4.4 Article

Cell communication with the neural plate is required for induction of neural markers by BMP inhibition: evidence for homeogenetic induction and implications for Xenopus animal cap and chick explant assays

期刊

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 327, 期 2, 页码 478-486

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.12.034

关键词

Xenopus; Chick; Neural induction; Default model; Neural plate border; Homeogenetic induction; Neural crest; Pre-placodal region; Animal cap assay; BMP signaling; GATA

资金

  1. MRC
  2. BBSRC
  3. NIH [GM60156]
  4. EU Network-of-Excellence Cells into Organs
  5. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/D010659/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. Medical Research Council [G0400559] Funding Source: researchfish
  7. BBSRC [BB/D010659/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. MRC [G0400559] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Xenopus, the animal cap is very sensitive to BMP antagonists, which result in neuralization. In chick, however, only cells at the border of the neural plate can be neuralized by BMP inhibition. Here we compare the two systems. BMP antagonists can induce neural plate border markers in both ventral Xenopus epidermis and non-neural chick epiblast. However, BMP antagonism can only neuralize ectodermal cells when the BMP-inhibited cells form a continuous trail connecting them to the neural plate or its border, suggesting that homeogenetic neuralizing factors can only travel between BMP-inhibited cells. Xenopus animal cap explants contain cells fated to contribute to the neural plate border and even to the anterior neural plate, explaining why they are so easily neuralized by BMP-inhibition. Furthermore, chick explants isolated from embryonic epiblast behave like Xenopus animal caps and express border markers. We propose that the animal cap assay in Xenopus and explant assays in the chick are unsuitable for studying instructive signals in neural induction. (C) 2009 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