4.5 Article

Characterization of Rat Forepaw Function in Two Models of Cervical Dorsal Root Injury

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROTRAUMA
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 17-29

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2008.0675

Keywords

dorsal root injury; neuropathic pain; skilled reaching; horizontal error ladder

Funding

  1. New South Wales Office of Science and Medical Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Dorsal root injury (DRI) disrupts afferent input from the periphery and often leads to sensory deficits and neuropathic pain. Despite cervical root injuries in rodents being a useful model for deafferentation studies, a quantitative characterization of the sensory deficits produced by DRI is still lacking. This study aimed to characterize the different functional deficits resulting from a dorsal two- or four-root (C7-C8 and C5-C8, respectively) crush injury in rats at levels that innervate the forepaws. The impairment of the affected forepaw was assessed by mechanical and thermal pain responses, and rating the performance on the skilled reaching and ladder rung walking tests (LRWT). Postoperatively, only the two- root DRI rats developed mechanical allodynia, which persisted throughout the course of the study. Thermal hyperalgesia peaked at weeks 1 and 6. The four-root DRI animals were less sensitive to mechanical and thermal stimulation. Performance on the skilled reaching task could only be measured in two- root DRI rats, as animals with four-root injury were unable to grasp the pellets at all. On the LRWT, gait impairment was proportional to the severity of the lesion, with four-root DRI animals showing a significantly higher rate of errors than two- root DRI animals. These results suggest that two-root DRI represents a good model to assess treatments for allodynia-induced neuropathic pain, and for the restoration of the sensory component of the skilled motor performance. On the other hand, the four-root DRI would be a useful model when forepaw deafferentation is required.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available