Johannes Holtfreter Research Articles

E. E. Just's broad, yet hidden, influence on modern cell and developmental biology.

This year, 2019, marks the centennial of embryologist E. E. Just's discovery of what is known as the fast block to polyspermy. Just's observation of the subtle changes that occur at the egg's surface during fertilization (and in experimental parthenogenesis) led him to postulate that the egg, and indeed every cell, possesses a property he called independent irritability, which represents the cell's ability to respond in a physiologically-relevant way to a variety of signals or triggers. In this paper, I argue that Just's concept of independent irritability informed his contemporary Johannes Holtfreter as Holtfreter attempted to explain the phenomena of embryonic induction and competence and that Holtfreter, in turn, influenced Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart in their formulation of the theory of facilitated variation. Just's influence is especially evident in Gerhart and Kirschner's presentations of what they call weak linkage-a property of living systems that allows core processes and components to be mixed and matched in different ways to generate novel traits. Unfortunately, the connection between Holtfreter's work and Just's has remained hidden. This paper gives examples of phenomena that exhibit weak linkage, and it lays out the case that Just's concept of independent irritability, through Holtfreter, Gerhart, and Kirschner, has broadly infiltrated modern cell and developmental biology.

Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal and Endothelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition

Cellular switching from an epithelial-to-mesenchymal phenotype, and conversely from a mesenchymal-to-epithelial phenotype, are important biological programs that are operative from conception to death in mammalian organisms. Indeed, the capacity of cells to switch between these states has been fundamental to the generation of complex body patterns throughout evolution. Phenotypic switching from an epithelial to mesenchymal cell, termed epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), was a paradigm that evolved from numerous observations on early embryonic development, the foundations of which date back to the 1920s and the pioneering work of Johannes Holtfreter on embryo formation and differentiation.1,2 By the late 1960s, seminal chick embryo studies by Elizabeth Hay3 led to the first formal description that epithelial cells can undergo a dramatic phenotypic transformation and give rise to embryonic mesoderm.4 Subsequent studies have revealed that this process is reversible (mesenchymal-to-epithelial transition [MET]), and gradually the term ‘transition” has come to replace ‘transformation.” Given that EMT/MET was initially identified and described by developmental biologists, it is perhaps not surprising that these processes are best understood during embryonic implantation and development. As explored in this review, it is now known that successive waves of cellular transition, from an epithelial to mesenchymal and then back to an epithelial state, are required for normal embryonic patterning and organ formation. In addition, numerous studies that span a broad spectrum of physiological and pathological conditions have expanded our knowledge of EMT/MET and now provide evidence for the important role played by these processes in various adult conditions including fibrosis, wound repair, inflammation, and malignancy. Indeed, our conceptual framework now also encompasses several variations and subcategories of cellular phenotypic switching, including endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EndMT). In this review, epithelial, endothelial, and mesenchymal phenotypic cellular switching will be explored in the cardiovascular system, spanning cardiovascular development through to adult …

E. E. Just, Johannes Holtfreter, and the origin of certain concepts in embryo morphogenesis

Ernest E. Just (1883–1941) is best known for his his elucidation of what are known as the fast and slow blocks to polyspermy during fertilization. Just's contemporary Johannes Holtfreter (1901–1992) is known for his work on amphibian morphogenesis, which helped to lay the foundation for modern vertebrate developmental biology. After giving a brief biographical sketch and outlining his scientific contributions, this poster will argue that Just's work and ideas strongly influenced two of the concepts for which Holtfreter is best known: tissue affinity and autoinduction. First, Just's experiments demonstrating developmental stage‐specific changes in the adhesiveness of the blastomeres of cleavage embryos helped lay the foundation for Holtfreter's concept of tissue affinity. Second, Just's notion of the intrinsic irritability of the egg cell strongly informed Holtfreter's concept of the non‐specific induction of neural tissue formation in amphibian gastrula ectoderm explants. Acknowledgment of these contributions by Just in no way diminishes the importance of Holtfreter's groundbreaking work. It does, however, extend the impact of Just's work into the area of embryo morphogenesis. It connects Just to Holtfreter and positions his work as an antecedent to embryo research that continues to this day. Supported by grants from the NIH RCMI and MBRS‐SCORE programs, and the NSF.

Ernest Everett Just, Johannes Holtfreter, and the origin of certain concepts in embryo morphogenesis.

Ernest E. Just (1883-1941) is best known for his discovery of the "wave of negativity" that sweeps of the sea urchin egg during fertilization, and his elucidation of what are known as the fast and slow blocks to polyspermy. Just's contemporary Johannes Holtfreter (1901-1992) is known for his pioneering work in amphibian morphogenesis, which helped to lay the foundation for modern vertebrate developmental biology. This paper, after briefly describing the life and scientific contributions of Just, argues that his work and ideas strongly influenced two of the concepts for which Holtfreter is best known: tissue affinity and autoneuralization (or autoinduction). Specifically, this paper argues that, first, Just's experiments demonstrating developmental stage-specific changes in the adhesiveness of the blastomeres of cleavage embryos helped lay the foundation for Holtfreter's concept of tissue affinity and, second, Just's notion of the intrinsic irritability of the egg cell, which is evident in experimental parthenogenesis, strongly informed Holtfreter's concept of the nonspecific induction of neural tissue formation in amphibian gastrula ectoderm explants, a phenomenon known as autoinduction. Acknowledgment of these contributions by Just in no way diminishes the importance of Holtfreter's groundbreaking work. It does, however, extend the impact of Just's work into the area of embryo morphogenesis. It connects Just to Holtfreter and positions his work as an antecedent to embryo research that continues to this day.

Pointing a digit at digitised JEEM

It is with great pleasure that we announce the publication of the digital archive of the Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology(also known as JEEM) at the Development website(http://dev.biologists.org/),where it is freely available to all. As many of you will know, JEEMis Development's predecessor, and it was from the pages of JEEM that Development came to be born in 1987, under the Editorship of Chris Wylie.JEEM was first published in 1953 under the editorial supervision of Michael Abercrombie, who was joined by an illustrious international board of founding editors that included some of the great biologists of that time,such as Jean Brachet, Honor Fell, Johannes Holtfreter, Sven Hörstadius,Peter Medawar, David R. Newth, Sulo Toivonen, Conrad Hal (CH) Waddington and J. Z. Young. With sponsorship from the British Council, the biologists and embryologists of the editorial board held an inaugural meeting early in 1953,in which they discussed the progress of their field and made arrangements for the publication of JEEM by The Company of Biologists. Then, as now,the Wellcome Trust played a hand in shaping research in the, then emerging,discipline of developmental biology, by offering a guarantee to The Company of Biologists to offset any financial losses that it might incur in the first 2 years of the journal's life.So why did this group of biologists come together to launch this new and influential journal? As A. M. Dalcq explained in his foreword at the time, the hope was that the peace and prosperity that was returning to Europe in these early post-war years would bring with it scientific progress at a pace `that could well out run our former estimations'. Moreover, the time had come when`the gross aspects of development had simply to be described [was] coming to an end'. New techniques were becoming available, and these forward-thinking embryologists and developmental biologists were keen to have a journal in which the exciting discoveries enabled by these new techniques could be reported. It was with great prescience that Dalcq observed that `embryologists will now be confronted with an extraordinary extension of their field in depth, in space, and in time'. These words remain relevant to this day, and they continue to inform the mission of Development, as they did that of JEEM.The findings published in JEEM came to influence many in the emerging field of developmental biology, and as Ken Zaret discusses in his essay on p. 2341,that influence spread beyond Europe and beyond the realms of developmental biology. Many researchers will already have their particular favourite JEEM paper, perhaps one that shaped research in their field in a fundamental way. To help bring these scientific gems to the attention of the wider developmental community, examples of such papers have been identified by Development's past and present Editors and Editorial Advisory Board members as being `JEEM classics', and experts have been asked to comment on these papers and to describe how they shaped current thinking in the field. There is no shortage of such papers, of course, but over the following months we hope to give you a taste of the richly historic and influential research that was published in JEEM over the course of its 33-year life.The first of these `JEEM classic' essays, by Elaine Dzierzak and Alexander Medvinsky, is published on p. 2343 of this issue. In this essay, Elaine and Alexander explain how a paper by Françoise Dieterlen-Lievre published in JEEM in 1975 was the first to contradict the dogma of the day that the haematopoietic system of the avian adult originated extra-embryonically, from the blood islands of the yolk sac. The elegant chick-quail chimera experiments she reported in this paper were the first to suggest that the adult haematopoietic system in fact originates from the embryo itself, a finding that created a paradigm shift in haematopoietic research and that continues to be debated to this day.We would like to close at this point on a note of thanks. The publication of the online JEEM archive is the culmination of several years of effort, and it would not have been possible without the help of our online publisher HighWire, nor without the generous support of the developmental community, many of whom helped us to fill the gaps in The Company of Biologists' collection of JEEM by generously donating their personal copies of the journal to us. In particular, we thank Julian Lewis, Peter Lawrence, Jonathan Bard, Cheryll Tickle and Mike Newth, whose father, David R. Newth, was one of the founders of the journal.

Neural cell adhesion molecules - brain glue and much more

The formation of stable cell contacts is of pivotal importance for every metazoan life form. It is therefore not surprising that adhesive molecules appeared early during the evolution of multicellular organisms. The pioneering work of Johannes Holtfreter and others indicated that adhesive molecules, which reside in the plasma membrane on the surface of most cells, are not only important for establishing general cell adhesion and cellular contacts, but also convey a specific tissue and cellular identity to their host cells (1). Over the last few decades a large number of cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) have been identified and further characterized, and we have learned that the expression of these proteins is highly choreographed in terms of timing and cell identity.

De l'embryologie expérimentale à la géné­tique du développement : De Hans Spemann à Antonio Garcia-Bellido / From experimental embryology to developmental genetics : From Hans Spemann to Antonio Garcia-Bellido

SUMMARY. — We seek to study a shift from experimental embryology to developmental genetics. This historical inquiry takes us from embryonic induction to the compartment hypothesis, i. e. from Hans Spemann to Antonio Garcia-Bellido, whose conceptual itinerary serves as our guide. We dwell with Spemann on the concept of « assimilative induction », i. e. « determinative effects progress from cell to cell ». With Viktor Hamburger, we mention the complexity of the concept of organizer and the importance of xenoplastic transplantations. We tackle with Johannes Holtfreter the culture of cells and their affinities. The concept of morphogenetic fields is studied, particularly its relationship with cellular behaviour in the research of Paul Weiss. Curt Stern attempted to throw light on genetic analysis in terms of embryology. Cells respond to a « prepattern » in accordance with their genome. Ernst Hadorn's and Walter Gehring's experiments respectively drew attention to transdetermination and clonal analysis. By pursuing the study of cellular clones in homoeotic transformations, Garcia-Bellido grounded the compartment hypothesis : units of the genetic control of development, taking as a model the Drosophilia and its wing.

Biologists under Hitler

Part 1 The expulsion and emigration of scientists, 1933-1939 - a brief summary of legal measures non-Aryan dismissals and emigrations political dismissals and emigrations the impact of the expulsion of biologists on research in germany Viktor Hamburger and Johannes Holtfreter: the expulsion of two eminent experimental embryologists dismissed biologists able to continue their work in Germany Karl von Frisch, the Mischling, and the solidarity of his colleagues the return of emigre biologists to scientific institutes in germany after 1945 Wiedergutmachung in public and civil service Gerta von Ubisch: the emigration and return of a professor. Part 2 NSDAP membership, careers, and research funding - NSDAP membership the significance of NSDAP membership for habilitation and appointments the chair in zoology in Munster, 1935-1937 biology: the example of Ernst Lehmann the Notgemeinschaft (Emergency Association) of German science, the German research association, and the Reich Research Council under national socialism funding for biological projects by the DFG and the RFR, 1933-1945, and the significance of NSDAP membership research funding for biologists at universities and Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes research funding and the quality of research funding according to individuals and specialities the political and ideological background to research funding. Part 3 The content and result of research at universities - botany zoology Konrad Lorenz, ethology, and national socialist racial doctrine. Part 4 The content and result of research at Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes - the KWI for biology, Berlin-Dahlem the division for virus research of the KWIs for biology and biochemistry, Berlin-Dahlem the KWI for cultivated plant research, Tuttenholf the KWI for breeding research (Erwin Baur Institute), Muncheberg the genetic department of the KWI for brain research, Berlin-Buch the KWI for biophysics, Franfurt the department of hereditary pathology of the KWI for anthropology, human genetics, and eugenics, Berlin-Dahlem: the example of Hans Nachtsheim. Part 5 Scientific research by the SS - the scientific interests of Heinrich Himmler The SS Research and Teaching Society Das Ahnenerbe Heinz Brucher at the Ahnenerbe's Institute for plant genetic, Lannach Eduard May at the Ahnenerbe's entomological Institute, Dachau SS research at the University of Jena: Gerhard Heberer, human origins, and the Nordic race. Part 6 Research to develop biological weapons - the working group Blitzableiter biological warfare research under deputy Reich physician Fuhrer Kurt Blome. (Part contents).

