4.5 Article

Quantitative Analysis of Afferents Expressing Substance P, Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide, Isolectin B4, Neurofilament 200, and Peripherin in the Sensory Root of the Rat Trigeminal Ganglion

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 523, 期 1, 页码 126-138

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/cne.23672

关键词

neuronal marker; ultrastructure; fiber type; sensory root; trigeminal ganglion; RGD_1566440; nif-0000-30467; AB_572266; AB_572217; AB_2314660; AB_477257; AB_2171328

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government (MSIP) [2008-0062282]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Substance P (SP), calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and isolectin B4 (IB4) are widely used as markers for peripheral neurons with unmyelinated fibers, whereas neurofilament 200 (NF200), and Peripherin are used as markers for neurons with myelinated fibers, and with unmyelinated or small-caliber fibers, respectively. To study the selectivity of these markers for specific neuronal types, we analyzed their expression in neurons in the rat trigeminal ganglion by light- and electron-microscopic immunocytochemistry. Most SP-immunopositive (+), CGRP+, and IB4+ fibers were unmyelinated, but a small fraction (approximate to 5%) were small myelinated fibers (<20 mu m(2) in cross-sectional area, equivalent to <5 mu m in diameter, A fiber). Similarly, whereas the majority of NF200+ fibers were myelinated, a large fraction (23.9%) were unmyelinated, and whereas the majority of Peripherin+ fibers were unmyelinated and small myelinated, a significant fraction (15.5%) were large myelinated (>20 mu m(2) in cross-sectional area, equivalent to >5 mu m in diameter, A fiber). Our findings confirm that SP, CGRP, and IB4 can be used as reliable markers for neurons with unmyelinated fibers, and question the suitability of NF200 as a marker for neurons with myelinated fibers, and of Peripherin as a marker for neurons with unmyelinated, or fine-caliber fibers. J. Comp. Neurol. 523:126-138, 2015. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据