4.5 Article

Structural and Ultrastructural Characteristics of the Red-Rumped Agouti (Dasyprocta leporina-Linnaeus, 1758) Palatine Epithelium

期刊

MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 645-649

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1431927621000350

关键词

connective tissue core; hard palate; morphology; palatine ridges; soft palate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research aimed to describe the structural and ultrastructural characteristics of the palate of red-rumped agoutis. The study found that while the structural characteristics are similar to other mammals, the morphology of the palate in agoutis differs in terms of the number and disposition of palatine ridges, as well as the shape of the conical CTCs.
The palate is a fundamental region in food swallowing and presents different adaptations in species. This research aimed to describe structural and ultrastructural characteristics of the palatine epithelium and the connective tissue cores (CTCs) of ten red-rumped agoutis (Dasyprocta leporina-Linnaeus, 1758) using macroscopic, light microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, and transmission electron microscopy. We found nine palatine ridges in the diastema and hard palate, and a smooth surface in the soft palate. Stratified squamous keratinized epithelium with projections of lamina propria and soft palate had gland clusters. Epithelial removal revealed CTCs with a conical shape with high density in the hard palate and the sides of the soft palate. Near the CTCs were nerve fibers in the hard palate, and the soft palate had muscular tissue below the gland clusters. The structural and ultrastructural characteristics enable stability of the hard palate and fixation to the soft palate sides, while the soft palate center has greater mobility thus assisting in food swallowing. We concluded that structural characteristics are similar to other mammals, although the morphology of agouti's palate differs in the amount and disposition of palatine ridges, and the conical CTC's morphology.

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

4.5
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