Search

Background: The molecular bases explaining the diversity of dental tissue mineralization across gnathostomes are still poorly understood. Odontodes, such as teeth and body denticles, are serial structures that develop through deployment of a gene regulatory network shared between all gnathostomes. Dentin, the inner odontode mineralized tissue, is produced by odontoblasts and appears well-conserved through evolution. In contrast, the odontode hypermineralized external layer (enamel or enameloid) produced by ameloblasts of epithelial origin, shows extensive structural variations. As EMP (Enamel Matrix Protein) genes are as yet only found in osteichthyans where they play a major role in the mineralization of teeth and others skeletal organs, our understanding of the molecular mechanisms leading to the mineralized odontode matrices in chondrichthyans remains virtually unknown., Results: We undertook a phylogenetic analysis of the SPARC/SPARC-L gene family, from which the EMPs are supposed to have arisen, and examined the expression patterns of its members and of major fibrillar collagens in the spotted catshark Scyliorhinus canicula, the thornback ray Raja clavata, and the clawed frog Xenopus tropicalis. Our phylogenetic analyses reveal that the single chondrichthyan SPARC-L gene is co-orthologous to the osteichthyan SPARC-L1 and SPARC-L2 paralogues. In all three species, odontoblasts co-express SPARC and collagens. In contrast, ameloblasts do not strongly express collagen genes but exhibit strikingly similar SPARC-L and EMP expression patterns at their maturation stage, in the examined chondrichthyan and osteichthyan species, respectively., Conclusions: A well-conserved odontoblastic collagen/SPARC module across gnathostomes further confirms dentin homology. Members of the SPARC-L clade evolved faster than their SPARC paralogues, both in terms of protein sequence and gene duplication. We uncover an osteichthyan-specific duplication that produced SPARC-L1 (subsequently lost in pipidae frogs) and SPARC-L2 (independently lost in teleosts and tetrapods).Our results suggest the ameloblastic expression of the single chondrichthyan SPARC-L gene at the maturation stage reflects the ancestral gnathostome situation, and provide new evidence in favor of the homology of enamel and enameloids in all gnathostomes.

Caseins are among cardinal proteins that evolved in the lineage leading to mammals. In milk, caseins and calcium phosphate (CaP) form a huge complex called casein micelle. By forming the micelle, milk maintains high CaP concentrations, which help altricial mammalian neonates to grow bone and teeth. Two types of caseins are known. Ca-sensitive caseins (α(s)- and β-caseins) bind Ca but precipitate at high Ca concentrations, whereas Ca-insensitive casein (κ-casein) does not usually interact with Ca but instead stabilizes the micelle. Thus, it is thought that these two types of caseins are both necessary for stable micelle formation. Both types of caseins show high substitution rates, which make it difficult to elucidate the evolution of caseins. Yet, recent studies have revealed that all casein genes belong to the secretory calcium-binding phosphoprotein (SCPP) gene family that arose by gene duplication. In the present study, we investigated exon-intron structures and phylogenetic distributions of casein and other SCPP genes, particularly the odontogenic ameloblast-associated (ODAM) gene, the SCPP-Pro-Gln-rich 1 (SCPPPQ1) gene, and the follicular dendritic cell secreted peptide (FDCSP) gene. The results suggest that contemporary Ca-sensitive casein genes arose from a putative common ancestor, which we refer to as CSN1/2. The six putative exons comprising CSN1/2 are all found in SCPPPQ1, although ODAM also shares four of these exons. By contrast, the five exons of the Ca-insensitive casein gene are all reminiscent of FDCSP. The phylogenetic distribution of these genes suggests that both SCPPPQ1 and FDCSP arose from ODAM. We thus argue that all casein genes evolved from ODAM via two different pathways; Ca-sensitive casein genes likely originated directly from SCPPPQ1, whereas the Ca-insensitive casein genes directly differentiated from FDCSP. Further, expression of ODAM, SCPPPQ1, and FDCSP was detected in dental tissues, supporting the idea that both types of caseins evolved as Ca-binding proteins. Based on these findings, we propose two alternative hypotheses for micelle formation in primitive milk. The conserved biochemical characteristics in caseins and their immediate ancestors also suggest that many slight genetic modifications have created modern caseins, proteins vital to the sustained success of mammals.

