1979
DOI: 10.1038/282724a0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A central role for denervated tissues in causing nerve sprouting

Abstract: One of the oldest known forms of neuronal plasticity is the ability of peripheral nerves to grow and form functional connections after damage to neighbouring axons. Yet the source of the signal which elicits this "sprouting" remains unknown. In mammalian muscles, paralysis-which gives rise to many of the changes which occur in denervated muscles-causes motor nerve terminals to sprout. Could the inactive muscle fibres (rather than nerve degeneration products, another likely source) be responsible for some of th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
45
0
1

Year Published

1981
1981
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 118 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
4
45
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One would expect its effect to be equally expressed throughout a fiber, and a mechanism of regulation based on muscle fiber activity would seem to provide the most relevant information; that is, is the terminal successful in evoking activity, and at what level? Moreover, it is well known that directly imposed activity can largely reverse the postsynaptic effects of denervation (Lprmo and Rosenthal, 1972;Drachman and Witzke, 1972;Lprmo et al, 1974;Lemo and Westgaard, 1975;Lomo, 1976;Fambrough, 1979), as well as prevent nerve terminal sprouting (Brown and Holland, 1979;Brown et al, 1980) or innervation by a preimplanted foreign nerve . Synapse elimination is delayed by partial denervation Betz et al, 1980a) and accelerated by nerve stimulation (O'Brien et al, 1978).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One would expect its effect to be equally expressed throughout a fiber, and a mechanism of regulation based on muscle fiber activity would seem to provide the most relevant information; that is, is the terminal successful in evoking activity, and at what level? Moreover, it is well known that directly imposed activity can largely reverse the postsynaptic effects of denervation (Lprmo and Rosenthal, 1972;Drachman and Witzke, 1972;Lprmo et al, 1974;Lemo and Westgaard, 1975;Lomo, 1976;Fambrough, 1979), as well as prevent nerve terminal sprouting (Brown and Holland, 1979;Brown et al, 1980) or innervation by a preimplanted foreign nerve . Synapse elimination is delayed by partial denervation Betz et al, 1980a) and accelerated by nerve stimulation (O'Brien et al, 1978).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sprouting of nerve terminals is a normal consequence of neu- romuscular inactivity (35,36). Terminals also grow beyond endplate AChR clusters when they re-innervate them following denervation.…”
Section: Retraction Of Terminal Sprouts Upon Re-innervation Of Denervmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of these conditions that promote sprouting have muscle fiber denervation and/or inactivity in common. Further, the observation that frequency of sprouting in some cases can be significantly reduced by artificially restoring contractility Brown and Holland, 1979;Brown et al, 1980b), coupled with the above results, strongly implicates muscle fiber inactivity as a stimulus to motor neuron sprouting. Despite the considerable evidence that inactive muscle fibers are, directly or indirectly (through subsequent denervation-like muscle fiber changes), a source of some sprouting factor(s) (reviewed by Brown et al, 198 1;Brown, 1984), other interpretations of these and similar results have engendered different hypotheses (e.g., O'Brien et al, 1978;Pestronk and Drachman, 1978).…”
mentioning
confidence: 90%