Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF, 1972K) PPT slides of all figures Alert me when this article is cited Citation Map Services Email this article Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new content in the JCB Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Niewiadomska, P. Articles by Tepass, U. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Niewiadomska, P. Articles by Tepass, U. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

© The Rockefeller University Press, 0021-9525/1999//533 $5.00
The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 144, Number 3, , 1999 533-547

DE-Cadherin Is Required for Intercellular Motility during Drosophila Oogenesis

Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5, Canada

Cadherins are involved in a variety of morphogenetic movements during animal development. However, it has been difficult to pinpoint the precise function of cadherins in morphogenetic processes due to the multifunctional nature of cadherin requirement. The data presented here indicate that homophilic adhesion promoted by Drosophila E-cadherin (DE-cadherin) mediates two cell migration events during Drosophila oogenesis. In Drosophila follicles, two groups of follicle cells, the border cells and the centripetal cells migrate on the surface of germline cells. We show that the border cells migrate as an epithelial patch in which two centrally located cells retain epithelial polarity and peripheral cells are partially depolarized. Both follicle cells and germline cells express DE-cadherin, and border cells and centripetal cells strongly upregulate the expression of DE-cadherin shortly before and during their migration. Removing DE-cadherin from either the follicle cells or the germline cells blocks migration of border cells and centripetal cells on the surface of germline cells. The function of DE-cadherin in border cells appears to be specific for migration as the formation of the border cell cluster and the adhesion between border cells are not disrupted in the absence of DE-cadherin. The speed of migration depends on the level of DE-cadherin expression, as border cells migrate more slowly when DE-cadherin activity is reduced. Finally, we show that the upregulation of DE-cadherin expression in border cells depends on the activity of the Drosophila C/EBP transcription factor that is essential for border cell migration.

Key Words: cadherin • intercellular motility • cell migration • Drosophila • oogenesis

Abbreviations used in this paper: armadillo; btl, breathless; DE-cadherin, Drosophila E-cadherin; DC/EBP, Drosophila CCAAT/enhancer binding protein; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; shg, shotgun; slbo, slow border cells.

Address correspondence to U. Tepass, Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G5, Canada. Tel.: (416) 978-5712. Fax: (416) 978-8532. E-mail: utepass{at}zoo.utoronto.ca

CELL motility plays a pivotal role in shaping the animal body. Adhesive interactions between cells and extracellular matrix or between neighboring cells are required to convert the forces produced by the cytoskeleton into actual cell motility. Among the most extensively studied cell movements are integrin mediated migration processes on extracellular substrates (Hynes, 1992; Lauffenburger and Horwitz, 1996). Integrins, a family of extracellular matrix receptors, are connected via cytoplasmic adaptor proteins to F-actin allowing to transmit forces directly from the actin cytoskeleton to an extracellular substrate. In contrast, adhesion mechanisms involved in cell rearrangement movements in epithelia and other solid tissues, as they occur, for example, during gastrulation in many animals, are still very poorly understood. Cadherins are major cell–cell adhesion molecules in epithelial tissues, and, similar to integrins, cadherins are connected to the actin cytoskeleton by cytoplasmic adaptor proteins. These findings have led to the hypothesis that cadherins might play a similar role in intercellular motility as integrins in cell migration on extracellular substrates (Gumbiner, 1992). The notion that cadherins can mediate intercellular motility is supported by the finding that cadherins can promote the migration of neuronal growth cones on cellular substrates (Bixby and Zhang, 1990; Riehl et al., 1996; Iwai et al., 1997).

Cadherins are multifunctional transmembrane proteins that have well-established roles in cell adhesion and in epithelial polarization. In animal morphogenesis, cadherins act as Ca²⁺-dependent homophilic cell–cell adhesion molecules that mediate tissue-specific adhesion of embryonic and adult cells (Takeichi, 1991, 1995; Gumbiner 1996). In epithelial tissues cadherins are important regulators of epithelial cell structure. This function of cadherins has been well studied for E-cadherin, which is important for the assembly of the lateral cytocortex (McNeil et al., 1990; Eaton and Simmons, 1995; Drubin and Nelson, 1996). E-cadherin belongs to a subfamily of cadherins known as classic cadherins. These molecules interact with cytoplasmic catenins to form the cadherin–catenin complex that is concentrated at cell–cell adherens junctions at which it is connected to microfilaments. The role of the cadherin– catenin complex for epithelial adhesion and polarization explains its importance in transitions of mesenchymal cells to epithelial cells and vice versa (e.g., Hirano et al., 1992; Burdsal et al., 1993), and might account for its function as tumor suppressor gene in human (Birchmeier, 1995; Guilford et al., 1998). Lack of cadherin function in epithelial tissues typically compromises tissue integrity (e.g., Larue et al., 1994; Levine et al., 1994; Riethmacher et al., 1995; Tepass et al., 1996; Uemura et al., 1996). This makes it difficult to determine whether the disruption of cell rearrangements in those tissues is a secondary effect of the structural defects or a direct consequence of the loss of cadherin function. To overcome such difficulties and to study the function and regulation of cadherins in cell movements, it is desirable to identify cell populations in which a particular cadherin has a primary or sole function in cell motility. The data presented in this paper suggest that a group of cells in the Drosophila ovary known as border cells is such a cell population.

The recent isolation of mutations in the gene shotgun (shg)¹ that encodes the Drosophila E-cadherin homologue, DE-cadherin, has opened a fruitful avenue to test the role classic cadherins play in animal morphogenesis. Analysis of shg/DE-cadherin revealed that it is the major epithelial cadherin in Drosophila and that its biochemical properties and interactions with catenins, its subcellular localization, and its requirement for epithelial differentiation are similar to vertebrate E-cadherin (Peifer, 1993; Oda et al., 1993, 1994; Tepass et al., 1996; Uemura et al., 1996). Analysis of the shg/DE-cadherin mutant phenotype revealed a striking correlation between the degree of cell rearrangement in a particular tissue and the amounts of DE-cadherin that are required for maintaining the epithelial integrity during cell rearrangements. Experimental suppression of cell rearrangements leads to a reduced requirement for DE-cadherin in maintaining tissue integrity (Tepass et al., 1996). These findings demonstrate that DE-cadherin is important for stabilizing tissues during morphogenetic processes, and suggest the need for regulation of cadherin activity during such events. However, these data do not reveal whether cadherin function plays a permissive role or whether cadherins are directly involved in promoting intercellular motility.

Here, we study the function of shg/DE-cadherin in cell rearrangement and cell migration processes during Drosophila oogenesis. In recent years, the Drosophila ovary has been used to analyze the involvement of the cytoskeleton in pattern formation and morphogenesis (e.g., Cooley and Theurkauf, 1994; Ray and Schüpbach, 1996). Drosophila ovaries are composed of bundles of ovarioles that each consist of an anteriorly located germarium and a series of follicles of increasing developmental age towards posterior. Each follicle contains 16 germline cells, one of which is the oocyte. The oocyte occupies the most posterior position among the germline cells of a follicle. Recently, it has been shown that the posterior localization of the oocyte is controlled by a cell sorting process that is driven by differential DE-cadherin-based adhesion (Godt and Tepass, 1998). The germline cells are surrounded by somatic follicle cells that initially form a uniform cuboidal monolayered epithelium. Follicle cells undergo various morphogenetic movements later in development. During mid-oogenesis most follicle cells move posteriorly, and form a highly columnar epithelium covering the oocyte. The few cells that surround the nurse cells become squamous. Also during midoogenesis, two subpopulations of follicle cells, the border cells and the centripetal cells undergo specific migration movements on the surface of germline cells. The border cells migrate from the anterior tip of a follicle in between nurse cells through the center of a follicle towards the oocyte. The centripetal cells penetrate between the nurse cells and the oocyte and eventually cover the anterior side of the oocyte. Finally, during late oogenesis, two groups of anterior-dorsal follicle cells conduct conversion extension movements and form two long tubes, the so-called dorsal appendages (for review on oogenesis see King, 1970; Spradling, 1993). Thus, Drosophila follicle cells are an excellent model system to study genetic mechanisms of morphogenesis.

The two morphogenetic processes that we analyze in this study are the migration of border cells and centripetal cells. In particular the work of Montell and colleagues has established the border cells as a genetic model system for the analysis of cell migration (Montell, 1994). A number of genes were shown to be involved in border cell migration including the Drosophila CCAAT/enhancer binding protein (DC/EBP) encoded by slow border cells (slbo; Montell et al., 1992), a number of cytoplasmic factors, namely the GTPases Drac1 (Murphy and Montell, 1996), Dras1, and ralA (Lee et al., 1996), Myosin II (Edwards and Kiehart, 1996), and the Drosophila FGF receptor encoded by breathless (btl; Murphy et al., 1995). However, a transmembrane adhesion receptor that provides adhesion and traction during border cell migration has not been identified. Our data indicate that DE-cadherin fulfills this role in border cell and centripetal cell migration. We show that DE-cadherin expression is required in border cells and centripetal cells as well as in germline cells for migration. In case of the border cells we find that the speed of migration depends on the level at which DE-cadherin is expressed. Our analysis also shows that DE-cadherin has no essential role in border cell formation, or in adhesion between border cells during migration. Taken together, our results indicate a specific requirement of DE-cadherin for border cell migration that is mediated by homophilic interactions between cell surfaces of border cells and germline cells. Our observations also suggest that the border cell cluster is not a mesenchymal group of cells, as previously believed, but an epithelial patch in which two central cells retain epithelial polarity and peripheral cells are partially depolarized similar to epithelia that have a free edge.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Drosophila Strains
shg alleles used are shg^P34-1, shg^R69, and shg^R6 (Tepass et al., 1996; Godt and Tepass, 1998). slbo alleles used are slbo¹, slbo^e2b, and slbo^e7b (Montell et al., 1992; Murphy et al., 1995). P[ry⁺; hs-neo; FRT]42D (FRT42D) and hsFLP1 lines (Xu and Harrison, 1994) were used for mosaic analysis. Oregon R was used as a wild-type strain. Flies were raised at 25°C if not otherwise indicated.

