Ok, so “the organizer” is a bit of a misnomer. I like this as it emphasizes the role of “evoking from competent cells” rather than “inducing” and that it is the states that matter. “The ability of a tissue to respond to the organizer is often referred to as its ‘competence’ (Christian and Moon, 1993; Grainger and Gurdon, 1989; Servetnick and Grainger, 1991). This notion became paramount in the interpretation of organizer experiments early on (Hamburger, 1969), leading J. Holtfreter to state that ‘the organizer tissues do not actually organize the cell material whose new trend they have induced. Rather the induced cells organize themselves into complex organs…in later discussions on this issue I went as far as to declare the term organizer to be a misnomer’ (Holtfreter, 1985). Thus, the emphasis on the organizer, whatever its origin and composition, as the source of the responses will always miss the important point that its action is non-specific and is completely dependent on the state of the host at the moment of the transplant. This was noticed most clearly by C. H. Waddington, who discussed the problem in terms of the organizer ‘evocating’, rather than ‘inducing’, a response in the host (Waddington, 1954), i.e. the organizer does not create a new state but rather brings out a response that is latent in the host tissue at the moment of the transplant. From this perspective, it is clear that frog, fish and chicken embryos have, at a certain moment early in development, a very broad competence that allows them to respond to the signals from organizers of different species.” https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/145/5/dev159525/48669/On-the-nature-and-function-of-organizers

Ok, so “the organizer” is a bit of a misnomer. I like this as it emphasizes the role of “evoking from competent cells” rather than “inducing” and that it is the states that matter.
 
“The ability of a tissue to respond to the organizer is often referred to as its ‘competence’ (Christian and Moon, 1993; Grainger and Gurdon, 1989; Servetnick and Grainger, 1991). This notion became paramount in the interpretation of organizer experiments early on (Hamburger, 1969), leading J. Holtfreter to state that ‘the organizer tissues do not actually organize the cell material whose new trend they have induced. Rather the induced cells organize themselves into complex organs…in later discussions on this issue I went as far as to declare the term organizer to be a misnomer’ (Holtfreter, 1985). Thus, the emphasis on the organizer, whatever its origin and composition, as the source of the responses will always miss the important point that its action is non-specific and is completely dependent on the state of the host at the moment of the transplant. This was noticed most clearly by C. H. Waddington, who discussed the problem in terms of the organizer ‘evocating’, rather than ‘inducing’, a response in the host (Waddington, 1954), i.e. the organizer does not create a new state but rather brings out a response that is latent in the host tissue at the moment of the transplant. From this perspective, it is clear that frog, fish and chicken embryos have, at a certain moment early in development, a very broad competence that allows them to respond to the signals from organizers of different species.”
 
https://journals.biologists.com/dev/article/145/5/dev159525/48669/On-the-nature-and-function-of-organizers

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− six = 0

Leave a Reply