Introduction: Johannes Holtfreter, pioneer in experimental embryology.

Developmental DynamicsVolume 205, Issue 3 p. 214-216 Free Access Introduction: Johannes Holtfreter, pioneer in experimental embryology Viktor Hamburger, Corresponding Author Viktor Hamburger Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63110Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, MO 63110Search for more papers by this author Viktor Hamburger, Corresponding Author Viktor Hamburger Department of Biology, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63110Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, MO 63110Search for more papers by this author First published: March 1996 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0177(199603)205:3<214::AID-AJA2>3.0.CO;2-LCitations: 9AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL No abstract is available for this article. References Holtfreter, J. (1939) Tissue affinity, a means of embryonic morphogenesis. Archiv für Experimentelle Zellforschung 23: 169– 209. Townes, P. L., and Holtfreter, J. (1955) Directed movements and selective adhesion of embryonic amphibian cells. J. Exp. Zool. 123: 53– 120. Trinkaus, J. P. (1984) Cells Into Organs. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc. Citing Literature Volume205, Issue3March 1996Pages 214-216 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Holtfreter revisited: Unsolved problems in amphibian morphogenesis

A number of fundamental problems in developmental and cell biology were articulated in Johannes Holtfreter's classic papers on tissue affinity and mechanisms of amphibian gastrulation. These problems remain unsolved and would be profitably revisited with modern methods of cell and molecular biology. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Johannes Holtfreter's contributions to ongoing studies of the organizer

Johannes Holtfreter's contributions to ongoing studies of the organizer

Johannes Holtfreter's contributions to ongoing studies of the organizer.

Johannes Holtfreter's contributions to ongoing studies of the organizer.

Holtfreter revisited: unsolved problems in amphibian morphogenesis.

A number of fundamental problems in developmental and cell biology were articulated in Johannes Holtfreter's classic papers on tissue affinity and mechanisms of amphibian gastrulation. These problems remain unsolved and would be profitably revisited with modern methods of cell and molecular biology.

The Discovery of Noggin

H ow does our nervous system develop? Half a century has passed since a Nobel Prize was awarded in this intriguing area of biology, yet the problem has not been solved. Recently published work appears to have many of the answers to this fascinating question. First, I'll provide a little background. In 1924, Hans Spemann and Hilda Mangold performed a classic experiment which later received a Nobel Prize. They showed that if a portion of a newt donor embryo was transplanted into a host newt embryo, twin embryos developed in the host embryo. The transplanted segment formation of a second nervous system, around which the other parts of the second embryo developed (Spemann 1938) (Figure 1). Spemann and Mangold termed the transplanted segment, which induced the new nervous system, the because it caused the organization of a second embryo. The Organizer itself was the dorsal lip of the blastopore, a region that eventually forms the notochord and associated structures. The dorsal lip moves from the exterior of the embryo to the interior and comes to rest under tissue that will become the nervous system (neural ectoderm tissue). Organizer tissue sends a or messages to the overlying ectoderm, telling it to differentiate into nervous tissue. This message has been termed the neural because it induces development in the ectoderm. Since Spemann and Mangold's findings, more than half a century has passed where investigators have unsuccessfully sought to identify and characterize the elusive inducer. It made sense that the inducer probably acts by directly or indirectly turning on genes that code for proteins that make the nervous system function. All sorts of interesting experiments were performed to try to identify the inducer. Some involved elegant approaches such as placing the dorsal lip (Organizer) in a droplet of saline, waiting for it to presumably release the inducer, then removing the dorsal lip tissue from the droplet, replacing it with a piece of ectoderm and observing whether differentiation takes place in the ectoderm (and it did) (Niu & Twitty 1953) (Figure 2). Many attempts followed to try to characterize the material in the droplet that was released by the dorsal lip and induced differentiation in ectoderm, but available technology did not result in definitive answers. Many other experiments were performed with confusing results. Johannes Holtfreter (1968) found that altered pH or ionic strength could result in differentiation in isolated ectoderm in the absence of the dorsal lip. But to everyone's amazement and, perhaps horror, many other agents also caused differentiation in ectoderm in the absence of the Organizer. This posed a gigantic dilemma. Holtfreter and others felt that all of the so-called inducers-which included high or low pH, variations in ionic strength, ground glass and methylene bluedamaged cells, and this damage (or sublethal cytolysis) resulted in differentiation (Holtfreter 1968; reviewed in Oppenheimer & Lefevre 1989). The molecular mechanisms involved in induction by abnormal inducers may be different from or in the same biochemical pathways that are involved in normal induction. Since so many abnormal substances could induce nervous tissue differentiation in ectoderm, very well-defined criteria had to be established to differentiate between the natural inducer and the imposters. The following key criteria were established to identify the authentic inducer (Lamb et al. 1993):

