4.8 Article

Single-cell analysis of early chick hypothalamic development reveals that hypothalamic cells are induced from prethalamic-like progenitors

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.110251

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [212247/Z/18/Z]
  2. NIH [R01DK108230]
  3. Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund [2019-MSCRFF-5124]
  4. Wellcome Trust [212247/Z/18/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used single-cell RNA sequencing and hybridization chain reaction to analyze the early development of the hypothalamus in chicks. It revealed that hypothalamic neuroepithelial cells are induced from prethalamic-like cells and identified different progenitor populations that give rise to specific hypothalamic cell types. The study also identified molecular mechanisms and candidate regulators involved in hypothalamic induction and subsequent development.
The hypothalamus regulates many innate behaviors, but its development remains poorly understood. Here, we used single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and hybridization chain reaction (HCR) to profile multiple stages of early hypothalamic development in the chick. Hypothalamic neuroepithelial cells are initially induced from prethalamic-like cells. Two distinct hypothalamic progenitor populations then emerge and give rise to tuberal and mammillary/paraventricular hypothalamic cells. At later stages, the regional organization of the chick and mouse hypothalamus is highly similar. We identify selective markers for major subdivisions of the developing chick hypothalamus and many previously uncharacterized candidate regulators of hypothalamic induction, regionalization, and neurogenesis. As proof of concept for the power of the data set, we demonstrate that prethalamus-derived follistatin inhibits hypothalamic induction. This study clarifies the organization of the nascent hypothalamus and identifies molecular mechanisms that may control its induction and subsequent development.

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

4.8
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