4.6 Article

Cell cycle-specific and cell type-specific expression of Rb in the developing human retina

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 47, Issue 12, Pages 5590-5598

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0063

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. To define the pattern of Rb expression relative to cell cycle position and cell type in the developing human retina. METHODS. Cryosections of fetal week 11-18 retinas were immunostained for Rb and cell cycle-or cell type-specific markers. RESULTS. Rb was prominent in retinal progenitor cells (RPCs) expressing the cyclin D1, cyclin A, and cytoplasmic cyclin B markers of G(1), S, and early to mid G(2) phases, but not in RPCs expressing the phosphohistone H3 marker of late G(2) and M. Rb was not detected in the earliest postmitotic ganglion, amacrine, horizontal, and bipolar cell precursors migrating away from the ventricular layer, but was detected as such cells underwent further differentiation. Among photoreceptors, Rb was not detected in the earliest RXR gamma(+) cone precursors or in the earliest Nrl(+) rod precursors, but subsequently rose to high levels in cones and to low levels in rods. Rb was prominent at the time when Muller glia exit the cell cycle and was generally expressed in a pattern complementary to p27(Kip1). CONCLUSIONS. Rb exhibits cell cycle-specific expression in RPCs, with loss in late G(2)-M and restoration in G(1). Rb is re-expressed after postmitotic ganglion, amacrine, horizontal, and bipolar cell precursors migrate away from the ventricular layer; after the appearance of early cone and rod markers; but coinciding with Muller glia cell cycle withdrawal. The results suggest that Rb does not mediate the initial proliferative arrest of retinal neurons, but may indirectly induce arrest in RPCs or maintain an arrest in postmitotic precursors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available