According to the classical theory, teeth derive from odontodes that invaded the oral cavity in conjunction with the origin of jaws (the 'outside in' theory). A recent alternative hypothesis suggests that teeth evolved prior to the origin of jaws as endodermal derivatives (the 'inside out' hypothesis). We compare the two theories in the light of current data and propose a third scenario, a revised 'outside in' hypothesis. We suggest that teeth may have arisen before the origin of jaws, as a result of competent, odontode-forming ectoderm invading the oropharyngeal cavity through the mouth as well as through the gill slits, interacting with neural crest-derived mesenchyme. This hypothesis revives the homology between skin denticles (odontodes) and teeth. Our hypothesis is based on (1) the assumption that endoderm alone, together with neural crest, cannot form teeth; (2) the observation that pharyngeal teeth are present only in species known to possess gill slits, and disappear from the pharyngeal region in early tetrapods concomitant with the closure of gill slits, and (3) the observation that the dental lamina (sensu Reif, 1982) is not a prerequisite for teeth to form. We next discuss the progress that has been made to understand the spatially restricted loss of teeth from certain arches, and the many questions that remain regarding the ontogenetic loss of teeth in specific taxa. The recent advances that have been made in our knowledge on the molecular control of tooth formation in non-mammalians (mostly in some teleost model species) will undoubtedly contribute to answering these questions in the coming years.

Since their recruitment in the oral cavity, approximately 450 million years ago, teeth have been subjected to strong selective constraints due to the crucial role that they play in species survival. It is therefore quite surprising that the ability to develop functional teeth has subsequently been lost several times, independently, in various lineages. In this review, we concentrate our attention on tetrapods, the only vertebrate lineage in which several clades lack functional teeth from birth to adulthood. Indeed, in other lineages, teeth can be absent in adults but be functionally present in larvae and juveniles, can be absent in the oral cavity but exist in the pharyngeal region, or can develop on the upper jaw but be absent on the lower jaw. Here, we analyse the current data on toothless (edentate) tetrapod taxa, including information available on enamel-less species. Firstly, we provide an analysis of the dispersed and fragmentary morphological data published on the various living taxa concerned (and their extinct relatives) with the aim of tracing the origin of tooth or enamel loss, i.e. toads in Lissamphibia, turtles and birds in Sauropsida, and baleen whales, pangolins, anteaters, sloths, armadillos and aardvark in Mammalia. Secondly, we present current hypotheses on the genetic basis of tooth loss in the chicken and thirdly, we try to answer the question of how these taxa have survived tooth loss given the crucial importance of this tool. The loss of teeth (or only enamel) in all of these taxa was not lethal because it was always preceded in evolution by the pre-adaptation of a secondary tool (beak, baleens, elongated adhesive tongues or hypselodonty) useful for improving efficiency in food uptake. The positive selection of such secondary tools would have led to relaxed functional constraints on teeth and would have later compensated for the loss of teeth. These hypotheses raise numerous questions that will hopefully be answered in the near future.

Background: The ability to form teeth was lost in an ancestor of all modern birds, approximately 100-80 million years ago. However, experiments in chicken have revealed that the oral epithelium can respond to inductive signals from mouse mesenchyme, leading to reactivation of the odontogenic pathway. Recently, tooth germs similar to crocodile rudimentary teeth were found in a chicken mutant. These "chicken teeth" did not develop further, but the question remains whether functional teeth with enamel cap would have been obtained if the experiments had been carried out over a longer time period or if the chicken mutants had survived. The next odontogenetic step would have been tooth differentiation, involving deposition of dental proteins., Results: Using bioinformatics, we assessed the fate of the four dental proteins thought to be specific to enamel (amelogenin, AMEL; ameloblastin, AMBN; enamelin, ENAM) and to dentin (dentin sialophosphoprotein, DSPP) in the chicken genome. Conservation of gene synteny in amniotes allowed definition of target DNA regions in which we searched for sequence similarity. We found the full-length chicken AMEL and the only N-terminal region of DSPP, and both are invalidated genes. AMBN and ENAM disappeared after chromosomal rearrangements occurred in the candidate region in a bird ancestor., Conclusion: These findings not only imply that functional teeth with enamel covering, as present in ancestral Aves, will never be obtained in birds, but they also indicate that these four protein genes were dental specific, at least in the last toothed ancestor of modern birds, a specificity which has been questioned in recent years.

