Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About Development
    • About the Node
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contacts
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Development
  • COB
    • About The Company of Biologists
    • Development
    • Journal of Cell Science
    • Journal of Experimental Biology
    • Disease Models & Mechanisms
    • Biology Open

supporting biologistsinspiring biology

Development

  • Log in
Advanced search

RSS  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube 

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Accepted manuscripts
    • Issue in progress
    • Latest complete issue
    • Issue archive
    • Archive by article type
    • Special issues
    • Subject collections
    • Sign up for alerts
  • About us
    • About Development
    • About the Node
    • Editors and Board
    • Editor biographies
    • Travelling Fellowships
    • Grants and funding
    • Journal Meetings
    • Workshops
    • The Company of Biologists
    • Journal news
  • For authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Aims and scope
    • Presubmission enquiries
    • Article types
    • Manuscript preparation
    • Cover suggestions
    • Editorial process
    • Promoting your paper
    • Open Access
    • Biology Open transfer
  • Journal info
    • Journal policies
    • Rights and permissions
    • Media policies
    • Reviewer guide
    • Sign up for alerts
  • Contacts
    • Contacts
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
Research Report
Suppression of the immune response potentiates tadpole tail regeneration during the refractory period
Taro Fukazawa, Yuko Naora, Takekazu Kunieda, Takeo Kubo
Development 2009 136: 2323-2327; doi: 10.1242/dev.033985
Taro Fukazawa
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yuko Naora
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takekazu Kunieda
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Takeo Kubo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Summary

Regenerative ability varies depending on animal species and developmental stage, but the factors that determine this variability remain unclear. Although Xenopus laevis tadpole tails possess high regenerative ability, this is transiently lost during the `refractory period'. Here, we show that tail amputation evokes different immune responses in wound tail stumps between the `refractory' and `regeneration' periods: there was delayed or prolonged expression of some immune-related genes in the refractory period, whereas there was no obvious or transient expression of other immune-related genes in the regeneration periods. In addition, immune suppression induced by either immunosuppressant treatment or immune cell depletion by knockdown of PU.1 significantly restored regenerative ability during the refractory period. These findings indicate that immune responses have a crucial role in determining regenerative ability in Xenopus tadpole tails.

  • Regeneration
  • Immune response
  • Xenopus laevis

Introduction

Many animal species possess the ability to regenerate their lost appendages, although this ability varies depending on the animal species, organs and appendages, and the developmental stage of the animals (Slack, 2003). Although some molecules are reported to stimulate regenerative abilities in various animals (Whitehead et al., 2005; Kawakami et al., 2006; Adams et al., 2007), the reason for the variable regenerative ability remains a mystery.

Xenopus laevis tadpoles have the ability to regenerate whole tail tissues after tail amputation. Recently, however, Xenopus tadpoles were reported to lose their regenerative ability transiently at particular developmental stages (stages 45-47), called the `refractory period' (Beck et al., 2003). During the refractory period, tadpoles fail to generate a regeneration bud (blastema) and thus fail to regenerate their lost tails (Beck et al., 2003). The refractory period appears between the pre- and post-refractory `regeneration periods'. We intended to utilize this unique characteristic to analyze the regeneration-specific processes as well as to analyze the molecular basis of the developmental stage-specific regenerative abilities.

In the present study, we compared gene expression profiles in the wound tail stumps between the refractory and regeneration periods using the differential display method, and found that tail amputation evoked different immune responses between these two periods. Furthermore, suppression of the immune response restored regenerative ability during the refractory period, indicating that immune responses play crucial roles in determining the regenerative ability of Xenopus tadpole tails.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals

Xenopus laevis tadpoles were kept at 20°C in 0.2% salt water. Stage 39-41, 46-47 and 52-53 tadpoles were used for the pre-refractory regeneration period, refractory period and post-refractory regeneration period, respectively.

Differential display

The differential display method was performed as described previously (Ishino et al., 2003), using total RNA extracted from wound stumps dissected at 0, 2 and 15 hours post amputation (hpa) during the refractory and post-refractory regeneration periods.

cDNA cloning of X. laevis FOXP3

To obtain partial cDNA, degenerate primers were designed for the conserved forkhead domain of X. laevis FOXP1, 2 and 4, and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed with cDNA from thymi of stage 52 tadpoles. The rapid amplification of cDNA ends method (FirstChoice RLM-RACE; Ambion) was performed to obtain the full-length cDNA (GenBank AB359948).

Quantitative reverse transcription (qRT)-PCR and in situ hybridization

For expression analysis using the wound stumps, we collected four sets of wound stumps for pre-refractory regeneration period (n=15-16), refractory period (n=20-24) and post-refractory regeneration period (n=5-6) at 0, 5, 10, 15, 24 and 48 hpa. For developmental expression analysis, we collected four sets of intact tadpoles (n=4-5) at 4- to 9-days post fertilization (dpf). qRT-PCR was performed with gene-specific primers. Accession numbers of X. laevis chemokine genes were obtained from the Cytokine Family Database (http://cytokine.medic.kumamoto-u.ac.jp/). In situ hybridization on wax sections was performed using standard procedures.

Inhibitor experiments

Tadpoles with tails amputated during the refractory period were exposed to 50 ng/ml Celastrol, 1 μM IKK inhibitor VII, 3 μM FK506, 10 μM cyclosporin A (chemicals were from Calbiochem), or 0.1% dimethyl sulfoxide (vehicle control), in 0.33× De Boer solution. The solutions were refreshed every other day and tail regeneration was checked 7 days post amputation (dpa). The regenerative abilities were classified into four groups: excellent, whole tail structure was regenerated including fin, muscle, notochord and spinal cord; good, whole tail was regenerated, but length was shorter; partial, tail was regenerated, but lacked some tissues or had a curved axis; none, no regeneration was observed.

Antisense morpholino oligonucleotide (MO) experiments

We injected 4.6 nl of 1 mM (PU.1-MO1 and 5mis PU.1-MO1) or 0.75 mM (PU.1-MO2 and 5mis PU.1-MO2) translation-blocking antisense MO (GeneTools) into both blastomeres of 2-cell-stage embryos, essentially as described previously (Iijima et al., 2008; Eisen and Smith, 2008). Injected embryos were maintained at 20°C in 0.1× Steinberg's solution. The tails were amputated at stage 46 and tail regeneration was checked 7 dpa. The sequences of MOs used were: PU.1-MO1, 5′-TGTTGTGATATAAACACTCCTCGTC-3′; and PU.1-MO2, 5′-ATAGGGGTATGGAGTATTCATCACA-3′, which were designed corresponding to -24 to +1 and -49 to -25 of the PU.1 translation initiation site, respectively; and 5mis PU.1-MO1, 5′-AGTTGAGATAAAAACAGTCCTGGTC-3′; 5mis PU.1-MO2, 5′-ATACGGGTTTGGACTATTGATCAGA-3′, with five mismatches in the PU.1-MO1 and PU.1-MO2, respectively. qRT-PCR was performed with total RNA extracted from 3-4 sets of 8-17 MO-injected or noninjected tadpoles at stage 46.

    Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Expression analysis of genes identified by differential display during the refractory and post-refractory periods. (A-C) cathelicidin-like (A), CXCR2 (B) and RIN3 (C) expression analysis. The relative amounts of transcripts determined by qRT-PCR were obtained by taking the value at 0 hpa as 1 for each refractory period (open circle) and post-refractory regeneration period (solid circle) after normalization relative to elongation factor 1α (EF1α) transcipt levels. (D-G) In situ hybridization for cathelicidin-like (D,E) and CXCR2 (F,G) using the sagittal sections of wound stumps during the post-refractory regeneration period 10 hpa. (E,G) Magnified views of the boxed area in D and F, respectively. Leukocyte-like cells expressing the genes are indicated with arrowheads. ms, muscle; nc, notochord; sc, spinal cord; we, wound epidermis. Scale bars: 300μ m in D,F; 30 μm in E,G.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Comparison of gene expression profiles in wound tail stumps between refractory and post-refractory regeneration periods