Mosaic Analysis
Site-directed mitotic recombination was catalyzed by the heat shock inducible FLP yeast recombinase at a FRT target element (Golic, 1991; Xu and Harrison, 1994). For the experiment FRT42D homozygous females were crossed to hsFLP1/Y; FRT42D shg^R69/+ males. Eggs were collected on apple juice agar plates for 2 h each, and the developing animals were kept at 25°C before and after the 2 h heat shock in a 37°C air incubator. To induce shg mutant germline and follicle stem cells heat shocks were applied at 50 and 68 h after oviposition, which corresponds to the early and late second larval instar, respectively. Larvae were transferred to vials at late third instar. Adult females of the genotype hsFLP1/+; FRT42D shg^R69/+FRT42D were easily recognized because they display a rough eye phenotype due to shg mutant patches in the eye. To induce shg mutant clones during oogenesis heat shocks were applied to adult females that were dissected 48–72 h later.

Tissue In Situ Hybridization
In situ hybridizations to adult ovaries of the genotypes wild-type, slbo¹/ slbo¹, slbo¹/slbo^e7b, and slbo^e2b/slbo^e7b were performed using a full-length shg cDNA (Oda et al., 1994). Ovaries from 2–4-d-old well-fed female flies were dissected in PBS, and fixed in PBS containing 10% formaldehyde, 5% dimethylsulfoxide, and 50 mM EGTA for 30 min. The following steps were done according to a standard protocol for in situ hybridization (Tautz and Pfeifle, 1989), with the following modifications. Proteinase K treatment was done for 10 min. Hybridization with a digoxygenin-labeled DNA probe (50 ng DNA/100 µl hybridization solution), prepared as suggested by the manufacturer (Boehringer), was performed at 50°C for 48 h and followed by washes in hybridization solution, 1:1 mixture of hybridization solution and PBT (PBS, 0.1% Tween-20), and PBT at 50°C for 1 h each. The stained ovaries were mounted in 50% glycerol in PBS.

Staining Procedures
For immunostainings the following primary antibodies were used: rat monoclonal antibody anti-DE-cadherin (DCAD2, 1:50; Oda et al., 1994), mouse monoclonal antibodies anti-Crumbs (Cq4, 1:25; Tepass and Knust, 1993), anti–Fasciclin III (7G10, 1:50, Patel et al., 1987), and anti-Armadillo (N2-7A1, 1:100; Peifer, et al., 1994), and the rabbit polyclonal antibody anti-DC/EBP (C143, 1:100; Montell et al., 1992). Ovaries from 2–4-d-old well-fed female flies were dissected in PBS and fixed in 5% formaldehyde in phosphate buffer (PB), pH 7.4 for 10 min. For anti-Crumbs stainings ovaries were treated with methanol for 5 min after fixation. Tissues were washed in PB-T (PB, 0.3% Triton X-100) for 2x 15 min, followed by an 1 h incubation in PB-TB (PB-T, 0.2% BSA, 5% goat serum). Incubation with primary antibody, diluted in PB-TB was done at 4°C overnight. Ovaries were washed in PB-T for 4x 15 min and blocked in PB-TB for 1 h. Secondary antibodies conjugated with Cy3 or FITC (Jackson Laboratories) were used at a dilution of 1:400 in PB-TB at 4°C overnight. Ovaries were washed in PB-T for 4x 15 minutes and mounted in Antifade (70% glycerol + 2.5% DABCO [Sigma] in PBS).

To monitor lacZ expression of the P-lacZ insertion mutations shg^P34-1 and shg^R69 ovaries were fixed in 1% glutaraldehyde in PBS for 5 min, washed in PBT (PBS, 0.1% Triton X-100), and incubated in prewarmed X-gal staining solution (Bellen et al., 1989) containing 0.2% X-gal (US-Biological) at 37°C for 4–5 h. Tissues were washed in PBT and mounted in 50% glycerol in PBS.

F-actin filaments were detected with phalloidin. After antibody staining ovaries were washed with PBS, incubated in Oregon Green 488-phalloidin (Molecular Probes) at a dilution of 1:20 in PBS at 4°C overnight, washed in PBS, and mounted in Antifade.

Cell nuclei were visualized with Picogreen. After antibody staining ovaries were treated with 0.4 mg RNase A/ml PB-T for 1 h, rinsed with PB-T, incubated with Picogreen (Molecular Probes) at a dilution of 1:1,000 in PB-T at 4°C overnight, washed in PB-T and mounted in Antifade.

Light microscopic images were taken with a Zeiss Axiophot 2 microscope equipped with differential interference contrast optics using a Plan-Neofluar 20x/0.5 or a Plan-Neofluar 40x/1.30 oil objective and a condenser with a numerical aperture of 0.9. Confocal images were obtained with a Zeiss LSM420 laser confocal scanning microscope equipped with an Argon/Krypton laser (488/568 nm), 480 nm or 568 nm excitation filters, and 515- or 590-nm emission filters, respectively. Objectives used were Plan-Neofluar 40x/1.30 oil and Plan-Apochromat 100x/1.40 oil.

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
DE-Cadherin Expression during Follicular Morphogenesis
DE-cadherin shows a dynamic expression pattern during follicular morphogenesis. DE-cadherin is expressed in the germline throughout oogenesis, with the possible exception of the germline stem cells and early cystoblasts in the germarium. Furthermore, DE-cadherin is expressed in all somatic cells in the germarium and the follicles, except for the terminal filaments in which DE-cadherin was not detected (Fig. 1, A–D). High levels of DE-cadherin are found in a honeycomb pattern in the follicular epithelium that corresponds to the zonulae adherentes (Fig. 1 E). Lower levels of DE-cadherin are seen along the lateral surfaces of follicle cells and on the surfaces of the germ-line cells (Fig. 1, C and D). Expression of DE-cadherin is upregulated in various cell populations during oogenesis. In the germarium increased concentrations of DE-cadherin are seen in the oocyte and the anterior and posterior follicle cells. This differential expression of DE-cadherin promotes a cell sorting process that is responsible for posterior oocyte localization (Godt and Tepass, 1998). From stage 4/5 of oogenesis onwards increased levels of DE-cadherin are seen in a pair of follicle cells at the anterior and posterior pole, respectively, called the polar cells (Fig. 1 C). The anterior polar cells become part of the border cell cluster that forms during stage 8. The border cells and the centripetal cells express high levels of DE-cadherin during their migration as described in more detail below (Fig. 1 D). The distribution of the shg transcript as assayed by tissue in situ hybridization and a lacZ reporter (shg^P34-1; Tepass et al., 1996; Godt and Tepass, 1998) is similar to the protein distribution. An exception are the dorsal appendages in which only the level of the mRNA but not the level of the protein is increased (Fig. 1 F; data not shown). Taken together, the shg/DE-cadherin expression profile during oogenesis suggests a possible role for DE-cadherin in maintaining the integrity of the follicular epithelium and, in particular, in the dynamic movements of border cells and centripetal cells.

View larger version (81K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 1 Expression of DE-cadherin during wild-type oogenesis. (A and B) A germarium, double-stained for DE-cadherin (A) and F-actin (B). DE-cadherin expression is seen throughout the germarium (g), in germline cells and somatic cells except for the terminal filament. A previously unidentified group of 6–7 somatic cells close to the base of the terminal filament is strongly stained (arrow). Low levels of DE-cadherin are detected in the anterior region of the germarium where germline stem cells and early cystoblasts are located. Posterior to this region strong DE-cadherin expression is seen in the germline cells and all somatic cells. The DE-cadherin expression in the germarium was described in more detail elsewhere (Godt and Tepass, 1998). (C) Throughout oogenesis DE-cadherin is expressed in the follicular epithelium and the germline cells of follicles. Anterior and posterior polar cells (arrows) show a higher level of expression than the remaining follicle cells during stages 4–7. (D) The highest amounts of DE-cadherin are seen in two migrating follicle cell populations, the border cells (arrow) and the centripetal cells (arrowheads). (E) shows a top view of the DE-cadherin expression pattern in the follicular epithelium at stage 14. (F) shows DE-cadherin distribution in the dorsal appendages (arrow) and in the part of the follicular epithelium that covers the anterior side of the oocyte including the micropyle (arrowhead). This part of the follicular epithelium is composed of the border cells and the centripetal cells. Anterior is to the left in all panels. s, stage; TF, terminal filament; IS, interfollicular stalk. Bars: (A and B) 50 µm; (C, D, and F) 50 µm; (E) 15 µm.

