4.5 Article

A comparative immunocytochemical study of development and regeneration of chemosensory neurons in the rat vomeronasal system

Journal

BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 946, Issue 1, Pages 52-63

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0006-8993(02)02823-8

Keywords

vomeronasal organ; neurogenesis; nestin; neural cell adhesion molecule; olfactory marker protein

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Vomeronasal neurons undergo continuous neurogenesis during development and after neuronal injury. We used immunocytochemical methods to compare different stages of the vomeronasal organ development to those of regeneration following vomeronasal nerve transection. At E15 and at 6 to 10 days after injury, nestin-positive cells were observed throughout the sensory epithelium. We did not find nestin immunoreactivity to be localized to the boundary region of the epithelium. The early appearance and wide distribution of nestin-positive cells suggests that they represent chemosensory precursor cells that develop and migrate vertically in the epithelium. Vomeronasal receptor cells degenerated 6 to 8 days after nerve transection, but axon terminals in the accessory olfactory bulb (AOB) continued to show the presence of the chemosensory specific marker (OMP) for up to ten days, a significant finding observed in this study. It is likely that the distance from the site of nerve transection may contribute to differences in the time course of anterograde and retrograde axon degradation. OMP-positive neurons were observed in the normal adult epithelium and to a much lesser extent 10-60 days after recovery from nerve transection. Axons from regenerated receptor cells did not reach the AOB during this time period. This failure to reestablish connections with target cells in the AOB could explain why OMP-positive cells were rarely observed among the regenerated cells in the vomeronasal epithelium. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science 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

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available