Elucidation of the mechanisms controlling early development and organogenesis is currently progressing in several model species and a new field of research, evolutionary developmental biology, which integrates developmental and comparative approaches, has emerged. Although the expression pattern of many genes during tooth development in mammals is known, data on other lineages are virtually non-existent. Comparison of tooth development, and particularly of gene expression (and function) during tooth morphogenesis and differentiation, in representative species of various vertebrate lineages is a prerequisite to understand what makes one tooth different from another. Amphibians appear to be good candidates for such research for several reasons: tooth structure is similar to that in mammals, teeth are renewed continuously during life (=polyphyodonty), some species are easy to breed in the laboratory, and a large amount of morphological data are already available on diverse aspects of tooth biology in various species. The aim of this review is to evaluate current knowledge on amphibian teeth, principally concerning tooth development and replacement (including resorption), and changes in morphology and structure during ontogeny and metamorphosis. Throughout this review we highlight important questions which remain to be answered and that could be addressed using comparative morphological studies and molecular techniques. We illustrate several aspects of amphibian tooth biology using data obtained for the caudate Pleurodeles waltl. This salamander has been used extensively in experimental embryology research during the past century and appears to be one of the most favourable amphibian species to use as a model in studies of tooth development.

Most nonmammalian species replace their teeth continuously (so-called polyphyodonty), which allows morphological and structural modifications to occur during ontogeny. We have chosen Pleurodeles waltl, a salamander easy to rear in the laboratory, as a model species to establish the morphological foundations necessary for future molecular approaches aiming to understand not only molecular processes involved in tooth development and replacement, but also their changes, notably during metamorphosis, that might usefully inform studies of modifications of tooth morphology during evolution. In order to determine when (in which developmental stage) and how (progressively or suddenly) tooth modifications take place during ontogeny, we concentrated our observations on a single tooth family, located at position I, closest to the symphysis on the left lower jaw. We monitored the development and replacement of the six first teeth in a large growth series ranging from 10-day-old embryos (tooth I1) to adult specimens (tooth I6), using light (LM), scanning (SEM), and transmission electron (TEM) microscopy. A timetable of the developmental and functional period is provided for the six teeth, and tooth development is compared in larvae and young adults. In P. waltl the first functional tooth is not replaced when the second generation tooth forms, in contrast to what occurs for the later generation teeth, leading to the presence of two functional teeth in a single position during the first 2 months of life. Larval tooth I1 shows dramatically different features when compared to adult tooth I6: a dividing zone has appeared between the dentin cone and the pedicel; the pulp cavity has enlarged, allowing accommodation of large blood vessels; the odontoblasts are well organized along the dentin surface; tubules have appeared in the dentin; and teeth have become bicuspidate. Most of these modifications take place progressively from one tooth generation to the next, but the change from monocuspid to bicuspid tooth occurs during the tooth I3 to tooth I4 transition at metamorphosis., ((c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

even-skipped-related (evx) genes encode homeodomain-containing transcription factors that are involved in a series of developmental processes such as posterior body patterning and neurodifferentiation. Although evx1 and evx2 were not reported to be expressed during mammalian tooth development, we present here evidence that eve1, the closest paralog of evx1 in the actinopterygian lineage, is expressed during pharyngeal tooth formation in the zebrafish, Danio rerio. We have performed whole-mount in situ hybridization on zebrafish embryos and larvae ranging from 24 to 192 hours postfertilization (hpf). A detailed analysis of serial sections through the pharyngeal region of whole-mount hybridized and control specimens indicates that only dental epithelial cells express eve1. eve1 transcription was activated at 48 hpf, in the placode of the first tooth (i.e., the initiation site of tooth 4V(1)), and maintained in the dental epithelium throughout morphogenesis. Then, by 72 hpf, eve1 expression was restricted to the differentiating ameloblasts of the enamel organ during early differentiation stage, and this expression decreased as soon as matrix was deposited. In subsequent primary teeth (3 V(1) and 5 V(1)) as well as in their successors (replacement teeth 4V(2), 3V(2), and 5V(2)), eve1 expression was restricted to the differentiating ameloblasts and, again, disappeared when matrix was deposited. Therefore, in the zebrafish, eve1 expression in the pharyngeal region is correlated with two key steps of tooth development: initiation and morphogenesis of the first tooth, and ameloblast differentiation of all developing teeth., (Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

This study was undertaken as a prerequisite to investigations on tooth differentiation in a squamate, the Canarian scincid Chalcides. Our main goal was to determine whether the pattern of tooth replacement, known to be regular in lizards, could be helpful to predict accurately any stage of tooth development. A growth series of 20 laboratory-reared specimens, aged from 0.5 month after birth to about 6 years, was used. The dentition (functional and replacement teeth) was studied from radiographs of jaw quadrants. The number of tooth positions, the tooth number in relation to age and to seasons, and the size of the replacement teeth were recorded. In Chalcides, a single row of pleurodont functional teeth lies at the labial margin of the dentary, premaxillary, and maxillary. Whatever the age of the specimens, 16 tooth positions were recorded, on average, in each quadrant, suggesting that positions are maintained throughout life. Replacement teeth were numerous whatever the age and season, while the number of functional teeth was subject to variation. Symmetry of tooth development was evaluated by comparing teeth two by two from the opposite side in the four jaw quadrants of several specimens. Although the relative size of some replacement teeth fitted perfectly, the symmetry criterion was not reliable to predict the developmental stage of the opposite tooth, whether the pair of teeth compared was left-right or upper-lower. The best fit was found when comparing the size of successive replacement teeth from the front to the back of the jaw. Every replacement tooth that is 40-80% of its definitive size is followed, in the next position on the arcade, by a tooth that is, on average, 20% less developed. Considering teeth in alternate positions (even and odd series), each replacement tooth was a little more developed than the previous, more anterior, one (0.5-20% when the teeth are from 10-40% of their final size). The latter pattern showed that tooth replacement occurred in alternate positions from back to front, forming more or less regular rows (i.e., "Zahnreihen"). In Chalcides, the developmental stage of a replacement tooth in a position p can be accurately predicted provided the developmental stage of the replacement tooth in position p-1 or, to a lesser degree, in position p-2 is known. This finding will be particularly helpful when starting our structural and ultrastructural studies of tooth differentiation in this lizard., (Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