View larger version (80K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 2 Expression of DE-cadherin in border cells of wild-type ovaries. (A–C) Arrows point to border cells. (A) At early stage 9 border cells have accumulated high levels of DE-cadherin before migration is initiated. (B) Border cells expressing elevated levels of DE-cadherin migrate on a straight path through the center of the follicle towards the oocyte during stage 9. (C) After border cells have reached the oocyte that fills the posterior half of a follicle at stage 10a, they maintain high levels of DE-cadherin expression for some time and move slightly dorsally. (D–I) show high resolution images of DE-cadherin (red) expression in border cells. (F–H) show follicles that are counterstained for Fasciclin III (green) that serves as a marker for the two polar cells. Fasciclin III accumulates at the contact surface between polar cells. (D) Stage 6. Anterior polar cells contain more DE-cadherin than neighboring follicle cells. Polar cells are constricted apically (arrow) and have a rounded shape. DE-cadherin is concentrated at the zonula adherens. (E) Stage 8. Follicle cells adjacent to polar cells have upregulated DE-cadherin expression (arrows). (F) Early stage 9. Same follicle as in A. DE-cadherin distribution in follicle cells adjacent to polar cells (the rosette cells) has depolarized. (G) Early stage 9. Migration is initiated by a rosette cell penetrating between nurse cells (arrow). (H) Late stage 9. Same follicle as in B. During migration polar cells have a central position and are surrounded by rosette cells. Highest concentration of DE-cadherin is seen at the contact surfaces between rosette cells and polar cells and between rosette cells. Lower amounts of DE-cadherin are seen at the interface of rosette cells and nurse cells in a punctate pattern (arrow). (I) Stage 10a. Border cells have established contact to the surface of the oocyte (white line). The polar cells are centrally located and their constricted apical surface contacts the oocyte (see also Peifer et al., 1993). (J–L') show distribution of DE-cadherin (red) and F-actin (green) in border cells at stage 9. F-actin is concentrated in the periphery of the border cell cluster. (J) Border cells at the onset of migration and (K) during mid migration. Note the round centrally located polar cells with constricted apical cell surfaces that are rich in DE-cadherin and F-actin. (L) and (L') show two confocal sections of the same cluster. The arrows in L' point to the constricted apical surfaces of the polar cells. Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bars: (A–C) 50 µm; (D–G, J–L') 10 µm; (H and I) 10 µm.

View larger version (82K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 3 Expression of Crumbs in border cells of wild-type ovaries. (A) Crumbs is found at the apical cell surface in all follicle cells. At early stage 8 anterior polar cells have upregulated Crumbs expression (arrow). Crumbs protein is also seen in the cytoplasm of the polar cells. (B) Follicle cells next to the polar cells upregulate Crumbs during stage 8. (C) At early stage 9 when a rosette cell initiates migration (arrow), Crumbs has a nonpolarized distribution in rosette cells. D and D' show two confocal sections of the same cluster during mid migration. In polar cells Crumbs is concentrated at the apical cell surface (arrow in D') and not found at the lateral cell surface that contacts the rosette cells (arrow in D). In rosette cells Crumbs accumulates at the contact sides between neighboring rosette cells and is found in a punctate pattern at the interface of rosette cells and nurse cells (arrowheads). (E) At stage 10 when the border cells are in contact with the oocyte Crumbs distribution in rosette cells is again restricted to the apical surface. Bars: (A–D') 10 µm; (E) 10 µm.

View larger version (75K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 4 Schematic summary of marker distribution in migrating border cells. For each marker a top view (upper panels) and a side view (lower panels) is shown (see text for further explanations).

Border cell clusters in which all cells lack DE-cadherin do not migrate between nurse cells towards the oocyte. We examined a total of 62 shg mutant follicle cell clones. shg mutant border cell clusters formed in all clones and segregated from the follicular epithelium as revealed, for example, by the expression of the border cell specific marker DC/EBP (Fig. 5, A–C). shg mutant clusters contain a normal number of DC/EBP positive border cells (8.3; n = 15) as compared with wild-type clusters (8.0; n = 40), and show an overall normal cell arrangement with a pair of Fasciclin III positive central polar cells (Fig. 5, D–F). In all follicles examined, the border cell cluster was located between follicular epithelium and nurse cells indicating that shg mutant border cell clusters cannot penetrate between nurse cells. The clusters were located either near the anterior tip of the follicle or at the boundary between the first and second nurse cell. These findings indicate that DE-cadherin expression in border cells is required for border cell migration.

View larger version (53K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 5 DE-cadherin expression in border cells is required for their migration between the nurse cells. (A–C) Double staining of stage 10 follicles with DE-cadherin (red) and the nuclear border cell marker DC/EBP (green). Arrows point to border cell clusters. (A) In a wild-type follicle the border cell cluster that expresses DE-cadherin and DC/EBP has reached the oocyte. (B) shows a shg mutant follicle cell clone that encompasses most of the follicle cells, except for a small patch of DE-cadherin positive cells at the posterior pole (arrowheads). The germline cells express DE-cadherin. A shg mutant border cell cluster expressing DC/EBP has formed that has not moved between the nurse cells towards the oocyte. The cluster is located between nurse cells and the follicular epithelium close to the anterior tip of the follicle. (C) Close-up of the shg mutant border cell cluster shown in B. (D–F) Triple staining of stage 10 follicles for Armadillo (red) that is expressed in the same pattern as DE-cadherin, for the polar cell marker Fasciclin-III (FasIII; also red), and the nuclear marker Picogreen (green). Arrows point to border cell clusters. (D) In the wild-type follicle the border cell cluster has reached the oocyte. (E) shows a shg mutant follicle cell clone derived from shg mutant follicle stem cells that comprises all follicle cells, including the border cells, as indicated by the absence of Armadillo. Red staining in anterior and posterior polar cells is due to expression of Fasciclin III. The anterior polar cells are part of the border cell cluster that has not migrated to the oocyte but remained attached to follicle cells close to the anterior pole of the follicle. (F) Closeup of the shg mutant border cell cluster shown in (E). Bars: (A, B, D, and E) 100 µm; (C and F) 10 µm.

View larger version (104K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 6 Migration of shg mutant mosaic border cell clusters. Stage 9 follicles were stained with anti-DE-cadherin (red) and the nuclear marker Picogreen (green). (A) A wild-type follicle showing a migrating border cell cluster. (B) Closeup of the border cell cluster shown in A. All border cells express DE-cadherin. (C) shg mutant follicle cell clone covering part of the follicular epithelium. (E) Closeup of the mosaic border cell cluster shown in C. The migrating border cell cluster contains DE-cadherin positive cells at the front, and DE-cadherin negative cells trailing behind. D shows another example of a mosaic border cell cluster with the DE-cadherin expressing border cells moving ahead. F shows a shg mutant mosaic border cell cluster in which the DE-cadherin positive cells have started migrating between the nurse cells and the shg mutant cells are still located at the anterior end of the follicle. Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bars: (A and C) 100 µm; (B, D, E, and F) 20 µm.

One possible explanation for the differences in cell behavior of shg mutant cells derived from follicle stem cell clones as opposed to clones induced during oogenesis are differences in the availability of DE-cadherin positive cells at the anterior tip of a follicle. If the clone boundary of a large clone, derived from a mutant stem cell passes through the anterior tip of a follicle the number of DE-cadherin positive cells competent to form border cells might be below 8. Since DE-cadherin is not essential for the formation of a border cell cluster as shown above, a cluster forms and migrates that contains both DE-cadherin positive and negative cells (Fig. 6). On the other hand, if only a small shg mutant patch is present at the anterior tip of the follicle enough DE-cadherin positive cells might still exist at this position to form a normal cluster. Our results indicate that DE-cadherin positive cells are preferentially recruited into the border cell cluster and suggests a possible role of a sorting process in border cell recruitment that depends on the level of DE-cadherin expression.

Expression of DE-Cadherin in the Germline Is Required for Border Cell Migration
DE-cadherin like other classic cadherins is a homophilic adhesion molecule (Oda et al., 1994). The lack of DE-cadherin in border cells prevents penetration and migration of border cells between nurse cells. This suggests that DE-cadherin on the surface of border cells might directly interact with DE-cadherin expressed by nurse cells to promote migration. To examine this possibility we generated follicles that contain a shg^R69 mutant germline (Fig. 7; see Materials and Methods). Follicles with a shg mutant germ-line show a variety of defects including a mislocalization of the oocyte similar to follicle cell clones (Oda et al., 1997; White et al., 1998; Godt and Tepass, 1998; González-Reyes and St. Johnston, 1998b). All follicles eventually degenerate. Among the examined 99 shg germline clones with normally localized oocyte there was no follicle in which the border cell cluster had penetrated between nurse cells. Instead, the border cell clusters always remain attached to the follicular epithelium. Typically, they are found at the boundary between the first and second nurse cell as shown in Fig. 7 B. Sometimes, they move even further posteriorly, and a single case was observed where the border cells had reached the oocyte.