The rise of experimental neuroembryology a personal reassessment

Tbe Germans have a penchant for condensing their collective wisdom in proverbs: “All is well that ends well”, “Pride comes before a fall”, and “that which wants to become a hook bends early”. At age 14 I was exploring the countryside around the small German town in which I grew up. I collected plants, animals, fossils and brought home salamander and frog eggs and watched them develop and metamorphose. There was never any doubt in my mind that I would become a naturalist. Years later, I made the conscious choice to study Zoology. I felt that the Natural Sciences brought me closer to their subject matter than the Cultural Sciences, as the Humanities were then called. Animals and plants could be ordered in a rational taxonomic system, and frog embryos displayed a reassuring regularity. There was hope to understand some of the rules that govern these phenomena. Surely, others would find history more dramatic. No doubt, the lives of Caesar, Napoleon or George Washington could be more fascinating than those of my tadpoles. But to unravel the mysteries of their genius seemed to me beyond my ken. I discovered my calling at age 19, in a graduate seminar at the Zoological Institute in Heidelberg. Its Director, the distinguished experimental embryologist Curt Herbst, admitted me, a second-year student, probably on the recommendation of an older friend. At any rate, this was a refreshing sign of informality that prevailed then at German Universities. We read and discussed some publications of Wilhelm Roux, who was the founder of Experimental Embry&ogy. Despite his long-winded and somewhat pompous style I detected my “elective pity” to his causal analytical way of thinking and I looked forward to experimenting on living embryos. When I moved to Freiburg, at the foot of the Black Forest, hiking and skiing were much on my mind, but I had also found out that the Director of the Zoological Institute, Hans Spemann was a distinguished experimental embryologist. He had discovered embryonic induction, in the case of lens induction by the optic vesicle, and he had designed a method of transplantation on early amphibian embryos in the pursuit of problems of dete~ination of organ primordia. Two fellow students arrived in Freiburg at the same time, in 1920: Johannes Holtfreter, who became Spemann’s most innovative student and my lifelong friend, and Hilde Proescholdt, who later became Mrs Mangold. She was fortunate in having the organizer experiment assigned to her as her Ph.D. thesis. The organizer experiment consisted of the transplantation of the so-called dorsal lip of the blastopore of the gastrula (an early stage of the amphibian embryo) to the flank of another gastrula, where it induced a secondary neural plate (the precursor of the nervous system) and eventually the formation of an entire secondary embryo. I think the designation “organizer” for the tiny piece of embryonic tissues that accomplishes this feat is entirely justified. Some detractors of Spemann have implied that this term has vitalistic implications. This is not the case. The formation of the secondary embryo can be fully understood in terms of the then well-established mechanisms, such as assimilative and contact inductions, self differentiation and so forth. I still remember the great excitement in the laboratory when Hilde Proescholdt showed us late in the spring of 1921 her first success, a well-formed induced secondary embryo. And we were deeply saddened when she died in an accident in 1924, shortly after the publication of the famous organizer paper by her and Spemann, 33 that earned Spemann the Nobel Prize in 1935. Spemann’s approach to the causal analysis of development has influenced me profoundly. His emphasis was first and foremost on ~ndamental problems of a general nature. The specific experiment served the solution of a general problem. When he had discovered embryonic induction by

The heritage of experimental embryology: Hans Spemann and the organizer

The subject of experimental em- bryology is often thought to have reached its climax in the 1920s, with Spemann's organizer graft experiment of 1924 (for which he subsequently received the Nobel Prize) being seen as the crowning achievement of this period. By the middle of the century, the re- sources of experimental embry- ology seemed to many to have been exhausted. 'If', as Dr Ham- burger says 'experimental embry- ology has become a chapter in the history of biology', perhaps the time has come to record its history and take its measure. This fascinating book by Viktor Ham- burger describes experimental embryology in the Spemann lab during the 1920s and 1930s. There can be no-one better quali- fied to give a personal account of that area, and Dr Hamburger has done a superb job, paying great attention to detail and yet making the book extremely readable and enjoyable. Dr Hamburger worked in the same institute as Spemann in the 1920s, and can therefore report from personal experience what life was like in that laboratory at the time of such famous names as Johannes Holtfreter and Hilde Mangold. So often one can read turgid and indigestible accounts by historians of science about the past, with speculations as to what a long-since deceased scientist may or may not have meant in his writing. This book by Viktor Ham- burger is an entirely different production. Everything in it is from personal experience, and all current embryologists will be fas- cinated to read of the way experi- ments were planned and results assessed in a laboratory which must surely rank as one of the most pre-eminent in this field in history. I suspect that the reason for the, in my view, great success of this book is that it has been written by a scientist who himself has worked in this field through- out his career and with immense distinction. My only criticism of the book is that Viktor Ham- burger has been too modest about his own achievements, he and Johannes Holtfreter being the two most outstanding and suc- cessful colleagues of Spemann. There are so many parts of great interest in this book that it is hard to single out any one for special comment. To me a point of especial interest was the com- parison of activities in the Spemann laboratory based in Freiburg, FRG with those in another major centre of embryo- logical activity, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. It has always sur- prised me to note that the famous textbook of E. B. Wilson entitled

Experiments on the formed inclusions of the amphibian egg. II. Formative effects of hydration and dehydration on lipid bodies

Journal of Experimental ZoologyVolume 102, Issue 1 p. 51-108 Article Experiments on the formed inclusions of the amphibian egg. II. Formative effects of hydration and dehydration on lipid bodies Johannes Holtfreter, Johannes Holtfreter Department of Zoology, McGill University, Montreal, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author Johannes Holtfreter, Johannes Holtfreter Department of Zoology, McGill University, Montreal, CanadaSearch for more papers by this author First published: June 1946 https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1401020104Citations: 20AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume102, Issue1June 1946Pages 51-108 RelatedInformation

Unsolved Problems of General Biology

Previous articleNext article No AccessUnsolved Problems of General BiologyErnest Everett JustErnest Everett Just Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Volume 13, Number 2Apr., 1940 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.13.2.30151535 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 3Citations are reported from Crossref Journal History This article was published in Physiological Zoology (1928-1998), which is continued by Physiological and Biochemical Zoology (1999-present). PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:W. Malcolm Byrnes E. E. Just and Creativity in Science. The Importance of Diversity, Journal of African American Studies 19, no.33 (Jun 2015): 264–278.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12111-015-9305-1W. Malcolm Byrnes Ernest Everett Just, Johannes Holtfreter, and the origin of certain concepts in embryo morphogenesis, Molecular Reproduction and Development 76, no.1010 (Jul 2009): 912–921.https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.21081W. Malcolm Byrnes, William R. Eckberg Ernest Everett Just (1883–1941)—An early ecological developmental biologist, Developmental Biology 296, no.11 (Aug 2006): 1–11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.04.445

Brief Notices

Previous article FreeNew Biological BooksBrief NoticesPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Quarterly Review of Biology Volume 2, Number 2Jun., 1927 Published in association with Stony Brook University Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/394278 Views: 1Total views on this site Citations: 3Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Johannes Holtfreter Experiments on the formed inclusions of the amphibian egg. III. Observations on microsomes, vacuoles, and on the process of yolk resorption, Journal of Experimental Zoology 103, no.11 (Oct 1946): 81–112.https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1401030105Vera Koehring The neutral-red reaction, Journal of Morphology 49, no.11 (Mar 1930): 45–137.https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1050490103Hope Hibbard Cytoplasmic constituents in the developing egg of Discoglossus pictus Otth, Journal of Morphology 45, no.11 (Mar 1928): 233–257.https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1050450108