To analyze the regenerative processes, we focused on wound epidermis formation, which has important roles in appendage regeneration (Thornton, 1957; Brockes, 1997). In our experimental conditions, wound epidermis coverage completed approximately 8 to 12 hpa (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material), and proliferating cells appeared approximately 18 to 24 hpa (see Fig. S2 in the supplementary material). Therefore, we intended to compare gene expression profiles in the wound stumps at two time points: one at which the wound epidermis just covered the stump (2 hpa) and the other at which wound epidermis coverage was complete, but proliferating cells had not yet appeared (15 hpa).

We used the differential display method to detect 36 candidate bands, the intensities of which at 15 hpa differed only during the post-refractory regeneration period, but not during the refractory period, when compared with those at 2 hpa. qRT-PCR confirmed the differential expression of 6 of the 36 candidate genes. cDNA cloning identified three of them as Xenopus homologs of cathelicidin-like, CXCR2 and RIN3, respectively. Two other genes contained no significant open reading frames and had frequent one-base substitutions, implying their function as non-coding RNAs, and the last gene had an open reading frame, which showed no significant sequence similarity with any other known proteins (data not shown). We focused on the three coding genes for further analysis. Expression of all of these three genes in the wound stump drastically increased until 10 to 15 hpa and then gradually decreased during the post-refractory regeneration period, whereas there were no such obvious changes during the refractory period (Fig. 1A-C). Their expression levels were below the quantification threshold during the pre-refractory regeneration period (data not shown). Next, to identify cell types that express these genes, we performed in situ hybridization using sections of wound stumps at 10 hpa during the post-refractory regeneration period'. cathelicidin-like was expressed in leukocyte-like cells, which invade the wound stump (Fig. 1D,E), and CXCR2 was expressed in both the wound epidermis and in leukocyte-like cells (Fig. 1F,G). In mammals, cathelicidins are antimicrobial peptides expressed in wound epidermis or in neutrophils (Bals and Wilson, 2003). CXCR2 is a receptor for CXC chemokines, which elicit chemotaxis of neutrophils and monocytes that express the receptors (Chuntharapai et al., 1994). Therefore, it is plausible that the induction of cathelicidin-like and CXCR2 expression during the post-refractory regeneration period was due to invasion of the leukocyte-like cells expressing these genes in the wound stump. RIN3 is a RAB5-binding protein that has an important role in endocytosis (Kajiho et al., 2003), and is expressed in monocytes or natural killer cells (Su et al., 2002). RIN3 expression in the wound stump was, however, not detected by in situ hybridization, possibly due to its low expression level (data not shown).

Tail amputation evokes different immune responses between refractory and pre-/post-refractory regeneration periods

As all of these three genes were related to immune responses, we next compared expression profiles of the other immune-related genes between the refractory and pre-/post-refractory regeneration periods. We analyzed 17 chemokine (CXCLs and CCLs), four chemokine receptor, interleukin-1β (Zou et al., 2000) and the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes (Liu et al., 2002; Bos and Waldman, 2006), the sequences of which were available from databases. Expression of seven chemokine genes and MHC class II differed between the refractory and post-refractory regeneration periods. Among them, CXCLb, CXCLe and CCLf showed immediate early upregulation (within 5 hours) and subsequent downregulation only during the post-refractory regeneration period, whereas there was no obvious change during the refractory period (Fig. 2A-C). By contrast, CXCLh and MHC class II were slowly upregulated only during the refractory period, whereas there was no obvious change or the genes were downregulated during the post-refractory regeneration period (Fig. 2D,H). CCLb, CCL5L1 and CCL5L2 were upregulated at the later stages (15-24 hpa) during the refractory period and their expression was sustained until 48 hpa, but were immediately (until 5-10 hpa) downregulated during the post-refractory regeneration period (Fig. 2E-G). During the pre-refractory regeneration period, the expression of only two genes, CXCLe and CCLf, was detected, but no obvious change in expression was observed (Fig. 2B,C). Expression of the other genes did not differ significantly between the refractory and post-refractory regeneration periods or were too low to be detected (data not shown). These findings suggest that the immune responses in the wound stumps differ between the refractory and pre-/post-refractory regeneration periods: prolonged or delayed responses occur during the refractory period, whereas no obvious induction or transient induction occurs during the pre-/post-refractory regeneration periods, respectively.

    Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Expression profiles of immune-related genes in wound stumps differ between the refractory and pre-/post-refractory regeneration periods. (A-I) CXCLb (A), CXCLe (B), CCLf (C), CXCLh (D), CCLb (E), CCL5L1 (F), CCL5L2 (G), MHC IIa (H) and FOXP3 (I) expression analysis. The relative amounts of transcripts determined by qRT-PCR were obtained by taking the value at 0 hpa as 1 for each of the pre-refractory (broken line and open triangle), refractory (gray line and open circle) and post-refractory regeneration (black line and solid circle) periods. Transcript levels were first normalized relative to EF-1α transcript levels.

Treatment with immunosuppressants or injection of antisense MOs for PU.1 restored regenerative ability during the refractory period

As the immune responses in the refractory period seemed chronic, we hypothesized that these chronic immune responses were responsible for the impaired regenerative ability during this period. To test this, we first examined the effect of four immunosuppressants on regenerative ability during the refractory period. We first used Celastrol, a cell-permeable inhibitor-κB kinase (IKK) inhibitor (Pinna et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2006) because IKK stimulates nuclear factor-κB signaling, which has a pivotal role in immune and inflammatory responses. In untreated groups, almost all of the tadpoles failed to regenerate their lost tails (Fig. 3A,C). By contrast, the Celastrol-treated group significantly recovered their regenerative ability (Fig. 3B,D). A complete tail tissue structure was regenerated in a typical Celastrol-treated tadpole tail (Fig. 3E). We repeated this experiment seven times and obtained six reproducible results (Fig. 3F). Treatment with IKK inhibitor VII (Waelchli et al., 2006) also significantly restored the regenerative ability (Fig. 3F). In addition, treatment with two other immunosuppressants, FK506 and cyclosporin A, which bind to FK-binding protein and cyclophilin, respectively, and inhibit the nuclear factor of activated T cell pathway-dependent cytokine expression (Bierer et al., 1993), also significantly restored the regenerative ability (Fig. 3F). In two experiments (experiment 4 for Celastrol-treated and experiment 10 for cyclosporin A-treated tadpoles; Fig. 3F), the inhibitors failed to restore the regenerative ability, possibly due to physiological conditions or a polymorphism of IKK, cyclophilin, or other target molecules, affecting the efficiency of the inhibitors. FK506 treatment repressed induction of the immune-related genes during the refractory period in amputated tails (see Fig. S3 in the supplementary material), suggesting that the inhibitor actually affected immune responses in Xenopus tadpole tails.

We next investigated whether the depletion of immune cells during the refractory period restores the regenerative ability by injecting two kinds of antisense MOs (PU.1-MO1 and MO2) designed for transcription factor PU.1. PU.1-null mice show abnormal neutrophil development, delayed T cell development and have no detectable monocytes/macrophages and B cells (McKercher et al., 1996). Xenopus embryos injected with MOs were maintained until the refractory period and their tails were amputated. PU.1-MO1- or PU.1-MO2-injected groups showed significantly higher regenerative abilities than control 5mis PU.1-MO1- or 5mis PU.1-MO2-injected, or noninjected groups (Fig. 3G-K). Furthermore, both PU.1-MO1 and PU.1-MO2 injections significantly reduced the expression of CD45 (Fig. 3L,M), a pan-leukocyte marker (Turpen et al., 1997), at stage 46, indicating that they effectively depleted leukocytes. These results strongly suggest that immune cells that require PU.1 for their development impair regenerative ability during the refractory period. The recovery of regenerative ability induced by the injection of PU.1-MO was lower than that induced by immunosuppressant treatment, in part because MO injection itself had some negative effects on regenerative ability (Fig. 3J,K; see Fig. S4 in the supplementary material).

Finally, to investigate the possible relationship between regenerative ability and immune system development in X. laevis tadpoles, we examined the development of the T cell population around the onset of the refractory period. We quantified by qRT-PCR the amounts of transcripts for T cell markers: T cell antigen receptor (TCR) α and γ subunits (Haire et al., 2002) and the CD3γ/δ subunit (Dzialo and Cooper, 1988), using total RNAs extracted from the whole intact tadpoles at 4 to 9 dpf. In our experimental condition, the refractory period started around 6 dpf (Fig. 4A). The timings of TCRα, TCRγ and CD3γ /δ induction (Fig. 4B,C,D, respectively) and the decrease in regenerative ability largely coincided (around 6 dpf; Fig. 4A), suggesting that the development of the immune cell population is related to the decrease in regenerative ability during the refractory period.

    Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Immunosuppressant treatment or injection of antisense MOs for PU.1 restores the regenerative ability during the refractory period. (A-D) Vehicle control (A,C) and Celastrol-treated tadpoles (B,D) during the refractory period, observed 7 dpa. Arrowheads indicate the amputation plane. (E) Coronal section of a regenerated tail of a Celastrol-treated tadpole. df, dorsal fin; me, mesenchyme; my, myotome; nc, notochord; sc, spinal cord; vf, ventral fin. Scale bar: 50 μm. (F) Frequency of regenerative ability (see key) of control and immunosuppressant-treated tadpoles (n=24 in each experiment). The numbers of tadpoles classified in each experiment are presented in Table S1 in the supplementary material. *P<0.003 usingχ 2 test (the number of dead tadpoles was excluded). (G) A noninjected tadpole with no apparent regeneration. (H) A PU.1-MO1-injected tadpole with a completely regenerated tail. (I) A 5mis PU.1-MO1-injected tadpole with no apparent regeneration. (J,K) Frequency of regenerative ability of noninjected, PU.1-MO1-injected and 5mis PU.1-MO1-injected (J), and PU.1-MO2-injected and 5mis PU.1-MO2-injected (K) tadpoles. The number of tadpoles classified in each experiment is presented in Table S2 in the supplementary material. *P<0.05, †P<1×10-12 usingχ 2 tests against experimental (PU.1-MO1- or PU.1-MO2-injected) tadpoles. (L,M) The relative amounts of CD45 transcripts determined by qRT-PCR were obtained by taking the value of the noninjected group as 100%. Transcript levels were first normalized relative to EF-1α transcript levels. *P<0.01, Student's t-test.

    Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

The decrease in regenerative ability correlates with the T cell population development. (A) Frequency of regenerative ability (see key) of 4 to 9 dpf tadpoles (n=25 in each experiment). The numbers of tadpoles classified in each experiment are presented in Table S3 in the supplementary material. (B-D) TCRα (B), TCRγ (C) and CD3γ /δ (D) expression analysis. The relative amounts of transcripts obtained by qRT-PCR were determined by taking the value at 4 dpf as 1, after normalization with ornithine decarboxylase 1.

As tadpoles regain their regenerative ability at the post-refractory regeneration period, we also hypothesized that `regulatory T cells' that suppress the function of various immune cells (Piccirillo, 2008) are related to this period. To test this, we analyzed expression of the X. laevis homolog of FOXP3, a key regulatory gene of regulatory T cells (Hori et al., 2003). qRT-PCR revealed that transient FOXP3 induction in the wound stump was more prominent in the post-refractory regeneration period than in the refractory period (Fig. 2I), implying that regulatory T cells play a role in regaining the regenerative ability during the post-refractory regeneration period. Taken together, it is plausible that there are only a few immune cells that impair the regenerative ability during the pre-refractory regeneration period, whereas such immune cells develop to impair the ability during the refractory period, and then an immune regulatory system is established, which again permits regeneration, during the post-refractory regeneration period (see Fig. S5 in the supplementary material).

Although there has been significant discussion on the possible link between immune responses and the regenerative abilities in some animal species (Arai et al., 1998; Mescher and Neff, 2005; Kanao and Miyachi, 2006), our research provides the first direct evidence for this link in X. laevis tadpole tails, and provides a clue for understanding not only developmental stage-specific regenerative ability, but also the molecular mechanisms of early epimorphic regenerative processes.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material for this article is available at http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/136/14/2323/DC1

Footnotes

  • This work was supported in part by the Global COE Program (Integrated Life Science Based on the Study of Biosignaling Mechanisms), MEXT, Japan.

    • Accepted May 8, 2009.
  • © 2009.

