Reference Report

Reference
Citation	Curtiss, J., Mlodzik, M. (2000). Morphogenetic furrow initiation and progression during eye development in Drosophila: the roles of decapentaplegic, hedgehog and eyes absent. Development 127(6): 1325--1336. (Export to RIS)
FlyBase ID	FBrf0125176
Publication Type	Research paper
External Crossreferences
PubMed ID	10683184
PubMed Abstract	The Drosophila signaling factor decapentaplegic (dpp) mediates the effects of hedgehog (hh) in tissue patterning by regulating the expression of tissue-specific genes. In the eye disc, the transcription factors eyeless (ey), eyes absent (eya), sine oculis (so) and dachshund (dac) participate with these signaling molecules in a complex regulatory network that results in the initiation of eye development. Our analysis of functional relationships in the early eye disc indicates that hh and dpp play no role in regulating ey, but are required for eya, so and dac expression. We show that restoring expression of eya in loss-of-function dpp mutant backgrounds is sufficient to induce so and dac expression and to rescue eye development. Thus, once expressed, eya can carry out its functions in the absence of dpp. These experiments indicate that dpp functions downstream of or in parallel with ey, but upstream of eya, so and dac. Additional control is provided by a feedback loop that maintains expression of eya and so and includes dpp. The fact that exogenous overexpression of ey, eya, so and dac interferes with wild-type eye development demonstrates the importance of such a complicated mechanism for maintaining proper levels of these factors during early eye development. Whereas initiation of eye development fails in either Hh or Dpp signaling mutants, the subsequent progression of the morphogenetic furrow is only slowed down. However, we find that clones that are simultaneously mutant for Hh and Dpp signaling components completely block furrow progression and eye differentiation, suggesting that Hh and Dpp serve partially redundant functions in this process. Interestingly, furrow-associated expression of eya, so and dac is not affected by double mutant tissue, suggesting that some other factor(s) regulates their expression during furrow progression.
BIOSIS ID	2000.202910
Zoological Record ID
Recent Updates
Description	What does this section display? This section contains items that were added to this record for each release. It currently only tracks new links between this FlyBase report and other FlyBase data classes (e.g. genes, references, stocks) or controlled vocabulary terms (e.g. GO, anatomy terms). What does this section not display? This section does not currently display links that were removed or gene model changes.
Update Feed	Click the icon below to subscribe to this FlyBase record and receive updates automatically through your feed reader.
FB2012_01
FB2011_10
All updates	Click here to see a list of all updates to this record from FB2010_08 and on.
Associated Information
Comments
Text of Personal Communication
Associated Files
Other Information
Secondary IDs
Language of Publication	English
Additional Languages of Abstract
ISBN
Parent Publication
Publication Type	Journal
Abbreviation	Development
Title	Development
Editors
Publication Year	1987-
ISBN/ISSN	0950-1991
Data from Reference
Alleles (12)
	dac^Scer\UAS.cSa dpp^d12 dpp^d-blk Ecol\lacZ^arm.PV Ecol\lacZ^so-7 ey^Scer\UAS.cHa eya^Scer\UAS.cBa Mad^1-2 Scer\GAL4^dpp.blk1 Scer\GAL4^ey.PH smo³ so^Scer\UAS.cPa
Constructs (7)
	P{arm-lacZ.V} P{GAL4-dpp.blk1} P{GAL4-ey.H} P{UAS-dac.S} P{UAS-ey.H} P{UAS-eya.B.I} P{UAS-so.P}
Genes (10)
	dac dpp Ecol\lacZ elav ey eya Mad Scer\GAL4 smo so
Insertions (1)
	P{A92}so⁷