Article: Chick tooth induction revisited

File Download Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
Supplementary
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleChick tooth induction revisited
AuthorsCai, J3
Cho, SW3
Ishiyama, M5
Mikami, M5
Hosoya, A1
Kozawa, Y2
Ohshima, H4
Jung, HS3
Issue Date2009
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0022-104X:1/
CitationJournal Of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular And Developmental Evolution, 2009, v. 312 n. 5, p. 465-472 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21265
AbstractTeeth have been missing from Aves for almost 100 million years. However, it is believed that the avian oral epithelium retains the molecular signaling required to induce odontogenesis, and this has been widely examined using heterospecific recombinations with mouse dental mesenchyme. It has also been argued that teeth can form from the avian oral epithelium owing to contamination of the mouse mesenchyme with mouse dental epithelial cells. To investigate the possibility of tooth formation from chick oral epithelium and the characteristics of possible chick enamel, we applied LacZ transgenic mice during heterospecific recombination and examined the further tooth formation. Transmission electron microscopy was used to identify the two tissues during development after heterospecific recombination. No mixing was detected between chick oral epithelium and mouse dental mesenchyme after 2 days, and secretory ameloblasts with Tomes' processes were observed after 1 week. Teeth were formed after 3 weeks with a single cusp pattern, possibly determined by epithelial factors, which is similar to that of the avian tooth in the late Jurassic period. These recombinant teeth were smaller than mouse molars, whereas perfect structures of both ameloblasts and enamel showed histological characteristics similar to those of mice. Together these observations consistent with previous report that odontogenesis is initially directed by species-specific mesenchymal signals interplaying with common epithelial signals. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
ISSN1552-5007
2011 Impact Factor: 2.416
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.280
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21265
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
DC Field
Value
dc.contributor.authorCai, J
dc.contributor.authorCho, SW
dc.contributor.authorIshiyama, M
dc.contributor.authorMikami, M
dc.contributor.authorHosoya, A
dc.contributor.authorKozawa, Y
dc.contributor.authorOhshima, H
dc.contributor.authorJung, HS
dc.date.accessioned2012-10-25T04:52:55Z
dc.date.available2012-10-25T04:52:55Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractTeeth have been missing from Aves for almost 100 million years. However, it is believed that the avian oral epithelium retains the molecular signaling required to induce odontogenesis, and this has been widely examined using heterospecific recombinations with mouse dental mesenchyme. It has also been argued that teeth can form from the avian oral epithelium owing to contamination of the mouse mesenchyme with mouse dental epithelial cells. To investigate the possibility of tooth formation from chick oral epithelium and the characteristics of possible chick enamel, we applied LacZ transgenic mice during heterospecific recombination and examined the further tooth formation. Transmission electron microscopy was used to identify the two tissues during development after heterospecific recombination. No mixing was detected between chick oral epithelium and mouse dental mesenchyme after 2 days, and secretory ameloblasts with Tomes' processes were observed after 1 week. Teeth were formed after 3 weeks with a single cusp pattern, possibly determined by epithelial factors, which is similar to that of the avian tooth in the late Jurassic period. These recombinant teeth were smaller than mouse molars, whereas perfect structures of both ameloblasts and enamel showed histological characteristics similar to those of mice. Together these observations consistent with previous report that odontogenesis is initially directed by species-specific mesenchymal signals interplaying with common epithelial signals. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext
dc.identifier.citationJournal Of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular And Developmental Evolution, 2009, v. 312 n. 5, p. 465-472 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21265
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21265
dc.identifier.epage472
dc.identifier.issn1552-5007
2011 Impact Factor: 2.416
2011 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.280
dc.identifier.issue5
dc.identifier.pmid19226602
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-67651235827
dc.identifier.spage465
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/169564
dc.identifier.volume312
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/jpages/0022-104X:1/
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
dc.subject.meshAnimals
dc.subject.meshChick Embryo - Physiology
dc.subject.meshChickens
dc.subject.meshDna Primers
dc.subject.meshEpithelial Cells - Physiology
dc.subject.meshMice
dc.subject.meshMice, Inbred Icr
dc.subject.meshMice, Transgenic
dc.subject.meshMolar - Embryology
dc.subject.meshMouth - Embryology
dc.subject.meshMouth Mucosa - Cytology - Embryology - Physiology - Ultrastructure
dc.subject.meshOdontogenesis - Genetics
dc.subject.meshRecombination, Genetic
dc.subject.meshReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction
dc.subject.meshBeta-Galactosidase - Genetics
dc.titleChick tooth induction revisited
dc.typeArticle
Author Affiliations
  1. Matsumoto Dental University
  2. Nihon University
  3. Yonsei University
  4. Niigata University School of Medicine
  5. Nippon Dental University