4.4 Article

Stab Wound Injury Model of the Adult Optic Tectum using Zebrafish and Medaka for the Comparative Analysis of Regenerative Capacity

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL OF VISUALIZED EXPERIMENTS
DOI: 10.3791/63166

关键词

-

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [18K14824, 21K15195]
  2. AIST, Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [18K14824, 21K15195] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a brain injury model was developed and used to compare the regenerative capacity of zebrafish and medaka, with zebrafish showing a higher ability for central nervous system regeneration. The results provide insights into the molecular mechanisms regulating tissue regeneration and offer a method for comparing regenerative capacities in small teleosts.
While zebrafish have a superior capacity to regenerate their central nervous system (CNS), medaka has a lower CNS regenerative capacity. A brain injury model was developed in the adult optic tectum of zebrafish and medaka and comparative histological and molecular analyses were performed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms regulating the high regenerative capacity of this tissue across these fish species. Here a stab wound injury model is presented for the adult optic tectum using a needle and histological analyses for proliferation and differentiation of the neural stem cells (NSCs). A needle was manually inserted into the central region of the optic tectum, and then the fish were intracardially perfused, and their brains were dissected. These tissues were then cryosectioned and evaluated using immunostaining against the appropriate NSC proliferation and differentiation markers. This tectum injury model provides robust and reproducible results in both zebrafish and medaka, allowing for comparing NSC responses after injury. This method is available for small teleosts, including zebrafish, medaka, and African killifish, and enables us to compare their regenerative capacity and investigate unique molecular mechanisms.

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

4.4
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