References

  1. ↵
    Adams, D. S., Masi, A. and Levin, M. (2007). H+ pump-dependent changes in membrane voltage are an early mechanism necessary and sufficient to induce Xenopus tail regeneration. Development 134,1323 -1335.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Arai, T., Kawasaki, K., Kubo, T. and Natori, S. (1998). Cloning of cDNA for regenectin, a humoral C-type lectin of Periplaneta americana, and expression of the regenectin gene during leg regeneration. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 28,987 -994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    Bals, R. and Wilson, J. M. (2003). Cathelicidins - a family of multifunctional antimicrobial peptides. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 60,711 -720.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Beck, C. W., Christen, B. and Slack, J. M. (2003). Molecular pathways needed for regeneration of spinal cord and muscle in a vertebrate. Dev. Cell 5, 429-439.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Bierer, B. E., Holländer, G., Fruman, D. and Burakoff, S. J. (1993). Cyclosporin A and FK506: molecular mechanisms of immunosuppression and probes for transplantation biology. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 5,763 -773.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    Bos, D. H. and Waldman, B. (2006). Polymorphism, natural selection, and structural modeling of class Ia MHC in the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). Immunogenetics 58,433 -442.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Brockes, J. P. (1997). Amphibian limb regeneration: rebuilding a complex structure. Science 276, 81-87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Chuntharapai, A., Lee, J., Hébert, C. A. and Kim, K. J. (1994). Monoclonal antibodies detect different distribution patterns of IL-8 receptor A and IL-8 receptor B on human peripheral blood leukocytes. J. Immunol. 153,5682 -5688.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  9. Dzialo, R. C. and Cooper, M. D. (1997). An amphibian CD3 homologue of the mammalian CD3 gamma and delta genes. Eur. J. Immunol. 27,1640 -1647.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Eisen, J. S. and Smith, J. C. (2008). Controlling morpholino experiments: don't stop making antisense. Development 135,1735 -1743.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Haire, R. N., Kitzan Haindfield, M. K., Turpen, J. B. and Litman, G. W. (2002). Structure and diversity of T-lymphocyte antigen receptors alpha and gamma in Xenopus. Immunogenetics 54,431 -438.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Hori, S., Nomura, T. and Sakaguchi, S. (2003). Control of regulatory T cell development by the transcription factor Foxp3. Science 299,1057 -1061.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Iijima, R., Kunieda, T., Yamaguchi, S., Kamigaki, H., Fujii-Taira, I., Sekimizu, K., Kubo, T., Natori, S. and Homma, K. J. (2008). The extracellular adenosine deaminase growth factor, ADGF/CECR1, plays a role in Xenopus embryogenesis via the adenosine/P1 receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 283,2255 -2264.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Ishino, T., Shirai, M., Kunieda, T., Sekimizu, K., Natori, S. and Kubo, T. (2003). Identification of genes induced in regenerating Xenopus tadpole tails by using the differential display method. Dev. Dyn. 226,317 -325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    Kajiho, H., Saito, K., Tsujita, K., Kontani, K., Araki, Y., Kurosu, H. and Katada, T. (2003). RIN3: a novel Rab5 GEF interacting with amphiphysin II involved in the early endocytic pathway. J. Cell Sci. 116,4159 -4168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Kanao, T. and Miyachi, Y. (2006). Lymphangiogenesis promotes lens destruction and subsequent lens regeneration in the newt eyeball, and both processes can be accelerated by transplantation of dendritic cells. Dev. Biol. 290,118 -124.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Kawakami, Y., Rodriguez Esteban, C., Raya, M., Kawakami, H., Martí, M., Dubova, I. and Izpisúa Belmonte, J. C. (2006). Wnt/beta-catenin signaling regulates vertebrate limb regeneration. Genes Dev. 20,3232 -3237.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    Lee, J. H., Koo, T. H., Yoon, H., Jung, H. S., Jin, H. Z., Lee, K., Hong, Y. S. and Lee, J. J. (2006). Inhibition of NF-κB activation through targeting IκB kinase by celastrol, a quinone methide triterpenoid. Biochem. Pharmacol. 72,1311 -1321.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Liu, Y., Kasahara, M., Rumfelt, L. L. and Flajnik, M. F. (2002). Xenopus class II A genes: studies of genetics, polymorphism, and expression. Dev. Comp. Immunol. 26,735 -750.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. ↵
    McKercher, S. R., Torbett, B. E., Anderson, K. L., Henkel, G. W., Vestal, D. J., Baribault, H., Klemsz, M., Feeney, A. J., Wu, G. E., Paige, C. J. et al. (1996). Targeted disruption of the PU.1 gene results in multiple hematopoietic abnormalities. EMBO J. 15,5647 -5658.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  21. ↵
    Mescher, A. L. and Neff, A. W. (2005). Regenerative capacity and the developing immune system. Adv. Biochem. Eng. Biotechnol. 93,39 -66.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Piccirillo, C. A. (2008). Regulatory T cells in health and disease. Cytokine 43,395 -401.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Pinna, G. F., Fiorucci, M., Reimund, J. M., Taquet, N., Arondel, Y. and Muller, C. D. (2004). Celastrol inhibits pro-inflammatory cytokine secretion in Crohn's disease biopsies. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 322,778 -786.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Slack, J. M. (2003). Regeneration research today. Dev. Dyn. 226,162 -166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  25. ↵
    Su, A. I., Cooke, M. P., Ching, K. A., Hakak, Y., Walker, J. R., Wiltshire, T., Orth, A. P., Vega, R. G., Sapinoso, L. M., Moqrich, A. et al. (2002). Large-scale analysis of the human and mouse transcriptomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99,4465 -4470.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Thornton, C. S. (1957). The effect of apical cap removal on limb regeneration in Amblystoma larvae. J. Exp. Zool. 134,357 -381.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. ↵
    Turpen, J. B., Kelley, C. M., Mead, P. E. and Zon, L. I. (1997). Bipotential primitive-definitive hematopoietic progenitors in the vertebrate embryo. Immunity 7, 325-334.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Waelchli, R., Bollbuck, B., Bruns, C., Buhl, T., Eder, J., Feifel, R., Hersperger, R., Janser, P., Revesz, L., Zerwes, H. G. et al. (2006). Design and preparation of 2-benzamido-pyrimidines as inhibitors of IKK. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16,108 -112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  29. ↵
    Whitehead, G. G., Makino, S., Lien, C. L. and Keating, M. T. (2005). fgf20 is essential for initiating zebrafish fin regeneration. Science 310,1957 -1960.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Zou, J., Bird, S., Minter, R., Horton, J., Cunningham, C. and Secombes, C. J. (2000). Molecular cloning of the gene for interleukin-1beta from Xenopus laevis and analysis of expression in vivo and in vitro. Immunogenetics 51,332 -338.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Previous ArticleNext Article
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

