Click here to close Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly. We suggest using a current version of Chrome, FireFox, or Safari.

Summary Expression Phenotypes Gene Literature (29) GO Terms (10) Nucleotides (210) Proteins (50) Interactants (600) Wiki
XB-GENEPAGE-977361

Gene Symbol: dvl3

Gene Name: dishevelled segment polarity protein 3

Anatomy terms
Keller explant brain chordoneural hinge cranial placode ectoderm egg head head mesoderm head region heart hindbrain intestine limb midbrain oocyte otic vesicle paraxial mesoderm presomitic mesoderm skeletal muscle ... [+]
RNA-Seq and EST Transcriptome profiles tropicalis laevis.L laevis.S
RNA-Seq stage profile Data from Owens et al. 2016 Data from Session et al. 2016 Data from Session et al. 2016
GEO data dvl3.L dvl3.S
Microarray Data Data from Yanai et al. 2011 Data from Yanai et al. 2011 Data from Yanai et al. 2011
Stage and Tissue Profiles
                    Source: Owens et al. 2016 (tropicalis)
                    Source: Session et al. 2016 (laevis)
          Source: Session et al. 2016 (laevis)
Experimental Regulation (via RNA-seq)


                                                            Source: Ding et al. 2017 (laevis)
Summary ImagesSort by:
Expression Image
NF stage 18
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 23
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 26
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 29 and 30
Good quality Poor quality
  
Community Submitted ImagesSort by:
Expression Image
NF stage 18
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 23
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 26
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 29 and 30
Good quality Poor quality
  
Literature ImagesSort by:
Expression Image
NF stage 25
Zhang, et al. 2011
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 18 to NF stage 35 and 36
Gray, et al. 2009
Good quality Poor quality
Expression Image
NF stage 35 and 36
Zhang, et al. 2011
Good quality Poor quality