Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EMBRYOLOGY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

ESHRE guidelines for good practice in IVF laboratories. Committee of the Special Interest Group on Embryology of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Education has always been a priority for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Many efforts have been dedicated to promoting knowledge of techniques, procedures and strategies in order to ensure use of the highest quality practices in reproductive medicine. The need to develop a set of guidelines was a logical consequence that found its first expression in 1990, when Focus on Reproduction (vol. 1, pp. 10-38) published the first guidelines which were distributed among the membership. Five years later a new, more complete edition with several novel techniques and developments appeared in Human Reproduction (vol. 10, pp. 1246-1271). Both have proved to be invaluable references. Five more years have now passed. The necessity to produce current guidelines for good IVF laboratory practice has provided the strongest motivation. This originated from the increasing awareness that embryologists have a duty to prevent unintentional incidents that might result from poor practice in the laboratory. Therefore, the Embryology Special Interest Group (SIG) undertook to draw up guidelines aimed at giving support and guidance to the laboratory staff. All the aspects required to provide a safe working system were taken into consideration by members of the SIG and their effort produced this document. We hope that it will assist staff in achieving the best clinical outcome for their patients.

Cryopreservation↗
PubMed2003

Phylogeny and embryology of the facial nerve and related structures. Part II: Embryology.

A precise description of the developmental anatomy of the facial nerve and associated ear structures, augmented by an appreciation of phylogenic history, has proven extremely helpful intraoperatively. Predictions of facial nerve position can be made with reasonable accuracy when they are based on a proper analysis of developmental anomalies of other ear structures. In cases in which the facial nerve canal has not developed, it may be impossible to obtain accurate localization of the facial nerve radiographically prior to surgery. In such cases, judgment based on an understanding of embryology may be the surgeon's only guide to the position of the facial nerve. Although these principles have proven valid and reliable so far, it is not prudent for the surgeon to consider them gospel, of course. Extreme caution must always be exercised when operating on an ear with congenitally abnormal anatomy. Nevertheless, it is not necessary for the surgeon to approach a congenitally malformed ear with the fear that "You never know where the facial nerve is going to be." Understanding embryology allows otologic surgery to be planned with reasonable accuracy and carried out safely and expeditiously.

Ear↗
PubMed1998

The Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster syndrome. An analysis of its morphology and embryology. Part II: Embryology.

The Müllerian duct (MD; ductus paramesonephricus) develops independent of the coelomic epithelium above the mesonephros. This part of the duct gives rise to the infundibulum with its fimbriated ostium abdominale. The part of the duct which lies along the mesonephros as far as its caudal pole makes a contribution to the ampulla and less often the isthmus. In the area of the mesonephros the MD fuses with the Wolffian duct (WD; ductus mesonephricus). The WD gives rise to the ampulla and the isthmus. Below the caudal pole of the mesonephros, as well as beyond the attachment point of the inguinal ligament of the mesonephros, the later round ligament of the uterus, the MD develops as an outgrowth of the WD and no longer as an independent structure. The MRK syndrome is, in its formal genesis, a non-fusion of the MD with the WD. This explains the fact that in a classic case of MRK syndrome, the Fallopian tube with a very small part of the cornu uteri extends only as far as the connection with the round ligament of the uterus. Different possibilities for the origin of MRK syndrome are discussed. It is suggested that the cause of the development of MRK syndrome could be a deficiency of gestagen and/or oestrogen receptors. This would also explain the various forms of the rudimentary vagina.

Female↗
PubMed2001

Evolution of embryology: a synthesis of classical, experimental, and molecular perspectives.

Embryology as a modern science began at the beginning of the 19th century and continued as the classic period until the 1940s. During this period, a body of basic knowledge was established which, generally, described the events of development. From 1940 to 1970 experimental or causal embryology predominated; explanations of secondary causes were demonstrated for development. The decade of the 1970s was a decade of transition that led to the current revolution in molecular biology that began in the 1980s. Molecular biology and its new branch, molecular genetics, shook up the heretofore serene, but already limited, field of embryology. Today the discipline of embryology is being built on the analysis of the results of genetic expression. Embryology is now concerned with understanding development from the viewpoint of the activation and transcription of DNA sequences, which will allow us to approach the first causes or underlying genetic and epigenetic mechanisms of development. As a result, embryology and genetics have fused into a wider biological subdiscipline, developmental biology. Will this be enough to define the full scope of our knowledge of embryonic development? What is certainly evident is that the molecular period of embryology will help achieve a better understanding of the schemata constructed by classic and experimental embryologists. Furthermore, to the degree that the molecular analysis of whatever phenomenon of development requires additional foundational knowledge, classic and experimental embryology will not have exhausted all their possibilities.

Embryology↗
PubMed2002

Embryology in the medical curriculum.

Embryology as a field is in a period of unprecedented change in its knowledge base. Similarly, this is a period of great change in medical curricular planning. One of the most significant questions in embryology education for medical students is how much of the "new" molecular embryology to mix with the "old" developmental anatomy approach. The other question is the most effective venue for instruction in medical embryology. Not all medical curricula have the same objectives; nor do they use the same educational approach. With that in mind, this review outlines several ways in which medical embryology can be offered and how it can be integrated into the medical curriculum. It also lays out topics that are worthy of inclusion in a modern embryology course or sequence.

Congenital Abnormalities↗
PubMed1975

Reflections on fifty years of publications on the history of general biology and special embryology.

The publications of fifty years (1925-1974) of the histroy of biology and embryology are surveyed. In America, the earliest background for work during this period was provided by the collectors, mainly physicians, of books into extensive private libraries. The collectors, for instance Osler, Cushing, and Fulton in this country and Geoffrey Keynes abroad, became expert technical bibliographers during the early part of the half-century under consideration. High standards for medical, thus biological history, insofar as these fields overlap, were also set earlier by Sudhoff's Institut für Geschichte der Medizin in Leipzig, and American historical studies benefited when Sigerist came from Leipzig to Baltimore in the early 1930's. Textbooks of medical history are omitted from discussion here, but a number of more or less general histories of biology published within the specified period are briefly evaluated. The discussion next turns to histories of embryology, general and special. Recent monographs on the classical embryologists, Wolff and von Baer, are enumerated, as are a number of biographies and autobiographies of important embryologists published here or abroad during our half-century. Then general histories of embryology are discussed, and finally some specialized ones. Needham, Roger, and Adelmann are singled out as the most important contributors to the history of embryology, in the West, during the period covered. Few of the contributors to the history of biology and medicine during the years of 1925 through 1974 were trained as historians while students. It is concluded that the History of Science Society has performed an important contribution in professionalizing the history of biology and embryology, but it is pointed out that a great new challenge faces it in the necessity to counteract anti-historical and anti-intellectual moods and movements of today.

Bibliographies as Topic↗
PubMed2000

[Embryology, 'chemical geography' of the cell and synthesis between morphology and chemistry (1930-1950)].

Chemical embryology was born in 1931 with the publication of Chemical Embryology by Joseph Needham. In the following two decades it became an innovative research project aiming at the description of the construction of the embryological structure and differentiation in biochemical terms. This research programme produced a vast amount of experimental evidence and theories on the chemical dynamics of the embryo: particularly chemical characterization of the zygote and the developing embryo, the chemical exchanges between the nucleus and the cytoplasm, the significance of subcellular structures, and the role and distribution of nucleic acids within the cell. From the 1950s on, a large part of these results came to be integrated into the empirical basis of molecular biology. However, the shift from chemical embryology to molecular embryology was not just a semantic shift but a deep theoretical change, produced by the introduction of a new model of scientific explanation, based on the transmission and expression of genetic information and opposed to the biochemical definition of life.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Fabricating a face: the essence of embryology in the dental curriculum.

The current explosive growth in developmental biology, fuelled by the almost completed sequencing of the human genome, is bound to have a profound impact upon the practice of medicine and dentistry in the twenty-first century. No other discipline more accurately reflects this impact than embryology, which combines the basic and clinical sciences of genetics, ontogeny, phylogeny, teratology, and syndromology into the essence of modern medical and dental practice. The advent of in vitro fertilization, chorionic villus sampling, amniocentesis, prenatal ultrasonography, intrauterine surgery, and stem cell therapy has vaulted the previously esoteric subject of embryology into clinical consciousness. All these aforementioned procedures require an intimate knowledge of the different stages of development. The alphabet soup of acronyms that now peppers papers proclaiming the genetics and characteristics of various growth factors and cytokines (e.g., FGF, TGFalpha) are all based upon an understanding of the developmental mechanisms occurring in the embryo and subsequently in wound healing and oncology. Congenital abnormalities ranging from lethal syndromes to dental malocclusions cannot be diagnosed, treated, cured, or prognosticated upon without a sound conceptualization of embryology. Computer technology has revolutionized the understanding and teaching of embryology by portraying developmental phenomena as three-dimensional model images in sequential depictions of changes proceeding in the fourth dimension of time. Embryology must now form the essential core of the basic sciences in medical and dental curricula. Future dental practice will become rooted in the genetics and morphogenesis of facial fabrication.

Computer-Assisted Instruction↗
PubMed1998

Bearing crosses: a historiography of genetics and embryology.

As we construct the fusion of medical embryology and medical genetics, it is important to be aware of how the history of genetics has been written to exclude embryology. This article looks at the rhetoric of genetics and how that rhetoric fits a paradigm of supersessionism. Supersessionism is often seen in the history of religion when one sect claims superiority to the original sect from whence it emerged. Such supersessionism portrays embryology as a failed research program, one that genetics now has saved. In some instances, biblical references have alluded to the failed nature of embryology. Although this article does not criticize the data of genetics, it takes issue with the historiography used by geneticists and seeks to show that the mergers between genetics and embryology are those between two equal partners and not between an inferior and superior member.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Kowalevsky, comparative evolutionary embryology, and the intellectual lineage of evo-devo.

Alexander Kowalevsky was one of the most significant 19th century biologists working at the intersection of evolution and embryology. The reinstatement of the Alexander Kowalevsky Medal by the St. Petersburg Society of Naturalists for outstanding contributions to understanding evolutionary relationships in the animal kingdom, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative zoology is timely now that Evo-devo has emerged as a major research discipline in contemporary biology. Consideration of the intellectual lineage of comparative evolutionary embryology explicitly forces a reconsideration of some current conceptions of the modern emergence of Evo-devo, which has tended to exist in the shadow of experimental embryology throughout the 20th century, especially with respect to the recent success of developmental biology and developmental genetics. In particular we advocate a sharper distinction between the heritage of problems and the heritage of tools for contemporary Evo-devo. We provide brief overviews of the work of N. J. Berrill and D. T. Anderson to illustrate comparative evolutionary embryology in the 20th century, which provides an appropriate contextualization for a conceptual review of our research on the sea urchin genus Heliocidaris over the past two decades. We conclude that keeping research questions rather than experimental capabilities at the forefront of Evo-devo may be an antidote to any repeat of the stagnation experienced by the first group of evolutionary developmental biologists over one hundred years ago and acknowledges Kowalevsky's legacy in evolutionary embryology.

Animals↗
PubMed1992

Congenital anomalies of the branchial apparatus: embryology and pathologic anatomy.

Various congenital anomalies of branchial origin are found in the neck region. Understanding the varied radiologic appearances of these anomalies is greatly aided by familiarity with their embryologic origins. By considering the anatomic location and radiologic appearance, the precise embryologic origin can be accurately predicted. Defects of the branchial apparatus include branchial, thymic, and parathyroid anomalies, which may manifest as cysts, sinuses, fistulas, and ectopic glands. The embryologic model is used to explain the origins of all branchial apparatus anomalies. The most accepted theory proposes that vestigial remnants result from incomplete obliteration of the branchial apparatus or buried cell rests, and, thus, if cells are trapped in the branchial apparatus during the embryologic stage, they can form branchial cysts later in life. By understanding the embryologic basis for these defects, the radiologist is better able to interpret the findings encountered with the various imaging modalities used in the evaluation of these anomalies.

Branchial Region↗
PubMed2002

Wolff and Müller: fundamental eponyms of embryology, nephrology and urology.

PURPOSE: Kaspar Friedrich Wolff and Johannes Petrus Müller, German physicians in the 18th and 19th centuries, respectively, contributed significantly to the study of the biological sciences, specifically embryology and the development of the genitourinary tract. Their eponyms are a part of daily conversation in medical education, practice and research. We reviewed their lives and works. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Commentaries on the works of these scientists as well as available English translations of their works were analyzed. RESULTS: Wolff and Müller were pioneers in their fields. Wolff gained renown for his Theoria Generatonis, a great embryological treatise, produced in 1759. Müller performed significant studies in the fields of anatomy, pathology, physiology and embryology. In 1834 he became editor of the physiology journal that later came to be known as Müller's Archiv. CONCLUSIONS: Studies of and inferences about the development of the urogenital system a century apart by these 2 men contributed greatly to the current understanding of embryology. Their names remain a part of everyday medical dialogue.

Embryology↗
PubMed2000

Embryology and evolution 1920-1960: worlds apart?

During the early part of the 20th century most embryologists were skeptical about the significance of Mendelian genetics to embryological development. A few embryologists began to study the developmental effects of Mendelian genes around 1940. Such work was a necessary step on the path to modern developmental biology. It occurred during the time when the Evolutionary Synthesis was integrating Mendelian and population genetics into a unified evolutionary theory. Why did the first embryological geneticists begin their study at that particular time? One possible explanation is that developmental genetics was a potential avenue of alliance between embryology and evolutionary biology, two fields that had been separated since the 1890s. To assess this possible motive it is necessary to explore the methodological contrasts that obtained between embryology and both Mendelian-chromosomal genetics and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Some of these contrasts persist to the present day.

Animals↗