Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Skin cells undergo asynthetic fission to expand body surfaces in zebrafish

Abstract

As an animal’s surface area expands during development, skin cell populations must quickly respond to maintain sufficient epithelial coverage. Despite much progress in understanding of skin cell behaviours in vivo1,2, it remains unclear how cells collectively act to satisfy coverage demands at an organismic level. Here we created a multicolour cell membrane tagging system, palmskin, to monitor the entire population of superficial epithelial cells (SECs) in developing zebrafish larvae. Using time-lapse imaging, we found that many SECs readily divide on the animal body surface; during a specific developmental window, a single SEC can produce a maximum of four progeny cells over its lifetime on the surface of the animal. Remarkably, EdU assays, DNA staining and hydroxyurea treatment showed that these terminally differentiated skin cells continue splitting despite an absence of DNA replication, causing up to 50% of SECs to exhibit reduced genome size. On the basis of a simple mathematical model and quantitative analyses of cell volumes and apical surface areas, we propose that ‘asynthetic fission’ is used as an efficient mechanism for expanding epithelial coverage during rapid growth. Furthermore, global or local manipulation of body surface growth affects the extent and mode of SEC division, presumably through tension-mediated activation of stretch-activated ion channels. We speculate that this frugal yet flexible mode of cell proliferation might also occur in contexts other than zebrafish skin expansion.

Your institute does not have access to this article

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Multicolour barcoding of the entire SEC population in palmskin zebrafish.
Fig. 2: In toto cell imaging identifies massive cell division in the SEC population.
Fig. 3: SEC division generates somatic cells with a reduced genome size and is error prone.
Fig. 4: Dynamic demand in body surface dictates asynthetic fission.

Data availability

Microscopy data are available from the corresponding author on request, without any restrictions. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Custom code for image processing and analysis has been deposited in GitHub (https://github.com/ccsyan/labeling-cells-using-slic, https://github.com/peggyscshu/Analysis-on-membrane-labeled-cell and https://github.com/peggyscshu/Mitosis-phase-analysis).

References

  1. Tai, K., Cockburn, K. & Greco, V. Flexibility sustains epithelial tissue homeostasis. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 60, 84–91 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Dekoninck, S. et al. Defining the design principles of skin epidermis postnatal growth. Cell 181, 604–620 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gonzales, K. A. U. & Fuchs, E. Skin and its regenerative powers: an alliance between stem cells and their niche. Dev. Cell 43, 387–401 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee, R. T., Asharani, P. V. & Carney, T. J. Basal keratinocytes contribute to all strata of the adult zebrafish epidermis. PLoS ONE 9, e84858 (2014).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Rakers, S. et al. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) from fish epidermis: perspectives for investigative dermatology. J. Invest. Dermatol. 133, 1140–1149 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones, K. B. et al. Quantitative clonal analysis and single-cell transcriptomics reveal division kinetics, hierarchy, and fate of oral epithelial progenitor cells. Cell Stem Cell 24, 183–192 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jones, K. B. & Klein, O. D. Oral epithelial stem cells in tissue maintenance and disease: the first steps in a long journey. Int. J. Oral Sci. 5, 121–129 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, C. H. et al. Multicolor cell barcoding technology for long-term surveillance of epithelial regeneration in zebrafish. Dev. Cell 36, 668–680 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Livet, J. et al. Transgenic strategies for combinatorial expression of fluorescent proteins in the nervous system. Nature 450, 56–62 (2007).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Loulier, K. et al. Multiplex cell and lineage tracking with combinatorial labels. Neuron 81, 505–520 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lam, P. Y., Mangos, S., Green, J. M., Reiser, J. & Huttenlocher, A. In vivo imaging and characterization of actin microridges. PLoS ONE 10, e0115639 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. van Loon, A. P., Erofeev, I. S., Maryshev, I. V., Goryachev, A. B. & Sagasti, A. Cortical contraction drives the 3D patterning of epithelial cell surfaces. J. Cell Biol. 219, e201904144 (2020).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Guzman, A., Ramos-Balderas, J. L., Carrillo-Rosas, S. & Maldonado, E. A stem cell proliferation burst forms new layers of p63 expressing suprabasal cells during zebrafish postembryonic epidermal development. Biol. Open 2, 1179–1186 (2013).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Slanchev, K. et al. The epithelial cell adhesion molecule EpCAM is required for epithelial morphogenesis and integrity during zebrafish epiboly and skin development. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000563 (2009).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Richardson, R. J. et al. Periderm prevents pathological epithelial adhesions during embryogenesis. J. Clin. Invest. 124, 3891–3900 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Wyatt, T. P. et al. Emergence of homeostatic epithelial packing and stress dissipation through divisions oriented along the long cell axis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 5726–5731 (2015).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen, C. F. et al. Establishment of a transgenic zebrafish line for superficial skin ablation and functional validation of apoptosis modulators in vivo. PLoS ONE 6, e20654 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Roan, H. Y., Tseng, T. L. & Chen, C. H. Whole-body clonal mapping identifies giant dominant clones in zebrafish skin epidermis. Development 148, dev199669 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gillooly, J. F., Hein, A. & Damiani, R. Nuclear DNA content varies with cell size across human cell types. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 7, a019091 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ben-David, U. & Amon, A. Context is everything: aneuploidy in cancer. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 44–62 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fox, D. T. & Duronio, R. J. Endoreplication and polyploidy: insights into development and disease. Development 140, 3–12 (2013).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wills, A. A., Holdway, J. E., Major, R. J. & Poss, K. D. Regulated addition of new myocardial and epicardial cells fosters homeostatic cardiac growth and maintenance in adult zebrafish. Development 135, 183–192 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kawakami, A., Fukazawa, T. & Takeda, H. Early fin primordia of zebrafish larvae regenerate by a similar growth control mechanism with adult regeneration. Dev. Dyn. 231, 693–699 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mateus, R. et al. In vivo cell and tissue dynamics underlying zebrafish fin fold regeneration. PLoS ONE 7, e51766 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hunter, G. L., Crawford, J. M., Genkins, J. Z. & Kiehart, D. P. Ion channels contribute to the regulation of cell sheet forces during Drosophila dorsal closure. Development 141, 325–334 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Yang, X. C. & Sachs, F. Block of stretch-activated ion channels in Xenopus oocytes by gadolinium and calcium ions. Science 243, 1068–1071 (1989).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Eisenhoffer, G. T. et al. Crowding induces live cell extrusion to maintain homeostatic cell numbers in epithelia. Nature 484, 546–549 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Syeda, R. et al. Chemical activation of the mechanotransduction channel Piezo1. eLife 4, e07369 (2015).

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Botello-Smith, W. M. et al. A mechanism for the activation of the mechanosensitive Piezo1 channel by the small molecule Yoda1. Nat. Commun. 10, 4503 (2019).

    ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gudipaty, S. A. et al. Mechanical stretch triggers rapid epithelial cell division through Piezo1. Nature 543, 118–121 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. von Mohl, H. Vermischte Schriften Botanischen Inhalts (Bei Ludwig Friedrich Fues, 1845).

  32. Newport, J. & Dasso, M. On the coupling between DNA replication and mitosis. J. Cell Sci. Suppl. 12, 149–160 (1989).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Raff, J. W. & Glover, D. M. Nuclear and cytoplasmic mitotic cycles continue in Drosophila embryos in which DNA synthesis is inhibited with aphidicolin. J. Cell Biol. 107, 2009–2019 (1988).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ganier, O. et al. Mitosis without DNA replication in mammalian somatic cells. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.08.193607 (2020).