This Issue

 Download PDF

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Development.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Suppression of the immune response potentiates tadpole tail regeneration during the refractory period
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Development
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Development web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Research Report
Suppression of the immune response potentiates tadpole tail regeneration during the refractory period
Taro Fukazawa, Yuko Naora, Takekazu Kunieda, Takeo Kubo
Development 2009 136: 2323-2327; doi: 10.1242/dev.033985
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Research Report
Suppression of the immune response potentiates tadpole tail regeneration during the refractory period
Taro Fukazawa, Yuko Naora, Takekazu Kunieda, Takeo Kubo
Development 2009 136: 2323-2327; doi: 10.1242/dev.033985

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign in to email alerts with your email address

Article navigation

  • Top
  • Article
    • Summary
    • Introduction
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & tables
  • Supp info
  • Info & metrics
  • PDF

Related articles

Cited by...

More in this TOC section

  • PHOSPHORYLETHANOLAMINE CYTIDYLYLTRANSFERASE 1 modulates flowering in a florigen-independent manner by regulating SVP
  • Morphogenesis is transcriptionally coupled to neurogenesis during peripheral olfactory organ development
  • CNS macrophages differentially rely on an intronic Csf1r enhancer for their development
Show more RESEARCH REPORTS

Similar articles

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Journal of Cell Science

Journal of Experimental Biology

Disease Models & Mechanisms

Biology Open

Advertisement

Kathryn Virginia Anderson (1952-2020)

Developmental geneticist Kathryn Anderson passed away at home on 30 November 2020. Tamara Caspary, a former postdoc and friend, remembers Kathryn and her remarkable contribution to developmental biology.


Zooming into 2021

In a new Editorial, Editor-in-Chief James Briscoe and Executive Editor Katherine Brown reflect on the triumphs and tribulations of the last 12 months, and look towards a hopefully calmer and more predictable year.


Read & Publish participation extends worldwide

Over 60 institutions in 12 countries are now participating in our Read & Publish initiative. Here, James Briscoe explains what this means for his institution, The Francis Crick Institute. Find out more and view our full list of participating institutions.


Upcoming special issues

Imaging Development, Stem Cells and Regeneration
Submission deadline: 30 March 2021
Publication: mid-2021

The Immune System in Development and Regeneration
Guest editors: Florent Ginhoux and Paul Martin
Submission deadline: 1 September 2021
Publication: Spring 2022

Both special issues welcome Review articles as well as Research articles, and will be widely promoted online and at key global conferences.


Development presents...

Our successful webinar series continues into 2021, with early-career researchers presenting their papers and a chance to virtually network with the developmental biology community afterwards. Sign up to join our next session:

10 February
Time: 13:00 (GMT)
Chaired by: preLights

Articles

  • Accepted manuscripts
  • Issue in progress
  • Latest complete issue
  • Issue archive
  • Archive by article type
  • Special issues
  • Subject collections
  • Sign up for alerts

About us

  • About Development
  • About the Node
  • Editors and board
  • Editor biographies
  • Travelling Fellowships
  • Grants and funding
  • Journal Meetings
  • Workshops
  • The Company of Biologists

For authors

  • Submit a manuscript
  • Aims and scope
  • Presubmission enquiries
  • Article types
  • Manuscript preparation
  • Cover suggestions
  • Editorial process
  • Promoting your paper
  • Open Access
  • Biology Open transfer

Journal info

  • Journal policies
  • Rights and permissions
  • Media policies
  • Reviewer guide
  • Sign up for alerts

Contact

  • Contact Development
  • Subscriptions
  • Advertising
  • Feedback

 Twitter   YouTube   LinkedIn

© 2021   The Company of Biologists Ltd   Registered Charity 277992