Journal of Biosciences

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 133–141 | Cite as

Lens studies continue to provide landmarks of embryology (developmental biology)

  • T. S. OkadaEmail author


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Dettlaff T A and Vassetzky S G 1997 Experimental embryology in Soviet Russia: The Case of Dimitrii P Filatov (1876-1943); Int. J. Dev. Biol. 41 781–787PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dinsmore C E 1992 The foundation of contemporary regeneration research; Historical perspectives; in Keys for regeneration (eds) C H Taban, Chéne-Bourg, B Boilly and V d’Ascq (Basel: Karger) pp 1–27Google Scholar
  3. Eguchi G 1980 Regeneration of lens — A switch in differentiation of tissue cells (Tokyo: Iwanami) (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  4. Gardiner D M and Bryant S V 1996 Molecular mechanisms in the control of limb regeneration: The role of homeobox genes; Int. J. Dev. Biol. 40 797–805PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Grainger R M 1996 New perspectives on embryonic lens Linsenre-generation bei einer Art von Hynobius (Hynobius unangso Tago); Arch. Anat. Inst. Sendai 18 17–50Google Scholar
  6. Johnson T J, Lunde K B, Ritchie E G and Launer A E 1999 The effect of Trematode infection on amphibian limb development and survivorship; Science 284 802–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kondoh H 1999 Transcription factors for lens development assessed in vivo; Curr. Op. Gen. Dev. 9 209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mizuno N, Mochii M, Takagi Ch, Takahashi T C, Eguchi G and Okada T S 1998 A critical role for the optic vesicle in lens development; A reinvestigation of free lens formation in Cynops pyrrhogaster; Differentiation 63 247–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mizuno N, Mochii M, Yamamoto T S, Takahashi T C, Eguchi G and Okada T S 1999 Pax-6 and Prox 1 expression during lens regeneration from Cynops iris and Xenopus cornea: Evidence for a genetic program common to embryonic lens development; Differentiation 65 141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Newth D R 1958 New (and better) parts for old; New Biol. 26 47–62Google Scholar
  11. Okada T S 1991 Transdifferentiation - Flexibility in cell differentiation (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar
  12. Okada Yo K and Ichikawa M 1947 Normal table of Triturus pyrrhogaster (revised); Annu. J. Exp. Morphol. 3 1–6 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  13. Reyer R V W 1954 Regeneration of the lens in the amphibian eye; Q. Rev. Biol. 29 1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Saha M 1991 Spemann seen through a lens; in A conceptual history of modern embryology; Developmental biology: A comprehensive synthesis (ed.) S F Gilbert (New York,London: Plenum Press) vol. 7, pp 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sato T 1961 Über die Linsenregeneration bei den Cobitiden Fischen I. Misgurnus anguillicaudatus (CANTOR); Embryologia 6 251–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sessions S K and Ruth S B 1990 Explanation of naturally occurring supernumerary limbs in amphibians; J. Exp. Zool. 254 38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Spemann H 1901 Über Korrelation in der Entwicklung des Auges; Verh. Anat. Ges. 15 61–79Google Scholar
  18. Spemann H 1938 Embryonic development and induction (New Haven: Yale University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stone L S 1967 An investigation recording all salamanders which can and cannot regenerate a lens from the dorsal iris; J. Exp. Zool. 164 87–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Waddington C H 1956 Principles of embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin)Google Scholar
  21. Woerdeman M W 1939 On lens induction; Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. Amst. 42 290–292Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.JT Biohistory Research HallOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations