|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
|
Fig. 3. In vivo fate mapping of Meis-overexpressing cells in limb regenerates. (A)
Constructs used for electroporation. (B,C) Immunohistochemistry on blastema
sections 1 (B) and 6 (C) days after electroporation; Meis (red), GFP (green),
nuclei (blue). (D-I) Time-lapse analysis of electroporated cells during
proximal limb regeneration. Early bud mid-humerus blastemas electroporated
with GFP (D-F) or Meis1+Pbx1+GFP plasmids (G-I) at different times
post-electroporation. White lines indicate the amputation plane; white arrows,
the limit between mesenchyme and the ectodermal cap; black arrow in H, the
distal-most position of electroporated cells. (J,K) Diagram of the relative
contribution of electroporated cells to the PD segments (indicated at left).
(J) Proportions relative to the total number of cells scored in each
condition; (K) proportions relative to the total number of cells observed in
control limbs. The construct combinations used are indicated above. The solid
red line indicates the percentage of electroporated cells contributing to
regions proximal to mid-zeugopod in controls; the dotted red line indicates
this percentage in different experimental conditions. dz, distal zeugopod; pz,
proximal zeugopod; ds, distal stylopod.
|