  35. Ellefsen, K. L. et al. Myosin-II mediated traction forces evoke localized Piezo1-dependent Ca2+ flickers. Commun. Biol. 2, 298 (2019).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Lopez-Gay, J. M. et al. Apical stress fibers enable a scaling between cell mechanical response and area in epithelial tissue. Science 370, eabb2169 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Byrd, K. M. et al. Heterogeneity within stratified epithelial stem cell populations maintains the oral mucosa in response to physiological stress. Cell Stem Cell 25, 814–829 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhang, Y. et al. Development and stem cells of the esophagus. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 66, 25–35 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mosimann, C. et al. Ubiquitous transgene expression and Cre-based recombination driven by the ubiquitin promoter in zebrafish. Development 138, 169–177 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Rembold, M., Lahiri, K., Foulkes, N. S. & Wittbrodt, J. Transgenesis in fish: efficient selection of transgenic fish by co-injection with a fluorescent reporter construct. Nat. Protoc. 1, 1133–1139 (2006).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ju, B. et al. Faithful expression of green fluorescent protein (GFP) in transgenic zebrafish embryos under control of zebrafish gene promoters. Dev. Genet. 25, 158–167 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, J. et al. Visualization of caspase-3-like activity in cells using a genetically encoded fluorescent biosensor activated by protein cleavage. Nat. Commun. 4, 2157 (2013).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang, Y. T. et al. Genetic reprogramming of positional memory in a regenerating appendage. Curr. Biol. 29, 4193–4207 (2019).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Triemer, T. et al. Superresolution imaging of individual replication forks reveals unexpected prodrug resistance mechanism. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E1366–E1373 (2018).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Colanesi, S. et al. Small molecule screening identifies targetable zebrafish pigmentation pathways. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 25, 131–143 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Poss, K. D., Nechiporuk, A., Stringer, K. F., Lee, C. & Keating, M. T. Germ cell aneuploidy in zebrafish with mutations in the mitotic checkpoint gene mps1. Genes Dev. 18, 1527–1532 (2004).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Labun, K., Montague, T. G., Gagnon, J. A., Thyme, S. B. & Valen, E. CHOPCHOP v2: a web tool for the next generation of CRISPR genome engineering. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, W272–W276 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Montague, T. G., Cruz, J. M., Gagnon, J. A., Church, G. M. & Valen, E. CHOPCHOP: a CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN web tool for genome editing. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, W401–W407 (2014).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Tseng, T. L. et al. The RNA helicase Ddx52 functions as a growth switch in juvenile zebrafish. Development 148, dev199578 (2021).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Talbot, J. C. & Amacher, S. L. A streamlined CRISPR pipeline to reliably generate zebrafish frameshifting alleles. Zebrafish 11, 583–585 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Bresciani, E., Broadbridge, E. & Liu, P. P. An efficient dissociation protocol for generation of single cell suspension from zebrafish embryos and larvae. MethodsX 5, 1287–1290 (2018).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. van Ham, T. J., Mapes, J., Kokel, D. & Peterson, R. T. Live imaging of apoptotic cells in zebrafish. FASEB J. 24, 4336–4342 (2010).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Achanta, R. et al. SLIC superpixels compared to state-of-the-art superpixel methods. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 34, 2274–2282 (2012).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lloyd, S. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 28, 129–137 (1982).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  55. MacQueen, J. in Proc. 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability Vol. 1, 281–297 (Univ. California Press, 1967).

  56. Lowe, D. G. in Proc. 7th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision Vol. 1152, 1150–1157 (IEEE, 1999).

  57. Lowe, D. G. Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 60, 91–110 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Legland, D., Arganda-Carreras, I. & Andrey, P. MorphoLibJ: integrated library and plugins for mathematical morphology with ImageJ. Bioinformatics 32, 3532–3534 (2016).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Tschumperle, D. & Deriche, R. Vector-valued image regularization with PDEs: a common framework for different applications. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. 27, 506–517 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Jaqaman, K. et al. Robust single-particle tracking in live-cell time-lapse sequences. Nat. Methods 5, 695–702 (2008).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Bolte, S. & Cordelieres, F. P. A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. J. Microsc. 224, 213–232 (2006).

    MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. van der Walt, S. et al. scikit-image: image processing in Python. PeerJ 2, e453 (2014).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet. 9, 62–66 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Virtanen, P. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat. Methods 17, 261–272 (2020).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Livet and Y. A. Pan for sharing the Palmbow construct, as well as C.-H. Wang and the Taiwan Zebrafish Core Facility (TZCF) for zebrafish care and services. TZCF is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 110-2740-B-400-001). We also thank S.-Y. Du and the Core Facility at ICOB for assistance with flow cytometry; L.-H. Yih, C.-H. Lee, Y.-H. Su, C.-F. Kao, J. Lu, H.-C. Kuo and members of the Chen laboratory for comments on the manuscript, and M. J. Calkins for English editing and comments. We acknowledge funding support from Academia Sinica to C.-H.C. (AS-CDA-109-L03) and C.-P.H. (AS-IA-106-M01) and grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology to C.-H.C. (MOST 106-2628-B-001-001-MY4) and C.-P.H. (MOST 105-2113-M-001-009-MY4 and 109-2113-M-001-022-MY4).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.Y.C. and C.-H.C. conceived the project, designed experiments, analysed data and prepared the manuscript. K.Y.C. performed experiments and imaging. K.Y.C., C.-C.S.Y., S.-C.H. and C.-P.H. performed quantitative analyses. C.-H.C. designed and H.-Y.R. generated palmskin lines. H.-Y.R. performed histology. T.-L.T. performed sgRNA experiments and RT–qPCR assays. C.-D.H. contributed the Tg(krt4:NLS-EGFP)cy34 line. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen-Hui Chen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature thanks Caren Norden, Claus Sorensen and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Inducible control of Cre activity in the SECs population.

a, b, The transgenic constructs of SEC:iCre#1 (a) and SEC:iCre#2 (b). c, d, Cross-sections of 8 dpf palmskin larvae. Despite the Tet-on cassette being driven by the ubi or krt19 promoter, the Cre activity in both lines is restricted to the SEC layer (red). P63 Ab stains the BEC layer (green). DAPI stains all cells (white). White dashed boxes indicate magnified areas. White arrows point to mCherry-positive SECs. e, palmskin; SECiCre#2 images captured at 8 dpf from the posterior region. Three animals were examined for each treatment. f, g, Whole-animal view of a live, 8 dpf Tg(ubi:Switch; SEC:iCre#2) (f) and a palmskin; SEC:iCre#2 zebrafish larvae (g). Stitched images (e–g). Yellow dashed line marks body margins (e–g). Scale bars, 50 µm (c, d); 100 µm (e); 500 µm (f, g).

Extended Data Fig. 2 palmskin enables long-term tracking of SECs over their surface lifetime.

a, Magnified images of a body area from a live palmskin animal. Images were captured from the same individual at 8 and 17 dpf. SECs of the same color were labeled with a clone identification number. b, Analysis of total hue numbers at 8 and 10 dpf. c, palmskin images were captured at 8, 10, 14, and 21 dpf. Red dashed line marks trunk margins. d, Labeled SEC coverage ratio, as determined by SEC coverage area over Trunk surface area. Data are shown as mean ± s.d. Scale bars, 50 µm (a, c). n = number of larvae (b, d). Significance was examined by two-tailed Student’s t-test (b). P-values are shown above the horizontal lines indicating intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 3 A single SEC readily divides twice to generate four progeny cells.

a, Schematic timeline of time-lapse imaging over a 12-hr period, starting at 8.5 dpf. b, Representative images of a dividing SEC. Arrowheads point to microridge pattern on the SEC. c, Representative images of a live palmskin animal. Images were captured from the same individual at 8 and 10 dpf. SECs of the same color were labeled with a clone identification number. d, Angles of the long axis of the cell and the cell division axis of the dividing SECs. e, f, Quantification of shape changes in mother and daughter cells, as determined by aspect ratio (e) and circularity (f). g, Schematic timeline of time-lapse imaging over a 9.5-day period with a 12-hr interval.h, Representative images of a single SEC that gives rise to four progeny cells. i, Percentages of each type of division event (n = 116 cell trajectories). j, Percentages of each type of shedding event (n = 40 cell trajectories). Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (e, f). Scale bars, 20 µm (b, h); 100 µm (c). n = number of SECs (d–f). Significance was examined by two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (e) or two-tailed Student’s t-test (f). P-values are shown above the horizontal lines indicating intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 4 SECs division is reversible at low frequency.

