Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19538631›Full record

ArticleJournal of anatomy2009

A comparative analysis of the encapsulated end-organs of mammalian skeletal muscles and of their sensory nerve endings.

R W Banks, M Hulliger, H H Saed, M J Stacey

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of anatomy, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The evolution of muscle spindles.Experimental physiology · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Skeletal muscle function underpins muscle spindle abundance.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Scaling of sensorimotor delays in terrestrial mammals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2018
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Developing a sense of touch.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2017
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

R W BanksUniversity of Durham, UK. r.w.banks@durham.ac.uk
M Hulliger
H H Saed
M J Stacey
Durham University · GBUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The encapsulated sensory endings of mammalian skeletal muscles are all mechanoreceptors. At the most basic functional level they serve as length sensors (muscle spindle primary and secondary endings), tension sensors (tendon organs), and pressure or vibration sensors (lamellated corpuscles). At a higher functional level, the differing roles of individual muscles in, for example, postural adjustment and locomotion might be expected to be reflected in characteristic complements of the various end-organs, their sensory endings and afferent nerve fibres. This has previously been demonstrated with regard to the number of muscle-spindle capsules; however, information on the other types of end-organ, as well as the complements of primary and secondary endings of the spindles themselves, is sporadic and inconclusive regarding their comparative provision in different muscles. Our general conclusion that muscle-specific variability in the provision of encapsulated sensory endings does exist demonstrates the necessity for the acquisition of more data of this type if we are to understand the underlying adaptive relationships between motor control and the structure and function of skeletal muscle. The present quantitative and comparative analysis of encapsulated muscle afferents is based on teased, silver-impregnated preparations. We begin with a statistical analysis of the number and distribution of muscle-spindle afferents in hind-limb muscles of the cat, particularly tenuissimus. We show that: (i) taking account of the necessity for at least one primary ending to be present, muscles differ significantly in the mean number of additional afferents per spindle capsule; (ii) the frequency of occurrence of spindles with different sensory complements is consistent with a stochastic, rather than deterministic, developmental process; and (iii) notwithstanding the previous finding, there is a differential distribution of spindles intramuscularly such that the more complex ones tend to be located closer to the main divisions of the nerve. Next, based on a sample of tendon organs from several hind-foot muscles of the cat, we demonstrate the existence in at least a large proportion of tendon organs of a structural substrate to account for multiple spike-initiation sites and pacemaker switching, namely the distribution of sensory terminals supplied by the different first-order branches of the Ib afferent to separate, parallel, tendinous compartments of individual tendon organs. We then show that the numbers of spindles, tendon organs and paciniform corpuscles vary independently in a sample of (mainly) hind-foot muscles of the cat. Grouping muscles by anatomical region in the cat indicated the existence of a gradual proximo-distal decline in the overall average size of the afferent complement of muscle spindles from axial through hind limb to intrinsic foot muscles, but with considerable muscle-specific variability. Finally, we present some comparative data on muscle-spindle afferent complements of rat, rabbit and guinea pig, one particularly notable feature being the high incidence of multiple primary endings in the rat.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatsFootGuinea PigsHindlimbMammalsMuscle, SkeletalMuscle SpindlesNeurons, AfferentRabbitsRatsSensory Receptor CellsSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID19538631
PMCPMC2705296
OpenAlexW2020731575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.