4.4 Article

Similar electrophysiological changes in axotomized and neighboring intact dorsal root ganglion neurons

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 3, 页码 1588-1602

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/jn.00855.2002

关键词

-

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-14624, NS-38317] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated electrophysiological changes in chronically axotomized and neighboring intact dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons in rats after either a peripheral axotomy consisting of an L5 spinal nerve ligation (SNL) or a central axotomy produced by an L5 partial rhizotomy (PR). SNL produced lasting hyperalgesia to punctate indentation and tactile allodynia to innocuous stroking of the foot ipsilateral to the injury. PR produced ipsilateral hyperalgesia without allodynia with recovery by day 10. Intracellular recordings were obtained in vivo from the cell bodies (somata) of axotomized and intact DRG neurons, some with functionally identified peripheral receptive fields. PR produced only minor electrophysiological changes in both axotomized and intact somata in L5 DRG. In contrast, extensive changes were observed after SNL in large- and medium-sized, but not small-sized, somata of intact (L4) as well as axotomized (L5) DRG neurons. These changes included (in relation to sham values) higher input resistance, lower current and voltage thresholds, and action potentials with longer durations and slower rising and falling rates. The incidence of spontaneous activity, recorded extracellularly from dorsal root fibers in vitro, was significantly higher (in relation to sham) after SNL but not after PR, and occurred in myelinated but not unmyelinated fibers from both L4 (9.1%) and L5 (16.7%) DRGs. We hypothesize that the changes in the electrophysiological properties of axotomized and intact DRG neurons after SNL are produced by a mechanism associated with Wallerian degeneration and that the hyperexcitability of intact neurons may contribute to SNL-induced hyperalgesia and allodynia.

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