白暨豚气管和肺的解剖和组织学的研究

白鱀豚的肺分左右2叶,不分小叶,肺门位置高。气管分叉成左右主支气管和气管支气管,气管支气管分叉点的位置较高,情形与拉河豚相近。3条主支气管进入肺以后便成为肺内支气管树的主干,其分支的分布区可暗示假定肺叶的存在(共5叶,左2右3)。从气管起一直到呼吸性支气管都存在软骨组织。气管的粘膜上皮为假复层纤毛柱状上皮,夹有杯状细胞。主支气管为单层柱状上皮,无杯状细胞。小支气管和细支气管又变为假复层纤毛柱状上皮,杯状细胞少。细支气管以下逐步改变为单层柱状上皮和立方上皮。各级支气管均未见腺体存在。从呼吸性细支气管到肺泡管的通道口,有括约肌存在。各级支气管一直到肺泡壁均有平滑肌存在,从断续出现到连续的环层。弹性纤维在整个气管均很丰富。       

白鱀豚气管和肺的解剖和组织学的研究

白鱀豚的肺分左右2叶,不分小叶,肺门位置高。气管分叉成左右主支气管和气管支气管,气管支气管分叉点的位置较高,情形与拉河豚相近。3条主支气管进入肺以后便成为肺内支气管树的主干,其分支的分布区可暗示假定肺叶的存在(共5叶,左2右3)。从气管起一直到呼吸性支气管都存在软骨组织。气管的粘膜上皮为假复层纤毛柱状上皮,夹有杯状细胞。主支气管为单层柱状上皮,无杯状细胞。小支气管和细支气管又变为假复层纤毛柱状上皮,杯状细胞少。细支气管以下逐步改变为单层柱状上皮和立方上皮。各级支气管均未见腺体存在。从呼吸性细支气管到肺泡管的通道口,有括约肌存在。各级支气管一直到肺泡壁均有平滑肌存在,从断续出现到连续的环层。弹性纤维在整个气管均很丰富。     

广东乌龟五种器官的组织学观察

利用石蜡切片法对广东乌龟的心脏、肝脏、脾脏、肺和肾脏等组织器官进行了组织结构观察.结果显示,心肌纤维束状排列,可见闰盘结构.肝脏分3叶,肝内结缔组织很少,相邻肝小叶分界不清.肝血窦内含色素细胞.脾脏分被膜和实质两部分.实质可分为白髓和红髓.白髓包括椭球周围淋巴鞘(PELS)和动脉周围淋巴鞘(PALS).红髓由脾索和脾窦组成.未发现淋巴小结和生发中心.肺为一对长形扁平囊.支气管黏膜上皮为假复层柱状纤毛上皮.细支气管的黏膜为单层柱状纤毛上皮.肺泡囊状.肾脏由肾小体、颈段、近曲小管、中间段、远曲小管、收集管等部分构成.颈段和中间段均由单层纤毛立方上皮细胞构成.近曲小管、远曲小管和收集管均由单层柱状上皮细胞构成.     

血栓调节蛋白在胚胎肺及肺癌中的表达

目的研究血栓调节蛋白(thrombomodulin,TM)在胚胎肺、正常肺组织及肺癌组织中的表达。方法以不同周龄的胚胎肺组织、正常成人肺组织、肺癌组织为研究对象,应用免疫组织化学SP法检测TM的存在。结果8、15、18、21、24、27、29周人胎肺组织中,TM在气管纤毛柱状上皮细胞、I型和Ⅱ型肺泡上皮细胞及软骨、结缔组织均呈阴性表达,围绕肺泡上皮细胞团周围的血管内皮细胞阳性表达。正常成人支气管纤毛柱状上皮细胞、肺泡上皮细胞不表达,但在血管内皮细胞呈阳性表达。TM在鳞状上皮不典型增生的细胞膜和细胞问桥表达,在肺鳞癌表达,阳性率为97．3％(34／35),在癌细胞膜和细胞问桥阳性表达,但腺癌、小细胞癌癌细胞不表达。结论TM在胚胎肺以及成人肺仅见于血管内皮细胞,在支气管上皮、肺泡上皮不表达。与其它的血管内皮细胞标记物不同,TM的表达在肺鳞癌与腺癌表扶明显不同．右助于鉴别肺鳞癌与肺腺癌．     

黑熊肺脏光,电镜观察

本文采用光镜,扫描及透射电镜对成体黑熊肺脏组织进行观察。结果表明：黑熊肺脏和其它哺动物肺脏结构基本相似,亦由支气管各级分支,肺小叶及小叶间结缔组织构成,每个细支气管连同它的各级分支和肺泡组成一个肺小叶,肺泡是支气管树的终末部分,呈多面囊形泡,肺泡壁有Ｉ,ＩＩ两种类型上皮细胞。气－血屏障由肺泡上皮,上皮基膜,内皮基膜和内皮四层结构组成,厚约０．５μｍ。     

氟尿嘧啶诱发人支气管损伤修复过程及支气管干细胞的定位

目的观察离体人支气管损伤修复过程,进行支气管干细胞的定位。方法取肺癌手术切除的人支气管的正常部分进行组织培养,应用氟尿嘧啶(5-FU)诱发支气管上皮损伤,动态观察修复过程,用免疫组化SP法检测PCNA,β1-整合素及CK-19的表达,同时进行Hoechst33342荧光染色。结果1．5-FU作用12h后人支气管上皮细胞绝大部分脱落,可见少量间隔分布的类似裸核的细胞呈钉状位于基底膜上,PCNA染色阴性,证明为G0期细胞。其中部分细胞Hoechst33342染色阴性。2．将5-FU去除3～6h后,细胞形态变为扁平,PCNA染色见核染色阳性的细胞与阴性细胞(Go期细胞)间隔分布;12h后细胞变为立方,细胞数目逐渐增多,到48～72h恢复假复层柱状上皮。3．β1-整合素及CK-19在已分化细胞中呈阳性反应。结论在5-FU的打击下,进入增殖期细胞死亡、脱落,仅余Go期细胞,其中含有支气管干细胞。正是这些干细胞增殖分化使支气管上皮修复。     

肺多潜能上皮干细胞在肺损伤修复中的作用

肺作为一个复杂的多功能器官,对人类生存至关重要。肺上皮细胞对维持肺脏功能和修复肺脏损伤具有重要作用。近年来研究认为,位于细支气管与肺泡交界处有一种肺干细胞,即支气管肺泡干细胞(bronchioalveolar stem cells, BASCs),但由于体内示踪BASCs的技术瓶颈,该干细胞是否具有再生为肺脏上皮细胞的能力一直存在争论。中国科学院生物化学与细胞生物学研究所周斌研究团队及其合作者的最新研究成果利用双同源重组系统(Cre-loxP和Dre-rox)特异性标记和示踪BASCs,并结合不同小鼠肺脏损伤模型揭示,BASCs在体内具有再生肺脏的能力,为肺脏的修复和再生研究提供了新的理论基础及研究方向。     

中华大蟾蜍多种组织内5-羟色胺免疫染色细胞的分布

用过氧化物酶-抗过氧化物酶(PAP)法,对中华大蟾蜍消化道(冬眠期与非冬眠期),脑及其他组织的5-HT分布进行了研究。5-HT免疫染色细胞位于脑干中缝核区和间脑的第Ⅲ脑室腹侧的室管膜细胞区。阳性神经元呈圆形或卵圆形,细胞常有突起与其他阳性细胞突起相连,上述部位中还有一些阳性神经纤维。消化道的免疫染色细胞密度在胃幽门、胃体和胃贲门处最高,食道和十二指肠次之,大肠和小肠最低。非冬眠期蟾蜍消化道内免疫染色细胞密度明显高于冬眠期的(P<0.05)。阳性细胞位于粘膜上皮或腺上皮细胞间,细胞有一个或一个以上呈阳性反应的突起,有的突起伸入肠腔面或腺腔面,有的穿过基膜到达固有层,表明这些细胞兼有内、外分泌的功能。在甲状旁腺的主细胞间,肺呼吸性细支气管上皮和肺泡管上皮细胞间都有5-HT免疫染色细胞,细胞呈立方形、圆形、卵圆形或不规则形,常有几个细胞成簇分布。     

“呼吸系统”部分器官电镜图像

为配合“呼吸系统”一章的教学,我们选择了部分呼吸器官的电镜图像(见封三)供教师参考。图1.肺支气管粘膜表面扫描电镜(SEM)图像:该部粘膜为假复层柱状纤毛上皮,以纤毛细胞为主,并夹有数量较多的杯状细胞(Gb)。纤毛细胞的顶部,伸出大量纤毛(Ci)暴露于粘膜表面。杯状细胞顶部,则     

日本七鳃鳗消化系统显微与超微结构

采用光镜和电镜技术研究日本七鳃鳗(Lampetra japonica)消化系统的组织结构。结果显示,日本七鳃鳗食道褶皱处黏膜上皮为复层立方上皮,褶皱基部为变移上皮。由于生活方式的特化,其胃退化。前肠、中肠和后肠黏膜上皮均为单层柱状上皮,其中并未发现杯状细胞,有肠腺,肠上皮有密集的纤毛,上皮细胞内各种细胞器均较丰富,肌纤维斜行。肝小叶界限不清,肝内无胆管。内分泌性胰由若干个大小不等和形状不定的细胞团组成。口腔腺上皮细胞高柱状,游离端充满酶原颗粒和微管泡系,细胞间有分泌小管。日本七鳃鳗消化器官的组织结构特点与其特殊的取食方式和进化地位密切相关。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor