4.7 Article

GUDMAP: The Genitourinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2007101078

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527203] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [MC_U127527203] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527203] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In late 2004, an International Consortium of research groups were charged with the task of producing a high-quality molecular anatomy of the developing mammalian urogenital tract (UGT). Given the importance of these organ systems for human health and reproduction, the need for a systematic molecular and cellular description of their developmental programs was deemed a high priority. The information obtained through this initiative is anticipated to enable the highest level of basic and clinical research grounded on a 21st-century view of the developing anatomy. There are three components to the Genitourinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project GUDMAP; all of these are intended to provide resources that support research on the kidney and UGT. The first provides ontology of the cell types during UGT development and the molecular hallmarks of those cells as discerned by a variety of procedures, including in situ hybridization, transcriptional profiling, and immunostaining. The second generates novel mouse strains. In these strains, cell types of particular interest within an organ are labeled through the introduction of a specific marker into the context of a gene that exhibits appropriate cell type or structure-specific expression. In addition, the targeting construct enables genetic manipulation within the cell of interest in many of the strains. Finally, the information is annotated, collated, and promptly released at regular intervals, before publication, through a database that is accessed through a Web portal. Presented here is a brief overview of the Genitourinary Developmental Molecular Anatomy Project effort.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据