View larger version (65K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 7 Disruption of border cell migration in shg mutant germ- line clones. Stage 10 follicles are double stained with DE-cadherin (left panels) and the nuclear marker Picogreen (right panels). Arrows point to border cell clusters. (A) Wild-type follicle with the border cell cluster attached to the oocyte. (B) shg mutant germline clone with a normally located oocyte. The border cell cluster has not invaded between the nurse cells but remained directly beneath the follicular epithelium close to the anterior pole. (C) shg mutant germline clone with a centrally located oocyte. Two border cell clusters have formed, one at each pole of the follicle, which have not migrated towards the oocyte. (D) Two optical sections of the same shg mutant germline clone that has a centrally located oocyte. From the two border cell clusters one has moved and reached the oocyte (upper section). Note that the border cell cluster is in contact with the follicular epithelium. The other one has not moved away from its original polar position (lower section). Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bar, 100 µm.

Reduced Expression of DE-Cadherin Slows Down Border Cell Migration
The level of DE-cadherin expression in border cells is extremely high compared with most other cells in ovaries or elsewhere. To address the question whether the high levels of DE-cadherin expression are required to sustain normal migration we reduced DE-cadherin activity in follicles. We examined border cells in animals that carry the heteroallelic combination shg^P34-1/shg^R6. shg^P34-1 is an allele of moderate strength that causes complete embryonic lethality with an intermediate cuticle phenotype (Tepass et al., 1996). shg^R6 is a homozygous viable shg allele that displays an adult wing phenotype. shg^P34-1/shg^R6 animals are semiviable and ovaries show a substantial reduction in levels of DE-cadherin expression (Godt and Tepass, 1998; data not shown). In shg^P34-1/shg^R6 follicles border cell migration is in many cases substantially delayed (Fig. 8; Table I). In contrast to shg^R69 mutant follicles, 65% of border cell clusters that had not reached the oocyte at stage 10 in shg^P34-1/shg^R6 mutant follicles were located between nurse cells and only 35% of the clusters did not penetrate between nurse cells. Thus, in shg^P34-1/shg^R6 mutant follicles most clusters migrate along their normal route but many clusters show a substantial decrease in the speed of migration suggesting that the level of DE-cadherin expression determines the speed of border cell migration.

View larger version (62K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 8 Reduced motility of border cells in a weak shg mutant. X-gal staining of follicles at late stage 9 (A and D), at stage 10a (B and E) and stage 10b (C and F) reveals lacZ expression of the shgP34-1 P-element insertion in border cells (arrows) and centripetal cells (arrowheads). (A–C) shgP34-1/CyO follicles show normal border cell migration. The border cell cluster is attached to the oocyte in all three follicles. (D–F) shgP34-1/shgR6 mutant follicles. D and F show border cell clusters that have migrated between nurse cells but have not reached the oocyte. E shows a border cell cluster that has not penetrated between nurse cells but remained in contact with the follicular epithelium. Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bar, 100 µm.

View larger version (124K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 9 Upregulation of shg expression in border cells depends on slbo. A'–D' are close-ups of the border cell clusters shown in A–D. (A and A') shg RNA expression in a wild-type follicle, and (B and B') a homozygous slbo1 mutant follicle at stage 9 was detected by in situ hybridization using a digoxygenin-labeled shg cDNA probe. The migrating border cell cluster in the wild-type follicle shows high concentration of shg transcript in all border cells. In the slbo mutant follicle the border cell cluster remained at the anterior tip. shg expression in the border cells has not been upregulated, and is much lower than in wild-type. The two polar cells show a higher level of shg expression than the rosette cells (B'). (C and D') Protein expression as revealed by anti-DE-cadherin staining in a wild-type follicle (C and C') and a homozygous slbo1 mutant follicle (D and D') at stage 9. The slbo mutant border cell cluster expresses a much lower level of DE-cadherin than the wild-type cluster. The two polar cells express higher levels of DE-cadherin than the surrounding rosette cells in both genotypes. (E–F') Double staining of slbo1 mutant follicles with anti-DE-cadherin (E and F) and the polar cell specific marker Fasciclin III (E' and F'). Migratory activity of border cells (arrows) in stage 10b slbo1 mutant follicles is accompanied by upregulation of DE-cadherin expression. Arrowheads in F point to polar cells. Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bars: (A–D) 50 µm; (A'–D') 20 µm; (E–F') 20 µm.

DE-Cadherin Is Required for Centripetal Cell Migration
The centripetal cells are a second migratory cell population in Drosophila follicles that expresses high levels of DE-cadherin during migration (Fig. 10, A and B). During stage 10b of oogenesis the anterior most columnar follicle cells, the centripetal cells undergo a strong apical-basal cell elongation while penetrating between nurse cells and oocyte. Their leading apical edges that penetrate between the oocyte and the nurse cells are rich in DE-cadherin and F-actin (Fig. 10, A–B'). The centripetal cells migrate along the surface of the oocyte towards the border cells. They make lateral contact with the border cells later during oogenesis to form a confluent epithelium that covers the anterior side of the oocyte.

View larger version (109K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Figure 10 DE-cadherin is required for centripetal cell movement. Follicles are double stained for DE-cadherin (A–F) and F-actin (A'–F'). (A and A') In an early stage 10b wild-type follicle centripetal cells strongly elongate apical-basally, develop protrusive ends that penetrate between oocyte and nurse cells, and migrate along the surface of the oocyte towards the border cells. Strongest concentration of DE-cadherin is seen in the leading edges of the centripetal cells. (B and B') At late stage 10b, when cytoplasmic actin fibers have formed in the nurse cells, the invaded centripetal cells form a thin layer covering the anterior surface of the oocyte in a wild-type follicle. (C and C') Mid-stage 10b follicle with a shgR69 mutant follicle cell clone that comprises all follicle cells. Some shg mutant centripetal cells have segregated from the follicular epithelium but remain in the periphery of the follicle. These cells have a rounded appearance and lack protrusive ends in contrast to wild-type centripetal cells (see inset). (D and D') The late stage 10b follicle has a shg mutant mosaic follicular epithelium. DE-cadherin negative centripetal cells (arrowhead) show no invasive behavior in contrast to the DE-cadherin positive centripetal cells (arrow) that are elongated and migrated between oocyte and nurse cells. However, the migrating DE-cadherin positive centripetal cells form a thicker layer than in wild-type follicles. (E and E') Stage 10b follicle with a shg mutant germline. Centripetal cells that show an elevated level of DE-cadherin expression did not move between germline cells. (F and F') Stage 10b follicle with a shg mutant germline. Centripetal cells moved between oocyte and nurse cells forming clumps of cells with abnormal morphology. Anterior is to the left in all panels. Bar, 100 µm.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The multifunctionality of cadherins complicates the analysis of the role cadherins play in specific morphogenetic processes in vivo. Breakdown of cell or tissue structure might result from a failure of cadherin function in adhesion, linkage of the cytoskeleton to the cell surface, or cell polarization. Lack of cadherin activity resulting in such structural defects is likely to mask cadherin activity in morphogenetic movements that normally take place in these tissues. In this study we have investigated the role of DE-cadherin in two cell migration processes in Drosophila follicles. The border cells and the centripetal cells migrate on the surface of germline cells towards specific targets. The removal of DE-cadherin from the germline cells or from both groups of follicle cells blocks migration demonstrating that DE-cadherin controls intercellular motility in this system.

Formation and Organization of the Border Cell Cluster
The mechanisms that lead to the formation of the border cell cluster are still largely unknown. The anterior and posterior polar cells are apparently specified very early during oogenesis (Margolis and Spradling, 1995) and are morphologically distinct at stage 4. These cells might emit a signal that contributes to the patterning of the terminal follicle cells (Gonzáles-Reyes and St. Johnston, 1998a), and in case of the anterior polar cells to the recruitment of adjacent follicle cells (the future rosette cells) into the border cell cluster. The finding that the level of expression of DE-cadherin and Crumbs (this work) as well as Armadillo (Peifer et al., 1993) is upregulated in follicle cells adjacent to the polar cells is consistent with this model. Thus, the shg and crumbs promoters are presumably targets of a signaling pathway that responds to a putative signal emitted by the polar cells. In fact, there must be two different transcriptional mechanisms that respond to the putative polar cell signal as only DE-cadherin expression but not Crumbs expression requires DC/EBP. DC/EBP is also needed for the expression of the btl FGF receptor, another factor involved in border cell migration, but it is not required for the expression of a variety of other molecular markers expressed in border cells (Murphy et al., 1995) suggesting that DC/EBP might specifically target genes that are required for migration.

Border cell clusters can form in the absence of DE-cadherin suggesting that DE-cadherin is not essential for this process. However, if small DE-cadherin negative follicle cell clones are induced in potential rosette cells, such cells are not recruited into the cluster. This finding suggests that cells with higher levels of DE-cadherin expression are preferentially recruited. We recently found that different DE-cadherin concentrations can promote cell sorting during early oogenesis (Godt and Tepass, 1998). Such a mechanism might ensure that cells with the higher level of DE-cadherin are integrated into the border cell cluster. Ensuring that only those cells that show the highest level of DE-cadherin expression become rosette cells might be important for reaching optimal migration speed as we have shown that a reduction in DE-cadherin expression reduces border cell velocity.

The morphological differentiation and the distribution of markers suggest that the border cell cluster migrates as an epithelial patch that has a two-dimensional organization and that retains its apical basal axis throughout migration. Before migration is initiated, the apical-basal axis of the border cell cluster is oriented parallel to the anterior-posterior axis of the follicle. When the cluster penetrates between nurse cells, it turns by 90° and migrates with its apical-basal axis perpendicular to the anterior-posterior axis of the follicle. As the border cells approach the oocyte a second 90° turn occurs, and the cluster attaches to the oocyte with its apical side. Why epithelial polarity is maintained during migration is not understood. Maintenance of polarity during migration would have the advantage that epithelial polarity does not need to be established de novo when the border cells reach the oocyte. The polar cells are located centrally in the cluster and retain epithelial polarity. Rosette cells surround the polar cells and retain polarity at the contact surface to polar cells but have depolarized their remaining surface area as indicated by the overlapping distribution of an apical marker (Crumbs) and a lateral marker (DE-cadherin). Thus, rosette cells show a mixed cellular morphology that is typical for epithelial cells located at the free edge of an epithelium (e.g., Odland and Ross, 1968; Radice, 1980). The polar cells apparently do not actively migrate but are carried by the rosette cells during the migration process.

Role of DE-Cadherin in Border Cell Migration
We examined a large number of follicles that either had shg mutant follicle cells or a shg mutant germline. In none of these follicles did border cells penetrate or migrate between the nurse cells towards the oocyte. This finding not only strongly suggests that DE-cadherin is the key adhesion molecule that mediates adhesion and traction during border cell migration, but also indicates that no other adhesion system is present that can support border cell migration on the surface of germline cells. In contrast, many other morphogenetic processes are promoted by multiple, at least partially redundant adhesion systems (e.g., Hynes, 1996). Defects in border cell migration have also been observed in arm germline clones (Peifer et al., 1993; Oda et al., 1997) suggesting that border cell migration is mediated by the DE-cadherin–catenin complex. In the absence of DE-cadherin from follicle cells, a border cell cluster of normal size forms that contains two polar cells. Moreover, although DE-cadherin (this work) and Armadillo (Peifer et al., 1993) strongly accumulate at the contact sites between border cells, DE-cadherin appears not to be required for maintaining contact between border cells during migration as shg mosaic border cell clusters migrate as coherent clusters. Taken together, these results suggest that the function of DE-cadherin in border cells might be specific for migration. The clear cut phenotype observed in shg mutant follicles, that in the absence of DE-cadherin border cells cannot use the germline cells as a substratum for migration, makes border cell migration a unique system to study cadherin-based intercellular motility.

The fact that DE-cadherin concentration influences migration speed supports the model that DE-cadherin is the key adhesion receptor that mediates border cell migration. A similar connection has been demonstrated for the role of integrins in cell migration on an extracellular substratum (see Palecek et al., 1997; Huttenlocher et al., 1995 and references therein). A final observation that indicates a direct role for DE-cadherin in border cell migration is that in a few slbo mutant follicles some border cells penetrate between nurse cells. These border cells show high levels of DE-cadherin expression whereas border cells of the same cluster that remained outside of the nurse cells express low levels of DE-cadherin.

Border cells seem to retain a low degree of motility if DE-cadherin is absent from either the germline or the border cells. In particular in follicles containing a shg mutant germline some border cells clusters moved a considerable distance towards the oocyte along the follicular epithelium as we and others (Oda et al., 1997) have observed. This suggests that in the absence of DE-cadherin some aspects of the motility apparatus are still functioning in contrast to slbo mutant follicles in which border cells do not move away from the anterior tip of the follicle (Montell et al., 1992). The higher motility observed in germline clones as compared with follicle cell clones might result from DE-cadherin mediated interactions between border cells and follicular epithelium. That border cells in shg mutant follicles show a low level of motility but move along a different pathway also emphasizes that by allowing the border cells to penetrate between nurse cells, DE-cadherin contributes to the choice of the route of migration taken by the border cells (Oda et al., 1997).

DC/EBP causes a transcriptional upregulation of shg/ DE-cadherin. Whether DC/EBP interacts directly with the shg promoter remains to be determined. In addition to DC/EBP, a number of other factors that might modulate cadherin mediated adhesion were shown to effect border cell migration. For example, activity of the small GTPase Drac1 is required for border cell migration (Murphy and Montell, 1996). This finding is not surprising as the activation of vertebrate rac causes the formation of lamellipodia in fibroblasts. In this process rac regulates actin polymerization and the formation of integrin-based adhesive contacts (Van Aelst and D'Souza-Schorey, 1997; Hall, 1998). rac is also needed for the formation of cadherin based adherens junctions in epithelial cell culture (Braga et al., 1997; Takaishi et al., 1997). Thus, Drac1 might exert its effect on border cell migration at least in part by promoting DE-cadherin mediated adhesion.

A function for the btl FGF receptor in border cell migration was revealed through genetic interactions with slbo. The phenotype of weak slbo mutations is enhanced by btl loss of function mutations and suppressed by overexpression of btl. The function of btl in border cell migration might be redundant, however, as loss of btl in a wild-type background does not interfere with migration (Murphy et al., 1995). In addition, the overexpression of other tyrosine kinase receptors can rescue delays in border cell migration caused by slbo mutations suggesting that the effect of the FGF receptor on border cell migration is mediated by a common downstream target of tyrosine kinase receptors (Murphy et al., 1995). This is supported by the finding that the activity of Dras1 is required for border cell migration. However, Dras1 appears not to act through activation of the MAP kinase pathway to promote migration (Lee et al., 1996). As ras was shown to activate rac (Ridley et al., 1992; Nobes et al., 1995), this raises the intriguing possibility that the btl FGF receptor might modulate DE-cadherin activity during migration via a pathway that involves Dras1 and Drac1. Whether this is a valid model needs to be addressed in future experiments.

Mechanism of Centripetal Cell Migration
The ingrowing edges of centripetal cells are rich in F-actin and Myosin II, and Myosin II mutants are known to block centripetal cell migration (Edwards and Kiehard, 1996). Based on these observations, it was suggested that the circumferential inwards movement of the centripetal cells is driven by a purse string mechanism (Edwards and Kiehard, 1996) similar to epithelial wound healing (Bement et al., 1993) or dorsal closure of the embryonic ectoderm in Drosophila (Young et al., 1993). High levels of DE-cadherin expression in centripetal cells might contribute to a purse string-type movement by providing strong adhesion between centripetal cells. However, our findings are inconsistent with a model in which a purse string mechanism is the only driving force of centripetal cell movement. First, we find that in follicles with a shg mosaic follicular epithelium the DE-cadherin positive centripetal cells migrate although the DE-cadherin negative centripetal cells stay behind. Such a cell-autonomous migratory behavior argues against a purse string mechanism as the latter requires the coordinated movement of all centripetal cells. Second, we find that removal of DE-cadherin from the germline interferes with centripetal cell movement. Adhesion between the germline and the centripetal cells would be expected to counteract but not to promote centripetal cell movement if it is driven by a purse string. On the other hand, in follicles in which a fraction of the centripetal cells does not express DE-cadherin, the migrating DE-cadherin positive centripetal cells are broader and shorter than in wild-type follicles suggesting that their penetration between germline cells might be less efficient. This finding suggests that a coordinated movement of the centripetal cells is required for an orderly migration process.

Taken together, our results suggest that centripetal cell migration is mechanistically similar to border cell migration. In both cases do follicle cells move on the surface of germline cells, express high levels of DE-cadherin, and require DE-cadherin in germ line and soma for migration. Whereas we consider adhesion and traction provided by DE-cadherin as the main mechanism for centripetal cell migration, a purse string-type mechanism might coordinate this migration process. Similar to shg, also Myosin II mutations block both border cell and centripetal cell migration (Edwards and Kiehard, 1996) suggesting that Myosin II cooperates with DE-cadherin in follicle cell motility. The mechanism of this interaction remains to be determined.

