ReviewExperimental physiology2024
Mechanosensory encoding in ex vivo muscle-nerve preparations.
Review in Experimental physiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Experimental Physiology special issue: 'Mechanotransduction, muscle spindles and proprioception'.Experimental physiology · 2024Article
- Mechanosensory encoding in ex vivo muscle-nerve preparations.Experimental physiology · 2024Review
- The making of a proprioceptor: a tale of two identities.Trends in neurosciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Our objective was to evaluate an ex vivo muscle-nerve preparation used to study mechanosensory signalling by low threshold mechanosensory receptors (LTMRs). Specifically, we aimed to assess how well the ex vivo preparation represents in vivo firing behaviours of the three major LTMR subtypes of muscle primary sensory afferents, namely type Ia and II muscle spindle (MS) afferents and type Ib tendon organ afferents. Using published procedures for ex vivo study of LTMRs in mouse hindlimb muscles, we replicated earlier reports on afferent firing in response to conventional stretch paradigms applied to non-contracting, that is passive, muscle. Relative to in vivo studies, stretch-evoked firing for confirmed MS afferents in the ex vivo preparation was markedly reduced in firing rate and deficient in encoding dynamic features of muscle stretch. These deficiencies precluded conventional means of discriminating type Ia and II afferents. Muscle afferents, including confirmed Ib afferents were often indistinguishable based on their similar firing responses to the same physiologically relevant stretch paradigms. These observations raise uncertainty about conclusions drawn from earlier ex vivo studies that either attribute findings to specific afferent types or suggest an absence of treatment effects on dynamic firing. However, we found that replacing the recording solution with bicarbonate buffer resulted in afferent firing rates and profiles more like those seen in vivo. Improving representation of the distinctive sensory encoding properties in ex vivo muscle-nerve preparations will promote accuracy in assigning molecular markers and mechanisms to heterogeneous types of muscle mechanosensory neurons.
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.