spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif spacer gif
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


spacer gif
     Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents    

First published online 25 June 2008
doi: 10.1242/dev.022145


Development 135, 2505-2510 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008


This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, D.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, D.
Right arrow Articles by Davies, J. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Developmental plasticity and regenerative capacity in the renal ureteric bud/collecting duct system

Derina Sweeney*, Nils Lindström* and Jamie A. Davies{dagger}

Centre for Integrative Physiology, University of Edinburgh, Hugh Robson Building, George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9XD, UK.


Figure 1
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 1. Dissections and recombinations. (A) Diagram of the tissue manipulations used for these experiments. The top arrows indicate separation of tips and stalk, and the culture of the amputated stalk with fresh mesenchyme, the middle arrows indicate injury to mesenchyme (mes) alone, or to stalk (ub) and mesenchyme, and the bottom arrows indicate culture of the `wrong' end of the stalk with fresh mesenchyme. (B-D) Discarded portions stained with an in situ probe show the complete Wnt11-expressing tip regions (B), in addition to short regions of Wnt11-negative stalks; those stained with the stalk-specific stain DBA again show that the tips and a short length of stalk are present in the discarded region (C). Staining the same specimen with calbindin-D28K, which stains both tips and stalks (D), shows where the tips are. Scale bar: 100 µm. (E) Dilution PCR analysis of Wnt11 expression in kidneys, including tips, and in de-tipped stalks. The numbers below the dilutions are the number of tip cells represented in the PCR. The signal in de-tipped stalks is far dimmer than the 1/100 dilution of kidney (with 0.81 tip cells). The actin bands demonstrate that the undiluted samples of kidney and stalk cDNA represent equal amounts of total cells, as intended.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (77K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 2. Regeneration of new branching epithelia from E11.5 ureteric bud stalks. (A,B) New branching tree generated from an isolated E11.5 stalk surrounded by fresh mesenchyme, stained with (A) anti-calbindin-D28K and (B) the stalk marker DBA. Comparison of the images reveals that at least some of the new tips are DBA negative (arrowheads). (C) Another example, stained for Wnt11 by in situ hybridization; the new tips have acquired Wnt11 expression. (D-F) Generation of a new ureteric bud tree from the `wrong end' of the ureteric bud. (D) Low-power view of a `double-ended' kidney formed by branching from the cut end of the ureteric bud. (E,F) Higher-power view of the `wrong end' tree, stained with anti-calbindin-D28K (E) and DBA (F): a significant number of tips (outlined in F) have greatly reduced DBA expression compared with stalk (arrowhead). (G) These stalk-derived tips (Reg) express the tip marker Wnt11 by RT-PCR at levels similar to those in whole kidneys (kid), whereas the stalks not allowed to generate new tips (Slk) do not express it at detectable levels. Scale bars: 100 µm.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (91K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Fig. 3. Generation of branched ureteric systems from the `wrong end' of the ureters of more mature kidneys. (A) A cut ureteric stalk of an E12.5 kidney capped with E11.5 metanephric mesenchyme ramified through the mesenchyme to generate a branched collecting duct system (circled). (B) Branching morphogenesis of an E11.5 de-tipped stalk transferred to matrigel with GDNF, FGF1 and pleiotrophin, incubated for 144 hours and stained with FITC-phalloidin to reveal its anatomy. It is interesting to note that the phalloidin stain is particularly strong in the apical regions of cells at the branch tips, as described for normal ureteric buds developing in whole kidneys (Michael et al., 2005Go). (C,D) Tips formed from the `wrong end' of the ureter, as in A, induce the formation of nephrons in the surrounding mesenchyme. These are not detectable in the ureteric bud-specific anti-calbindin stain (C) but are visible in the anti-laminin stain (D, arrow).

 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




© The Company of Biologists Ltd 2008