Cadherins and Intercellular Motility
Recent genetic studies have emphasized roles of cadherins in specific aspects of animal morphogenesis. The characterization of a cadherin–catenin complex from Caenorhabditis elegans suggests that this complex is required for morphogenetic events that occur in the hypodermis during embryogenesis (Costa et al., 1998). Hypodermal cells in C. elegans migrate ventrally to enclose the body and, later on, undergo cell shape changes that cause an elongation of the body. Cadherin or catenin mutants do not prevent the ventral migration of hypodermal cells but prevent stable adhesion at the ventral midline that causes ventral openings in the hypodermis. Moreover, in cadherin and catenin mutants force generating contractile bundles of microfilaments detach from the cell surface causing cell shape changes to fail during body elongation. A similar role to C. elegans cadherin during body closure was found for DE-cadherin in the fusion of tracheal branches in the Drosophila embryo (Tanaka-Matakatsu et al., 1996). Here, individual cells located at the tip of each branch (fusion cells) migrate, approach each other, and form a continuous lumen after establishing a stable contact. Reduction of DE-cadherin activity does not interfere with the motility of fusion cells. However, fusion cells do not establish stable contacts, and no continuous lumen is formed. Further analysis of DE-cadherin mutants (Tepass et al., 1996; Uemura et al., 1996) and dominant negative and knock out experiments for vertebrate cadherins (e.g., Kintner, 1992; Larue et al., 1994; Levine et al., 1994; Riethmacher et al., 1995; Radice et al., 1997) have uncovered a function for cadherins in the formation and maintenance of various embryonic epithelia. Taken together, these and other genetic studies have revealed important functions for cadherins in a number of morphogenetic processes. However, the analysis of cadherin function in these studies did not reveal a direct role of cadherins in promoting intercellular motility because the observed morphogenetic defects can be explained by a lack of stable adhesion or by defects in cytoarchitecture.

The hypothesis that cadherins mediate intercellular motility, where cells move on the surface of neighboring cells, was supported by two observations (Gumbiner, 1992, 1996). First, the actin cytoskeleton is the main force generating system that promotes cell migration and cell rearrangement movements. Second, cadherin based cellular junctions are major anchor points for actin filaments at cell–cell contact sites. This is similar to the role integrins have in providing anchor points for the actin cytoskeleton at contact sites between cell surface and extracellular matrix. Therefore, cadherins are attractive candidates for mediating cell migration or rearrangement by direct cell to cell contact. Experimental evidence for a potentially more direct role for cadherins in cell motility was revealed in cell culture studies. L-cell fibroblasts transfected with E-cadherin show increased intercellular motility (Nagafushi et al., 1994), and growth cone extension of chick brain neurons is promoted on substrates containing N-cadherin (Bixby and Zhang, 1990). A role for both vertebrate and Drosophila N-cadherin in growth cone motility has recently been supported by in vivo studies (Riehl et al., 1996; Iwai et al., 1997). Moreover, the analysis of Xenopus C-cadherin suggests a role for this cadherin in promoting motility in gastrulating embryos (Brieher and Gumbiner, 1994; Lee and Gumbiner, 1995). Reduction in C-cadherin activity blocks gastrulation movements presumably as a consequence of disrupting the conversion extension movement of the dorsal marginal zone that is driven by motile intercalating cells (Shih and Keller, 1992). Our investigation of the function of DE-cadherin in border cell migration strongly supports the hypothesis that classic cadherins can directly participate in intercellular motility in vivo. Border cell migration is an excellent system for the further analysis of cadherin-based intercellular motility as DE-cadherin appears to be the sole adhesion receptor that promotes border cell migration on the surface of germline cells. Since the border cells are intensely studied as a genetic model for cell migration this system is likely to provide insights into function and regulation of cadherin based motility in the near future.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank Tadashi Uemura, Denise Montell, Mark Peifer, and Pernille Rørth for providing reagents, and the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank for the 7G10 antibody. We thank Isabella Stüttem for critical reading of the manuscript.

Submitted: 24 August 1998

Revised: 11 November 1998

This research was supported by a grant to U. Tepass by the National Cancer Institute of Canada with funds from the Terry Fox run.

The first two authors contributed equally to this work.

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

Bellen HJ, O'Kane CJ, Wilson C, Grossniklaus U, Pearson RK & Gehring WJ. P-element-mediated enhancer detection: a versatile method to study development in Drosophila. , Genes Dev, 1989, 3, 1288–1300.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Bement WM, Forscher P & Mooseker MS. A novel cytoskeletal structure involved in purse string wound closure and cell polarity maintenance, J Cell Biol, 1993, 121, 565–578.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Birchmeier W. E-cadherin as a tumor (invasion) suppressor gene, BioEssays, 1995, 17, 97–99.[Medline]

Bixby JL & Zhang R. Purified N-cadherin is a potent substrate for the rapid induction of neurite outgrowth, J Cell Biol, 1990, 110, 1253–1260.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Braga VM, Machesky LM, Hall A & Hotchin NA. The small GTPases Rho and Rac are required for the establishment of cadherin-dependent cell–cell contacts, J Cell Biol, 1997, 137, 1421–1431.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brieher WM & Gumbiner BM. Regulation of C-cadherin function during activin induced morphogenesis of Xenopusanimal caps, J Cell Biol, 1994, 126, 519–527.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Brower DL, Smith RL & Wilcox M. A monoclonal antibody specific for diploid epithelial cells in Drosophila. , Nature, 1980, 285, 403–405.[Medline]

Burdsal CA, Damsky CH & Petersen RA. The role of E-cadherin and integrins in mesoderm differentiation and migration at the mammalian primitive streak, Development, 1993, 118, 829–844.[Abstract]

Cooley L & Theurkauf WE. Cytoskeletal functions during Drosophilaoogenesis, Science, 1994, 266, 590–595.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Costa M, Raich W, Agbunag C, Leung B, Hardin J & Priess JR. A putative catenin-cadherin system mediates morphogenesis of the Caenorhabditis elegansembryo, J Cell Biol, 1998, 141, 297–308.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Drubin DG & Nelson WJ. Origins of cell polarity, Cell, 1996, 84, 335–344.[Medline]

Eaton S & Simons K. Apical, basal, and lateral cues for epithelial polarization, Cell, 1995, 82, 5–8.[Medline]

Edwards KA & Kiehart DP. Drosophilanonmuscle myosin II has multiple essential roles in imaginal disc and egg chamber morphogenesis, Development, 1996, 122, 1499–1511.[Abstract]

Edwards KA, Demsky M, Montague RA, Weymouth N & Kiehart DP. GFP-moesin illuminates actin cytoskeleton dynamics in living tissue and demonstrates cell shape changes during morphogenesis in Drosophila. , Dev Biol, 1997, 191, 103–117.[Medline]

Godt D & Tepass U. Drosophilaoocyte localization is mediated by differential cadherin-based adhesion, Nature, 1998, 395, 387–391.[Medline]

Golic KG. Site-specific recombination between homologous chromosomes in Drosophila. , Science, 1991, 252, 958–961.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

González-Reyes A & St. Johnston D. Role of oocyte position in establishment of anterior-posterior polarity in Drosophila. , Science, 1994, 266, 639–642.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

González-Reyes A & St. Johnston D. Patterning of the follicle cell epithelium along the anterior-posterior axis during Drosophilaoogenesis, Development, 1998a, 125, 2837–2846.[Abstract]

González-Reyes A & St. Johnston D. The DrosophilaAP axis is polarized by the cadherin-mediated positioning of the oocyte, Development, 1998b, 125, 3635–3644.[Abstract]

Guilford P, Hopkins J, Harraway J, McLeod M, McLeod N, Harawira P, Taite H, Scoular R, Miller A & Reeve AE. E-cadherin germline mutations in familiar gastric cancer, Nature, 1998, 392, 402–405.[Medline]

Gumbiner BM. Epithelial morphogenesis, Cell, 1992, 69, 385–387.[Medline]

Gumbiner BM. Cell adhesion: the molecular basis of tissue architecture and morphogenesis, Cell, 1996, 84, 345–357.[Medline]

Hall A. Rho GTPases and the actin cytoskeleton, Science, 1998, 279, 509–514.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hirano S, Kimoto N, Shimoyama Y, Hirohashi S & Takeichi M. Identification of a neural alpha-catenin as a key regulator of cadherin function and multicellular organization, Cell, 1992, 70, 293–301.[Medline]

Huttenlocher A, Sandborg RR & Horwitz AF. Adhesion in cell migration, Curr Opin Cell Biol, 1995, 7, 697–706.[Medline]

Hynes RO. Integrins: versatility, modulation, and signaling in cell adhesion, Cell, 1992, 69, 11–25.[Medline]

Hynes RO. Targeted mutations in cell adhesion genes: what have we learned from them? , Dev Biol, 1996, 180, 402–412.[Medline]

Iwai Y, Usui T, Hirano S, Steward R, Takeichi M & Uemura T. Axon patterning requires DN-cadherin, a novel neuronal adhesion receptor, in the Drosophilaembryonic CNS, Neuron, 1997, 19, 77–89.[Medline]

King, R.C. 1970. Ovarian Development in Drosophila melanogaster. Academic Press, New York.

Kintner C. Regulation of embryonic cell adhesion by the cadherin cytoplasmic domain, Cell, 1992, 69, 225–236.[Medline]

Larue L, Ohsugi M, Hirchenhain J & Kemler R. E-cadherin null mutant embryos fail to form a trophectodermal epithelium, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1994, 91, 8263–8267.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Lauffenburger DA & Horwitz AF. Cell migration: a physically integrated molecular process, Cell, 1996, 84, 359–369.[Medline]

Lee C-H & Gumbiner BM. Disruption of gastrulation movements in Xenopusby a dominant-negative mutant for C-cadherin, Dev Biol, 1995, 171, 363–373.[Medline]

Lee T, Feig L & Montell DJ. Two distinct roles for Ras in a developmentally regulated cell migration, Development, 1996, 122, 409–418.[Abstract]

Levine E, Lee CH, Kintner C & Gumbiner BM. Selective disruption of E-cadherin function in early Xenopusembryos by a dominant negative mutant, Development, 1994, 120, 901–909.[Abstract]

Margolis J & Spradling A. Identification and behavior of epithelial stem cells in the Drosophilaovary, Development, 1995, 121, 3797–3807.[Abstract]

McNeill H, Ozawa M, Kemler R & Nelson WJ. Novel function of the cell adhesion molecule uvomorulin as an inducer of cell surface polarity, Cell, 1990, 62, 309–316.[Medline]

Montell DJ, Rørth P & Spradling AC. slow border cells, a locus required for a developmentally regulated cell migration during oogenesis, encodes DrosophilaC/EBP, Cell, 1992, 71, 51–62.[Medline]

Montell DJ. Moving right along: regulation of cell migration during Drosophiladevelopment, Trends Genet, 1994, 10, 59–62.[Medline]

Murphy AM & Montell DJ. Cell type-specific roles for cdc42, Rac, and RhoL in Drosophilaoogenesis, J Cell Biol, 1996, 133, 617–630.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Murphy AM, Lee T, Andrews CM, Shilo B-Z & Montell DJ. The breathless FGF receptor homolog, a downstream target of DrosophilaC/EBP in the developmental control of cell migration, Development, 1995, 121, 2255–2263.[Abstract]

Nagafuchi A, Ishihara S & Tsukita S. The roles of catenins in the cadherin-mediated cell adhesion: functional analysis of E-cadherin–-catenin fusion molecules, J Cell Biol, 1994, 127, 235–245.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Nobes CD, Hawkins P, Stephens L & Hall A. Activation of the small GTP-binding proteins rho and rac by growth factor receptors, J Cell Sci, 1995, 108, 225–233.[Abstract]

Oda H, Uemura T & Takeichi M. Phenotypic analysis of null mutants of DE-cadherin and Armadillo in Drosophilaovaries reveals distinct aspects of their functions in cell adhesion and cytoskeletal organization, Genes Cells, 1997, 2, 29–40.[Abstract]

Oda H, Uemura T, Shiomi T, Nagafuchi A, Tsukita S & Takeichi M. Identification of a Drosophilahomologue of -catenin and its association with the armadillo protein, J Cell Biol, 1993, 121, 1133–1140.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Oda H, Uemura T, Harada Y, Iwai Y & Takeichi M. A Drosophilahomolog of cadherin associated with Armadillo and essential for embryonic cell–cell adhesion, Dev Biol, 1994, 165, 716–726.[Medline]

Odland G & Ross R. Human wound repair. I. Epidermal regeneration, J Cell Biol, 1968, 39, 135–151.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Palecek SP, Loftus JC, Ginsberg MH, Lauffenburger DA & Horwitz AF. Integrin-ligand binding properties govern cell migration speed through cell-substratum adhesiveness, Nature, 1997, 385, 537–540.[Medline]

Patel NH, Snow PM & Goodman CS. Characterization and cloning of Fasciclin III: A glycoprotein expressed on a subset of neurons and axon pathways in Drosophila. , Cell, 1987, 48, 975–988.[Medline]

Peifer M, Sweeton D, Casey M & Wieschaus E. Winglesssignal and Zeste-white 3 kinase trigger opposing changes in the intracellular distribution of Armadillo, Development, 1994, 120, 369–380.[Abstract]

Peifer M. The product of the Drosophila segment polarity gene armadillois part of a protein complex resembling the vertebrate adherens junction, J Cell Sci, 1993, 105, 993–1000.[Abstract]

Peifer M, Orsulic S, Sweeton D & Wieschaus E. A role for the Drosophila segment polarity gene armadilloin cell adhesion and cytoskeletal integrity during oogenesis, Development, 1993, 118, 1191–1207.[Abstract]

Radice GL, Rayburn H, Matsunami H, Knunden KA, Takeichi M & Hynes RO. Developmental defects in mouse embryos lacking N-cadherin, Dev Biol, 1997, 181, 64–78.[Medline]

Radice GP. The spreading of epithelial cells during wound closure in Xenopuslarvae, Dev Biol, 1980, 76, 26–46.[Medline]

Ray R & Schüpbach T. Intercellular signaling and the polarization of body axes during Drosophilaoogenesis, Genes Dev, 1996, 10, 1711–1723.[Free Full Text]

Ridley AJ, Paterson HF, Johnston CL, Diekmann D & Hall A. The small GTP-binding protein rac regulates growth factor-induced membrane ruffling, Cell, 1992, 70, 401–410.[Medline]

Riehl R, Johnston K, Bradley R, Grunwald GB, Cornel E, Lilienbaum A & Holt CE. Cadherin function is required for axon outgrowth in retinal ganglion cells in vivo, Neuron, 1996, 17, 837–848.[Medline]

Riethmacher D, Brinkmann V & Birchmeier C. A targeted mutation in the mouse E-cadherin gene results in defective preimplantation development, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1995, 92, 855–859.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Shih J & Keller R. Patterns of cell motility in the organizer and dorsal mesoderm of Xenopus laevis. , Development, 1992, 116, 915–930.[Abstract]

Spradling, A.C. 1993. Developmental genetics of oogenesis. In The Development of Drosophila melanogaster. M. Bate and A. Martinez-Arias, editors. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. 1–70.

Takaishi K, Sasaki T, Kotani H, Nishioka H & Takai Y. Regulation of cell–cell adhesion by rac and rho small G proteins in MDCK cells, J Cell Biol, 1997, 139, 1047–1059.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Takeichi M. Cadherin cell adhesion receptors as a morphogenetic regulator, Science, 1991, 251, 1451–1455.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Takeichi M. Morphogenetic roles of classic cadherins, Curr Opin Cell Biol, 1995, 7, 619–627.[Medline]

Tanaka-Matakatsu M, Uemura T, Oda H, Takeichi M & Hayashi S. Cadherin-mediated cell adhesion and cell motility in Drosophilatrachea regulated by the transcription factor Escargot, Development, 1996, 122, 3697–3705.[Abstract]

Tautz D & Pfeifle C. A non-radioactive in situ hybridization method for the localization of specific RNAs in Drosophila embryos reveals a translational control of the segmentation gene hunchback. , Chromosoma, 1989, 98, 81–85.[Medline]

Tepass U, Theres C & Knust E. crumbs encodes an EGF-like protein expressed on apical membranes of Drosophilaepithelial cells and required for organization of epithelia, Cell, 1990, 61, 787–799.[Medline]

Tepass U & Knust E. Phenotypic and developmental analysis of mutations at the crumbs locus, a gene required for the development of epithelia in Drosophila melanogaster. , Roux's Arch Dev Biol, 1990, 199, 189–206.

Tepass U & Knust E. crumbs and stardust act in a genetic pathway that controls the organization of epithelia in Drosophila melanogaster. , Dev Biol, 1993, 159, 311–326.[Medline]

Tepass U, Gruszynski-de Feo E, Haag TA, Omatyar L, Török T & Hartenstein V. shotgun encodes DrosophilaE-cadherin and is preferentially required during cell rearrangement in the neuroectoderm and other morphogenetically active epithelia, Genes Dev, 1996, 10, 672–685.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Uemura T, Oda H, Kraut R, Hayashi S & Takeichi M. Processes of dynamic epithelial cell rearrangement are the major targets of cadE/shotgun mutations in the Drosophilaembryo, Genes Dev, 1996, 10, 659–671.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Van Aelst L & D'Souza-Schorey C. Rho GTPases and signaling networks, Genes Dev, 1997, 11, 2295–2322.[Free Full Text]

White P, Aberle H & Vincent J-P. Signaling and adhesion activities of mammalian β-catenin and plakoglobin in Drosophila. , J Cell Biol, 1998, 140, 183–195.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Xu, T., and S.D. Harrison. 1994. Mosaic analysis using FLP recombinase. In Drosophila melanogaster: Practical Uses in Cell and Molecular Biology. L.S.B. Goldstein and E.A. Fyrberg, editors. Academic Press, San Diego. 655–682.

Young PE, Richman AM, Ketchum AS & Kiehart DP. Morphogenesis in Drosophilarequires myosin heavy chain function, Genes Dev, 1993, 7, 29–41.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Facebook

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Fetting, J. L., Spencer, S. A., Wolff, T. (2009). The cell adhesion molecules Echinoid and Friend of Echinoid coordinate cell adhesion and cell signaling to regulate the fidelity of ommatidial rotation in the Drosophila eye. Development 136: 3323-3333 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ilina, O., Friedl, P. (2009). Mechanisms of collective cell migration at a glance. J. Cell Sci. 122: 3203-3208 [Full Text]  
• Montell, D. J. (2008). Morphogenetic Cell Movements: Diversity from Modular Mechanical Properties. Science 322: 1502-1505 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zhao, M., Szafranski, P., Hall, C. A., Goode, S. (2008). Basolateral Junctions Utilize Warts Signaling to Control Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition and Proliferation Crucial For Migration and Invasion of Drosophila Ovarian Epithelial Cells. Genetics 178: 1947-1971 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pearson, G. W., Hunter, T. (2007). Real-time imaging reveals that noninvasive mammary epithelial acini can contain motile cells. JCB 179: 1555-1567 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kafer, J., Hayashi, T., Maree, A. F. M., Carthew, R. W., Graner, F. (2007). Cell adhesion and cortex contractility determine cell patterning in the Drosophilaretina. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 18549-18554 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bastock, R., Strutt, D. (2007). The planar polarity pathway promotes coordinated cell migration during Drosophila oogenesis. Development 134: 3055-3064 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Furriols, M., Ventura, G., Casanova, J. (2007). Two distinct but convergent groups of cells trigger Torso receptor tyrosine kinase activation by independently expressing torso-like. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 11660-11665 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mathieu, J., Sung, H.-H., Pugieux, C., Soetaert, J., Rorth, P. (2007). A Sensitized PiggyBac-Based Screen for Regulators of Border Cell Migration in Drosophila. Genetics 176: 1579-1590 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Grammont, M. (2007). Adherens junction remodeling by the Notch pathway in Drosophila melanogaster oogenesis. JCB 177: 139-150 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mirkovic, I., Mlodzik, M. (2006). Cooperative activities of Drosophila DE-Cadherin and DN-Cadherin regulate the cell motility process of ommatidial rotation. Development 133: 3283-3293 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kiener, H. P., Lee, D. M., Agarwal, S. K., Brenner, M. B. (2006). Cadherin-11 Induces Rheumatoid Arthritis Fibroblast-Like Synoviocytes to Form Lining Layers in Vitro. Am. J. Pathol. 168: 1486-1499 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kiener, H. P., Stipp, C. S., Allen, P. G., Higgins, J. M.G., Brenner, M. B. (2006). The Cadherin-11 Cytoplasmic Juxtamembrane Domain Promotes {alpha}-Catenin Turnover at Adherens Junctions and Intercellular Motility. Mol. Biol. Cell 17: 2366-2376 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Fox, D. T., Homem, C. C. F., Myster, S. H., Wang, F., Bain, E. E., Peifer, M. (2005). Rho1 regulates Drosophila adherens junctions independently of p120ctn. Development 132: 4819-4831 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Blaser, H., Eisenbeiss, S., Neumann, M., Reichman-Fried, M., Thisse, B., Thisse, C., Raz, E. (2005). Transition from non-motile behaviour to directed migration during early PGC development in zebrafish. J. Cell Sci. 118: 4027-4038 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pacquelet, A., Rorth, P. (2005). Regulatory mechanisms required for DE-cadherin function in cell migration and other types of adhesion. JCB 170: 803-812 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Schober, M., Rebay, I., Perrimon, N. (2005). Function of the ETS transcription factor Yan in border cell migration. Development 132: 3493-3504 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Medioni, C., Noselli, S. (2005). Dynamics of the basement membrane in invasive epithelial clusters in Drosophila. Development 132: 3069-3077 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sommer, B., Oprins, A., Rabouille, C., Munro, S. (2005). The exocyst component Sec5 is present on endocytic vesicles in the oocyte of Drosophila melanogaster. JCB 169: 953-963 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Takahashi, M., Takahashi, F., Ui-Tei, K., Kojima, T., Saigo, K. (2005). Requirements of genetic interactions between Src42A, armadillo and shotgun, a gene encoding E-cadherin, for normal development in Drosophila. Development 132: 2547-2559 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Beronja, S., Laprise, P., Papoulas, O., Pellikka, M., Sisson, J., Tepass, U. (2005). Essential function of Drosophila Sec6 in apical exocytosis of epithelial photoreceptor cells. JCB 169: 635-646 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pinheiro, E. M., Montell, D. J. (2004). Requirement for Par-6 and Bazooka in Drosophila border cell migration. Development 131: 5243-5251 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Devenport, D., Brown, N. H. (2004). Morphogenesis in the absence of integrins: mutation of both Drosophila {beta} subunits prevents midgut migration. Development 131: 5405-5415 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Yoshida, H., Cheng, W., Hung, J., Montell, D., Geisbrecht, E., Rosen, D., Liu, J., Naora, H. (2004). Lessons from border cell migration in the Drosophila ovary: A role for myosin VI in dissemination of human ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 8144-8149 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Szafranski, P., Goode, S. (2004). A Fasciclin 2 morphogenetic switch organizes epithelial cell cluster polarity and motility. Development 131: 2023-2036 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Maines, J. Z., Stevens, L. M., Tong, X., Stein, D. (2004). Drosophila dMyc is required for ovary cell growth and endoreplication. Development 131: 775-786 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lee, M., Lee, S., Zadeh, A. D., Kolodziej, P. A. (2003). Distinct sites in E-cadherin regulate different steps in Drosophila tracheal tube fusion. Development 130: 5989-5999 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jenkins, A. B., McCaffery, J. M., Van Doren, M. (2003). Drosophila E-cadherin is essential for proper germ cell-soma interaction during gonad morphogenesis. Development 130: 4417-4426 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McDonald, J. A., Pinheiro, E. M., Montell, D. J. (2003). PVF1, a PDGF/VEGF homolog, is sufficient to guide border cells and interacts genetically with Taiman. Development 130: 3469-3478 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Abdelilah-Seyfried, S., Cox, D. N., Jan, Y. N. (2003). Bazooka is a permissive factor for the invasive behavior of discs large tumor cells in Drosophila ovarian follicular epithelia. Development 130: 1927-1935 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gonzalez-Reyes, A. (2003). Stem cells, niches and cadherins: a view from Drosophila. J. Cell Sci. 116: 949-954 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Magie, C. R., Pinto-Santini, D., Parkhurst, S. M. (2003). Rho1 interacts with p120ctn and {alpha}-catenin, and regulates cadherin-based adherens junction components in Drosophila. Development 129: 3771-3782 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Pacquelet, A., Lin, L., Rorth, P. (2003). Binding site for p120/{delta}-catenin is not required for Drosophila E-cadherin function in vivo. JCB 160: 313-319 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Besse, F., Busson, D., Pret, A.-M. (2002). Fused-dependent Hedgehog signal transduction is required for somatic cell differentiation during Drosophila egg chamber formation. Development 129: 4111-4124 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lambert, M., Choquet, D., Mege, R.-M. (2002). Dynamics of ligand-induced, Rac1-dependent anchoring of cadherins to the actin cytoskeleton. JCB 157: 469-479 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• James, K. E., Dorman, J. B., Berg, C. A. (2002). Mosaic analyses reveal the function of Drosophila Ras in embryonic dorsoventral patterning and dorsal follicle cell morphogenesis. Development 129: 2209-2222 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Weidinger, G., Wolke, U., Koprunner, M., Thisse, C., Thisse, B., Raz, E. (2002). Regulation of zebrafish primordial germ cell migration by attraction towards an intermediate target. Development 129: 25-36 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Grammont, M., Irvine, K. D. (2001). fringe and Notch specify polar cell fate during Drosophila oogenesis. Development 128: 2243-2253 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ojakian, G., Ratcliffe, D., Schwimmer, R (2001). Integrin regulation of cell-cell adhesion during epithelial tubule formation. J. Cell Sci. 114: 941-952 [Abstract]  
• Liu, Y, Montell, D. (2001). Jing: a downstream target of slbo required for developmental control of border cell migration. Development 128: 321-330 [Abstract]  
• Swan, A., Hijal, S., Hilfiker, A., Suter, B. (2001). Identification of New X-Chromosomal Genes Required for Drosophila Oogenesis and Novel Roles for fs(1)Yb, brainiac and dunce. Genome Res 11: 67-77 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Tanentzapf, G., Smith, C., McGlade, J., Tepass, U. (2000). Apical, Lateral, and Basal Polarization Cues Contribute to the Development of the Follicular Epithelium during Drosophila Oogenesis. JCB 151: 891-904 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Zarnescu, D. C., Thomas, G. H. (1999). Apical Spectrin Is Essential for Epithelial Morphogenesis but Not Apicobasal Polarity in Drosophila. JCB 146: 1075-1086 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Montell, D. (1999). The genetics of cell migration in Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans development. Development 126: 3035-3046 [Abstract]  
• Lambert, M., Choquet, D., Mege, R.-M. (2002). Dynamics of ligand-induced, Rac1-dependent anchoring of cadherins to the actin cytoskeleton. JCB 157: 469-479 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Horikawa, K., Takeichi, M. (2001). Requirement of the juxtamembrane domain of the cadherin cytoplasmic tail for morphogenetic cell rearrangement during myotome development. JCB 155: 1297-1306 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF, 1972K) PPT slides of all figures Alert me when this article is cited Citation Map Services Email this article Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new content in the JCB Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Niewiadomska, P. Articles by Tepass, U. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Niewiadomska, P. Articles by Tepass, U. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?