| Title |
Freeze-fracture replication of junctional complexes in unincubated and incubated chick embryos
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell and Tissue Research, September 1975
|
| DOI | 10.1007/bf00209209 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Bellairs, A. S. Breathnach, M. Gross |
| Abstract |
Junctional complexes have been investigated in the epiblast of young chick embryos by examination of freeze-fracture replicas and of sections of comparable specimens stained with lanthanum nitrate. By means of freeze-fracture, tight junctions were shown to be present in the unincubated embryo (stage 1 of Hamburger and Hamilton). The number of ridges or grooves was found to vary between 2 and 10 near the dorsal border, whereas isolated ridges were found more ventrally. Lanthanum was unable to penetrate between the cells in the region of the dorsally situated tight junctions. Similar tight junctions were found in incubated embryos (stage 3) examined by both techniques. Tight junctions were also seen in cleavage (pre-laying) embryos examined in section. Gap junctions were extremely uncommon in unincubated embryos, though occasional aggregates of gap junction particles were seen on the lateral cell membranes close to the dorsal surface. In only one instance were associated pits visible. By contrast, gap junctions were more frequently encountered by stage 3, and these junctions possessed both pits and particles. Desmosomes were never seen in the freeze-fracture replicas at either stages 1 or 3, though structures which might be developing desmosomes were visible in sections. The functions of both the tight and gap junctions in the young chick embryo are discussed. The results are also considered in relation to recent theories about the way in which gap junctions are formed. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 63% |
| Researcher | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 75% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,862,539
of 23,839,820 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Research
#527
of 2,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,054
of 4,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Research
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,839,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,279 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 4,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.