Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp 94–98 | Cite as

Cytophysiological differences between the embryoblast and trophoblast of rat embryos as revealed by vital staining

  • N. A. Samoshkina
Experimental Biology


The cytophysiological method was used to study the early stages of rat development in vitro. Along with the formation of granules de novo in the cytoplasm of embryonic cells neutral red stained some pre-existing structures. The type of intravital staining and the intensity of granule formation differed at various developmental stages. In the early preimplantation stages (from the second to the fifth day) the intensity of granule formation in the embryoblast cells was greater than in the trophoblast cells. Conversely, immediately after the implantation (the seventh-tenth days) the extraembryonic formations (yolk entoderm, ectoplacental cone, giant cells of the trophoblast) stain more intensely; embryonic and intestinal entoderm stain much more weakly. The character of granule dis tribution in the tissues of rat embryos at various developmental periods is explained by the peculiarities of growth and differentiation of individual anlagen of mammals at various stages of ontogenesis.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    V. Ya. Aleksandrov, Byull. éksper. biol.,25, 3, 233 (1948).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. N. Nasonov and V. Ya. Aleksandrov, The Reaction of Living Matter to External Agents [in Russian], Moscow-Leningrad (1940).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. A. Pozhidaev, Tsitologiya.,1, 75 (1963).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. M. Dalcq and A. Seaton Jones, Bull. cl. sci. Acad. ray. Belg.,35, Ser 5, p. 500 (1949).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. M. Dalcq, Proc. kon. ned. Akad. Wet. Sec. C.,54, p. 351, 365, 469 (1951).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Idem, Bull Acad. roy. Med. Belg.,17, Ser. 6, p. 236 (1952).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Idem, Soc. Biol.,148, p. 1332 (1954).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Idem, Arch. Biol. Liege,71, p. 93 (1960).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Iida, Zool. Mag. (Tokyo),54, p. 364 (1942).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    L. Izquierdo and R. Comp., Soc. Biol.,148, p. 1504 (1954).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. K. Kohima, Embryologia (Nagoya),4, p. 191 (1959).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Mulnard, Arch. Biol. (Liege),66, p. 525 (1955).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Mulnard, W. Auclari, and D. Marsland J. Embryol. exp. Marph.,7, p. 223 (1959).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    L. I. Rebhun, Biol. Bull,113, p. 353 (1957).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Idem,117, p. 518 (1959).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Idem, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.,90, p. Art. 2, p. 357 (1960).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Seaton Jones, Ann. Soc. roy. Zool Belg.,80, p. 76 (1950).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    L. G. Worley and E. V. Worley, J. Morph.,73, p. 365 (1943).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. G. Worley, Ibid.75, p. 77 (1944).Google Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau Enterprises, Inc. 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. A. Samoshkina
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Experimental Medicine of the AMN SSSRLeningrad

Personalised recommendations