SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anatomy / 2026 / Volume: 10 Issue: 1

COMMENTS ON THE LIMITS AND INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE MAMMALIAN MIDBRAIN

Luis Puelles
Journal
Anatomy
Pages
—
Publication Date
2016-04-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, the internal structure of the modern midbrain is treated systematically in terms of dorsoventral and anteroposterior regionalization.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The anatomic concept of the midbrain has changed considerably in recent times, due to advances in molecular developmental neurobiology which have shown the mechanisms that pattern the midbrain relative to diencephalon and hindbrain, as well as relative to its inner structure.
📊
Key Findings & Data:These developmental mechanisms are summarized, the correct boundaries defined, and the diencephalic and hindbrain structures that were wrongly ascribed to the midbrain are illustrated schematically and classified properly as to their origins.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, the internal structure of the modern midbrain is treated systematically in terms of dorsoventral and anteroposterior regionalization.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:boundaries · derivatives · diencephalon

Abstract

The anatomic concept of the midbrain has changed considerably in recent times, due to advances in molecular developmental neurobiology which have shown the mechanisms that pattern the midbrain relative to diencephalon and hindbrain, as well as relative to its inner structure. The midbrain unitary developmental field that was discovered in this way is smaller than the classic concept of the midbrain, which therefore necessarily included portions of the caudal diencephalon and the rostral prepontine hindbrain. These developmental mechanisms are summarized, the correct boundaries defined, and the diencephalic and hindbrain structures that were wrongly ascribed to the midbrain are illustrated schematically and classified properly as to their origins. Finally, the internal structure of the modern midbrain is treated systematically in terms of dorsoventral and anteroposterior regionalization.

🔖

Cite This Article

Puelles, L. (2016). COMMENTS ON THE LIMITS AND INTERNAL STRUCTURE OF THE MAMMALIAN MIDBRAIN. Anatomy, Volume: 10 Issue: 1. https://ajindex.com/articles/1190250

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (82)

