Share this post on:

Tes at which GW 4064 mechanism of action propagation fails in neuronal subgroups and the influence of injuryThe RP A-836339 site defines the minimum interval at which a neuron can successfully conduct a second AP. For Control neurons, RPs differed between neuronal categories, in the rank order of C-type Ai > Ao (ANOVA P < 0.0001; P < 0.001 for all paired comparisons; Fig. 4A). In general, the effects of injury on RP were small (Fig. 4A), although there was significant prolongation of RP in L5 after SNL in both Ai and Ao neurons. The RP of C-type neurons was not affected by injury. Following frequency indicates the ability of a neuron to successfully conduct all APs in a train, and thereby imposes a greater demand on neuronal AP propagation than theC2012 The Authors. The Journal of PhysiologyC2012 The Physiological SocietyJ Physiol 591.Impulse propagation after sensory neuron injurytwo-pulse sequence of an RP test. For Control neurons, we found following frequencies that were distinct for different neuronal categories, in the rank order of Ao > Ai C-type (ANOVA P < 0.0001; Ao vs. Ai , P < 0.05; Ao vs. C, P < 0.001; Ai vs. C, P < 0.001; Fig. 4B). These findings are similar to those of Fang et al. (2005), except that they identified following frequencies for C-type neurons that are relatively faster than those we report here. This is attributable to their measurement of the rate at which 80 of APs successfully invaded the stem axon, whereas we used a 100 endpoint. Additionally, for rates less than 100 Hz, their constant duration (200 ms) trains encompassed fewer pulses than the 20 in the trains that we used. Although SNL injury did not affect following frequency in Ai neurons, following frequency was decreased in Ao SNL5 neurons (Fig. 4B). In contrast, C-type neurons developed an ability to conduct AP trains at a 10-fold higher rate following axotomy (SNL5 group). These findings indicate a neuron type-specific effect of injury on T-junction filtering, and suggest amplified filtering of non-nociceptive afferent signals but facilitated passage of nociceptive AP trains following injury.Following frequency in dorsal root fibresTo confirm that AP propagation fails at the T-junction rather than as it approaches in the axon between the site of stimulation and the T-junction, we measured following frequencies in dorsal root axons using an in vitro teased fibre technique (Fig. 5A). Rates were comparable when determined by recording at the point where the root enters the DRG and stimulating at the end transected close to the spinal cord (54 ?7 Hz, n = 13) or when stimulating and recording sites were reversed (44 ?9 Hz, n = 5; P = 0.48). Following frequency recorded in fibres was also independent of the use of bipolar versus monopolar stimulation (see Methods). These rates (Fig. 5A)Figure 3. Confirmation by collision experiments that somatic potential recordings indicate T-junction events L5 DRGs were removed with the sciatic nerve attached, which was used for peripheral process stimuli (P1 and P2), while central process stimulation (C) was performed at the dorsal root (A). The interval between P2 and C stimuli was held constant, while the timing of the preceding peripheral pulse (P1) was variable. Somatic events resulting from these stimuli are labelled beneath the depolarization. In this recording of an Ao neuron (central CV = 12 m s-1 , peripheral CV = 14 m s-1 ), stimulus artefacts are shown in B and C, but were subtracted in other panels. B, both P1 and P2 stimuli (arrows) result in f.Tes at which propagation fails in neuronal subgroups and the influence of injuryThe RP defines the minimum interval at which a neuron can successfully conduct a second AP. For Control neurons, RPs differed between neuronal categories, in the rank order of C-type Ai > Ao (ANOVA P < 0.0001; P < 0.001 for all paired comparisons; Fig. 4A). In general, the effects of injury on RP were small (Fig. 4A), although there was significant prolongation of RP in L5 after SNL in both Ai and Ao neurons. The RP of C-type neurons was not affected by injury. Following frequency indicates the ability of a neuron to successfully conduct all APs in a train, and thereby imposes a greater demand on neuronal AP propagation than theC2012 The Authors. The Journal of PhysiologyC2012 The Physiological SocietyJ Physiol 591.Impulse propagation after sensory neuron injurytwo-pulse sequence of an RP test. For Control neurons, we found following frequencies that were distinct for different neuronal categories, in the rank order of Ao > Ai C-type (ANOVA P < 0.0001; Ao vs. Ai , P < 0.05; Ao vs. C, P < 0.001; Ai vs. C, P < 0.001; Fig. 4B). These findings are similar to those of Fang et al. (2005), except that they identified following frequencies for C-type neurons that are relatively faster than those we report here. This is attributable to their measurement of the rate at which 80 of APs successfully invaded the stem axon, whereas we used a 100 endpoint. Additionally, for rates less than 100 Hz, their constant duration (200 ms) trains encompassed fewer pulses than the 20 in the trains that we used. Although SNL injury did not affect following frequency in Ai neurons, following frequency was decreased in Ao SNL5 neurons (Fig. 4B). In contrast, C-type neurons developed an ability to conduct AP trains at a 10-fold higher rate following axotomy (SNL5 group). These findings indicate a neuron type-specific effect of injury on T-junction filtering, and suggest amplified filtering of non-nociceptive afferent signals but facilitated passage of nociceptive AP trains following injury.Following frequency in dorsal root fibresTo confirm that AP propagation fails at the T-junction rather than as it approaches in the axon between the site of stimulation and the T-junction, we measured following frequencies in dorsal root axons using an in vitro teased fibre technique (Fig. 5A). Rates were comparable when determined by recording at the point where the root enters the DRG and stimulating at the end transected close to the spinal cord (54 ?7 Hz, n = 13) or when stimulating and recording sites were reversed (44 ?9 Hz, n = 5; P = 0.48). Following frequency recorded in fibres was also independent of the use of bipolar versus monopolar stimulation (see Methods). These rates (Fig. 5A)Figure 3. Confirmation by collision experiments that somatic potential recordings indicate T-junction events L5 DRGs were removed with the sciatic nerve attached, which was used for peripheral process stimuli (P1 and P2), while central process stimulation (C) was performed at the dorsal root (A). The interval between P2 and C stimuli was held constant, while the timing of the preceding peripheral pulse (P1) was variable. Somatic events resulting from these stimuli are labelled beneath the depolarization. In this recording of an Ao neuron (central CV = 12 m s-1 , peripheral CV = 14 m s-1 ), stimulus artefacts are shown in B and C, but were subtracted in other panels. B, both P1 and P2 stimuli (arrows) result in f.

Share this post on:

Author: Gardos- Channel