1,720,960 research outputs found
Distribution of the somatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the chick embryo midbrain tegmentum.
No full textAn immunocytochemical analysis following the PAP-DAB procedure was performed on the chick embryo midbrain tegmentum, to study through which developmental steps the nerve cell groups, showing positivity to anti-Somatostatin (SRIF) antibodies in adult animals, form. The SRIF-like immunoreactivity appears within neuroblasts at the 12th incubation day. From the 12th to the 18th incubation day the distribution of the SRIF-like immunoreactivity gradually changes. At the 18th incubation day the positivity detented within neuroblasts perikarya corresponds to that described in adult animals
Distribution of the somatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the chick embryo medulla and pons.
No full textSomatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the chicken brain stem. II. The pons and the tegmentum of the mesencephalon.
No full textAn immunocytochemical analysis according to the PAP-DAB procedure was performed on the chicken pontine and mesencephalic tegmentum, to study the distribution here of the neurons reacting to anti-cyclic-somatostatin-14 polyclonal rabbit antibodies. Immunoreactivity was not increased by any pretreatment; positive and negative controls of the immunoreaction were carried out. A positivity was chiefly detected: 1. in perikarya of the inferior half of the mesencephalic tegmentum, belonging probably to the n. mesencephalicus profundus cranially, and to the n. loci coerulei caudally; 2. in the perikarya of the cranial half of the mesencephalic tegmentum, belonging to the n. tegmentalis latero-dorsalis; 3. in perikarya of the cranial part of the n. interpeduncularis; 4. in long neuronal processes (a) of the pontine tegmentum – situated mainly in the dorsal half and running longitudinally -, (b) at the ponto-mesencephalic border – oriented almost transversally -, (c) of the mesencephalic tegmentum – placed mainly in its ventral half and running longitudinally; 5. in short neuronal processes within the periaqueductal grey
Somatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the chicken brain stem. II. The pons and the tegmentum of the mesencephalon.
No full textDistribution of the somatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the chick embryo midbrain tegmentum.
No full textFurther data on the development of SRIF-like immunoreactive nerve cell populations in the chick embryo brain stem. I. Medulla and pons.
No full textFurther immunocytochemical analysis of the neuroblasts with SRIF-like immunoreactivity (ir) was carried out on the chick embryo medulla and pons. 5 or 100 microns rombencephalon sections were obtained from 60 White Leghorn chick embryos at stages (E = Embryonic days) ranging from E4 1/2 to E18 and incubated with rabbit polyclonal antibodies against synthetic cyclic Somatostatin-14, according to PAP-DAB technique. In the medulla and pons the ir appeared as from E12. From E12 to E13 1/2-E14 the ir distribution gradually changed. From E14 to E18 numbers and spatial arrangement of the positive neuroblast groups did not show substantial changes; in these respects the ir distributional pattern proved to be markedly different from the one observed by the Authors in adult animals. Moreover, from E13 to E15 the positive neuroblast density appeared to be higher than that of positive neurons in adults. These results are consistent with a possible SRIF local regulative role
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