  1. Puelles L. Plan of the developing vertebrate nervous system, relating
  2. embryology to the adult nervous system (Prosomere model,
  3. overview of brain organization). In: Rubenstein JLR, Rakic P, editors.
  4. Comprehensive developmental neuroscience: Patterning and
  5. cell type specification in the developing CNS and PNS. Amsterdam:
  6. Academic Press; 2013. p. 187–209.
  7. His W. Über das frontale Ende des Gehirnrohrs. Archiv für
  8. Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte [Anatomische Abteilung des
  9. Arch. f. Anat. u. Physiol. 1893b] 1893;3:157–71.
  10. His W. Die Entwicklung des menschlichen Gehirns während der
  11. ersten Monate. Leipzig: Hirzel Verlag; 1904.
  12. Orr HJ. Contribution to the embryology of the lizard; with especial
  13. reference to the central nervous system and some organs of the head;
  14. together with observations on the origin of the vertebrates. J Morphol;1:311–72.
  15. Charles FW, McClure BA. The segmentation of the primitive vertebrate
  16. brain. J Morphol 1890;4:35–56.
  17. Locy WA. Contribution to the structure and development of the
  18. vertebrate head. Boston: Ginn and Co; 1895.
  19. von Kupffer C. Die Morphogenie des Zentralnervensystems. In:
  20. Hertwig O, editor. Handbuch der vergleichenden und experimentellen
  21. Entwicklungslehre der Wirbeltiere. Vol. 2, Part 3. Jena:
  22. Fischer Verlag; 1906. p. 1–272.
  23. Ziehen T. Die Morphogenie des Zentralnervensystems der
  24. Säugetiere. In: Hertwig O, editor. Handbuch der vergleichenden
  25. und experimentellen Entwicklungslehre der Wirbeltiere. Vol. 2,
  26. Part 3. Jena: Fischer Verlag; 1906. p. 273–351.
  27. Palmgren A. Embryological and morphological studies on the midbrain
  28. and cerebellum of vertebrates. Acta Zool 1921;2:1–94.
  29. Puelles E, Martinez-de-la-Torre M, Watson C, Puelles L. Midbrain.
  30. In: Watson C, Paxinos G, Puelles L editors. The mouse nervous system.
  31. San Diego: Academic Press Elsevier; 2012. p. 337– 59.
  32. Vaage S. The segmentation of the primitive neural tube in chick
  33. embryos (Gallus domesticus). A morphological, histochemical and
  34. autoradiographical investigation. Ergebn Anat Entwicklungsgesch;41:3–87.
  35. Vaage S. The histogenesis of the isthmic nuclei in chick embryos
  36. (Gallus domesticus). I. A morphological study. Z Anat Entwicklungsgesch;142:283–314.
  37. Puelles L, Martínez-de-la-Torre M. Autoradiographic and Golgi
  38. study on the early development of n. isthmi principalis and adjacent
  39. grisea in the chick embryo: a tridimensional viewpoint. Anat Embryol
  40. (Berl) 1987; 176:19–34.
  41. Hidalgo-Sánchez M, Martínez-de-la-Torre M, Alvarado-Mallart
  42. RM, Puelles L. Distinct pre-isthmic domain, defined by overlap of Otx2 and Pax2 expression domains in the chicken caudal midbrain. J
  43. Comp Neurol 2005;483:17–29.
  44. Rendahl H. Embryologische und morphologische Studien über das
  45. Zwischenhirn beim Huhn. Acta Zool 1924;5:241–344.
  46. Puelles L, Amat JA, Martínez-de-la-Torre M. Segment-related,
  47. mosaic neurogenetic pattern in the forebrain and mesencephalon of
  48. early chick embryos. I. Topography of AChE-positive neuroblasts up
  49. to stage HH18. J Comp Neurol 1987;266:147–268.
  50. García-Lopez R, Vieira C, Echevarria D, Martinez S. Fate map of
  51. the diencephalon and the zona limitans at the 10-somites stage in
  52. chick embryos. Dev Biol 2004;268:514–30.
  53. Ferran JL, Sánchez-Arrones L, Sandoval JE, Puelles L. A model of
  54. early molecular regionalization in the chicken embryonic pretectum.
  55. J Comp Neurol 2007;505:379–403.
  56. Ferran JL, Sánchez-Arrones L, Bardet SM, Sandoval J, Martínez-dela-
  57. Torre M, Puelles L. Early pretectal gene expression pattern shows
  58. a conserved anteroposterior tripartition in mouse and chicken. Brain
  59. Res Bull 2008;75:295–8.
  60. Ferran JL, de Oliveira ED, Merchán P, Sandoval JE, Sánchez-
  61. Arrones L, Martínez-De-La-Torre M, Puelles L. Geno-architectonic
  62. analysis of regional histogenesis in the chicken pretectum. J Comp
  63. Neurol 2009;517:405–51.
  64. Herrick CJ. The morphology of the forebrain in amphibia and reptilia.
  65. J Comp Neurol 1910;20:413–547.
  66. Kuhlenbeck H. The central nervous system of vertebrates. Vol. 3,
  67. Part II: overall morphological pattern. Basel (Switzerland): Karger;
  68. Saldaña E, Viñuela A, Marshall AF, Fitzpatrick DC, Aparicio MA.
  69. The TLC: a novel auditory nucleus of the mammalian brain. J
  70. Neurosci 2007;27:13108–16.
  71. Puelles L, Malagón F, Genis-Gálvez JM. The migration of oculomotor
  72. neuroblasts across the midline in the chick embryo. Exp
  73. Neurol 1975;47:459–69.
  74. Puelles L, Privat J. Do oculomotor neuroblasts migrate across the
  75. midline in the fetal rat brain? Anat Embryol (Berl) 1977;150:187–206.
  76. Puelles L. A Golgi-study of oculomotor neuroblasts migrating across
  77. the midline in chick embryos. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1978;152:205–15.
  78. Alonso A, Merchán P, Sandoval JE, Sánchez-Arrones L, Garcia-
  79. Cazorla A, Artuch R, Ferrán JL, Martínez-de-la-Torre M, Puelles L.
  80. Development of the serotonergic cells in murine raphe nuclei and
  81. their relations with rhombomeric domains. Brain Struct Funct;218:1229–77.
  82. Martínez S, Puelles E, Puelles L, Echevarria D. Molecular regionalization of developing neural tube. In: Watson C, Paxinos G, Puelles L, editors. The mouse nervous system. San Diego: Academic Press Elsevier; 2012. p. 2–18.