Somatotopic direct projections from orofacial areas of primary somatosensory cortex to pons and medulla, especially to trigeminal sensory nuclear complex, in rats

Tomita, Akiko; Kato, Takafumi; Satô, Fumihiko; Haque, Tahsinul; Oka, Atsuhiro; Yamamoto, Masaaki; Ono, Takahiro; Bae, Yong Chul; Maeda, Yoshinobu; Sessle, Barry J.; Yoshida, Atsushi

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.10.048

Cited by 25 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 110 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These were the three experiments with relatively large injection sites (Table 1). The modest labeling observed in our material stands in contrast to the rather abundant corticotrigeminal labeling seen after tracer injections into S1 orofacial regions (Tomita et al, 2012). …”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Although the trigeminal nuclei are known to receive significant projections from the contralateral S1 (Wise et al, 1979; Killackey et al, 1989; Furuta et al, 2010; Tomita et al, 2012), we only observed limited amounts of labeled fibers in the trigeminal nuclei (Figure 4P) in three of six cases, including two cases with tracer injection into the S1 whisker representation (R602, R606) and one case with tracer injection in the forelimb representation (R605). These were the three experiments with relatively large injection sites (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Brain-wide map of efferent projections from rat barrel cortex

Zakiewicz

Bjaalie

Leergaard

2014

Front. Neuroinform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The somatotopically organized whisker barrel field of the rat primary somatosensory (S1) cortex is a commonly used model system for anatomical and physiological investigations of sensory processing. The neural connections of the barrel cortex have been extensively mapped. But most investigations have focused on connections to limited regions of the brain, and overviews in the literature of the connections across the brain thus build on a range of material from different laboratories, presented in numerous publications. Furthermore, given the limitations of the conventional journal article format, analyses and interpretations are hampered by lack of access to the underlying experimental data. New opportunities for analyses have emerged with the recent release of an online resource of experimental data consisting of collections of high-resolution images from 6 experiments in which anterograde tracers were injected in S1 whisker or forelimb representations. Building on this material, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the brain wide distribution of the efferent projections of the rat barrel cortex. We compare our findings with the available literature and reports accumulated in the Brain Architecture Management System (BAMS2) database. We report well-known and less known intracortical and subcortical projections of the barrel cortex, as well as distinct differences between S1 whisker and forelimb related projections. Our results correspond well with recently published overviews, but provide additional information about relative differences among S1 projection targets. Our approach demonstrates how collections of shared experimental image data are suitable for brain-wide analysis and interpretation of connectivity mapping data.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain-wide map of efferent projections from rat barrel cortex

Zakiewicz

Bjaalie

Leergaard

2014

Front. Neuroinform.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Earlier studies labeling primary afferents innervating the trigeminal complex have revealed that the somatotopic arrangement of orofacial projections from S1 cortex to the trigeminal nucleus is very similar to that of central projections of primary afferents arising from the trigeminal ganglion neurons that project mainly to the ipsilateral trigeminal complex (Hayashi, 1985; Shigenaga et al, 1989; Arvidsson and Rice, 1991; Takemura et al, 1991; Tomita et al, 2012). Present results further demonstrate that the cingulate, somatosensory and Ins cortices have projections that exclusively target the Pr5 nucleus, probably to control the transmission of non-nociceptive tactile stimuli, as has been suggested by the electrophysiological results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The S1 and S2 cortices have descending projections to subcortical relay neurons that modulate the ascending sensory information (Wise et al, 1979; Rustioni and Hayes, 1981; Malmierca and Nuñez, 1998; Canedo and Aguilar, 2000; Martinez-Lorenzana et al, 2001; Aguilar et al, 2003; Malmierca and Nuñez, 2004; Noseda et al, 2010; Tomita et al, 2012). However, the functional significance of S1 and S2 corticofugal projections to the trigeminal neurons are poorly understood.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticofugal projections induce long-lasting effects on somatosensory responses in the trigeminal complex of the rat

Malmierca

Chaves-Coira

Rodrigo-Angulo

et al. 2014

Front. Syst. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensory information flow at subcortical relay stations is controlled by the action of topographic connections from the neocortex. To determinate the functional properties of the somatosensory corticofugal projections to the principal (Pr5) and caudal spinal (Sp5C) trigeminal nuclei, we performed unitary recordings in anesthetized rats. To examine the effect of these cortical projections we used tactile stimulation of the whisker and electrical stimulation of somatosensory cortices. Corticofugal anatomical projections to Pr5 and Sp5C nuclei were detected by using retrograde fluorescent tracers. Neurons projecting exclusively to Pr5 were located in the cingulate cortex while neurons projecting to both Sp5C and Pr5 nuclei were located in the somatosensory and insular cortices (>75% of neurons). Physiological results indicated that primary somatosensory cortex produced a short-lasting facilitating or inhibiting effects (<5 min) of tactile responses in Pr5 nucleus through activation of NMDA glutamatergic or GABAA receptors since effects were blocked by iontophoretically application of APV and bicuculline, respectively. In contrast, stimulation of secondary somatosensory cortex did not affect most of the Pr5 neurons; however both cortices inhibited the nociceptive responses in the Sp5C nucleus through activation of glycinergic or GABAA receptors because effects were blocked by iontophoretically application of strychnine and bicuculline, respectively. These and anatomical results demonstrated that the somatosensory cortices projects to Pr5 nucleus to modulate tactile responses by excitatory and inhibitory actions, while projections to the Sp5C nucleus control nociceptive sensory transmission by only inhibitory effects. Thus, somatosensory cortices may modulate innocuous and noxious inputs simultaneously, contributing to the perception of specifically tactile or painful sensations.

show abstract

“…In the case of the highly innervated oro-facial region, the somatosensory inputs that are relayed via the brainstem and thalamus to oSI have a bilateral and disproportionately large (compared to most other body regions) somatosensory representation in oS1, and this contributes to the fine discriminability and spatial localisation capabilities that characterise the oro-facial region. In addition, oS1 has projections to oro-facial M1 (oM1) and to some other cortical and subcortical regions involved in oro-facial sensory and motor processes or in processing information related to cognition, emotion, attention and memory (eg, refs [8][9][10]35,[43][44][45] ).…”

Section: Roles Of Cns Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can you be too old for oral implants? An update on ageing and plasticity in the oro‐facial sensorimotor system

Sessle

2019

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review focuses on the capacity of the brain for plasticity and the utility and efficacy of oral implants in helping to restore oro‐facial sensorimotor functions, especially in elderly patients. The review first outlines the components of the oro‐facial sensorimotor system which encompasses both oro‐facial tissues and a number of brain regions. One such region is the sensorimotor cortex that controls the activity of the numerous oro‐facial skeletal muscles. These muscles are involved in a number of functions including reflexes and the more complex sensorimotor functions of mastication, swallowing and speech. The review outlines the use by the brain of sensory inputs from oro‐facial receptors in order to provide for exquisite sensorimotor control of the activity of the oro‐facial muscles. It highlights the role in this sensorimotor control played by periodontal mechanoreceptors and their sensory inputs to the brain, and how oral implants in concert with the plastic capacity of the brain may, at least in part, compensate for reduced sensorimotor functioning when teeth are lost. It outlines findings of ageing‐related decrements in oro‐facial sensorimotor functions and control. The changes in oro‐facial tissues and the brain that underlie these ageing‐related functional alterations are also considered, along with adaptive and compensatory processes that utilise the brain's capacity for plasticity. The review also notes the evidence that rehabilitation that incorporates adjunctive approaches such as sensorimotor training paradigms in addition to oral prostheses such as implants may enhance these processes and help maintain or facilitate recovery of sensorimotor functioning in the elderly.

show abstract

Somatotopic direct projections from orofacial areas of primary somatosensory cortex to pons and medulla, especially to trigeminal sensory nuclear complex, in rats

Cited by 25 publications

References 110 publications

Brain-wide map of efferent projections from rat barrel cortex

Brain-wide map of efferent projections from rat barrel cortex

Corticofugal projections induce long-lasting effects on somatosensory responses in the trigeminal complex of the rat

Can you be too old for oral implants? An update on ageing and plasticity in the oro‐facial sensorimotor system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About