Analysis of duodenojejunal flexure formation in mice: implications for understanding the genetic basis for gastrointestinal morphology in mammals

Onouchi, Sawa; Ichii, Osamu; Otsuka, Saori; Hashimoto, Yoshiharu; Kon, Yasuhiro

doi:10.1111/joa.12093

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The differences in the distribution of positively reacted cells were represented as the difference in optical densities. Optical densities were evaluated as the percentage of mean number of pixels versus the correlated value at which the pixel of the respective intensity was present (Onouchi et al, 2013;Varghese et al, 2014).…”

Section: Morphometric and Statistical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Features of the Upper Alimentary Tract in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): A Morphological, Histochemical, and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The avian alimentary tract has evolved into different histologic structures to accommodate the physical and chemical features of several food types and flight requirements. We compared the esophagus, proventriculus, and gizzard of the domestic fowl, Gallus gallus domesticus (GGD) and kestrels, Falco tinnunculus (FT) using immunohistochemistry and scanning electron microscopy with various stains and lectins [Dolichos biflorus agglutinin (DBA) and Ricinus communis agglutinin I (RCA120)], and α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA). The esophagus of GGD demonstrated thickened epithelium, muscularis mucosae, and inner circular longitudinal tunica muscularis layers; moderate outer longitudinal tunica muscularis layers; and a true crop. In contrast, the esophagus of FT showed a thin epithelium, no muscularis mucosae, moderate inner longitudinal and thick outer circular tunica muscularis layers, and no true crop. In the proventriculus, the nature of the secretion in GGD was neutral, but that of FT was acidic and neutral. In the gizzard, the muscle coat of GGD by α-SMA had no muscularis mucosae, unlike FT, which had muscularis mucosae. In summary, there are many histologic differences between GGD and FT to meet their different physiologic needs, such as feeding.

show abstract

Section: Morphometric and Statistical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Features of the Upper Alimentary Tract in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): A Morphological, Histochemical, and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In mice, similar mesenchymal and epithelial changes are seen here that seem to drive the curvature independently of the dorsal mesentery (Onouchi et al , 2016, Onouchi et al , 2015). However, whereas differential proliferation does not seem to be present in the DM or curving stomach, it does seem to be a driving force for DJF formation as the outer curvature shows increased cell divisions that create a bend in the gut tube (Onouchi et al , 2013). Whether Pitx2-mediated sculpting of the stomach or other organs is at play in the chick is currently unknown.…”

Section: Looping Morphogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Chick midgut morphogenesis

Huycke¹,

Tabin²

2018

Int. J. Dev. Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gastrointestinal tract is an essential system of organs required for nutrient absorption. As a simple tube early in development, the primitive gut is patterned along its anterior-posterior axis into discrete compartments with unique morphologies relevant to their functions in the digestive process. These morphologies are acquired gradually through development as the gut is patterned by tissue interactions, both molecular and mechanical in nature, involving all three germ layers. With a focus on midgut morphogenesis, we review work in the chick embryo demonstrating how these molecular signals and mechanical forces sculpt the developing gut tube into its mature form. In particular, we highlight two mechanisms by which the midgut increases its absorptive surface area: looping and villification. Additionally, we review the differentiation and patterning of the intestinal mesoderm into the layers of smooth muscle that mechanically drive peristalsis and the villification process itself. Where relevant, we discuss the mechanisms of chick midgut morphogenesis in the context of experimental data from other model systems.

show abstract

“…For example, the cranial suspensory ligament of the gonads regresses in males for testis descent and is maintained in females to keep the ovary in the abdominal cavity during development (Emmen et al, 1998). Hence, the smooth muscle bundle in the mouse duodenocolic fold also seems to play a role to keep the ascending duodenum in the abdominal cavity because the duodenum in animals is suspended by mesoduodenum freely in the abdominal cavity and did not belong to a retroperitoneal organ in contrast to human, and the bundle might play a role relating morphogenesis of the ascending duodenum and the caudal duodenal flexure during development (Onouchi et al, 2013, 2015, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As important players of gut morphogenesis, we consider the gut tube itself and factors outside of the gut tube such as the gut mesentery. In the previous studies, we reported that the mouse duodenojejunal flexure (DJF) was formed by asymmetric morphogenesis between the inner and outer bending sides of the DJF (Onouchi et al, 2013, 2015, 2016). After the DJF formation, the DJF proceeds to the flexure elongation phase, characterized by an elongated flexure around the stomach to form the caudal flexure of the duodenum and the ascending duodenum part (Onouchi et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Morphological features of the mouse duodenocolic fold in foetus and adult

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For the mechanism of duodenojejunal flexure (DJF) morphogenesis in mice, we consider the gut tube itself and the gut mesentery as important players. In this study, we focussed on the morphological features of the gut mesentery around the mouse duodenum, especially the duodenocolic fold at embryonic day (E) 18.5 and the adult phase. The duodenocolic fold, a sheet of the mesentery, was located between the entire ascending duodenum and the descending colon. At E18.5, in the cranial area near the DJF, the duodenocolic fold joined both the mesocolon and the mesojejunal part of the root of the mesentery. In the middle and caudal areas, the duodenocolic fold joined the mesocolon. Interestingly, along with the ascending duodenum, the duodenocolic fold contained a smooth muscle bundle. The smooth muscle bundle continued from the outer muscular layer of the middle to the caudal part of the ascending duodenum. The three‐dimensional imaging of the foetal duodenocolic fold revealed that the smooth muscle bundle had short and long apexes towards the proximal and distal parts of the root of the mesentery, respectively. At the adult phase, the duodenocolic fold had a much thinner connective tissue with a larger surface area in comparison with the duodenocolic fold at E18.5. The adult duodenocolic fold also contained the smooth muscle bundle which was similar to the foetal duodenocolic fold. A part of the duodenocolic fold connecting to the mesojejunal part of the root of the mesentery seemed to be homologous to the superior duodenal fold in humans, known as the duodenojejunal fold; by contrast, most of the duodenocolic fold seemed to be homologous to the inferior duodenal fold in humans, known as the duodenomesocolic fold. The smooth muscle bundle in the mouse duodenocolic fold seemed to play a role in keeping the ascending duodenum in the abdominal cavity because the duodenum in animals did not belong to a retroperitoneal organ in contrast to humans owing to the difference in the direction of gravity on the abdominal organs between mice and humans. Moreover, the smooth muscle bundle shared common and uncommon points in its location and nerve supply to the suspensory muscle of the duodenum in humans, known as the ligament of Treitz. This study had insufficient evidence that the smooth muscle bundle of the mouse duodenocolic fold was homologous to the suspensory muscle of the duodenum in humans. In conclusion, this study revealed the detailed structure of the mouse duodenocolic fold, including the relationship between the fold and other mesenteries. Particularly, the smooth muscle bundle is a specific feature of the mouse duodenocolic fold and might play several roles in DJF morphogenesis, especially the ascending duodenum and the caudal duodenal flexure during development.

show abstract

Analysis of duodenojejunal flexure formation in mice: implications for understanding the genetic basis for gastrointestinal morphology in mammals

Cited by 11 publications

References 27 publications

Comparative Features of the Upper Alimentary Tract in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): A Morphological, Histochemical, and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Comparative Features of the Upper Alimentary Tract in the Domestic Fowl (Gallus gallus domesticus) and Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus): A Morphological, Histochemical, and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Chick midgut morphogenesis

Morphological features of the mouse duodenocolic fold in foetus and adult

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About