Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology logoLink to The Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology
. 1960 Feb 1;7(1):151–160. doi: 10.1083/jcb.7.1.151

The Relative Concentration of Solids in the Nucleolus, Nucleus, and Cytoplasm of the Developing Nerve Cell of the Chick

R W Merriam 1, William E Koch 1
PMCID: PMC2224863  PMID: 19866564

Abstract

Growing and differentiating nerve cells of the fifth cranial ganglion of the chick embryo were studied by several means. During the period of 70 hours to 11 days of incubation (Hamburger-Hamilton stages 19 to 37) average cell mass increased more than 4.5 times while cells changed from relatively undifferentiated neuroblasts to morphologically characteristic nerve cells with long processes. By making simplifying assumptions about thickness of nucleus and nucleolus, relative to cytoplasmic thickness, it was possible to calculate solute concentration of nucleus and nucleolus relative to that of the cytoplasm from measurements of optical retardations through living cells. Differences in relative solute concentration were observed in nucleolus, cytoplasm, and nucleoplasm in the approximate ratio 1.2:1.0:0.8, respectively. The ratio remained essentially constant during the growth period examined despite the fact that the cell components grow at markedly different rates. This suggests that solid concentrations are physical characteristics of nucleus, nucleolus, and cytoplasm which are maintained even during rapid growth and differentiation. By cytochemical means it was demonstrated that mass increase in the nucleus is not associated with increase in deoxyribonucleic acid. Both ribonucleic acid and protein are in greater concentration in nucleolus and cytoplasm than in the nucleoplasm. Electron microscopy shows interruptions in the nuclear envelope as well as an approximately even distribution of electron density in nucleus and cytoplasm. It is pointed out that consistent differences in solid concentration can exist on either side of the nuclear envelope even though it contains "pores." Implications of these data are discussed.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (940.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. ALLEN R. D., ROSLANSKY J. D. An anterior-posterior gradient of refractive index in the ameba and its significance in ameboid movement. J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1958 Sep 25;4(5):517–523. doi: 10.1083/jcb.4.5.517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. ANDERSON N. G. On the nuclear envelope. Science. 1953 May 15;117(3046):517–521. doi: 10.1126/science.117.3046.517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. ANDERSON N. G., WILBUR K. M. Studies on isolated cell components. J Gen Physiol. 1951 May;34(5):647–656. doi: 10.1085/jgp.34.5.647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. BARER R., DICK D. A. Interferometry and refractometry of cells in tissue culture. Exp Cell Res. 1957;13(Suppl 4):103–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. BARER R. Interference microscopy and mass determination. Nature. 1952 Mar 1;169(4296):366–367. doi: 10.1038/169366b0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. CALLAN H. G., TOMLIN S. G. Experimental studies on amphibian oocyte nuclei. I. Investigation of the structure of the nuclear membrane by means of the electron microscope. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1950 Oct 13;137(888):367–378. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1950.0047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. CRAMPTON C. F., HAUROWITZ F. Deposition of small doses of injected antigen in rabbits. J Immunol. 1952 Oct;69(4):457–459. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. DAVIES H. G., ENGSTROM A., LINDSTROM B. A comparison between the x-ray absorption and optical interference methods for the mass determination of biological structures. Nature. 1953 Dec 5;172(4388):1041–1041. doi: 10.1038/1721041a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. DAVIES H. G., WILKINS M. H. F. Interference microscopy and mass determination. Nature. 1952 Mar 29;169(4300):541–541. doi: 10.1038/169541a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. DE CARVALHO S. Absorption microspectroscopy of bone marrow cells. Blood. 1955 May;10(5):453–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. DE ROBERTIS E. The nucleo-cytoplasmic relationship and the basophilic substance (ergastoplasm) of nerve cells; electron microscope observations. J Histochem Cytochem. 1954 Sep;2(5):341–345. doi: 10.1177/2.5.341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. GLAUERT A. M., GLAUERT R. H., ROGERS G. E. A new embedding medium for electron microscopy. Nature. 1956 Oct 13;178(4537):803–803. doi: 10.1038/178803a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. HOLTFRETER J. Observations on the physico-chemical properties of isolated nuclei. Exp Cell Res. 1954 Aug;7(1):95–102. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(54)90044-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. MERRIAM R. W. The origin and fate of annulate lamellae in maturing sand dollar eggs. J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1959 Jan 25;5(1):117–122. doi: 10.1083/jcb.5.1.117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. MOSES M. J. The relation between the axial complex of meiotic prophase chromosomes and chromosome pairing in a salamander (Plethodon cinereus). J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1958 Sep 25;4(5):633–638. doi: 10.1083/jcb.4.5.633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. NURNBERGER J., ENGSTROM A., LINSSTROM B. A study of the ventral horn cells of the adult cat by two independent cyto chemical microabsorption techniques. J Cell Physiol. 1952 Apr;39(2):215–254. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1030390204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. OTTOSON R., KAHN K., GLICK D. Studies in histochemistry. XLVIII. Dry mass of mast cells measured by interference microscopy and x-ray absorption. Exp Cell Res. 1958 Jun;14(3):567–574. doi: 10.1016/0014-4827(58)90161-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. SCHILLER A. A., SCHAYER R. W., HESS E. L. Fluorescein-conjugated bovine albumin; physical and biological properties. J Gen Physiol. 1953 Mar;36(4):489–506. doi: 10.1085/jgp.36.4.489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. SPRATT N. T., Jr Nutritional requirements of the early chick embryo; the utilization of carbohydrate substrates. J Exp Zool. 1949 Mar;110(2):273–298. doi: 10.1002/jez.1401100207. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. STERN H., ALLFREY V., MIRSKY A. E., SAETREN H. Some enzymes of isolated nuclei. J Gen Physiol. 1952 Jan;35(3):559–578. doi: 10.1085/jgp.35.3.559. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. STERN H., MIRSKY A. E. Soluble enzymes of nuclei isolated in sucrose and nonaqueous media; a comparative study. J Gen Physiol. 1953 Nov 20;37(2):177–187. doi: 10.1085/jgp.37.2.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. WATSON M. L. Further observations on the nuclear envelope of the animal cell. J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1959 Oct;6:147–156. doi: 10.1083/jcb.6.2.147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. WATSON M. L. The nuclear envelope; its structure and relation to cytoplasmic membranes. J Biophys Biochem Cytol. 1955 May 25;1(3):257–270. doi: 10.1083/jcb.1.3.257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. WISCHNITZER S. An electron microscope study of the nuclear envelope of amphibian oocytes. J Ultrastruct Res. 1958 Apr;1(3):201–222. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5320(58)80001-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES