Abstract
The Notch pathway is an ancient, evolutionary conserved intercellular signaling mechanism that is involved in cell fate specification and proper embryonic development. The Jagged2 gene, which encodes a ligand for the Notch family of receptors, is expressed from the earliest stages of odontogenesis in epithelial cells that will later generate the enamel-producing ameloblasts. Homozygous Jagged2 mutant mice exhibit abnormal tooth morphology and impaired enamel deposition. Enamel composition and structure in mammals are tightly linked to the enamel organ that represents an evolutionary unit formed by distinct dental epithelial cell types. The physical cooperativity between Notch ligands and receptors suggests that Jagged2 deletion could alter the expression profile of Notch receptors, thus modifying the whole Notch signaling cascade in cells within the enamel organ. Indeed, both Notch1 and Notch2 expression are severely disturbed in the enamel organ of Jagged2 mutant teeth. It appears that the deregulation of the Notch signaling cascade reverts the evolutionary path generating dental structures more reminiscent of the enameloid of fishes rather than of mammalian enamel. Loss of interactions between Notch and Jagged proteins may initiate the suppression of complementary dental epithelial cell fates acquired during evolution. We propose that the increased number of Notch homologues in metazoa enabled incipient sister cell types to form and maintain distinctive cell fates within organs and tissues along evolution.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The Notch pathway is an evolutionarily conserved signaling mechanism that enables adjacent cells to adopt different fates [1,2,3,4,5]. In Drosophila, the Notch gene encodes a transmembrane receptor with a large extracellular domain carrying multiple epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like repeats and a cytoplasmic domain required for signal transduction. The Notch receptor interacts with membrane-bound ligands encoded by the Delta and Serrate genes that in their extracellular domain contain the DSL domain (Delta, Serrate, Lag-2). The DSL domain is required for interaction of ligands with the Notch receptor [6, 7]
In vertebrates, four genes encoding Notch receptors (Notch1, Notch2, Notch3, and Notch4) and five genes encoding ligands for the Notch receptors (Jagged1, Jagged2, Delta-like1, Delta-like3, and Delta-like4) have been identified [5, 8, 9]. The signal induced by ligand binding is transmitted at the intracellular part of the receptor in a process involving proteolysis and interactions with cytoplasmic and nuclear proteins [1, 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. Signals exchanged between neighboring cells through the Notch receptors influence cell fate determination, differentiation, proliferation and apoptotic events at all stages of development, thus controlling organ formation and morphogenesis [8, 9, 17,18,19,20]. The increasing number of Notch homologues in vertebrates, together with the absence of Notch genes in non-metazoans, suggests a role for the Notch signaling pathway in the establishment of complex body plans [21, 22]. Notch malfunction has been shown to disrupt aspects of neurogenesis, somite formation, angiogenesis, kidney and lymphoid development [9, 16, 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. In humans, mutations in the Notch1, Notch3 and Jagged1 genes are associated, respectively, with a neoplasia (a T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma), a late onset neurological disease known as CADASIL (cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy) and a complex inherited disorder known as Alagille syndrome (affecting mainly the liver, heart, vertebrae, eye and face) [9, 31,32,33,34].
Several studies have demonstrated that Notch signaling is involved in tooth morphology and enamel matrix deposition [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. Teeth are organs that arise from progressive reciprocal inductive interactions between the stomodeum epithelium and the underlying neural crest-derived mesenchyme that transform the tooth primordia into complex mineralized structures with various cell types, among which the epithelial-derived ameloblasts that synthesize and secrete the organic components of the enamel [43,44,45]. Initiation of odontogenesis is visualized as local epithelial thickenings of the oral epithelium, at the sites of the future teeth [45,46,47]. Thereafter, the thickened epithelium grows and forms the dental bud and cap structures that mark the onset of the tooth morphology. Subsequent epithelial folding and growth gives rise to a bell structure where cytodifferentiation events start. In mammals, four clearly distinct dental epithelial cell layers (i.e., inner enamel epithelium, stratum intermedium, stellate reticulum and outer enamel epithelium) are present at this stage that are important for amelogenesis. However, to date, there is not much information concerning the role of the Notch signaling pathway in gradual cell fate determination and differentiation of these dental epithelial cell lineages.
Since the core Notch pathway requires two adjacent cells in direct contact with each other, we examined if Jagged2 deletion affects Notch1 and Notch2 expression in the epithelium of developing mouse teeth. We have recently shown that epithelial deletion of Jagged1 deregulated the expression of both Notch1 and Notch2 in dental epithelium [48]. Based on our recent findings and the results obtained here we suggest a hypothetical model involving molecules of the Notch signaling pathway in dental epithelial cell morphotype and function. The proposed model could unravel a general, functional correlation between the evolution of the discrete expression of Notch receptors and its ligands and the evolution of specialized dental cell types.
Materials and methods
Notch receptors and ligands in evolution
To obtain an overview of the Notch receptors and ligands in evolution and their conservation among vertebrates, we screened available protein sequences from representative species of five main classes: fishes (Zebrafish—Danio rerio), amphibians (Western Clawed Frog—Xenopus tropicalis), reptiles (Common Wall Lizard—Podarcis muralis), birds (Chicken—Gallus gallus), and mammalians (Human—Homo sapiens). We then aligned all receptors and ligands sequences via ClustalW [49].
Animals and tissue preparation
All mice (C57Bl/6) were maintained and handled according to the Swiss Animal Welfare Law and in compliance with the regulations of the Cantonal Veterinary office, Zurich (License 11/2014). Mouse embryos from embryonic day 12.5 (E12.5) to E18.5 were used for in situ hybridization. Jag2DDSL mutant mice have been described previously [50, 51]. E12.5–E18.5 wild type, Jagged2+/− and Jagged2−/− mouse embryos were obtained by intercrossing Jag2DDSL/+ mice. Embryonic age was determined according to the appearance of the vaginal plug (day 0) and confirmed by morphological criteria. Pregnant females were sacrificed by cervical dislocation and the embryos were removed in Dulbecco’s phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Dissected heads were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) for 24 h at 4 °C and prepared for sectioning.
Probes and in situ hybridization
Digoxigenin- and fluorescein-labeled (Boehringer Manhnheim) antisense riboprobes for Jagged2, Notch1 and Notch2 were used [40, 51]. In situ hybridization on cryosections of E12.5–E18.5 embryos were performed as previously described [39, 40, 52]. Double in situ was performed using first the fluorescein probe, followed by the digoxigenin one.
Results
Overview of Notch receptors and ligands in vertebrates
Alignement of representative protein sequences of all Notch receptors and ligands in species of five main classes (fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammalians) showed that Notch1, Notch2 and Notch3 were broadly identified in these classes. Notch orthologues in different classes showed higher sequence identity than paralogues within the same class (Fig. 1A). Notch4 was identified only in mammalians, and represented a clear side branch. Notch ligands clustered separately in the families of Jagged and Delta-like (Dll) ligands (Fig. 1B). Similarly to the Notch receptors, Notch ligands showed higher identity between orthologues, with Jagged1, Jagged2, Delta-like1 (Dll1), Delta-like3 (Dll3), Delta-like4 (Dll4) forming each separate branches.
Notch1, Notch2 and Jagged2 expression during embryonic tooth development
To be able to interpret the role of the Notch signaling pathway in tooth evolution linked to the cell diversity of the enamel organ we first determined the expression pattern of Notch1, Notch2 and Jagged2 in development from sections of E12.5–E18.5 mouse teeth. At E12.5–13.5 dental epithelium (bud stage), Jagged2 expression was observed in epithelial cells in contact with the condensed mesenchyme (Fig. 2A, red color), while Notch1 and Notch2 transcripts were detected in distinct epithelial territories adjacent to the Jagged2-expressing cells (Fig. 2A, blue color; Fig. 3A, B). During the cap stage (E14.5–E15.5), Jagged2 transcripts were detected in dental epithelial cells contacting the dental papilla mesenchyme (Fig. 2B, red color), whereas Notch1 labeling was restricted to cells overlying the Jagged2-expressing cells (Fig. 2B, blue color). At the bell stage (E16.5–E18.5), Jagged2 expression was observed in cells of the inner enamel epithelium (Fig. 2C), while expression of Notch1 was found in a differentiated cell layer behind, as the stratum intermedium (Fig. 2D; Fig. 2E, red color; Fig. 4A, E, I) and that of Notch2 in middle cells of the stellate reticulum and as well as in outer enamel epithelium (Fig. 2E, blue color; Fig. 4C, G, K).
Downregulation of Notch1 and Notch2 expression in Jagged2 −/− teeth
To analyze the effects of Jagged2 deletion in other molecules of the Notch signaling pathway, we examined the expression of Notch1 and Notch2 in teeth of E12.5–E18.5 Jagged2 deficient embryos. At E12.5 (early bud stage), the expression of both Notch1 (Fig. 3C) and Notch2 (Fig. 3D) was severely downregulated in the dental epithelium of homozygous mutant embryos. Downregulation of these two genes, but to a lesser extent for Notch2 when compared to Notch1, persisted at more advanced developmental stages. Very few, if not at all, Notch1 transcripts were detected in cells of the stratum intermedium of E16.5 (Fig. 4B, F) and E18.5 (Fig. 4J) Jagged2−/− mouse embryo teeth. Similarly, Notch2 expression was greatly reduced in cells of the outer enamel epithelium and stellate reticulum of E16.5 (Fig. 4D, H) and E18.5 (Fig. 4L) Jagged2−/− teeth.
Discussion
Evolutionary processes have contributed to the extensive diversification of cell types in animals. Cell homology in an increased number of new cell types that appeared during animal evolution could be due to inheritance from a common precursor [53, 54]. Notch signaling is an ancient, evolutionarily conserved signaling pathway that allows distinctive cell types with defined functions to be delineated and compared within and between species [1]. Evolutionary changes in the genome coding for molecules of the Notch pathway from the simplest to the most complex organisms could have permitted the sprouting of distinct sister cell types and ensure their independent evolution by regulating cell-type specific traits. The Notch gene has been initially identified in Drosophila melanogaster [55]. Insects, Ciona species, sea urchin and amphioxus carry only one Notch copy [21, 22]. The two Notch copies in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans), resulted from an independent duplication event within its linage [56], differ from the Notch copies from other taxa. Four Notch paralogues (i.e., Notch1, Notch2, Notch3, Notch4) have been found in invertebrates and vertebrates [9]. It is believed that Notch1, Notch2 and Notch3 have originated by two duplication events in vertebrates prior to the divergence of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and teleost [21, 22] (Figs. 1 and 5). Notch2 has emerged from Notch1, possibly at the first round of duplication events in vertebrates, whereas Notch2 duplication led to the appearance of Notch3. The exclusive presence of a second Notch1 copy in fishes might be due to an independent duplication event after the differentiation of tetrapoda and teleost fish [21, 57]. The Notch4 gene has been identified only in mammals and its origin is still under debate [22]. Notch evolution in birds and reptiles is still unclear: Notch3 has not yet identified in birds, while both Notch3 and Notch4 have not detected in reptiles [21, 22]. A more thorough sequencing of avian and reptile genomes could elucidate the Notch evolutionary gap between teleost fish and mammals. Albeit this lack of information, it is well-established that Notch genes are highly conserved throughout metazoans [21, 22]. There is still no evidence of the existence of Notch genes in any group besides metazoan phyla, suggesting that Notch appeared as a necessity for complex cellular communication and organization.
The canonical Notch signaling pathway mediates interactions between two neighboring cells, one of which is the signaling cell and the other is the receiving cell, via the physical interaction of the ligand with the Notch receptor at the cell surface [8]. It is well-established that the fine regulation of the Notch pathway is efficient for the activation of distinct downstream mechanisms in both developmental and evolution processes. Therefore, Notch is essential for the formation of complex and exquisite tissues that require often the cooperation of different cell types with discrete functions. By directing cell fates toward proliferation, differentiation, self-renewal, or cell death, Notch signaling is also involved in the assemblage of distinct cell populations that will accomplish the refined, ordinated and complex mechanisms for the generation of a unique tissue. For example, duplicated Notch paralogues expressed in the cerebral cortex resulted in progenitors’ clonal expansion and improved neurogenesis [58, 59]. Deletion of the partially duplicated NOTCH paralogues (NOTCH2NL) in the human cortex induced microcephaly, while their duplication caused megacephaly [58]. These findings suggest that appropriate Notch signaling supplementation in higher vertebrates might contribute to the evolution of specific tissues. The numerous and distinct roles of Notch signaling in vertebrates are facilitated by different combinations of ligands and receptors [60, 61], interactions through additional signaling molecules [62, 63] or addition of novel genes [58, 59]. These events determine the predominant role of Notch signaling in the evolution of tissues and organs [64,65,66,67].
The evolution of teeth could also depend on Notch signaling for the generation of new dental cell types from the already existing primitive dental cell types, thus allowing the formation of more complex dental structures such as the tooth enamel. Indeed, tooth morphology shows an astounding heterogeneity among vertebrates [68,69,70,71,72,73]. While all teeth display the same basic organization [74, 75], their positioning, shapes, and mineral composition vary considerably [68, 76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. Cartilaginous and bony fishes are characterized by either homodont or heterodont dentitions (i.e., no or little morphological variability within the same dentition) that are continuously renewed (polyphydonts) [70, 73, 74, 83,84,85,86,87]. The single teeth can have nevertheless highly complex morphologies, and their positioning and orientation within the jaw is thought to confer a certain level of functional specialization [88]. Reptiles and amphibians possess relatively simple teeth, which are often continuously replaced [72, 89, 90]. Mammals display more complex dental structures and generally exhibit a reduced tooth turnover [68, 89]. At the level of mineralization, the teeth of fishes are covered by enameloid, a highly mineralized hard tissue that contains collagenous and non-collagenous proteins [83, 91,92,93,94,95]. In contrast to fishes, teeth of reptiles, amphibians and mammals are covered by proper enamel [74]. Enamel does not contain collagenous proteins, and it is characterized by a higher degree of mineralization and a more complex structure when compared to enameloid of fishes [92]. Although tooth enamel in reptiles and amphibians is, with some exceptions [96], structurally simple and aprismatic [72, 74, 89, 97, 98], enamel in mammalian teeth is prismatic and characterized by the presence of organized bundles of hydroxyapatite crystals that confer it exceptional hardness and resistance to stresses [89, 99,100,101].
It was hypothesized that the reduction of tooth turnover in primordial mammals triggered the need for more durable teeth, leading to the formation of accurate and solid new enamel structures [89]. The complexity of enamel correlates with the specialization of the dental epithelium. In the mammalian dental epithelium, also called enamel organ, four distinct cell types have been identified based on histological analysis, gene expression analysis, functional characterization, and modern imaging techniques [102]. A similar organization of the dental epithelium was observed in other enamel-producing taxa, such as reptiles, where three to four dental epithelial layers were described [72, 103, 104]. In fishes, however, only two dental epithelial cell types are present [105].
Previous studies in mammals have demonstrated that Notch signaling is essential for tooth development, morphology and tooth-specific mineral matrices deposition [36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 48, 51, 106]. Notch signaling defines the four dental epithelial cell lineages through the temporo-spatial differential expression pattern of the various Notch receptors and ligands during odontogenesis [41] (Fig. 2). However, it remains unclear how Notch signaling contributes to the establishment of distinct enamel or enamel-like structures in different species. Enamel formation represents a very sophisticated cellular process, as it requires a tightly controlled sequence of cell proliferation, differentiation, extracellular matrix secretion and re-absorbance, and crystal mineralization [100, 107]. This process needs to be tightly regulated spatially and temporally, as even minor changes can lead to functionally relevant alterations of the fine enamel structure [42, 101]. In mammals, all four dental epithelial cell types of the enamel organ are indispensable for the formation of a properly structured and mineralized enamel [42]. Among these, ameloblasts are the most characterized and directly responsible for the secretion and maturation of the enamel matrix [41, 100]. The role of the other three dental epithelial cell types (i.e., stratum intermedium, stellate reticulum and outer enamel epithelium) is not yet well-studied or understood. In lower vertebrates, such as different fish taxa (e.g., Teleosts), the enamel structure is less refined and organized than in mammals, which is indicative of a simpler and less precise mechanism for the formation of enamel. This procedure is carried out by a single epithelial cell type and requires mesenchymal-derived odontoblasts to co-participate in the processes of both organic matrices secretion and minerals deposition [74, 108]. Enameloid formation by a single cell type may represent a phylogenetically early stage in the differentiated capability of the evolving ameloblasts [105, 109]. We can assume that a primitive dental epithelial cell type, forming a set of cells within the enamel organ, has changed during evolution and gave rise to additional, closely related cell types. It is indeed well accepted that the number of cell types has changed during animal evolution [110]. Basal metazoans have relatively few cell types, indicating that there was a large expansion of cell type diversity before the bilaterian ancestor [111]. This increase of cell types was accompanied by the shift from few, multifunctional cells, towards multiple, specialized sister cells. These new cells can exert precise functions previously performed by a primitive single cell, or acquire completely new functions [112]. In many cases, this segregation and divergence is driven by gene duplication [112], by expression of novel genes, or by co-option of already existing genes for new cellular functions [110, 112]. By these means, sister cells can synergistically lead to the formation of extremely complex tissues that could not be generated by single multifunctional cells. We propose that the Notch signaling pathway, and in particular the differential expression of its ligands and receptors, could be a key determinant of cell specification and functional segregation in the evolution of teeth, and most probably in other organs and tissues (Fig. 6). Notably, Notch could also exert its biological functions via non-canonical signaling, as it does during neurogenesis and myogenesis [113]. However, there is no yet evidence of involvement of the non-canonical Notch signaling during odontogenesis and amelogenesis.
Studies in fishes have shown that members of the Notch signaling pathway are actually expressed during tooth development [105]. In cichlid fishes, Notch1 and Jagged2 expression are associated with the successional lamina (i.e., the structure responsible for tooth renewal, and hence new tooth buds), while during the maturation and secretion stages they are co-expressed in ameloblasts and the adjacent epithelial cells [105]. It is noteworthy that in the teeth of fishes the expression domains of Notch1 and Jagged2 are largely overlapping [105], and they are thus not obviously distinct and demarcated as in the teeth of mice, where the expression of Notch ligands and receptors clearly defines the four cell types of the enamel organ (Fig. 2F) [41]. No studies described the expression of Notch ligands and receptors in other taxa such as reptiles or amphibians. In mice, mutations or inhibition of Notch signaling affects teeth and most specifically the formation and structure of enamel [36, 37, 42, 48, 51]. Constitutive deletion of Jagged2 is perinatally lethal in mice, and affects dental epithelial progenitor cells ability to form ameloblasts, leading to the development of teeth with abnormal morphology and lacking enamel [51]. Previous studies have shown that the postnatal inhibition of Notch signaling leads to alterations in cell–cell contacts at the ameloblasts-stratum intermedium interface, without major direct effects on ameloblasts [36]. Nevertheless, this disturbance eventually results in enamel defects [36]. However, we have shown recently that the epithelial deletion of Adam10, a membrane-bound metalloproteinase regulating Notch signaling, causes the loss of the stratum intermedium layer and the disorganization of ameloblasts that triggers deficient enamel formation [42]. Furthermore, deletion of the Jagged1 ligand in dental epithelium dysregulates the expression of genes involved in the Notch pathway (e.g., Notch1, Notch2, Hes5), as well as of enamel-specific genes (e.g., Amelx, Enam) [48]. Moreover, deletion of Jagged1 in the dental epithelium of transgenic mice leads to tooth crown shape modifications convergent to those observed along Muridae evolution [48]. Analogous mechanisms have been observed in humans. Mutations in TSPEAR lead to enamel defects via down-regulation of NOTCH signaling in human patients [114]. Similarly, mutations in AMELX, which cause severe enamel defects in humans, are associated with aberrant overexpression of NOTCH1 in ameloblasts [115]. Therefore, Notch signaling deregulation within the enamel organ, which can be seen as an evolutionary unit, do not allow sister cell lines to express distinct molecular programs that maintain their cellular specificity, resulting in defective enamel formation (Fig. 7) [42]. In fishes, pharmacological inhibition of Notch signaling impairs tooth renewal [105], while to date no studies investigated its roles in fish dental epithelium differentiation and enameloid formation. Molecules of the Notch pathway control the dental cell-type specificity and mediate their distinct responses to common signals [48]. On a broader scale, Notch signaling is the central hub of a molecular network that determines cell fate choice throughout animal development, homeostasis, and regeneration via lateral inhibition [8, 18, 116,117,118,119]. A flat hierarchy of gene regulation [18, 118] upon Notch signaling deletion could thus revert the evolutionary path, impairing the specialization of the cells that contribute to amelogenesis and thus generating structures resembling more enameloid of fishes than enamel of mammals [42]. Hence, loss of interactions between Notch and Jagged/Delta-like proteins within the enamel organ may either shift the behavior of cell types or initiate the suppression of complementary dental epithelial cell fates.
The expansion of the functions of the Notch signaling pathway in the generation of highly specialized cell types could be due not only to the duplications of the genes coding for its ligands and receptors, but also to the refinement of their expression domains. Many loci involved in the patterning and growth of the musculoskeletal system and dental apparatus in vertebrates are controlled by complex cis-regulatory systems, as these systems permit highly compartmentalized and fine-tuned control of gene expression in specific cellular and tissue-specific contexts [120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128]. Indeed, it is becoming clear that changes in gene expression patterns play a pivotal role in the evolution of complex morphological traits [48, 129,130,131]. These changes are more often due to mutations in cis-regulatory sequences, rather than coding sequences, the latter of which can pleiotropically alter the expression domains of key signaling molecules [129]. Members of the Notch pathway should also be subject to this type of fine-tuned tissue-specific control and future functional genomics study on developing teeth and their cell populations will likely reveal this to be the case. These leads us to the suggestion that the concomitant duplication of Notch ligands and receptors, and their progressively more defined expression domains via the evolution of associated complex cis-regulatory systems could be the driving force of the generation of highly specialized cell types during the evolution of teeth [129]. The proposed correlation between Notch receptors and ligands, and the generation and maintenance of distinct dental cell types, could represent a general mechanism underlying the evolution of specialized cell types in metazoa.
Data availability
This is not applicable to the present article.
References
Artavanis-Tsakonas S, Matsuno K, Fortini ME (1995) Notch signaling. Science 268:225–232
Gridley T (1997) Notch signaling in vertebrate development and disease. Mol Cell Neurosci 9:103–108
Robey E (1997) Notch in vertebrates. Curr Opin Genet Dev 7:551–557
Weinmaster G (1997) The ins and outs of notch signaling. Mol Cell Neurosci 9:91–102
Hori K, Sen A, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (2013) Notch signaling at a glance. J Cell Sci 126:2135–2140
Henderson ST, Gao D, Lambie EJ, Kimble J (1994) lag-2 may encode a signaling ligand for the GLP-1 and LIN-12 receptors of C. elegans. Development 120:2913–2924
Muskavitch MA (1994) Delta-notch signaling and Drosophila cell fate choice. Dev Biol 166:415–430
Ho DM, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (2016) The Notch-mediated proliferation circuitry. Curr Top Dev Biol 116:17–33
Siebel C, Lendahl U (2017) Notch signaling in development, tissue homeostasis, and disease. Physiol Rev 97:1235–1294
Blaumueller CM, Qi H, Zagouras P, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (1997) Intracellular cleavage of Notch leads to a heterodimeric receptor on the plasma membrane. Cell 90:281–291
Pan D, Rubin GM (1997) Kuzbanian controls proteolytic processing of Notch and mediates lateral inhibition during Drosophila and vertebrate neurogenesis. Cell 90:271–280
Fortini ME, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (1994) The suppressor of hairless protein participates in notch receptor signaling. Cell 79:273–282
Jarriault S, Brou C, Logeat F, Schroeter EH, Kopan R, Israel A (1995) Signalling downstream of activated mammalian Notch. Nature 377:355–358
Kopan R, Schroeter EH, Weintraub H, Nye JS (1996) Signal transduction by activated mNotch: importance of proteolytic processing and its regulation by the extracellular domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:1683–1688
Matsuno K, Diederich RJ, Go MJ, Blaumueller CM, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (1995) Deltex acts as a positive regulator of Notch signaling through interactions with the Notch ankyrin repeats. Development 121:2633–2644
Andersson ER, Sandberg R, Lendahl U (2011) Notch signaling: simplicity in design, versatility in function. Development 138:3593–3612
Kovall RA, Gebelein B, Sprinzak D, Kopan R (2017) The canonical Notch signaling pathway: structural and biochemical insights into shape, sugar, and force. Dev Cell 41:228–241
Guruharsha KG, Kankel MW, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (2012) The Notch signalling system: recent insights into the complexity of a conserved pathway. Nat Rev Genet 13:654–666
Koch U, Lehal R, Radtke F (2013) Stem cells living with a Notch. Development 140:689–704
Liu J, Sato C, Cerletti M, Wagers A (2010) Notch signaling in the regulation of stem cell self-renewal and differentiation. Curr Top Dev Biol 92:367–409
Theodosiou A, Arhondakis S, Baumann M, Kossida S (2009) Evolutionary scenarios of Notch proteins. Mol Biol Evol 26:1631–1640
Vlachakis D, Papageorgiou L, Papadaki A, Georga M, Kossida S, Eliopoulos E (2020) An updated evolutionary study of the Notch family reveals a new ancient origin and novel invariable motifs as potential pharmacological targets. PeerJ 8:e10334
Ables JL, Breunig JJ, Eisch AJ, Rakic P (2011) Not(ch) just development: Notch signalling in the adult brain. Nat Rev Neurosci 12:269–283
Ables JL, Decarolis NA, Johnson MA, Rivera PD, Gao Z, Cooper DC et al (2010) Notch1 is required for maintenance of the reservoir of adult hippocampal stem cells. J Neurosci 30:10484–10492
de La Coste A, Freitas AA (2006) Notch signaling: distinct ligands induce specific signals during lymphocyte development and maturation. Immunol Lett 102:1–9
Hellstrom M, Phng LK, Hofmann JJ, Wallgard E, Coultas L, Lindblom P et al (2007) Dll4 signalling through Notch1 regulates formation of tip cells during angiogenesis. Nature 445:776–780
Imayoshi I, Sakamoto M, Yamaguchi M, Mori K, Kageyama R (2010) Essential roles of Notch signaling in maintenance of neural stem cells in developing and adult brains. J Neurosci 30:3489–3498
Krebs LT, Xue Y, Norton CR, Shutter JR, Maguire M, Sundberg JP et al (2000) Notch signaling is essential for vascular morphogenesis in mice. Genes Dev 14:1343–1352
Maillard I, Fang T, Pear WS (2005) Regulation of lymphoid development, differentiation, and function by the Notch pathway. Annu Rev Immunol 23:945–974
Ho DM, Artavanis-Tsakonas S, Louvi A (2020) The Notch pathway in CNS homeostasis and neurodegeneration. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 9:e358
Ellisen LW, Bird J, West DC, Soreng AL, Reynolds TC, Smith SD et al (1991) TAN-1, the human homolog of the Drosophila notch gene, is broken by chromosomal translocations in T lymphoblastic neoplasms. Cell 66:649–661
Joutel A, Corpechot C, Ducros A, Vahedi K, Chabriat H, Mouton P et al (1996) Notch3 mutations in CADASIL, a hereditary adult-onset condition causing stroke and dementia. Nature 383:707–710
Li L, Krantz ID, Deng Y, Genin A, Banta AB, Collins CC et al (1997) Alagille syndrome is caused by mutations in human Jagged1, which encodes a ligand for Notch1. Nat Genet 16:243–251
Oda T, Elkahloun AG, Pike BL, Okajima K, Krantz ID, Genin A et al (1997) Mutations in the human Jagged1 gene are responsible for Alagille syndrome. Nat Genet 16:235–242
Felszeghy S, Suomalainen M, Thesleff I (2010) Notch signalling is required for the survival of epithelial stem cells in the continuously growing mouse incisor. Differentiation 80:241–248
Jheon AH, Prochazkova M, Meng B, Wen T, Lim YJ, Naveau A et al (2016) Inhibition of Notch signaling during mouse incisor renewal leads to enamel defects. J Bone Miner Res 31:152–162
Mitsiadis TA, Regaudiat L, Gridley T (2005) Role of the Notch signalling pathway in tooth morphogenesis. Arch Oral Biol 50:137–140
Mucchielli ML, Mitsiadis TA (2000) Correlation of asymmetric Notch2 expression and mouse incisor rotation. Mech Dev 91:379–382
Mitsiadis TA, Hirsinger E, Lendahl U, Goridis C (1998) Delta-notch signaling in odontogenesis: correlation with cytodifferentiation and evidence for feedback regulation. Dev Biol 204:420–431
Mitsiadis TA, Lardelli M, Lendahl U, Thesleff I (1995) Expression of Notch 1, 2 and 3 is regulated by epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and retinoic acid in the developing mouse tooth and associated with determination of ameloblast cell fate. J Cell Biol 130:407–418
Mitsiadis TA, Graf D (2009) Cell fate determination during tooth development and regeneration. Birth Defects Res C Embryo Today 87:199–211
Mitsiadis TA, Jimenez-Rojo L, Balic A, Weber S, Saftig P, Pagella P (2022) Adam10-dependent Notch signaling establishes dental epithelial cell boundaries required for enamel formation. iScience 25:105154
Mitsiadis TA, Luder HU (2011) Genetic basis for tooth malformations: from mice to men and back again. Clin Genet 80:319–329
Balic A, Thesleff I (2015) Tissue interactions regulating tooth development and renewal. Curr Top Dev Biol 115:157–186
Bluteau G, Luder HU, De Bari C, Mitsiadis TA (2008) Stem cells for tooth engineering. Eur Cell Mater 16:1–9
Ruch JV, Lesot H, Karcher-Djuricic V, Meyer JM, Mark M (1983) Epithelial-mesenchymal interactions in tooth germs: mechanisms of differentiation. J Biol Buccale 11:173–193
Thesleff I, Hurmerinta K (1981) Tissue interactions in tooth development. Differentiation 18:75–88
Mitsiadis TA, Pagella P, Gomes Rodrigues H, Tsouknidas A, Ramenzoni LL, Radtke F et al (2023) Notch signaling pathway in tooth shape variations throughout evolution. Cells 12:761
Larkin MA, Blackshields G, Brown NP, Chenna R, McGettigan PA, McWilliam H et al (2007) Clustal W and Clustal X version 2.0. Bioinformatics 23:2947–2948
Jiang R, Lan Y, Chapman HD, Shawber C, Norton CR, Serreze DV et al (1998) Defects in limb, craniofacial, and thymic development in Jagged2 mutant mice. Genes Dev 12:1046–1057
Mitsiadis TA, Graf D, Luder H, Gridley T, Bluteau G (2010) BMPs and FGFs target Notch signalling via jagged 2 to regulate tooth morphogenesis and cytodifferentiation. Development 137:3025–3035
Wilkinson DI, Theeuwes MJ, Farber EM (1994) Nerve growth factor increases the mitogenicity of certain growth factors for cultured human keratinocytes: a comparison with epidermal growth factor. Exp Dermatol 3:239–245
Sebe-Pedros A, Chomsky E, Pang K, Lara-Astiaso D, Gaiti F, Mukamel Z et al (2018) Early metazoan cell type diversity and the evolution of multicellular gene regulation. Nat Ecol Evol 2:1176–1188
Callier V (2020) Inner workings: understanding the evolution of cell types to explain the roots of animal diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:5547–5549
Artavanis-Tsakonas S, Muskavitch MA, Yedvobnick B (1983) Molecular cloning of Notch, a locus affecting neurogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 80:1977–1981
Maine EM, Lissemore JL, Starmer WT (1995) A phylogenetic analysis of vertebrate and invertebrate Notch-related genes. Mol Phylogenet Evol 4:139–149
Westin J, Lardelli M (1997) Three novel Notch genes in zebrafish: implications for vertebrate Notch gene evolution and function. Dev Genes Evol 207:51–63
Fiddes IT, Lodewijk GA, Mooring M, Bosworth CM, Ewing AD, Mantalas GL et al (2018) Human-specific NOTCH2NL genes affect notch signaling and cortical neurogenesis. Cell 173(1356–1369):e1322
Suzuki IK, Gacquer D, Van Heurck R, Kumar D, Wojno M, Bilheu A et al (2018) Human-specific NOTCH2NL genes expand cortical neurogenesis through delta/notch regulation. Cell 173(1370–1384):e1316
Mase S, Shitamukai A, Wu Q, Morimoto M, Gridley T, Matsuzaki F (2021) Notch1 and Notch2 collaboratively maintain radial glial cells in mouse neurogenesis. Neurosci Res 170:122–132
Nelson BR, Hodge RD, Bedogni F, Hevner RF (2013) Dynamic interactions between intermediate neurogenic progenitors and radial glia in embryonic mouse neocortex: potential role in Dll1-Notch signaling. J Neurosci 33:9122–9139
Cardenas A, Villalba A, de Juan RC, Pico E, Kyrousi C, Tzika AC et al (2018) Evolution of cortical neurogenesis in amniotes controlled by robo signaling levels. Cell 174(590–606):e521
Cardenas A, Borrell V (2020) Molecular and cellular evolution of corticogenesis in amniotes. Cell Mol Life Sci 77:1435–1460
Nian FS, Hou PS (2022) Evolving roles of notch signaling in cortical development. Front Neurosci 16:844410
Geschwind DH, Rakic P (2013) Cortical evolution: judge the brain by its cover. Neuron 80:633–647
Borrell V, Reillo I (2012) Emerging roles of neural stem cells in cerebral cortex development and evolution. Dev Neurobiol 72:955–971
Hansen DV, Lui JH, Parker PR, Kriegstein AR (2010) Neurogenic radial glia in the outer subventricular zone of human neocortex. Nature 464:554–561
Tucker AS, Fraser GJ (2014) Evolution and developmental diversity of tooth regeneration. Semin Cell Dev Biol 25–26:71–80
Meredith RW, Zhang G, Gilbert MT, Jarvis ED, Springer MS (2014) Evidence for a single loss of mineralized teeth in the common avian ancestor. Science 346:1254390
Guinot G, Adnet S, Shimada K, Shimada K, Underwood CJ, Siversson M et al (2018) On the need of providing tooth morphology in descriptions of extant elasmobranch species. Zootaxa 4461:118–126
Mello W, Brito PM (2013) Contributions to the tooth morphology in early embryos of three species of hammerhead sharks (Elasmobranchii: Sphyrnidae) and their evolutionary implications. C R Biol 336:466–471
Landova Sulcova M, Zahradnicek O, Dumkova J, Dosedelova H, Krivanek J, Hampl M et al (2020) Developmental mechanisms driving complex tooth shape in reptiles. Dev Dyn 249:441–464
Huysseune A, Sire JY (1998) Evolution of patterns and processes in teeth and tooth-related tissues in non-mammalian vertebrates. Eur J Oral Sci 106(Suppl 1):437–481
Slavkin HC, Diekwisch T (1996) Evolution in tooth developmental biology: of morphology and molecules. Anat Rec 245:131–150
Zanolli C, Kaifu Y, Pan L, Xing S, Mijares AS, Kullmer O et al (2022) Further analyses of the structural organization of Homo luzonensis teeth: Evolutionary implications. J Hum Evol 163:103124
Mohring S, Cieplik F, Hiller KA, Ebensberger H, Ferstl G, Hermens J et al (2023) Elemental compositions of enamel or dentin in human and bovine teeth differ from murine teeth. Materials (Basel) 16:1514
Costa BM, Iwamoto AS, Puppin-Rontani RM, Pascon FM (2015) Comparative analysis of root dentin morphology and structure of human versus bovine primary teeth. Microsc Microanal 21:689–694
Botella H, Blom H, Dorka M, Ahlberg PE, Janvier P (2007) Jaws and teeth of the earliest bony fishes. Nature 448:583–586
Velasco-Hogan A, Huang W, Serrano C, Kisailus D, Meyers MA (2021) Tooth structure, mechanical properties, and diet specialization of Piranha and Pacu (Serrasalmidae): a comparative study. Acta Biomater 134:531–545
Tucker A, Sharpe P (2004) The cutting-edge of mammalian development; how the embryo makes teeth. Nat Rev Genet 5:499–508
Renvoise E, Evans AR, Jebrane A, Labruere C, Laffont R, Montuire S (2009) Evolution of mammal tooth patterns: new insights from a developmental prediction model. Evolution 63:1327–1340
Kavanagh KD, Evans AR, Jernvall J (2007) Predicting evolutionary patterns of mammalian teeth from development. Nature 449:427–432
Wilmers J, Waldron M, Bargmann S (2021) Hierarchical microstructure of tooth enameloid in two lamniform shark species, Carcharias taurus and Isurus oxyrinchus. Nanomaterials (Basel) 11:969
Seidel R, Blumer M, Pechriggl EJ, Lyons K, Hall BK, Fratzl P et al (2017) Calcified cartilage or bone? Collagens in the tessellated endoskeletons of cartilaginous fish (sharks and rays). J Struct Biol 200:54–71
Geerinckx T, Huysseune A, Boone M, Claeys M, Couvreur M, De Kegel B et al (2012) Soft dentin results in unique flexible teeth in scraping catfishes. Physiol Biochem Zool 85:481–490
Kemp A (2003) Ultrastructure of developing tooth plates in the Australian lungfish, Neoceratodus forsteri (Osteichthyes: Dipnoi). Tissue Cell 35:401–426
Underwood CJ, Johanson Z, Welten M, Metscher B, Rasch LJ, Fraser GJ et al (2015) Development and evolution of dentition pattern and tooth order in the skates and rays (batoidea; chondrichthyes). PLoS ONE 10:e0122553
Hulsey CD, Cohen KE, Johanson Z, Karagic N, Meyer A, Miller CT et al (2020) Grand challenges in comparative tooth biology. Integr Comp Biol 60:563–580
Alazem O, Abramyan J (2019) Reptile enamel matrix proteins: Selection, divergence, and functional constraint. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 332:136–148
Zahradnicek O, Buchtova M, Dosedelova H, Tucker AS (2014) The development of complex tooth shape in reptiles. Front Physiol 5:74
Prostak K, Skobe Z (1986) Ultrastructure of the dental epithelium and odontoblasts during enameloid matrix deposition in cichlid teeth. J Morphol 187:159–172
Enax J, Janus AM, Raabe D, Epple M, Fabritius HO (2014) Ultrastructural organization and micromechanical properties of shark tooth enameloid. Acta Biomater 10:3959–3968
Kawasaki K, Keating JN, Nakatomi M, Welten M, Mikami M, Sasagawa I et al (2021) Coevolution of enamel, ganoin, enameloid, and their matrix SCPP genes in osteichthyans. iScience 24:102023
Gillis JA, Donoghue PC (2007) The homology and phylogeny of chondrichthyan tooth enameloid. J Morphol 268:33–49
Sasagawa I, Ishiyama M, Yokosuka H, Mikami M, Oka S, Shimokawa H et al (2019) Immunolocalization of enamel matrix protein-like proteins in the tooth enameloid of spotted gar, Lepisosteus oculatus, an actinopterygian bony fish. Connect Tissue Res 60:291–303
Cooper JS, Poole DFG (1973) The dentition and dental tissues of the agamid lizard, Uromastyx. J Zool 169:85–100
Suarez CA, You HL, Suarez MB, Li DQ, Trieschmann JB (2017) Stable isotopes reveal rapid enamel elongation (Amelogenesis) rates for the early cretaceous iguanodontian dinosaur Lanzhousaurus magnidens. Sci Rep 7:15319
Enax J, Fabritius HO, Rack A, Prymak O, Raabe D, Epple M (2013) Characterization of crocodile teeth: correlation of composition, microstructure, and hardness. J Struct Biol 184:155–163
Diekwisch TGH, Jin T, Wang X, Ito Y, Schmidt M, Druzinsky R et al (2009) Amelogenin evolution and tetrapod enamel structure. Front Oral Biol 13:74–79
Bartlett JD (2013) Dental enamel development: proteinases and their enamel matrix substrates. ISRN Dent 2013:684607
Cantu C, Pagella P, Shajiei TD, Zimmerli D, Valenta T, Hausmann G et al (2017) A cytoplasmic role of Wnt/beta-catenin transcriptional cofactors Bcl9, Bcl9l, and Pygopus in tooth enamel formation. Sci Signal 10:eaah4598
Liu H, Yan X, Pandya M, Luan X, Diekwisch TG (2016) Daughters of the enamel organ: development, fate, and function of the stratum intermedium, stellate reticulum, and outer enamel epithelium. Stem Cells Dev 25:1580–1590
Zahradnicek O, Horacek I, Tucker AS (2012) Tooth development in a model reptile: functional and null generation teeth in the gecko Paroedura picta. J Anat 221:195–208
Richman JM, Handrigan GR (2011) Reptilian tooth development. Genesis 49:247–260
Fraser GJ, Bloomquist RF, Streelman JT (2013) Common developmental pathways link tooth shape to regeneration. Dev Biol 377:399–414
Mitsiadis TA, Henrique D, Thesleff I, Lendahl U (1997) Mouse Serrate-1 (Jagged-1): expression in the developing tooth is regulated by epithelial-mesenchymal interactions and fibroblast growth factor-4. Development 124:1473–1483
Zheng L, Seon YJ, Mourao MA, Schnell S, Kim D, Harada H et al (2013) Circadian rhythms regulate amelogenesis. Bone 55:158–165
Smith MM, Fraser GJ, Mitsiadis TA (2009) Dental lamina as source of odontogenic stem cells: evolutionary origins and developmental control of tooth generation in gnathostomes. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 312B:260–280
Smith MM, Johanson Z, Butts T, Ericsson R, Modrell M, Tulenko FJ et al (2015) Making teeth to order: conserved genes reveal an ancient molecular pattern in paddlefish (Actinopterygii). Proc Biol Sci 282:20142700
Arendt D, Musser JM, Baker CVH, Bergman A, Cepko C, Erwin DH et al (2016) The origin and evolution of cell types. Nat Rev Genet 17:744–757
Valentine JW, Collins AG, Meyer CP (1994) Morphological complexity increase in metazoans. Paleobiology 20:131–142
Arendt D (2008) The evolution of cell types in animals: emerging principles from molecular studies. Nat Rev Genet 9:868–882
Andersen P, Uosaki H, Shenje LT, Kwon C (2012) Non-canonical Notch signaling: emerging role and mechanism. Trends Cell Biol 22:257–265
Peled A, Sarig O, Samuelov L, Bertolini M, Ziv L, Weissglas-Volkov D et al (2016) Mutations in TSPEAR, encoding a regulator of Notch signaling, affect tooth and hair follicle morphogenesis. PLoS Genet 12:e1006369
Chen X, Li Y, Alawi F, Bouchard JR, Kulkarni AB, Gibson CW (2011) An amelogenin mutation leads to disruption of the odontogenic apparatus and aberrant expression of Notch1. J Oral Pathol Med 40:235–242
Gazave E, Lapebie P, Richards GS, Brunet F, Ereskovsky AV, Degnan BM et al (2009) Origin and evolution of the Notch signalling pathway: an overview from eukaryotic genomes. BMC Evol Biol 9:249
Guruharsha KG, Hori K, Obar RA, Artavanis-Tsakonas S (2014) Proteomic analysis of the Notch interactome. Methods Mol Biol 1187:181–192
Huttlin EL, Bruckner RJ, Paulo JA, Cannon JR, Ting L, Baltier K et al (2017) Architecture of the human interactome defines protein communities and disease networks. Nature 545:505–509
Rhee DY, Cho DY, Zhai B, Slattery M, Ma L, Mintseris J et al (2014) Transcription factor networks in Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Rep 8:2031–2043
Chandler KJ, Chandler RL, Mortlock DP (2009) Identification of an ancient Bmp4 mesoderm enhancer located 46 kb from the promoter. Dev Biol 327:590–602
Jiang S, Chandler RL, Fritz DT, Mortlock DP, Rogers MB (2010) Repressive BMP2 gene regulatory elements near the BMP2 promoter. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 392:124–128
Chen H, Capellini TD, Schoor M, Mortlock DP, Reddi AH, Kingsley DM (2016) Heads, shoulders, elbows, knees, and toes: modular Gdf5 enhancers control different joints in the vertebrate skeleton. PLoS Genet 12:e1006454
Dathe K, Kjaer KW, Brehm A, Meinecke P, Nurnberg P, Neto JC et al (2009) Duplications involving a conserved regulatory element downstream of BMP2 are associated with brachydactyly type A2. Am J Hum Genet 84:483–492
DiLeone RJ, Russell LB, Kingsley DM (1998) An extensive 3’ regulatory region controls expression of Bmp5 in specific anatomical structures of the mouse embryo. Genetics 148:401–408
Indjeian VB, Kingman GA, Jones FC, Guenther CA, Grimwood J, Schmutz J et al (2016) Evolving new skeletal traits by cis-regulatory changes in bone morphogenetic proteins. Cell 164:45–56
Guenther C, Pantalena-Filho L, Kingsley DM (2008) Shaping skeletal growth by modular regulatory elements in the Bmp5 gene. PLoS Genet 4:e1000308
Portnoy ME, McDermott KJ, Antonellis A, Margulies EH, Prasad AB, Program NCS et al (2005) Detection of potential GDF6 regulatory elements by multispecies sequence comparisons and identification of a skeletal joint enhancer. Genomics 86:295–305
Sugiura T (1999) Cloning and functional characterization of the 5’-flanking region of the human bone morphogenetic protein-2 gene. Biochem J 338(Pt 2):433–440
Romero IG, Ruvinsky I, Gilad Y (2012) Comparative studies of gene expression and the evolution of gene regulation. Nat Rev Genet 13:505–516
Capellini TD, Chen H, Cao J, Doxey AC, Kiapour AM, Schoor M et al (2017) Ancient selection for derived alleles at a GDF5 enhancer influencing human growth and osteoarthritis risk. Nat Genet 49:1202–1210
Chan YF, Marks ME, Jones FC, Villarreal G Jr, Shapiro MD, Brady SD et al (2010) Adaptive evolution of pelvic reduction in sticklebacks by recurrent deletion of a Pitx1 enhancer. Science 327:302–305
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the staff of the Institute of Oral Biology (University of Zurich) for inspiring discussions and suggestions. We thank Professor Thomas Gridley (Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Tufts University, USA) for the generation and generous gift of the Jagged−/− mice.
Funding
Open access funding provided by University of Zurich. This work was financially supported by institutional funds from the University of Zurich (UZH).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
TAM: conceived the topic, realized the experiments, designed the figures, wrote the initial draft and the final manuscript, and perform the editing. PP, TDC, MMS: critical reviewing, writing and editing of the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Ethical approval
All mice (C57Bl/6) were maintained and handled according to the Swiss Animal Welfare Law and in compliance with the regulations of the Cantonal Veterinary office, Zurich (License 11/2014).
Consent to participate
N/A.
Consent for publication
All authors have read the manuscript and agreed to give their consent for the publication of information in the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Mitsiadis, T.A., Pagella, P., Capellini, T.D. et al. The Notch-mediated circuitry in the evolution and generation of new cell lineages: the tooth model. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 80, 182 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-023-04831-7
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-023-04831-7