There was no overlap of the Atrx protein with Xist staining in the two nuclei from chorion shown in the figure. Only 5.8% of chorion nuclei show partial overlap of expression.
The pattern of staining was identical but denser than that at E16.5. Labeled fibers formed a dense plexus at the base of the sensory cells and long punctuate neurites along them. Rare hair cells were faintly stained.
Expression was detected in a subset of hair cells, co-localized with the pan-hair cell marker Myo7a. Expression was localized to cell and nuclear membranes. Based on cell morphology, the cell type was consistent with Type II hair cells.
Expression was detected in a subset of hair cells, co-localized with the pan-hair cell marker Myo7a. Expression was localized in the cellular cytoplasm. Based on cell morphology, the cell type was consistent with Type II hair cells.
Expression was detected in a subset of hair cells, co-localized with the pan-hair cell marker Myo7a. Based on cell morphology, the cell type was consistent with Type I hair cells.
At P0, Spp1 was expressed in a limited number of hair cells (~60% of the Type I hair cells and 23% of immature hair cells). Hair cells were labeled by the marker Myo7a.
At P0, Spp1 was expressed in a limited number of hair cells (~60% of the Type I hair cells and 23% of immature hair cells). Hair cells were labeled by the marker Myo7a.
At P12, Spp1 was expressed in 90% of Type I hair cells. Hair cells were identified with the marker Myo7a. Only 20% of Type II hair cells were Spp1-positive.
At P12, Spp1 was expressed in 90% of Type I hair cells. Hair cells were identified with the marker Myo7a. Only 20% of Type II hair cells were Spp1-positive.
At P64, Spp1 was expressed in 90% of Type I hair cells. Hair cells were identified with the marker Myo7a. Spp1 expression in Type II hair cells dropped to 4%.
At P64, Spp1 was expressed in 90% of Type I hair cells. Hair cells were identified with the marker Myo7a. Spp1 expression in Type II hair cells dropped to 4%.
Expression was detected in the early embryonic ventral lateral geniculate nucleus, the reticular thalamic nucleus and the zona incerta. Expression was conserved primarily along the anterioposterior axis of the lateral geniculate nucleus.
Expression was detected in the early embryonic ventral lateral geniculate nucleus, the reticular thalamic nucleus and the zona incerta. Expression was conserved primarily along the anterioposterior axis of the lateral geniculate nucleus.
Expression was detected in the early embryonic ventral lateral geniculate nucleus, the reticular thalamic nucleus and the zona incerta. Expression was conserved primarily along the anterioposterior axis of the lateral geniculate nucleus.
Expression was detected in subsets of cells in the scleral and vitreal outer neuroblastic layer. The expression level was higher in the subset of cells in the scleral outer neuroblastic layer.
Expression was detected in subsets of cells in the scleral and vitreal outer neuroblastic layer. The expression level was higher in the subset of cells in the scleral outer neuroblastic layer.
Expression was detected in the scleral and vitreal outer neuroblastic layer. The expression level was higher in the scleral outer neuroblastic layer but was strong in a subset of cells in the vitreal outer neuroblastic layer.
Expression was detected in the outer neuroblastic layer but was higher in the vitreal outer neuroblastic layer and in a subset of cells in the scleral outer neuroblastic layer.
Expression was detected in a small number of presumptive photoreceptor cells scattered throughout the upper presumptive outer nuclear layer and in retinal progenitor cells in the outer neuroblastic layer.
Expression was detected in the upper presumptive outer nuclear layer. Opn1sw was more highly expressed in the ventral domains of the retina with lower expression in the dorsal retina.
Cone cell bodies, marked by intense GFP expression, changed from apical to more basal locations. Presence of cone axon terminals at the border of the outer plexiform layer was seen.
Cone cell bodies, marked by higher expression, changed from apical to more basal locations. Presence of cone axon terminals at the border of the outer plexiform layer was seen.
There was common nephric duct (CND1) close to its normal bladder position and showed apoptotic staining, while CND2 was located at an abnormal bladder position and showed delayed fusion with the bladder and negative apoptosis staining.
Expression was detected in hair cells of the lumenal layer as well as scattered cells in the supporting layer. The immunostaining does not overlap with BrdU staining, indicating that expression is in post-mitotic cells.
Expression was detected in the hair cells of the lumenal layer, staining colocalized with Myo6. Labeled cells in the supporting cell layer appear to be streaming towards the lumenal layer, staining did not colocalize with Myo6.
Expression was detected in the hair cells of the lumenal layer, staining colocalized with Myo7a. Labeled cells in the supporting cell layer appear to be streaming towards the lumenal layer, staining did not colocalize with Myo7a.
Expression was detected in hair cells of the lumenal layer as well as scattered cells in the supporting layer. The immunostaining does not overlap with BrdU staining, indicating that expression is in post-mitotic cells.
Expression was most prominent in cochlear duct and the nearby periotic mesenchyme. Only weak expression could be detected in the dorsal vestibular region. Expressed in the tip of the ventrally extending cochlear duct.
Expression is detected in the ventral domain of all rhombomeres, except rhombomere 1. It was strongest in r2 and r4, corresponding to the precursors of the trigeminal and facial motoneurons.
Expression is detected in the ventral domain of all rhombomeres, except rhombomere 1. It was strongest in r2 and r4, corresponding to the precursors of the trigeminal and facial motoneurons.
The same cells are not expressing both Foxd3 (Hfh2) and Hoxb1. Expression was restricted to the furthest dorsolateral cells in rhombomere 4 and are not found in the remainder of the neural epithelium in this rhombomere.
The domain of expression was reduced. In the ventral region the width of the domain was about 80% that of the control. The effect was even more pronounced in the dorsal part.
Most of the staining was nonspecific/cytoplasmic, as seen by its failure to be blocked by peptide immunogen. Nuclear staining was observed in the head that was blocked by antigen.
Staining within the periotic mesenchyme, wich was starting to display a morphology characteristic of mature cartilage. Staining in all cartilages of the inner ear, in particular the tympanic ring surrounding the cochleal and saccular epithelia.
In the chondrocyte clusters of growth plate, expression was seen in the cells proximal to the articular surface, not in the cells closer to the metaphyseal bone in the knee femoral epiphysis.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
Originally this result was annotated to a male-specific term, but as the specimen was not sexed, it is likely the data annotator intended to use a non-gender specific term.
