4.4 Article

Integrating technologies for comparing 3D gene expression domains in the developing chick limb

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 317, 期 1, 页码 13-23

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.01.031

关键词

3D atlas; gene expression; limb development; chick embryo

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9806660, MC_U127527203] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. MRC [MC_U127527203, G9806660] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/G000883/1] Funding Source: Medline
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_U127527203, G9806660] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chick embryos are good models for vertebrate development due to their accessibility and manipulability. Recent large increases in available genomic data from both whole genome sequencing and EST projects provide opportunities for identifying many new developmentally important chicken genes. Traditional methods of documenting when and where specific genes are expressed in embryos using wholemount and section in-situ hybridisation do not readily allow appreciation of 3-dimensional (3D) patterns of expression, but this can be accomplished by the recently developed microscopy technique, Optical Projection Tomography (OPT). Here we show that OPT data on the developing chick wing from different labs can be reliably integrated into a common database, that OPT is efficient in capturing 3D gene expression domains and that such domains can be meaningfully compared. Novel protocols are used to compare 3D expression domains of 7 genes known to be involved in chick wing development. This reveals previously unappreciated relationships and demonstrates the potential, using modem genomic resources, for building a large scale 3D atlas of gene expression. Such an atlas could be extended to include other types of data, such as fate maps, and the approach is also more generally applicable to embryos, organs and tissues. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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