, 1991 and Park et al , 2008) The optic nerve differs from other

, 1991 and Park et al., 2008). The optic nerve differs from other CNS areas in several respects, however. First, it is a pure axonal tract (no gray matter). Second, in distinction to most spinal axons, the vast majority (>99%) of retinal ganglion cells die after optic nerve transection, a far greater proportion than the number of degenerating neuronal cell bodies that give rise to axons traversing a spinal cord lesion site. This raises the possibility that a unique biological feature of a subset of surviving retinal ganglion axons is the actual subject of study. The simplicity of the

optic projection to thalamic and collicular targets is a virtue: the nerve consists essentially of a single projection to few targets. If an optic nerve lesion is complete, then there is little question that regeneration has occurred. However, its simplicity is also a drawback: the optic nerve model poorly replicates MK-1775 selleck products the diverse and complex nature of a spinal cord injury, which by virtue of containing both gray and white matter results in hemorrhagic necrosis, extensive inflammation, and secondary cell death and cavitation. Moreover, the complex circuitry of the spinal cord presents a diversity of inappropriate targets through which growing axons must hypothetically navigate before restoring useful function. Thus, the primary strength of the optic nerve model may

lie in understanding fundamental mechanisms underlying axonal degeneration and regeneration, leading to the identification of targets that can then be tested in models of SCI (Kurimoto et al., 2010 and Park et al., 2008). The model is discussed Histone demethylase in more detail in other reviews (Benowitz and Yin, 2008 and Maclaren and Taylor, 1997). Studies of peripheral nerve injury have been invaluable in identifying neural mechanisms that underlie successful regeneration (Griffin et al., 2010, Longo et al., 1984, Ma et al.,

2011 and Ramon y Cajal, 1928); peripheral nerve injury models continue to yield important findings in the field (Ma et al., 2011 and Mantuano et al., 2011). The difference in perception between investigators studying central versus peripheral axonal regeneration can be amusing, as peripheral nerve investigators highlight the incompleteness and limitations in axonal regeneration after injury, whereas spinal cord investigators relish the day that growth of central axons will begin to approach the intrinsic capabilities of peripherally injured axons. As noted early in this monograph, there is also often a gulf in the use of the terms “growth,” “sprouting,” and “regeneration” as applied in the peripheral nerve literature and the CNS. A review of peripheral nerve models is beyond the scope of this Primer and interested readers are referred to recent reviews (Griffin et al., 2010 and Zochodne, 2012).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>