Lineage analysis of the olfactory epithelium using a replication-incompetent retrovirus

1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 683-693 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dale D. Hunter ◽  
Mary Caggiano ◽  
John S. Kauer
Author(s):  
Bert Ph. M. Menco ◽  
Ido F. Menco ◽  
Frans L.T. Verdonk

Previously we presented an extensive study of the distributions of intramembranous particles of structures in apical surfaces of nasal olfactory and respiratory epithelia of the Sprague-Dawley rat. For the same structures these distributions were compared in samples which were i) chemically fixed and cryo-protected with glycerol before cryo-fixation, after excision, and ii)ultra-rapidly frozen by means of the slam-freezing method. Since a three-dimensional presentation markedly improves visualization of structural features micrographs were presented as stereopairs. Two exposures were made by tiling the sample stage of the electron microscope 6° in either direction with an eucentric goniometer. The negatives (Agfa Pan 25 Professional) were reversed with Kodak Technical Pan Film 2415 developed in D76 1:1. The prints were made from these reversed negatives. As an example tight-junctional features of an olfactory supporting cell in a region where this cell conjoined with two other cells are presented (Fig. 1).


2015 ◽  
Vol 76 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chester Griffiths ◽  
Garni Barkhoudarian ◽  
Aaron Cutler ◽  
Huy Duong ◽  
Bjorn Lobo ◽  
...  

1962 ◽  
Vol 203 (2) ◽  
pp. 353-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell Mark Mozell

A comparatively recent electrophysiological technique for studying peripheral olfactory events is to record sustained negative potentials from the olfactory epithelium. This method is rapidly replacing the older technique of recording multifiber discharges from the olfactory nerve or bulb. Therefore, the extent to which the results from the two methods correlate with each other was studied by simultaneously recording from the nerve and from the mucosa under several conditions. Although most often parallel, some differences between the two measures were found. Their response maxima did not always temporally coincide. Their amplitudes did not always correlate. Certain stimuli reduced subsequent mucosal responses but not the neural. Repeated stimulation sometimes produced similar differences. Finally, the two responses were not linearly related as a function of stimulus intensity or flow rate. However, for reasons discussed, it is difficult to conclude that these discrepancies necessarily reflect unfavorably upon the reliability of the mucosal potential as the criterion measure of peripheral olfactory activity. Nevertheless, the mucosal potential should not be accepted unequivocally as such a criterion measure until it is more thoroughly understood.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document