The present study focuses on the main characteristics of first-generation teeth (i.e., the first teeth of the dentition to develop in a given position and to become functional) in representatives of the major lineages of nonmammalian vertebrates (chondrichthyans, actinopterygians, and sarcopterygians: dipnoans, urodeles, squamates, and crocodiles). Comparative investigations on the LM and TEM level reveal the existence of two major types of first-generation teeth. One type (generalized Type 1) is characterized by its small size, conical shape, atubular dentine, and small pulp cavity without capillaries and blood vessels. This type is found in actinopterygians, dipnoans, and urodeles and coincides with the occurrence of short embryonic periods in these species. The other type assembles a variety of first-generation teeth, which have in common that they represent miniature versions of adult teeth. They are generally larger than the first type, have more complex shapes, tubular dentine, and a large pulp cavity containing blood vessels. These teeth are found in chondrichtyans, squamates, and crocodiles, taxa which all share an extended embryonic period. The presence in certain taxa of a particular type of first-generation teeth is neither linked to their phylogenetic relationships nor to adult body size or tooth structure, but relates to the duration of embryonic development. Given that the plesiomorphic state in vertebrates is a short embryonic development, we consider the generalized Type 1 first-generation tooth to represent an ancestral character for gnathostomes. We hypothesize that an extended embryonic development leads to the suppression of tooth generations in the development of dentition. These may still be present in the form of rudimentary germs in the embryonic period. In our view, this generalized Type 1 first-generation teeth has been conserved through evolution because it represents a very economic and efficient way of building small and simple teeth adapted to larval life. The highly adapted adult dentition characteristic for each lineage has been possible only through polyphyodonty., (Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Background: In a recent study, we have demonstrated that amelotin (AMTN) gene structure and its expression during amelogenesis have changed during tetrapod evolution. Indeed, this gene is expressed throughout enamel matrix deposition and maturation in non-mammalian tetrapods, while in mammals its expression is restricted to the transition and maturation stages of amelogenesis. Previous studies of amelogenin (AMEL) gene expression in a lizard and a salamander have shown similar expression pattern to that in mammals, but to our knowledge there are no data regarding ameloblastin (AMBN) and enamelin (ENAM) expression in non-mammalian tetrapods. The present study aims to look at, and compare, the structure and expression of four enamel matrix protein genes, AMEL, AMBN, ENAM and AMTN during amelogenesis in the lizard Anolis carolinensis. Results: We provide the full-length cDNA sequence of A. carolinensis AMEL and AMBN, and show for the first time the expression of ENAM and AMBN in a non-mammalian species. During amelogenesis in A. carolinensis, AMEL, AMBN and ENAM expression in ameloblasts is similar to that described in mammals. It is noteworthy that AMEL and AMBN expression is also found in odontoblasts. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that AMTN is the only enamel matrix protein gene that is differentially expressed in ameloblasts between mammals and sauropsids. Changes in AMTN structure and expression could be the key to explain the structural differences between mammalian and reptilian enamel, i.e. prismatic versus non-prismatic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Enamel and enameloid were identified in early jawless vertebrates, about 500 million years ago (MYA). This suggests that enamel matrix proteins (EMPs) have at least the same age. We review the current data on the origin, evolution and relationships of enamel mineralization genes. Methods and Results: Three EMPs are secreted by ameloblasts during enamel formation: amelogenin (AMEL), ameloblastin (AMBN) and enamelin (ENAM). Recently, two new genes, amelotin (AMTN) and odontogenic ameloblast associated (ODAM), were found to be expressed by ameloblasts during maturation, increasing the group of ameloblast-secreted proteins to five members. The evolutionary analysis of these five genes indicates that they are related: AMEL is derived from AMBN, AMTN and ODAM are sister genes, and all are derived from ENAM. Using molecular dating, we showed that AMBN/AMEL duplication occurred >600 MYA. The large sequence dataset available for mammals and reptiles was used to study AMEL evolution. In the N- and C-terminal regions, numerous residues were unchanged during >200 million years, suggesting that they are important for the proper function of the protein. Conclusion: The evolutionary analysis of AMEL led to propose a dataset that will be useful to validate AMEL mutations leading to X- linked AI. Copyright © 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comparative analysis of tooth development in the main vertebrate lineages is needed to determine the various evolutionary routes leading to current dentition in living vertebrates. We have used light, scanning and transmission electron microscopy to study tooth morphology and the main stages of tooth development in the scincid lizard,Chalcides viridanus, viz., from late embryos to 6-year-old specimens of a laboratory-bred colony, and from early initiation stages to complete differentiation and attachment, including resorption and enamel formation. InC. viridanus, all teeth of a jaw have a similar morphology but tooth shape, size and orientation change during ontogeny, with a constant number of tooth positions. Tooth morphology changes from a simple smooth cone in the late embryo to the typical adult aspect of two cusps and several ridges via successive tooth replacement at every position. First-generation teeth are initiated by interaction between the oral epithelium and subjacent mesenchyme. The dental lamina of these teeth directly branches from the basal layer of the oral epithelium. On replacement-tooth initiation, the dental lamina spreads from the enamel organ of the previous tooth. The epithelial cell population, at the dental lamina extremity and near the bone support surface, proliferates and differentiates into the enamel organ, the inner (IDE) and outer dental epithelium being separated by stellate reticulum. IDE differentiates into ameloblasts, which produce enamel matrix components. In the region facing differentiating IDE, mesenchymal cells differentiate into dental papilla and give rise to odontoblasts, which first deposit a layer of predentin matrix. The first elements of the enamel matrix are then synthesised by ameloblasts. Matrix mineralisation starts in the upper region of the tooth (dentin then enamel). Enamel maturation begins once the enamel matrix layer is complete. Concomitantly, dental matrices are deposited towards the base of the dentin cone. Maturation of the enamel matrix progresses from top to base; dentin mineralisation proceeds centripetally from the dentin-enamel junction towards the pulp cavity. Tooth attachment is pleurodont and tooth replacement occurs from the lingual side from which the dentin cone of the functional teeth is resorbed. Resorption starts from a deeper region in adults than in juveniles. Our results lead us to conclude that tooth morphogenesis and differentiation in this lizard are similar to those described for mammalian teeth. However, Tomes’ processes and enamel prisms are absent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]