Reciprocal cell-cell interactions between the ureteric epithelium and the metanephric mesenchyme are needed to drive growth and differentiation of the embryonic kidney to completion. Branching morphogenesis of the Wolffian duct derived ureteric bud is integral in the generation of ureteric tips and the elaboration of the collecting duct system. Wnt11, a member of the Wnt superfamily of secreted glycoproteins, which have important regulatory functions during vertebrate embryonic development, is specifically expressed in the tips of the branching ureteric epithelium. In this work, we explore the role of Wnt11 in ureteric branching and use a targeted mutation of the Wnt11 locus as an entrance point into investigating the genetic control of collecting duct morphogenesis. Mutation of the Wnt11 gene results in ureteric branching morphogenesis defects and consequent kidney hypoplasia in newborn mice. Wnt11 functions, in part, by maintaining normal expression levels of the gene encoding glial cell-derived neurotrophic factor (Gdnf). Gdnf encodes a mesenchymally produced ligand for the Ret tyrosine kinase receptor that is crucial for normal ureteric branching. Conversely, Wnt11 expression is reduced in the absence of Ret/Gdnf signaling. Consistent with the idea that reciprocal interaction between Wnt11 and Ret/Gdnf regulates the branching process, Wnt11 and Ret mutations synergistically interact in ureteric branching morphogenesis. Based on these observations, we conclude that Wnt11 and Ret/Gdnf cooperate in a positive autoregulatory feedback loop to coordinate ureteric branching by maintaining an appropriate balance of Wnt11-expressing ureteric epithelium and Gdnf-expressing mesenchyme to ensure continued metanephric development.

Development of the mammalian kidney is initiated by ingrowth of the ureteric bud into the metanephric blastema. In response to signal(s) from the ureter, mesenchymal cells condense, aggregate into pretubular clusters, and undergo epithelialisation to form simple epithelial tubules. Subsequent morphogenesis and differentiation of the tubular epithelium lead to the establishment of a functional nephron. Here we demonstrate that Wnt-4, a secreted glycoprotein which is required for tubule formation, is sufficient to trigger tubulogenesis in isolated metanephric mesenchyme, whereas Wnt-11 which is expressed in the tip of the growing ureter is not. Wnt-4 signaling depends on cell contact and sulphated glycosaminoglycans and is only required for triggering tubulogenesis but not for later events. The Wnt-4 signal can be replaced by other members of the Wnt gene family including Wnt-1, Wnt-3a, Wnt-7a and Wnt-7b. Further, dorsal spinal cord, which has been thought to mimic ureteric signaling in tubule induction induces Wnt-4 mutant as well as wild-type mesenchyme suggesting that spinal cord derived signal(s) most likely act by mimicking the normal mesenchymal action of Wnt-4. These results lend additional support to the notion that Wnt-4 is a key auto-regulator of the mesenchymal to epithelial transformation that underpins nephrogenesis adding another level of complexity in the hierarchy of molecular events mediating tubulogenesis.

To bypass the essential gastrulation function of Fgf8 and study its role in lineages of the primitive streak, we have used a new mouse line, T-Cre, to generate mouse embryos with pan-mesodermal loss of Fgf8 expression. Surprisingly, despite previous models in which Fgf8 has been assigned a pivotal role in segmentation/somite differentiation, Fgf8 is not required for these processes. However, mutant neonates display severe renal hypoplasia with deficient nephron formation. In mutant kidneys, aberrant cell death occurs within the metanephric mesenchyme (MM), particularly in the cortical nephrogenic zone, which provides the progenitors for recurring rounds of nephron formation. Prior to mutant morphological changes, Wnt4 and Lim1 expression, which is essential for nephrogenesis, is absent in MM. Furthermore, comparative analysis of Wnt4-null homozygotes reveals concomitant downregulation of Lim1 and diminished tubule formation. Our data support a model whereby FGF8 and WNT4 function in concert to induce the expression of Lim1 for MM survival and tubulogenesis.

The morphogenesis and cell differentiation in developing teeth is governed by interactions between the oral epithelium and neural crest‐derived ectomesenchyme. The fibroblast growth factors FGF‐4, ‐8, and ‐9 have been implicated as epithelial signals regulating mesenchymal gene expression and cell proliferation during tooth initiation and later during epithelial folding morphogenesis and the establishment of tooth shape. To further evaluate the roles of FGFs in tooth development, we analyzed the roles of FGF‐3, FGF‐7, and FGF‐10 in developing mouse teeth. In situ hybridization analysis showed developmentally regulated expression during tooth formation for Fgf‐3 and Fgf‐10 that was mainly restricted to the dental papilla mesenchymal cells. Fgf‐7 transcripts were restricted to the developing bone surrounding the developing tooth germ. Fgf‐10 expression was observed in the presumptive dental epithelium and mesenchyme during tooth initiation, whereas Fgf‐3 expression appeared in the dental mesenchyme at the late bud stage. During the cap and bell stage, both Fgf‐3 and Fgf‐10 were intensely expressed in the dental papilla mesenchymal cells both in incisors and molars. It is of interest that Fgf‐3 expression was also observed in the primary enamel knot, a putative signaling center of the tooth, whereas no transcripts were seen in the secondary enamel knots that appear in the tips of future cusps of the bell stage tooth germs. Down‐regulation of Fgf‐3 and Fgf‐10 expression in postmitotic odontoblasts correlated with the terminal differentiation of the odontoblasts and the neighboring ameloblasts. In the incisors, mesenchymal cells of the cervical loop area showed partially overlapping expression patterns for all studied Fgfs. In vitro analyses showed that expression of Fgf‐3 and Fgf‐10 in the dental mesenchyme was dependent on dental epithelium and that epithelially expressed FGFs, FGF‐4 and ‐8 induced Fgf‐3 but not Fgf‐10 expression in the isolated dental mesenchyme. Beads soaked in Shh, BMP‐2, and TGF‐β1 protein did not induce either Fgf‐3 or Fgf‐10 expression. Cells expressing Wnt‐6 did not induce Fgf‐10 expression. Furthermore, FGF‐10 protein stimulated cell proliferation in the dental epithelium but not in the mesenchyme. These results suggest that FGF‐3 and FGF‐10 have redundant functions as mesenchymal signals regulating epithelial morphogenesis of the tooth and that their expressions appear to be differentially regulated. In addition, FGF‐3 may participate in signaling functions of the primary enamel knot. The dynamic expression patterns of different Fgfs in dental epithelium and mesenchyme and their interactions suggest existence of regulatory signaling cascades between epithelial and mesenchymal FGFs during tooth development.