1964
DOI: 10.1002/aja.1001140304
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The neurovegetative periphery of the gut. A revaluation with conventional technics in the light of modern knowledge

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1966
1966
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 13 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Interstitial cells of Cajal are star-like or spindle-shaped cells with long, irregularly dilated processes; they are devoid of neurofibrils and Nissl bodies and do not contact fibers of the enteric plexus. In spite of these morphological features, Cajal (1889) and several other authors (Taxi, 1952; Meyling, 1953; Honjin, 1956; Dupont and Sprinz, 1964) proposed a neural nature for these cells, whereas other authors argued that these cells are connective tissue cells (Kölliker, 1894; Dogiel, 1895, 1898; Huber, 1913; Kuntz, 1923; Johnson, 1925; Ottaviani and Cavazzana, 1940; Knoche, 1952; Weber, 1952). Interstitial cells of Cajal do not react for cholinesterase (Coupland and Holmes, 1958; Leaming and Cauna, 1961) and hence cannot belong to the cholinergic innervation system, nor has any evidence ever been found that they would be a type of neuroglia intercalated between postganglionic nerve fibers and smooth muscle cells, as proposed some time ago (Lawrentjew, 1926; van Esveld, 1928; Boeke, 1933, 1949; Schabadasch, 1934; Stöhr, 1935).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Interstitial cells of Cajal are star-like or spindle-shaped cells with long, irregularly dilated processes; they are devoid of neurofibrils and Nissl bodies and do not contact fibers of the enteric plexus. In spite of these morphological features, Cajal (1889) and several other authors (Taxi, 1952; Meyling, 1953; Honjin, 1956; Dupont and Sprinz, 1964) proposed a neural nature for these cells, whereas other authors argued that these cells are connective tissue cells (Kölliker, 1894; Dogiel, 1895, 1898; Huber, 1913; Kuntz, 1923; Johnson, 1925; Ottaviani and Cavazzana, 1940; Knoche, 1952; Weber, 1952). Interstitial cells of Cajal do not react for cholinesterase (Coupland and Holmes, 1958; Leaming and Cauna, 1961) and hence cannot belong to the cholinergic innervation system, nor has any evidence ever been found that they would be a type of neuroglia intercalated between postganglionic nerve fibers and smooth muscle cells, as proposed some time ago (Lawrentjew, 1926; van Esveld, 1928; Boeke, 1933, 1949; Schabadasch, 1934; Stöhr, 1935).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%