Ever since classical developmental biology experiments identified the AER and ZPA as mediators of P-D and A-P patterning, subsequent studies were undertaken to pinpoint the morphogens responsible for implementing their influence (
Tabin and Wolpert, 2007;
Zeller et al., 2009). We describe here a genetic loss-of-function study demonstrating that the loss of physiological levels of RA in hindlimbs of
Rdh10trex/trex embryos has no effect on hindlimb patterning, but does abolish interdigital mesenchyme tissue loss. Our studies with the
RARE-lacZ RA-reporter transgene have demonstrated that this transgene is sensitive to low physiological levels of RA. Previous HPLC studies demonstrated that endogenous RA levels in various tissues of E10.5 mouse embryos range from 10–100 nM (
Horton and Maden, 1995) and that the average amount of RA in an E10.5 embryo is 25 nM (
Mic et al., 2003). Here, we have shown that E10.5
Rdh10 mutant hindlimbs indeed lack RA activity, as
RARE-lacZ expression can be recovered in the hindlimb when treated with a physiological level of RA (25 nM). Our studies show that previous evidence advocating roles for RA in either A-P or P-D patterning actually demonstrate the teratogenic traits of the RA molecule but do not establish an endogenous requirement in vivo for limb patterning.
During the search for the ZPA morphogen, RA was originally suggested to play this role; pharmacological doses of RA applied to anterior chick limb bud regions were shown to induce specification of ZPA-like cells, which when engrafted to other limbs resulted in A-P limb duplication (
Tickle et al., 1982;
Wanek et al., 1991). However, subsequent investigation revealed that lower RA doses could not replicate the same effect (
Helms et al., 1994), and RA was soon after discarded in favor of SHH in implementing A-P polarity from the ZPA. Nevertheless, RA has sometimes been placed in a role upstream of SHH due to its ability to upregulate
Shh expression (
Riddle et al., 1993), although we argue that this effect has only been demonstrated using doses approximately 1000 times higher than the endogenous RA concentration. Our data clearly shows no spatiotemporal change in hindlimb
Shh expression following loss of hindlimb RA activity in
Rdh10 mutants.
More recently, the emphasis on research into a potential role for RA in limb patterning has switched to the P-D axis. While the influence of FGF8 signaling from the AER is unchallenged in its role as a principle P-D organizer (
Mariani et al., 2008), controversy remains as to how this influence is specifically implemented (
Tabin and Wolpert, 2007;
Zeller et al., 2009). Originally, a ‘progress zone’ model was put forward stating that as cells migrate away from the AER, they exit the influence of FGF signaling from the AER and take on increasingly more distal fates over time; however, no evidence for a molecular clock mechanism has been found to validate this hypothesis. The ‘early specification model’—supported by conditional FGF loss-of-function studies—states that FGFs establish the different progenitor pools (needed for development of the stylopod, zeugopod, and autopod) early, and not progressively, although no evidence for early differential gene expression in the limb has been described. Finally a ‘two signal’ model has been put forward (without bias toward either of the other two models) suggesting RA in the proximal limb bud acts as a proximalizing signal in opposition to distal FGF signaling from the AER to control P-D outgrowth. This model was derived from evidence demonstrating the capacity of ectopic RA to upregulate the proximal limb marker
Meis2 in distal limb tissue (
Mercader et al., 2000;
Yashiro et al., 2004). When exogenous RA treatment has been used to induce
Meis2, pharmacological doses were used (
Mercader et al., 2000), the lowest being 33µM which is still 1000x more concentrated than the accepted endogenous RA level in limbs at around 30nM (
Horton and Maden, 1995). In
Cyp26b1−/− embryos, ectopic
Meis2 expression in more distal regions of the limb bud was attributed to direct upregulation by endogenous RA which was shown with
RARE-lacZ to extend ectopically into the distal limb. However, we found no loss of
Meis2 expression in
Rdh10 mutant limbs shown here to be devoid of endogenous RA activity using
RARE-lacZ that was validated as a sensitive marker of endogenous RA activity. As such, we conclude that
Meis2 does not require RA for its proximal expression in the limb. We propose that ectopic RA in the limb bud indirectly causes
Meis2 upregulation via a general disruption in patterning, perhaps by obstructing FGF signaling. This conclusion is supported by studies showing that loss of FGF signaling results in distal expansion of
Meis gene expression (
Mariani et al., 2008), plus other studies showing that ectopic RA in the distal limb can disrupt AER morphology in chick (
Tickle et al., 1989) and downregulate
Fgf4 expression in the AER of mouse
Cyp26b1 mutants (
Yashiro et al., 2004). Thus, we conclude that factors other than RA induce limb
Meis expression, while distal FGF signaling restricts
Meis expression to a proximal location.
Our hypothesis that RA is unnecessary for hindlimb patterning most likely also pertains to forelimb patterning. The
Rdh10 mutant model shows that when RA is missing from limb buds only the forelimbs exhibit a growth defect, but it is unlikely that the forelimb requires proximal or posterior RA signaling centers for its patterning when the hindlimb does not. Indeed, in our analysis of the stunted
Rdh10 mutant forelimb, we observed expression of
Meis2,
Shh, and
Fgf8 in roughly the normal position after taking into account the fact that the forelimb is much smaller than normal. More credible is a forelimb-specific RA requirement unrelated to patterning such as a role in forelimb initiation which occurs about one day before hindlimb initiation. Studies with RA-rescued
Raldh2−/− embryos have shown that RA synthesized in early trunk mesoderm from somite stages 1–10 functions to repress
Fgf8 in trunk tissues anterior of the primitive streak and posterior of the heart, consequently permitting proper body axis extension and forelimb bud initiation which occurs in the developing trunk during this period (
Sirbu et al., 2008;
Zhao et al., 2009). Accordingly, loss of RA signaling results in ectopic FGF signaling in early trunk mesoderm that may be responsible for the observed delay of forelimb initiation in RA-rescued
Raldh2−/− embryos (
Zhao et al., 2009). Thus, we propose that the underlying cause of forelimb skeletal defects previously reported for
Rdh10 mutants (
Sandell et al., 2007) is not loss of an instructive RA signal needed for forelimb patterning but loss of RA needed to prevent a defect in forelimb growth that makes the forelimb too small to develop completely normal expression patterns of key patterning genes such as
Fgf8 and
Shh. Previous studies on
Rdh10 mutant forelimbs reported that
Shh exhibited a posterior domain located more distal than normal (as we observed here), and that AER
Fgf8 exhibited a markedly reduced expression level more severe than we observed (
Sandell et al., 2007). We attribute this difference in AER
Fgf8 expression to variation in the severity of forelimb retardation, which ranges from a very small and narrow protrusion to a more significant bud, but always smaller than normal. This variation is likely coupled to how well each
Rdh10 mutant embryo is able to use alternative enzymes to generate retinaldehyde and produce RA activity that is necessary for survival and growth, although such RA activity does not occur in limb field mesoderm. In contrast to forelimbs, we observe that hindlimbs do not require RA signaling for their initial growth, but other studies have demonstrated that early hindlimb growth is dependent upon
Pitx1 and
Pitx2 (
Marcil et al., 2003).
Our studies here with
Rdh10 mutants describe a simpler genetic model than RA-rescued
Raldh2 mutants (
Zhao et al., 2009) that does not require rescue with RA to avoid early lethality.
Rdh10 mutants provide further support for our hypothesis that loss of RA signaling affects growth of forelimbs (which may indirectly affect patterning) but has no effect on hindlimb growth or patterning, Together, these findings provide strong evidence that RA is not required as an instructive signal for A-P or P-D patterning. As it is evident that limb buds need to be clear of RA in all but the most proximal region to avoid undesirable teratogenic consequences, we suggest that CYP26B1 functions simply to keep RA out of the majority of the limb bud to prevent disruption of limb development rather than functioning to establish proximodistal patterning.
Raldh2 and
Rdh10 are expressed in overlapping domains encompassing the somites, intermediate mesoderm and lateral plate mesoderm. RA synthesis in early trunk mesoderm has been shown to be crucial for instructive neural tube RA signaling (such as induction of 3'-
Hox genes), but trunk RA signaling also performs a permissive function important for mesoderm development through repression of FGFs and potentially other signaling ligands in regions where their influence is undesirable (
Duester, 2008). But RA itself is undesirable in some locations including the distal limb. We suggest that in order for RA to perform its essential functions in neural tube and trunk mesoderm, some RA is able to enter the limbs but that it is unnecessary in that location and is mostly eliminated by CYP26B1. Later in development,
Raldh2 and
Rdh10 expression in the interdigital mesenchyme leads to an instructive RA signaling event in that tissue, which is crucial in the process of interdigital apoptosis (
Ghyselinck et al., 1997;
Dupé et al., 1999;
Zhao et al., 2010). RA has for a long time been suggested to function as an instructive signal for either A-P or P-D limb patterning, but the genetic evidence presented here and previously (
Zhao et al., 2009) warrants a change of the paradigm to a model in which RA is not required for limb patterning and is actively removed to ensure that it does not disrupt limb development.