeletogenic cells in normal embryos is the sequestering of VEGF3 signal by VEGFR-10-IG expressed in the skeletogenic cells. To test that directly they study the effect of returning different number of normal or VEGFR-morphants skeletogenic cells into embryos where the endogenous skeletogenic cells were removed (a very elegant and technically demanding experiment). They show that as the number of returned skeletogenic cells increases, the number of transfating non-skeletogenic cells decreases. When VEGFR-10-IG is knocked-down the returned skeletogenic cells are less potent in inhibiting non-skeletogenic cell transfating. They then show that overexpression of VEGF3 in the embryo is sufficient to activate two key skeletogenic transcription factors in the non-skeletogenic mesoderm and in the endoderm. They suggest that in the ancestral echinoderm skeletogenic cells both Alx1 and VEGFR were activated by VEGF signaling and this regulatory linkages are seen in the late embryo and in the transfating blastocoelar cells. They suggest that the early activation of Alx1 in the large micromeres of the sea urchin embryos had led to the early activation of the skeletogenic program and VEGFR in these cells and this blocked the skeletogenic potential of the non-skeletogenic mesodermal cells.

Overal assessment - The experiments in this paper are convincing and elegant. The question of de-differentiation between closely related cell lineages is very interesting and relevant to many other systems where de-differentiation occurs, including induced stem cells and even cancer. The proposed mechanism is intriguing, beautifully addressed and would be relevant to these other systems, which makes this paper highly suitable to Plos Biology. There are a few gaps in the suggested model and in the proposed evolutionary scenario that should be corrected before the paper can be accepted. Additionally I think that the presentation should be made more accessible to the broad readership of Plos Biology, that is, provide more explanation and necessary background.

Detailed comments from major to minor:

The paper provide convincing evidence for the necessity of VEGF-signaling and VEGFR-10-IG expression in the non-skeletogenic cells for these cells' de-differentiation. However, it is not clear how VEGF3 ligand is received by the non-skeletogenic cells as VEGFR-10-IG is expressed only in the skeletogenic cells in normal embryos. Furthermore, the fact that VEGFR-10-IG and Alx1 turn on in the non-skeletogenic mesoderm and endoderm in VEGF3 overexpression indicates that these cells are indeed able to receive the VEGF3 signal, but with which receptor? This point is mentioned in the discussion and the authors suggest that VEGFR-10-IG might be expressed in low levels in the non-skeletogenic cells below the detection level of WMISH. But I think more effort should be made to try and identify the missing receptor. There is a low maternal level of the VEGFR-10-IG receptor and there is another VEGFR receptor, VEGFR7, that is expressed in these embryos in low levels. The authors should try and see if they can detect VEGFR-10-IG in the non-skeletogenic cells either by overstaining WMISH or by antibody for the protein, if available. I also think that WMISH of VEGFR7 would be relevant. It could be that VEGFR7 is initiating the response to VEGF3 and then VEGFR-10-IG is activated and continue this response. Another possibility is that at high concentrations VEGF3 could be acting through another RTK receptor. All these possibilities should be mentioned and more effort should be put in studying the spatial expression of VEGFR-10-IG and VEFGR7 in the non-skeletogenic mesoderm and endodermal cells (WMISH).

The authors identify the transfating cells as blastocoelar cells (BCs) while the activation of Alx1, VEGFR-10-IG and Tbr is broader – both blastocoelar and endodermal cells are turning on these genes when the skeletogenic cells are removed. In previous papers this group had shown that endodermal cells are also capable of transfating. I therefore do not understand why throughout the paper the authors refer only to the blastocoelar cells when the cells that ectopically express Alx1, VEGFR-10-IG and become skeletogenic include also endodermal cells and possibly other non-skeletogenic mesodermal fates. If there is a reason for that, the authors should explain it, otherwise, they should not refer to the transfating cells as BC only.

In the evolutionary scenario (Fig. 10) the authors state that VEGF-signaling activates Alx1 in the late sea urchin embryo and they refer to their previous paper (Sun and Ettensohn 2014). As far as I could tell, the effect of VEGF-signaling on Alx1 was not studied in this paper, but this paper shows that VEGF-signaling does not affect other genes that are expressed in the same cells as Alx1 at the plutei stage. Furthermore, Alx1 and VEGFR spatial expression do not overlap at late skeletogenic stages – Alx1 is expressed in the dorsal PMCs and later in the cells at the edges of the body rod cells (Sun and Ettenshon 2014) while VEGFR is expressed at the cells at the edges anterolateral and post-oral rods (Adomako and Ettensogn 2013). Additionally, a recent paper had shown that Alx1 is not affected by VEGFR inhibition up to the late gastrula stage (Morgulis et al 2019). I therefore believe that the statement that VEGF-signaling controls Alx1 expression at the late sea urchin embryo is not correct and should be removed from the paper.

The common transcription factors expressed in both skeletogenic mesoderm (SM) and non-skeletogenic mesodermal (NSM) cells could be a key to the potential of the NSM to become SMs, and I think that more details should be provided about it in the manuscript. The upstream transcription factors that are common to the SM and NSM cells are, Ets1, Hex, Erg and Tel, three of which are Ets factors that can mediate VEGF-signaling. At early stages, Ets1 and Hex were shown to activate VEGFR expression in the skeletogenic cells together with Dri and Alx1 (Oliveri, Tu and Davidson, 2008). Dri is not an essential activator as it turns off at the skeletogenic cells while VEGFR expression lingers. Thus, is probably suffice to have Alx1 expressed in these cells to get VEGFR upregulated. I think that the similarity in the regulatory states between the SM and the NSM should be explained more thoroughly both in the introduction and discussion, as this is highly relevant to why these cells and not other cells are transfating.

I think it would be interesting to discuss the findings of this paper in the light of two recent publications that studied the role of VEGF in sea urchin skeletogenesis (Morgulis et al 2019) and in brittle star skeletogenesis, where FGF signaling seem to have taken a lead role instead of VEGF signaling (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/632968v1). Specifically, in the last paragraph of the paper that discusses the role of VEGF in skeletogenesis in echinoderms.

The experiment that shows that VEGFR-10-IG turns on when protein translation is blocked is very interesting (Fig. 4). I wonder if they did the same experiment with Alx1 – does the initial transcriptional response mediated by proteins that are already present in these cells?

The experiment where the authors return PMCs to the skeletogenic-depleted embryos is beautiful (Fig. 7), but I don't understand how come the fluorescence dye from the Donor PMC doesn't diffuse to the transfated cells in the recipient embryo. As far as I understand, all the skeletogenic cells are fused to each other and therefore dyes diffuse between them – but I could be wrong for donor cells. If this doesn't happen between donor and recipient cells this should be explained in the text.

The experiment where the authors injected WGA to the embryos to show that VEGFR phenotypes are not due to defects in migration is only described in words. Representative images of this experiment would make it more visual and understandable, maybe as a sup figure.

The first paragraph of the discussion starts with a very general statement and the main point is only presented in the sentence before the last (the sequestering mechanisms). I think this paragraph should start with a stronger, more focused statement about sequestering mechanisms, and then define the gap in knowledge that this paper addressed. I think it would lead better to the rest of the discussion.

The methods section is very brief and a description of the emetine protocol is missing.

In the second paragraph of the introduction in the third line the word "also" appears twice.

It would be helpful to add line numbers to the text.

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

Reviewer #2: Hiroshi Wada, signed review

This article provided an important findings on the mechanism of BC cell fate decision in sea urchin. The authors found that BC transfating requires VEGF signaling (mediated by VEGF3 and VEGF-10-Ig), and the VEGF signaling is required for the activation and maintenance. Together with the VEGF overexpression and experimental perturbation of VEGFRs on PMCs, the authors concluded that VEGF sequestration is the likely mechanism for PMCs to inhibit skeletogenesis on BCs.

I agreed that the evidences presented here are consistent with the ligand competition model of PMC vs BC skeletogenesis. But the evidence presented here may not strong enough to exclude the old hypothesis that PMCs send inhibitory signal.