a, Time-lapse images of a single SEC that fuses after division. Yellow dashed line outlines cell boundaries. b, palmskin images captured at 8 and 10 dpf. SEC nuclei were visualized by histone-tagged BFP2. White arrows point to binucleated SECs. c, Binucleated SEC ratio at 8 and 10 dpf. The ratio is determined by the number of binucleated SECs over total number of examined SECs. Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (c). Scale bar, 20 µm (a); 50 µm (b). n = number of SECs (c).

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 5 No detectable DNA replication in the SEC population.

a, b, Schematic timeline of EdU assay conducted at 6, 8, 10, and 14 dpf. The entire BEC and SEC populations were visualized by Tg(krt19:H2A-mCherry) and Tg(krt4:NLS-EGFP), respectively (b). Yellow dashed line marks body margins. c, Whole-mount images of EdU+ cells in the BEC and SEC populations. White arrows point to the EdU+ BECs. Yellow arrows point to non-BEC or non-SEC EdU+ cells. No EdU+ cells were detected in the SEC population. d, Quantification of EdU+ cells. e, Schematic timeline of HU treatment. EdU assay was conducted at 10 dpf to visualize EdU+ BECs. f, g, Whole-mount images (f) and quantification of EdU+ BECs (g) upon HU treatment. White arrows point to the EdU+ BECs. h, Schematic timeline of HU treatment. i, palmskin images were captured at 9 and 10 dpf to visualize divided SECs. j, Percentage of each clone size. k, Quantification of the divided pool (sum of 2-cell, 3-cell, and 4-cell clones / total number of SEC clone). Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (d, g, k). Stitched images (b). Scale bar, 500 µm (b); 50 µm (c, f); 100 µm (i). n = number of BECs or SECs (d); n = number of BECs (g); n = number of SEC clones (j); n = number of larvae (k). Significance was examined by two-tailed Student’s t-test (g) or ordinary one-way ANOVA with Tukey correction for multiple comparisons (k). Percent differences and P-values are shown above the horizontal lines for the indicated intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 6 SEC division is sensitive to the tubulin polymerization inhibitor Nocodazole.

a–e, Whole mount images (a–d) and quantification of EdU+ cells (e) at 10 dpf, after 12-hr chemical treatments. f–i, palmskin images were captured at 10 dpf, after 12-hr chemical treatments. SEC nuclei were visualized by histone-tagged BFP2. White arrows point to binucleated SECs. j–n, Quantification of changes in clone size (j), the divided pool (sum of 2-cell, 3-cell, and 4-cell clones / total number of SEC clones) (k), the binucleated SEC ratio (sum of binucleated SECs / total number of SECs) (l), Standard length (m), and Trunk surface area (n). Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (e, k–n). Scale bar, 50 µm. n = number of SEC clones (j); n = number of SECs (l); n = number of larvae (e, k, m, n). Significance was examined by two-tailed Student’s t-test or two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (e, k–n). Percent differences and P-values are shown above the horizontal lines for the indicated intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 7 Long-term tracking of the whole 1-to-4 division trajectories reveals collective apical surface increase but not the collective volume.

a–e, Quantification of total apical surface area and total cell volume. The entire 1-to-4-cell division trajectories of five clones were analyzed. White dashed line outlines cell boundaries for a dividing SEC (top). Data from each progeny cell are color-coded. f, g, Quantification of changes in total apical surface area (f) and total cell volume (g) between 1-cell and 4-cell stages. All measurements from each stage were averaged for comparison. h, Quantification of changes in median cell height after the first division. i–k, Quantification of changes in apical surface area (j) and cell volume (k) prior to the first and the second division. In contrast to the first division, the second division readily occurs in cells with a smaller size. l, m, Relative changes in apical surface area (l) and cell volume (m) in 3-cell clones. Notably, one cell is markedly larger than the other two cells in a 3-cell clone, as predicted by the simple geometric model (Fig. 4). Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (h, j, k). n = number of SECs (h). Significance was examined by paired two-tailed Student’s t-test (f, g) or unpaired two-tailed Student’s t-test (h, j, k). Percent differences and P-values are shown above the horizontal lines for the indicated intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 8 Local surface demand directs asynthetic fission.

a, Schematic timeline of fin fold amputation and imaging. b, palmskin images were captured at 10 dpf (2 dpa) to visualize SEC behavior. All SEC clones within 500 µm proximal to the amputation plane were included in the analysis. Red dashed line indicates amputation plane (a, b). Yellow dashed line outlines the margin of fin fold (b). c–e, Quantification of each clone size (c), the divided pool (sum of 2-cell, 3-cell, and 4-cell clones / total number of SEC clones) (d), and distribution of clone division axis (e). f, Schematic shows timeline of adult tailfin amputation-regeneration experiments. Red dashed line indicates amputation plane. g, h, Flow cytometry analysis of DNA content in live SECs, as determined by EGFP+/PI-/Hoechst. Red-shaded zones mark sub-2N populations (f, g). Stitched images (b). Data are shown as mean ± s.d. (d, h). Scale bar, 100 µm (b). n = number of SEC clones (c, e). n = number of larvae (d). Significance was examined by two-tailed Student’s t-test (d, h). Percent difference and P-value are shown above the horizontal lines for intergroup comparison.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 9 Tension dynamics and Piezo1 regulate asynthetic fission.

a, Time-lapse images of laser-incisions. White dashed line indicates incision sites. White solid lines mark cell edges. Double-headed arrow indicates the total displacement. b, Using Tg(krt19:Lifeact-mScarlet), skin tension was determined by real-time monitoring of tissue displacement upon incision. Measurements from the first 0.8 s (red-shaded zone) were used to estimate recoil velocity, whereas displacements from 30 to 50 s (blue-shaded zone) were average as maximum recoil distance. c, d, Quantification of recoil velocity (c) and maximum recoil distance (d). e, palmskin images were captured at 10 dpf, after two days of chemical treatments. f-i, Quantification of changes in clone size (f), the divided pool (sum of 2-cell, 3-cell, and 4-cell clones / total number of SEC clone) (g), Standard length (h) and Trunk surface area (i). j, k, CRISPR-Cas9-mediated deletion of the piezo 1 locus. The wild-type and the deletion alleles were examined by PCR amplification of genomic DNA (j) and Sanger sequencing (k). The sgRNA pair removes the entire genomic region (~78 kb) spanning Exon 6 and Exon 54. For gel source data, see Supplementary Figure 1. l, m, CRISPR-Cas9-mediated knockdown of the piezo1 expression in palmskin (l) and RT-qPCR analysis (m). n, palmskin images were captured at 8 dpf in the sgRNAs-injected larvae. o-r, Quantification of changes in clone size (o), the divided pool (sum of 2-cell, 3-cell, and 4-cell clones / total number of SEC clone) (p), Standard length (q) and Trunk surface area (r). Data are shown as mean (b); mean ± s.d. (c, d, g–i, p–r); mean ± s.e.m. (m). Scale bars, 10 µm (a); 50 µm (e, n). n = number of larvae (c, d, g–i, p–r); n = number of SEC clones (f, o); n = number of biological replicates (m). Significance was examined by two-tailed Student’s t-test (c, d, g, i, m, q, r) or two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (h, p). Percent differences and P-values are shown above the horizontal lines indicating intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Extended Data Fig. 10 Chemical perturbation of stretch-activated ion channels affects SEC cellular features and shedding dynamics.

a, b, Quantification of apical surface area (a) and median cell height (b) of 1-cell stage SECs at 10 dpf, after two days of chemical treatments. c, Percentage distribution of the long cell axis orientation at 10 dpf. d, palmskin images were captured at 10 and 14 dpf. e. f, Quantification of changes in SEC coverage (e) and the binucleated SEC ratio (sum of binucleated SECs / total number of SECs) (f). g, h, Immunostaining of Piezo1 in the sgRNA-injected larvae. The injection of piezo1 sgRNAs markedly reduced the overall Piezo1 signal in some animals (g). Piezo1 is present as cytoplasmic puncta in SECs at 8 and 14 dpf (h). Number of examined animals is shown in the top right corner. Of note. the SEC nuclei were visualized by the nuclear BFP2 expression in palmskin (red; no Dox and Tam treatment). i–l, No detectable apoptotic events in the SEC population. The apoptosis reporter construct and the UV-irradiation assay (i). The stable transgenic line, Tg(ubi:H2A-mCherry-2A-GC3AI), labels the SEC population. Of note, Tg(krt4:NLS-EGFP) allows visualization of the SEC nuclei (j). c, Activation of the GFP signal in SECs upon a single UV pulse. White arrows point to the SECs with the GFP signal (k). Representative images of Tg(ubi:H2A-mCherry-2A-GC3AI) at 8 dpf and 10 dpf. Number of examined animals is shown in the top right corner of the mCherry channel (l). Scale bar, 50 µm (d, j–l); 10 µm (g, h). Data are shown as violin plot (red, median; blue, quartiles; a, b); mean ± s.d. (e, f); n = number of SECs (a–c); n = number of larvae (e, f). Significance was examined by two-tailed Mann-Whitney test (a, b, e, f). Percent differences and P-values are shown above the horizontal lines for the indicated intergroup comparisons.

Source Data

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Peer Review File

Supplementary Fig. 1

This file contains an uncropped gel image of Extended Data Fig. 9j with size markers.

Supplementary Table 1

List of primers used for genotyping, RT–qPCR and sgRNA template synthesis.

Supplementary Video 1

Multicolour cell barcoding of the SEC population in palmskin. A 3D view is shown of a palmskin image captured from a live zebrafish larva.

Supplementary Video 2

Time-lapse images of the SEC population. Serial palmskin images were captured with a 15-min interval over 12 h. White arrows point to dividing SECs. Scale bar, 50 µm.

Supplementary Video 3

Time-lapse, magnified images of a dividing SEC with the microridge pattern. Serial palmskin images were captured at 15-min intervals over the course of 12 h. Scale bar, 20 µm.

Supplementary Video 4

Time-lapse images of a shedding SEC. Serial palmskin images were captured at 15-min intervals over the course of 12 h. Scale bar, 20 µm.

Supplementary Video 5

Long-term tracking of an SEC over its entire surface lifetime. Serial palmskin images were captured at 12-h intervals over the course of 5 d. Scale bar, 20 µm.

Supplementary Video 6

Long-term tracking of an SEC that gives rise to four progeny cells. Serial palmskin images were captured at 12-h intervals over the course of 9.5 d. Scale bar, 20 µm.

Supplementary Video 7

Time-lapse images of a fusion event. Serial palmskin images were captured at 15-min intervals over the course of 10 h. Scale bar, 20 µm.

Supplementary Video 8

Time-lapse images of dividing SECs with anaphase bridges, lagging chromosomes, micronuclei and tripolar segregation. Serial Tg(krt4:H2A-EGFP) images were captured at 5-min intervals over the course of 12 h. A yellow arrow points to the chromosome segregation defects. Scale bar, 10 µm.

Supplementary Video 9

Time-lapse images of a dividing BEC. Serial Tg(krt19:H2A-mCherry) images were captured at 5-min intervals over the course of 12 h. Scale bar, 10 µm.

Supplementary Video 10

Time-lapse images of recoil responses. Using Tg(krt19:Lifeact-mScarlet), serial images were captured at 0.08-s intervals after a laser incision. The first 30 s of images are shown. A white solid line marks cell edges. A double-headed arrow indicates the total displacement. Scale bar, 10 µm.

Source data

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, K.Y., Yan, CC.S., Roan, HY. et al. Skin cells undergo asynthetic fission to expand body surfaces in zebrafish. Nature 605, 119–125 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04641-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04641-0

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing