Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28123010›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2017

Optimal delineation of single C-tactile and C-nociceptive afferents in humans by latency slowing.

Roger H Watkins, Johan Wessberg, Helena Backlund Wasling, James P Dunham, Håkan Olausson, Richard D Johnson, Rochelle Ackerley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Studying human nociceptors: from fundamentals to clinic.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2021
    Review
  19. Pleasantness Only?Experimental psychology · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Roger H WatkinsDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; roger.holmes.watkins@gu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-5425-6579
Johan WessbergDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Helena Backlund WaslingDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
James P DunhamUniversity Division of Anaesthesia, Cambridge University Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Håkan OlaussonDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Richard D JohnsonDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Rochelle AckerleyDepartment of Physiology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

C-mechanoreceptors in humans comprise a population of unmyelinated afferents exhibiting a wide range of mechanical sensitivities. C-mechanoreceptors are putatively divided into those signaling gentle touch (C-tactile afferents, CTs) and nociception (C-mechanosensitive nociceptors, CMs), giving rise to positive and negative affect, respectively. We sought to distinguish, compare, and contrast the properties of a population of human C-mechanoreceptors to see how fundamental the divisions between these putative subpopulations are. We used microneurography to record from individual afferents in humans and applied electrical and mechanical stimulation to their receptive fields. We show that C-mechanoreceptors can be distinguished unequivocally into two putative populations, comprising CTs and CMs, by electrically evoked spike latency changes (slowing). After both natural mechanical stimulation and repetitive electrical stimulation there was markedly less latency slowing in CTs compared with CMs. Electrical receptive field stimulation, which bypasses the receptor end organ, was most effective in classifying C-mechanoreceptors, as responses to mechanical receptive field stimulation overlapped somewhat, which may lead to misclassification. Furthermore, we report a subclass of low-threshold CM responding to gentle mechanical stimulation and a potential subclass of CT afferent displaying burst firing. We show that substantial differences exist in the mechanisms governing axonal conduction between CTs and CMs. We provide clear electrophysiological "signatures" (extent of latency slowing) that can be used in unequivocally identifying populations of C-mechanoreceptors in single-unit and multiunit microneurography studies and in translational animal research into affective touch. Additionally, these differential mechanisms may be pharmacologically targetable for separate modulation of positive and negative affective touch information.

Indexed as

Action PotentialsAdultAnalysis of VarianceElectric StimulationFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMechanoreceptorsNerve Fibers, UnmyelinatedNociceptorsPhysical StimulationPsychophysicsReaction TimeSkinTouchC fiberhumanlow-threshold mechanoreceptormicroneurographynociceptor

Identifiers

PMID28123010
PMCPMC5376601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.