Strategies to reduce variation in xenopus regeneration studies

Developmental Dynamics

Volumn 234, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 151-158

  Nye, Holly L D ^a   Cameron, Jo Ann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Developmentally abnormal tadpoles; Limb; Regeneration; Statistical analysis; Xenopus laevis

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; FEMUR; FIBULA; GROWTH CURVE; HEEL; HINDLIMB; LIMB AMPUTATION; LIMB DEVELOPMENT; LIMB REGENERATION; NONHUMAN; OSSIFICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDIZATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TADPOLE; TIBIA; XENOPUS LAEVIS;

ANIMALS; BONE REGENERATION; HINDLIMB; LARVA; REGENERATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; XENOPUS;

XENOPUS LAEVIS;

EID: 23944459500     PISSN: 10588388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dvdy.20508     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Alford RA. 1999. Ecology: resource use, competition, and predation. In: Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, p 240-278.
2. Anton HG, Michael MI, Abd El Karim AE. 1988. Digit regeneration in the hindlimbs of larval Xenopus laevis. Monogr Dev Biol 21:196-205.
3. Bryant SV, Iten LE. 1974. The regulative ability of the limb regeneration blastema of Notopthalamus viridescens: experiments in situ. Wilhelm Roux Arch 174:90-101.
4. Dent JN. 1962. Limb regeneration in larvae and metamorphosing individuals of the South African clawed toad. J Morph 110:61-77.
5. Droin A. 1991. Mutants of Xenopus laevis. Methods Cell Biol 36:671-673.
6. Harris RN. 1999. The anuran tadpole: evolution and maintenance. In: Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 279-294.
7. Hoff KS, Blaustein AR, McDiarmid RW, Altig R. 1999. Behavior: interactions and their consequences. In: Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 215-239.
8. Kimmel CA, Trammel C. 1981. A rapid procedure for routine double staining of cartilage and bone in fetal and adult animals. Stain Technol 56:271-273.
9. McDiarmid RW, Altig R. 1999. Research: materials and techniques. In: Tadpoles: the biology of anuran larvae. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 7-23.
10. Muneoka K, Holler-Dinsmore G, Bryant SV. 1986. Intrinsic control of regenerative loss in Xenopus laevis limbs. J Exp Zool 240:47-54.
11. Nieuwkoop PD, Faber J. 1967. Normal Table of Xenopus laevis (Daudin). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. 252 p.
12. Overton J. 1963. Patterns of limb regeneration in Xenopus laevis. J Exp Zool 154:153-161.
13. Pagano M, Gauvreau K. 2000. Principles of biostatistics, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
14. Shimizu-Nishikawa K, Takahashi J, Nishikawa A. 2003. Intercalary and supernumerary regeneration in the limbs of the frog, Xenopus laevis. Dev Dyn 227:563-572.
15. Slack JM, Beck CW, Gargioli C, Christen B. 2004. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of regeneration in Xenopus. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 359:745-751.
16. Stocum DL. 1968. The urodele limb regeneration blastema: a self-organizing system. Dev Biol 18:457-480.
17. Stocum DL. 1979. Stages of forelimb regeneration in Ambystoma maculatum. J Exp Zool 209:395-416.
18. Trueb L, Hankin J. 1992. Skeletal development in Xenopus laevis (Anura: Pipidae). J Morph 214:1-41.
19. Wolfe AD, Nye HLD, Cameron JA. 2000. Extent of ossification at the amputation plane is correlated with the decline of blastema formation and regeneration in Xenopus laevis hindlimbs. Dev Dyn 218:681-697.
20. Yokoyama H, Ide H, Tamura K. 2001. FGF-10 stimulates limb regeneration ability in Xenopus laevis. Dev Biol 233:72-79.