First of all, I suggest the authors to describe the alternative hypothesis with which they compare with the ligand competition model. Without that I felt it quite hard to get the point of the section “VEGF signaling is required for...” and “VEGF signaling acts through VEGFR-10...”. Perhaps the alternative hypothesis is that PMCs send some inhibitory signal to BCs. The two hypotheses may not be completely exclusive, but without that information, it was not easy for me to understand why the authors need to show VEGF signaling is required in BC transfating ( I felt that we already know that!). The most important difference between the old model and the model proposed here is in the presence or absence of inhibitory signal from PMC on BC transfating. Actually the PMC-specific expression of VEGF-10-Ig seems more consistent with the old hypothesis. In that sense, the most important finding is probably the VEGF inhibition suppress the Alx1 and Tbr expression upon PMC removal (Fig. 2C’, D’). But the data was obtained 4 hpd, although the authors show that Alx1 and Tbr are activated as early as 2 hpd. This observation is also consistent with the idea that, after the depletion of the inhibitory signal, Alx1 and Tbr activated at 2 hpd, but the maintenance of these expressions required vegf signaling. It would be critical to show whether the expression of Alx1 and Tbr in 2 hpd is affected by VEGF signaling inhibition.

The authors say that the excess VEGF can induce BC transfating. But I have a concern on this conclusion. The experiment performed here was overexpression of ligand in the whole cells of embryos. Ligand was also expressed in BC cells, which was an unusual situation, and care need to be taken here. I suggest the author to design experiments in which high level expression of VEGF only in epidermal cells.

Figure 9 is not accurate for the expression of VEGFR in BC cells. VEGFR is expressed at a very low level, if any, in BC cells. Isn’t it?

Regarding the issue on the novel cell type evolution, I suggest the authors to clarify whether the absence of specific expression of VEGFR in BC cells are the ancestral state of echinoderms before the acquisition of PMCs. Perhaps in the description of the ligand competition to be a driving force to generate novel cell types, some more explanation required to have the current status of PMCs and BCs in euechinoids. Or the VEGF ligand was competed by PMCs and BCs in both of which VEGFR show comparable levels of expression?

Implication from the observation that undetectable level of the receptors can sense the secreted ligand is very interesting from the aspect of evolutionary co-option of signaling system. I like that disucussion very much.

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

Reviewer #3:

This manuscript makes an important contribution to the literature on the evolutionary origin of cell types. Most studies in this literature are purely descriptive, with the aims of establishing that a cell type is indeed novel and identifying the likely “parental” cell type from which it was derived. In this case, the origin of the novel cell type was previously identified by other groups and the authors of the present study seek a mechanistic understanding of how it originated.

The experiments are thoughtfully designed, clearly described in the text, and well documented in the figures. The results presented support the direct conclusions that authors reach and provide persuasive evidence for their model (Figure 9). Overall, this is a beautifully conducted experimental study. The only technical concern I had was the lack of any real evidence to explain how the blastocoelar cells perceive VEGF3 (or the absence of PMCs if the signal is more indirect). The authors speculate that blastocoelar cells might produce a small amount of receptor that is simply too low to detect by in situs. Given that PMCs can be removed from live embryos, is it not possible to isolate a some blastocoelar cells and test this directly by qPCR?

A larger question that needs to be addressed more directly in the Discussion is why blastocoelar cells are still capable of responding to VEGF3 when it has apparently been hundreds of millions of years since they were the source for skeletogenic cells. It scarcely seems plausible that they are a kind of “wound healing” system given that the conversion to a skeletogenic fate happens upon removal of the PMCs. Surely this kind of thing only happens in the lab and not in real life? A possible explanation that the authors may have already considered is that the blastocoelar cells are actually the source population for the cells that make the adult skeleton and that the ability to differentiate into skeletogenic cells is part of normal development that simply takes place much later. Is there any evidence one way or the other to support this idea? It seems a bit dissatisfying to simply end by saying that the blastocoelar cells retain the ability to respond to VEFG3 and that’s just the way it is.

Minor points:

Use of the abbreviation hpd was confusing. At first I thought this was a typo. Since it is only used a few times, it would be clearer to spell it out.

A likely typo: second page of Results, line 4, should alx be alx1?

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

Reviewer #4: Günter P. Wagner, signed review

In this interesting and important paper the authors demonstrate an inhibitory interaction between primary mesenchymal cells (PMC) and blastocoelar cells (BC), and based on these results propose a scenario for the evolutionary origin of PMC, a derived cell type of the euechinoids. Specifically, the authors investigate the mechanisms through which BC can be induced to form skeletogenic cells, an activity that is normally suppressed by PMC. The experiments are well designed, executed and explained; alternative interpretations are considered and experimentally addressed.

This is an important paper since it is one of a very small number of experimental papers that directly address the mechanisms underlying the evolutionary origin of a new cell type. This is a revision of a previously submitted and reviewed (by other reviewers than this) paper and thus there is very little if anything that needs to be fixed.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: this comment has been clarified with the reviewer and was due to a misunderstanding of our submission process and the R1 designation.]

General questions and comments:

From what is written in the manuscript it is not entirely clear why PMC are more capable of sequestrating VEGF3 than BC. Is it because PMC start expressing VEGFR earlier than BC can, and thus a critical part of the model is that PMC are earlier than BC and thus prevent the BC to receive a strong enough VEGF3 signal to activate the positive feedback between VEGF3 and VEGFR?

Also, the evolutionary scenario, though very interesting and clear to follow, could be somewhat expanded. It seems that since BC can replace PMC in PMC(-) embryos, that these two cell types could be sister cell types. Is this supported by the phylogenetic distribution of larval/embryonic structures and phylogeny? Is the primary distinguishing characteristic of PMC that they are separate earlier from the blastoderm and then dominate the role of larval skeletogenic systems and the BC, though sister to PMC, evolved a new phenotype, that of a phagocyte? Or are the BC in other echinoderms both skeletogenic and phagocytotic? At least in asteroid larvae the mesenchymal cells are phagocytotic [this is the animal where macrophage like cells where discovered!] I think this paper will have a broader and deeper intellectual impact if the scenario in Figure 10 is a little bit expanded, including the information contained in the text about the skeletogenic cell types in cidaroids etc..

Decision Letter 2

Lauren A Richardson

13 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Ettensohn,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "The evolution of a new cell type was associated with competition for a signaling ligand" for publication in PLOS Biology.

The Academic Editor and I have now assessed your revision and we're delighted to let you know that we're now editorially satisfied with your manuscript. We will publish your manuscript, assuming you are willing to meet or final production requirements. Congratulations!

Before we can formally accept your paper and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Lauren A Richardson, Ph.D

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

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

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels: (e.g. Figs. 2H, 3B, 5F, 6D, 7F, 8D), as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it. Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

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

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Decision Letter 3

Lauren A Richardson

5 Sep 2019

Dear Dr Ettensohn,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Marianne E. Bronner, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

Early Version

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. 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.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Hannah Harwood

Publication Assistant,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Lauren Richardson,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Expression of Lv-vegfr-Ig-10 at low levels in the presumptive nonskeletogenic mesoderm.

    Whole-mount in situ hybridization analysis of Lv-vegfr-10-Ig expression in control, early gastrula-stage embryos. (A) Lateral view. (B) Vegetal view. Expression in the wall of the archenteron (presumptive nonskeletogenic mesoderm) is indicated by arrows. Lv-vegfr-10-Ig, L. variegatus vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-10-Ig.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. BC transfating is not triggered by perturbing PMC migration.

    (A) Control early gastrula-stage embryo. PMCs (arrow) have dispersed from the site of ingression and are migrating along the blastocoel wall. (B) Sibling embryo, 4 hours after microinjection of WGA into the blastocoel. The PMCs (arrow) remain in a single mass at the site of ingression. The embryo is marked with an OD. (C) WGA-injected embryo 12 hours after injection, immunostained with 6a9 antibody. WGA has caused the coalescence of the PMCs into a single large mass from which numerous filopodia extend. No other 6a9(+) cells are present at the tip of the archenteron or in the blastocoel, indicating that BC transfating has not occurred. Analysis of WGA-injected, 6a9-stained embryos at multiple stages during gastrulation confirms that no BC cells transfate when PMC migration and patterning is disrupted. (D) PMC(−) embryo injected with WGA immediately after PMC removal and immunostained with antibody 6a9 after 12 hours. Numerous 6a9(+), transfated BCs are apparent, demonstrating that BCs are capable of transfating in the presence of WGA. BC, blastocoelar cell; OD, oil droplet; PMC, primary mesenchyme cell; WGA, wheat germ agglutinin.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data. Counts of 6a9-positive cells.

    Raw cell counts for all experiments presented in this paper. Each value represents the number of 6a9-positive cells in a single embryo. The data are shown graphically in the specific figure panels indicated.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Data. Raw data underlying Fig 7.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (PLOS Biology MS).docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers (PLOS Biology MS).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES