Dataset Information

Divergent Expression of SPARC, SPARC-L, and SCPP Genes During Jawed Vertebrate Cartilage Mineralization.

ABSTRACT: While cartilage is an ancient tissue found both in protostomes and deuterostomes, its mineralization evolved more recently, within the vertebrate lineage. SPARC, SPARC-L, and the SCPP members (Secretory Calcium-binding PhosphoProtein genes which evolved from SPARC-L) are major players of dentine and bone mineralization, but their involvement in the emergence of the vertebrate mineralized cartilage remains unclear. We performed in situ hybridization on mineralizing cartilaginous skeletal elements of the frog Xenopus tropicalis (Xt) and the shark Scyliorhinus canicula (Sc) to examine the expression of SPARC (present in both species), SPARC-L (present in Sc only) and the SCPP members (present in Xt only). We show that while mineralizing cartilage expresses SPARC (but not SPARC-L) in Sc, it expresses the SCPP genes (but not SPARC) in Xt, and propose two possible evolutionary scenarios to explain these opposite expression patterns. In spite of these genetic divergences, our data draw the attention on an overlooked and evolutionarily conserved peripheral cartilage subdomain expressing SPARC or the SCPP genes and exhibiting a high propensity to mineralize.

SUBMITTER: Romero A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8656109 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Divergent Expression of SPARC, SPARC-L, and SCPP Genes During Jawed Vertebrate Cartilage Mineralization.

Romero Adrian A Leurs Nicolas N Muñoz David D Debiais-Thibaud Mélanie M Marcellini Sylvain S

Frontiers in genetics 20211125

While cartilage is an ancient tissue found both in protostomes and deuterostomes, its mineralization evolved more recently, within the vertebrate lineage. SPARC, SPARC-L, and the SCPP members (Secretory Calcium-binding PhosphoProtein genes which evolved from SPARC-L) are major players of dentine and bone mineralization, but their involvement in the emergence of the vertebrate mineralized cartilage remains unclear. We performed in situ hybridization on mineraliz ...[more]

PMID: 34899866

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe molecular bases explaining the diversity of dental tissue mineralization across gnathostomes are still poorly understood. Odontodes, such as teeth and body denticles, are serial structures that develop through deployment of a gene regulatory network shared between all gnathostomes. Dentin, the inner odontode mineralized tissue, is produced by odontoblasts and appears well-conserved through evolution. In contrast, the odontode hypermineralized external layer (enamel or enameloid) produced by ameloblasts of epithelial origin, shows extensive structural variations. As EMP (Enamel Matrix Protein) genes are as yet only found in osteichthyans where they play a major role in the mineralization of teeth and others skeletal organs, our understanding of the molecular mechanisms leading to the mineralized odontode matrices in chondrichthyans remains virtually unknown.ResultsWe undertook a phylogenetic analysis of the SPARC/SPARC-L gene family, from which the EMPs are supposed to have arisen, and examined the expression patterns of its members and of major fibrillar collagens in the spotted catshark Scyliorhinus canicula, the thornback ray Raja clavata, and the clawed frog Xenopus tropicalis. Our phylogenetic analyses reveal that the single chondrichthyan SPARC-L gene is co-orthologous to the osteichthyan SPARC-L1 and SPARC-L2 paralogues. In all three species, odontoblasts co-express SPARC and collagens. In contrast, ameloblasts do not strongly express collagen genes but exhibit strikingly similar SPARC-L and EMP expression patterns at their maturation stage, in the examined chondrichthyan and osteichthyan species, respectively.ConclusionsA well-conserved odontoblastic collagen/SPARC module across gnathostomes further confirms dentin homology. Members of the SPARC-L clade evolved faster than their SPARC paralogues, both in terms of protein sequence and gene duplication. We uncover an osteichthyan-specific duplication that produced SPARC-L1 (subsequently lost in pipidae frogs) and SPARC-L2 (independently lost in teleosts and tetrapods).Our results suggest the ameloblastic expression of the single chondrichthyan SPARC-L gene at the maturation stage reflects the ancestral gnathostome situation, and provide new evidence in favor of the homology of enamel and enameloids in all gnathostomes.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Phylogenetic analyses of jawed vertebrates based on mitochondrial sequences often result in confusing inferences which are obviously inconsistent with generally accepted trees. In particular, in a hypothesis by Rasmussen and Arnason based on mitochondrial trees, cartilaginous fishes have a terminal position in a paraphyletic cluster of bony fishes. No previous analysis based on nuclear DNA-coded genes could significantly reject the mitochondrial trees of jawed vertebrates. RESULTS: We have cloned and sequenced seven nuclear DNA-coded genes from 13 vertebrate species. These sequences, together with sequences available from databases including 13 jawed vertebrates from eight major groups (cartilaginous fishes, bichir, chondrosteans, gar, bowfin, teleost fishes, lungfishes and tetrapods) and an outgroup (a cyclostome and a lancelet), have been subjected to phylogenetic analyses based on the maximum likelihood method. CONCLUSION: Cartilaginous fishes have been inferred to be basal to other jawed vertebrates, which is consistent with the generally accepted view. The minimum log-likelihood difference between the maximum likelihood tree and trees not supporting the basal position of cartilaginous fishes is 18.3 +/- 13.1. The hypothesis by Rasmussen and Arnason has been significantly rejected with the minimum log-likelihood difference of 123 +/- 23.3. Our tree has also shown that living holosteans, comprising bowfin and gar, form a monophyletic group which is the sister group to teleost fishes. This is consistent with a formerly prevalent view of vertebrate classification, although inconsistent with both of the current morphology-based and mitochondrial sequence-based trees. Furthermore, the bichir has been shown to be the basal ray-finned fish. Tetrapods and lungfish have formed a monophyletic cluster in the tree inferred from the concatenated alignment, being consistent with the currently prevalent view. It also remains possible that tetrapods are more closely related to ray-finned fishes than to lungfishes.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Skeletons are formed in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, and compositions of organic and mineral components. Many invertebrate skeletons are constructed from carbonate or silicate minerals, whereas vertebrate skeletons are instead composed of a calcium phosphate mineral known as apatite. No one yet knows why the dynamic vertebrate skeleton, which is continually rebuilt, repaired, and resorbed during growth and normal remodeling, is composed of apatite. Nor is the control of bone and calcifying cartilage mineralization well understood, though it is thought to be associated with phosphate-cleaving proteins. Researchers have assumed that skeletal mineralization is also associated with non-crystalline, calcium- and phosphate-containing electron-dense granules that have been detected in vertebrate skeletal tissue prepared under non-aqueous conditions. Again, however, the role of these granules remains poorly understood. Here, we review bone and growth plate mineralization before showing that polymers of phosphate ions (polyphosphates: (PO(3)(-))(n)) are co-located with mineralizing cartilage and resorbing bone. We propose that the electron-dense granules contain polyphosphates, and explain how these polyphosphates may play an important role in apatite biomineralization. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS/METHODOLOGY: The enzymatic formation (condensation) and destruction (hydrolytic degradation) of polyphosphates offers a simple mechanism for enzymatic control of phosphate accumulation and the relative saturation of apatite. Under circumstances in which apatite mineral formation is undesirable, such as within cartilage tissue or during bone resorption, the production of polyphosphates reduces the free orthophosphate (PO(4)(3-)) concentration while permitting the accumulation of a high total PO(4)(3-) concentration. Sequestering calcium into amorphous calcium polyphosphate complexes can reduce the concentration of free calcium. The resulting reduction of both free PO(4)(3-) and free calcium lowers the relative apatite saturation, preventing formation of apatite crystals. Identified in situ within resorbing bone and mineralizing cartilage by the fluorescent reporter DAPI (4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole), polyphosphate formation prevents apatite crystal precipitation while accumulating high local concentrations of total calcium and phosphate. When mineralization is required, tissue non-specific alkaline phosphatase, an enzyme associated with skeletal and cartilage mineralization, cleaves orthophosphates from polyphosphates. The hydrolytic degradation of polyphosphates in the calcium-polyphosphate complex increases orthophosphate and calcium concentrations and thereby favors apatite mineral formation. The correlation of alkaline phosphatase with this process may be explained by the destruction of polyphosphates in calcifying cartilage and areas of bone formation. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We hypothesize that polyphosphate formation and hydrolytic degradation constitute a simple mechanism for phosphate accumulation and enzymatic control of biological apatite saturation. This enzymatic control of calcified tissue mineralization may have permitted the development of a phosphate-based, mineralized endoskeleton that can be continually remodeled.

Dataset Information

Divergent Expression of SPARC, SPARC-L, and SCPP Genes During Jawed Vertebrate Cartilage Mineralization.

Publications

Divergent Expression of <i>SPARC</i>, <i>SPARC-L</i>, and <i>SCPP</i> Genes During Jawed Vertebrate Cartilage Mineralization.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets