3.8 Article

Fibroblast growth factors in regenerating limbs of Ambystoma:: Cloning and semi-quantitative RT-PCR expression studies

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY
卷 290, 期 5, 页码 529-540

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jez.1097

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urodele amphibians (newts and salamanders) have the ability to regenerate amputated limbs throughout their life span. Because fibroblast growth factors (Fgfs) play important roles in developing limbs, we initiated studies to investigate these growth factors in regenerating limbs. Partial cDNAs of Fgf4, 8, and 10 were cloned from both the Mexican axolotl, Ambystoma mexicanum, and locally collected spotted salamander, Ambystoma maculatum, two salamanders well recognized for their regenerative capabilities. cDNAs from the two Ambystoma species were virtually identical, ranging from 97-100% nucleotide identity. Axolotl Fgf4, 8, and 10 showed nucleotide sequence identity with chick Fgf4, 8, and 10 of 79%, 83%, and 72%, respectively. RT-PCR showed that these growth factors are expressed in regenerating axolotl limbs as well as in developing salamander larvae at the three-digit forelimb stage. Fgf8 and 10 are upregulated during regeneration and thus may be involved in distal signaling similar to that of the developing chick limb. Fgf4, however, was undetectable by RT-PCR in the distal tips of regenerates, suggesting that it does not play the same role in limb regeneration that it does in limb development. We also investigated the role these Fgfs may have in the nerve-dependence of regeneration. They were expressed similarly in aneurogenic and innervated limbs, suggesting that they are not the neurotrophic factors responsible for nerve-dependence. Denervation prevented Fgf8 and 10 upregulation, suggesting Fgf pathways are downstream of nerve-dependence. These data highlight important similarities and differences in Fgf expression between limb development and limb regeneration. J. Exp. Zool. 290:529-540, 2001. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

3.8
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