↓ Skip to main content

Expressing Constitutively Active Rheb in Adult Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons Enhances the Integration of Sensory Axons that Regenerate Across a Chondroitinase-Treated Dorsal Root Entry Zone Following…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Expressing Constitutively Active Rheb in Adult Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurons Enhances the Integration of Sensory Axons that Regenerate Across a Chondroitinase-Treated Dorsal Root Entry Zone Following Dorsal Root Crush
Published in
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnmol.2016.00049
Pubmed ID
Authors

Di Wu, Michelle C. Klaw, Nikolai Kholodilov, Robert E. Burke, Megan R. Detloff, Marie-Pascale Côté, Veronica J. Tom

Abstract

While the peripheral branch of dorsal root ganglion neurons (DRG) can successfully regenerate after injury, lesioned central branch axons fail to regrow across the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ), the interface between the dorsal root and the spinal cord. This lack of regeneration is due to the limited regenerative capacity of adult sensory axons and the growth-inhibitory environment at the DREZ, which is similar to that found in the glial scar after a central nervous system (CNS) injury. We hypothesized that transduction of adult DRG neurons using adeno-associated virus (AAV) to express a constitutively-active form of the GTPase Rheb (caRheb) will increase their intrinsic growth potential after a dorsal root crush. Additionally, we posited that if we combined that approach with digestion of upregulated chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans (CSPG) at the DREZ with chondroitinase ABC (ChABC), we would promote regeneration of sensory axons across the DREZ into the spinal cord. We first assessed if this strategy promotes neuritic growth in an in vitro model of the glial scar containing CSPG. ChABC allowed for some regeneration across the once potently inhibitory substrate. Combining ChABC treatment with expression of caRheb in DRG significantly improved this growth. We then determined if this combination strategy also enhanced regeneration through the DREZ after dorsal root crush in adult rats in vivo. After unilaterally crushing C4-T1 dorsal roots, we injected AAV5-caRheb or AAV5-GFP into the ipsilateral C5-C8 DRGs. ChABC or PBS was injected into the ipsilateral dorsal horn at C5-C8 to digest CSPG, for a total of four animal groups (caRheb + ChABC, caRheb + PBS, GFP + ChABC, GFP + PBS). Regeneration was rarely observed in PBS-treated animals, whereas short-distance regrowth across the DREZ was observed in ChABC-treated animals. No difference in axon number or length between the ChABC groups was observed, which may be related to intraganglionic inflammation induced by the injection. ChABC-mediated regeneration is functional, as stimulation of ipsilateral median and ulnar nerves induced neuronal c-Fos expression in deafferented dorsal horn in both ChABC groups. Interestingly, caRheb + ChABC animals had significantly more c-Fos(+) nuclei indicating that caRheb expression in DRGs promoted functional synaptogenesis of their axons that regenerated beyond a ChABC-treated DREZ.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 10 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 July 2016.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#2,280
of 2,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,837
of 355,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience
#36
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.