4.4 Article

Regeneration of unmyelinated and myelinated sensory nerve fibres studied by a retrograde tracer method

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
Volume 138, Issue 1-2, Pages 225-232

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2004.04.012

Keywords

fluoro-dextran; nerve crush; nerve regeneration; rat; sciatic nerve; unmyelinated nerve fibres

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Regeneration of myelinated and unmyelinated sensory nerve fibres after a crush lesion of the rat sciatic nerve was investigated by means of retrograde labelling. The advantage of this method is that the degree of regeneration is estimated on the basis of sensory somata rather than the number of axons. Axonal counts do not reflect the number of regenerated neurons because of axonal branching and because myelinated axons form unmyelinated sprouts. Two days to 10 weeks after crushing, the distal sural or peroneal nerves were cut and exposed to fluoro-dextran. Large and small dorsal root ganglion cells that had been labelled, i.e., that had regenerated axons towards or beyond the injection site, were counted in serial sections. Large and small neurons with presumably myelinated and unmyelinated axons, respectively, were classified by immunostaining for neurofilaments. The axonal growth rate was 3.7 mm/day with no obvious differences between myelinated and unmyelinated axons. This contrasted with previous claims of two to three times faster regeneration, ates of unmyelinated as compared to myelinated fibres. The initial delay was 0.55 days. Fewer small neurons were labelled relative to large neurons after crush and regeneration than in controls, indicating that regeneration of small neurons was less complete than that of large ones. This contrasted with the fact that unmyelinated axons in the regenerated sural nerve after 74 days were only slightly reduced. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available