Temporal Control of WNT Activity Regulates Tooth Number in Fish

Continuous tooth replacement: what can teleost fish teach us?

Most tooth-bearing non-mammalian vertebrates have the capacity to replace their teeth throughout life. This capacity was lost in mammals, which replace their teeth only once at most. Not surprisingly, continuous tooth replacement has attracted much attention. Classical morphological studies (e.g. to analyse patterns of replacement) are now being complemented by molecular studies that investigate the expression of genes involved in tooth formation. This review focuses on ray-finned fish (actinopterygians), which have teeth often distributed throughout the mouth and pharynx, and more specifically on teleost fish, the largest group of extant vertebrates. First we highlight the diversity in tooth distribution and in tooth replacement patterns. Replacement tooth formation can start from a distinct (usually discontinuous and transient) dental lamina, but also in the absence of a successional lamina, e.g. from the surface epithelium of the oropharynx or from the outer dental epithelium of a predecessor tooth. The relationship of a replacement tooth to its predecessor is closely related to whether replacement is the result of a prepattern or occurs on demand. As replacement teeth do not necessarily have the same molecular signature as first-generation teeth, the question of the actual trigger for tooth replacement is discussed. Much emphasis has been laid in the past on the potential role of epithelial stem cells in initiating tooth replacement. The outcome of such studies has been equivocal, possibly related to the taxa investigated, and the permanent or transient nature of the dental lamina. Alternatively, replacement may result from local proliferation of undifferentiated progenitors, stimulated by hitherto unknown, perhaps mesenchymal, factors. So far, the role of the neurovascular link in continuous tooth replacement has been poorly investigated, despite the presence of a rich vascularisation surrounding actinopterygian (as well as chondrichthyan) teeth and despite a complete arrest of tooth replacement after nerve resection. Lastly, tooth replacement is possibly co-opted as a process to expand the number of teeth in a dentition ontogenetically whilst conserving features of the primary dentition. That neither a dental lamina, nor stem cells appear to be required for tooth replacement places teleosts in an advantageous position as models for tooth regeneration in humans, where the dental lamina regresses and epithelial stem cells are considered lost.

Count Me in, Count Me out: Regulation of the Tooth Number via Three Directional Developmental Patterns

Tooth number anomalies, including hyperdontia and hypodontia, are common congenital dental problems in the dental clinic. The precise number of teeth in a dentition is essential for proper speech, mastication, and aesthetics. Teeth are ectodermal organs that develop from the interaction of a thickened epithelium (dental placode) with the neural-crest-derived ectomesenchyme. There is extensive histological, molecular, and genetic evidence regarding how the tooth number is regulated in this serial process, but there is currently no universal classification for tooth number abnormalities. In this review, we propose a novel regulatory network for the tooth number based on the inherent dentition formation process. This network includes three intuitive directions: the development of a single tooth, the formation of a single dentition with elongation of the continual lamina, and tooth replacement with the development of the successional lamina. This article summarizes recent reports on early tooth development and provides an analytical framework to classify future relevant experiments.

Distinct tooth regeneration systems deploy a conserved battery of genes

Background

Vertebrate teeth exhibit a wide range of regenerative systems. Many species, including most mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, form replacement teeth at a histologically distinct location called the successional dental lamina, while other species do not employ such a system. Notably, a ‘lamina-less’ tooth replacement condition is found in a paraphyletic array of ray-finned fishes, such as stickleback, trout, cod, medaka, and bichir. Furthermore, the position, renewal potential, and latency times appear to vary drastically across different vertebrate tooth regeneration systems. The progenitor cells underlying tooth regeneration thus present highly divergent arrangements and potentials. Given the spectrum of regeneration systems present in vertebrates, it is unclear if morphologically divergent tooth regeneration systems deploy an overlapping battery of genes in their naïve dental tissues.

Results

In the present work, we aimed to determine whether or not tooth progenitor epithelia could be composed of a conserved cell type between vertebrate dentitions with divergent regeneration systems. To address this question, we compared the pharyngeal tooth regeneration processes in two ray-finned fishes: zebrafish (Danio rerio) and threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). These two teleost species diverged approximately 250 million years ago and demonstrate some stark differences in dental morphology and regeneration. Here, we find that the naïve successional dental lamina in zebrafish expresses a battery of nine genes (bmpr1aa, bmp6, cd34, gli1, igfbp5a, lgr4, lgr6, nfatc1, and pitx2), while active Wnt signaling and Lef1 expression occur during early morphogenesis stages of tooth development. We also find that, despite the absence of a histologically distinct successional dental lamina in stickleback tooth fields, the same battery of nine genes (Bmpr1a, Bmp6, CD34, Gli1, Igfbp5a, Lgr4, Lgr6, Nfatc1, and Pitx2) are expressed in the basalmost endodermal cell layer, which is the region most closely associated with replacement tooth germs. Like zebrafish, stickleback replacement tooth germs additionally express Lef1 and exhibit active Wnt signaling. Thus, two fish systems that either have an organized successional dental lamina (zebrafish) or lack a morphologically distinct successional dental lamina (sticklebacks) deploy similar genetic programs during tooth regeneration.

Conclusions

We propose that the expression domains described here delineate a highly conserved “successional dental epithelium” (SDE). Furthermore, a set of orthologous genes is known to mark hair follicle epithelial stem cells in mice, suggesting that regenerative systems in other epithelial appendages may utilize a related epithelial progenitor cell type, despite the highly derived nature of the resulting functional organs.