4.4 Review

Gaskell revisited: new insights into spinal autonomics necessitate a revised motor neuron nomenclature

期刊

CELL AND TISSUE RESEARCH
卷 370, 期 2, 页码 195-209

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00441-017-2676-y

关键词

Motorneurons; Sympathetic; Parasympathetic; Branchial; Visceral

资金

  1. NIH [RO1 DC005590, R03 DC013655, R03 DC015333]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several concepts developed in the nineteenth century have formed the basis of much of our neuroanatomical teaching today. Not all of these were based on solid evidence nor have withstood the test of time. Recent evidence on the evolution and development of the autonomic nervous system, combined with molecular insights into the development and diversification of motor neurons, challenges some of the ideas held for over 100 years about the organization of autonomic motor outflow. This review provides an overview of the original ideas and quality of supporting data and contrasts this with a more accurate and in depth insight provided by studies using modern techniques. Several lines of data demonstrate that branchial motor neurons are a distinct motor neuron population within the vertebrate brainstem, from which parasympathetic visceral motor neurons of the brainstem evolved. The lack of an autonomic nervous system in jawless vertebrates implies that spinal visceral motor neurons evolved out of spinal somatic motor neurons. Consistent with the evolutionary origin of brainstem parasympathetic motor neurons out of branchial motor neurons and spinal sympathetic motor neurons out of spinal motor neurons is the recent revision of the organization of the autonomic nervous system into a cranial parasympathetic and a spinal sympathetic division (e.g., there is no sacral parasympathetic division). We propose a new nomenclature that takes all of these new insights into account and avoids the conceptual misunderstandings and incorrect interpretation of limited and technically inferior data inherent in the old nomenclature.

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

4.4
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