Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31639375›Full record

ArticleExperimental neurology2020

Sensory axons inhibit motor axon regeneration in vitro.

Thomas Brushart, Floreana Kebaish, Rachel Wolinsky, Richard Skolasky, Zhi Li, Norman Barker

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Current neuropharmacology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas BrushartDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America. Electronic address: tbrusha@jhmi.edu.
Floreana KebaishDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Rachel WolinskyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Richard SkolaskyDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Zhi LiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, 601 North Caroline Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Norman BarkerDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University, 600 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, United States of America.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Harnessing Neurotropism to Sort Sensory and Motor AxonsR21NS110414 · NINDS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BRUSHART, THOMAS M, MAO, HAI-QUAN · 2018 to 2019
$450k
NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS110414
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During mammalian embryonic development sensory and motor axons interact as an integral part of the pathfinding process. During regeneration, however, little is known of their interactions with one another. It is thus possible that sensory axons might influence motor axon regeneration in ways not currently appreciated. To explore this possibility we have developed an organotypic model of post-natal nerve regeneration in which sensory and motor axons are color-coded by modality. Motor axons that express yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) and sensory axons that express red fluorescent protein (RFP) are blended within a three-dimensional segment of peripheral nerve. This nerve is then transected, allowing axons to interact with one another as they grow out on a collagen/laminin gel that is initially devoid of directional cues. Within hours it is apparent that sensory axons extend more rapidly than motor axons and precede them during the early stages of regeneration, the opposite of their developmental order. Motor axons thus enter an environment already populated with sensory axons, and they adhere to these axons throughout most of their course. As a result, motor axon growth is reduced dramatically. Physical delay of sensory regeneration, allowing motor axons to grow ahead, restores normal motor growth; direct axonal interactions on the gel, rather than some other aspect of the model, are thus responsible for motor inhibition. Potential mechanisms for this inhibition are explored by electroporating siRNA to the neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM) and the L1 adhesion molecule (L1CAM) into dorsal root ganglia (DRGs) to block expression of these molecules by regenerating sensory axons. Although neither maneuver improved motor regeneration, the results were consistent with early receptor-mediated signaling among axons rather than physical adhesion as the mechanism of motor inhibition in this model.

Indexed as

AnimalsAxonsCoculture TechniquesGanglia, SpinalMiceMice, Inbred C57BLMice, TransgenicMotor NeuronsNerve RegenerationNeural Cell Adhesion Molecule L1Neural Cell Adhesion MoleculesOrgan Culture TechniquesPeripheral NervesSensory Receptor CellsSpinal CordNeural Cell Adhesion Molecule L1Neural Cell Adhesion Molecules

Identifiers

PMID31639375
PMCPMC6899212
OpenAlexW2980342992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.