ArticleNeural regeneration research2022
The functional properties of synapses made by regenerated axons across spinal cord lesion sites in lamprey.
Article in Neural regeneration research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-Mobility Group Box 1 in Spinal Cord Injury and Its Potential Role in Brain Functional Remodeling After Spinal Cord Injury.Cellular and molecular neurobiology · 2023Review
- Proprioceptive feedback amplification restores effective locomotion in a neuromechanical model of lampreys with spinal injuries.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Lampreys and spinal cord regeneration: "a very special claim on the interest of zoologists," 1830s-present.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Article
- Full regeneration of descending corticotropin-releasing hormone axons after a complete spinal cord injury in lampreys.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Review: The role of HMGB1 in spinal cord injury.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the anatomical properties of regenerated axons across spinal cord lesion sites have been studied extensively, little is known of how the functional properties of regenerated synapses compared to those in unlesioned animals. This study aims to compare the properties of synapses made by regenerated axons with unlesioned axons using the lamprey, a model system for spinal injury research, in which functional locomotor recovery after spinal cord lesions is associated with axonal regeneration across the lesion site. Regenerated synapses below the lesion site did not differ from synapses from unlesioned axons with respect to the amplitude and duration of single excitatory postsynaptic potentials. They also showed the same activity-dependent depression over spike trains. However, regenerated synapses did differ from unlesioned synapses as the estimated number of synaptic vesicles was greater and there was evidence for increased postsynaptic quantal amplitude. For axons above the lesion site, the amplitude and duration of single synaptic inputs also did not differ significantly from unlesioned animals. However, in this case, there was evidence of a reduction in release probability and inputs facilitated rather than depressed over spike trains. Synaptic inputs from single regenerated axons below the lesion site thus do not increase in amplitude to compensate for the reduced number of descending axons after functional recovery. However, the postsynaptic input was maintained at the unlesioned level using different synaptic properties. Conversely, the facilitation from the same initial amplitude above the lesion site made the synaptic input over spike trains functionally stronger. This may help to increase propriospinal activity across the lesion site to compensate for the lesion-induced reduction in supraspinal inputs. The animal experiments were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee of Cambridge University.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.