|
Display additional annotations [+]
Gene |
Clone |
Species |
Stages |
Anatomy |
rpf2
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
,
apical epithelial cap
|
wnt5b
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
,
apical epithelial cap
|
rbm17
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb bud
,
distal mesenchyme
|
rbm17
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
apical epithelial cap
|
ccdc50
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb bud
,
distal mesenchyme
|
ccdc50
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
|
dimt1
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
,
apical epithelial cap
|
aifm2
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb bud
,
distal mesenchyme
|
aifm2
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
,
apical epithelial cap
|
pjvk
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
,
apical epithelial cap
|
lrrn1l
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb bud
,
distal mesenchyme
|
lrrn1l
|
|
laevis
|
NF stage 51
to
NF stage 53
|
hindlimb
,
distal mesenchyme
,
blastema
,
regenerating hindlimb
|
|
|
Figure 3. Expression during hindlimb regeneration. Each clone's expression during hindlimb regeneration was examined using in situ hybridization 24, 48, and 72 hr after amputation through the left presumptive ankle joint at stages 51-53. The right limb in each case was also examined for expression in the unoperated, developing hindlimb. The paired limbs are shown with the distal (or amputated) end toward the top of the figure. Each sample may be staged by the morphology of the control limb on the right; differences in regeneration blastema expression were not observed among the three stages chosen for amputation. Clones used as riboprobe are shown as follows: A, W001; B, W002; C, W003; D, W004; E, W005; F, W006; G, W007; H, W008; I, W009; J, W010; K, W011; L, W012; M, W013. Each panel displays a representative limb pair from either a 24 hr or 48 hr regenerate ( ldquo early rdquo time point) and a limb pair from a 72 hr regenerate ( ldquo later rdquo time point). In some, but not all, cases background staining was observed at the base of a limb, corresponding to the site where the limbs were detached from the flank tissue after fixation (e.g., B, left limb pair); this staining was also observed in ldquo sense rdquo probe controls (not shown) and is an artifact relating to tissue preparation. N: Illustrations of limb morphology used to stage each set of limbs are shown; the dashed lines indicate amputation sites at each stage (illustrations modeled after Nieuwkoop and Faber, [1956]). The stage at which each sample was amputated may be ascertained by comparison with these staging diagrams (recovery times were not sufficient for specimens to advance in developmental stage). Scale bar = 1 mm in N (applies to A-N). |