4.5 Article

Red nucleus projections to distinct motor neuron pools in the rat spinal cord

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE NEUROLOGY
卷 448, 期 4, 页码 349-359

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cne.10259

关键词

rubrospinal tract; cholera toxin; biotin dextran amine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite being one of the more extensively investigated descending pathways of the rat spinal cord, the termination pattern and postsynaptic targets of the rubrospinal tract (RST) still present some unresolved issues. In addition to locomotor functions, the RST is implicated in the control of limb movements such as reaching and grasping. Although a strong RST projection onto interneurons of intermediate Rexed's laminae V and VI have been described through the entire length of the rat spinal cord, the existence of direct rubro-motoneuronal connections have not been demonstrated. In the present study, anterograde tracing of the rat RST with biotinylated dextran amine (BDA) was combined with injections of cholera toxin P-subunit (CTbeta) into selected groups of forelimb muscles to analyze in detail the rubral projections to the forelimb areas of the cervical spinal cord. The double-staining procedure suggested a direct projection from the RST to specific populations of motoneurons. Three populations of forelimb muscles were distinguished, i.e., paw, distal muscles; forearm, intermediate muscles; and upper arm, proximal muscles. A somatotopic distribution of the corresponding motor neuron pools was present in the spinal cord segments C4-Th1. Rubrospinal axons were seen in close apposition to the distal and intermediate muscle motoneurons, but were consistently absent in the most ventrally situated motor column projecting to proximal muscles. Microstimulation of the red nucleus resulted in electromyographic responses with shorter latency in the distal forelimb muscles than in proximal muscles. These experiments support a specific, preferential role of the RST in distal forelimb muscle control. (C) 2002 Wiley-Liss, 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