↓ Skip to main content

Neurotrophin-3-Mediated Regeneration and Recovery of Proprioception Following Dorsal Rhizotomy

Overview of attention for article published in MCN: Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience, February 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Neurotrophin-3-Mediated Regeneration and Recovery of Proprioception Following Dorsal Rhizotomy
Published in
MCN: Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience, February 2002
DOI 10.1006/mcne.2001.1067
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matt S. Ramer, Thomas Bishop, Peter Dockery, Makarim S. Mobarak, Donald O'Leary, John P. Fraher, John V. Priestley, Stephen B. McMahon

Abstract

Injured dorsal root axons fail to regenerate into the adult spinal cord, leading to permanent sensory loss. We investigated the ability of intrathecal neurotrophin-3 (NT3) to promote axonal regeneration across the dorsal root entry zone (DREZ) and functional recovery in adult rats. Quantitative electron microscopy showed robust penetration of CNS tissue by regenerating sensory axons treated with NT3 at 1 and 2 weeks postrhizotomy. Light and electron microscopical anterograde tracing experiments showed that these axons reentered appropriate and ectopic laminae of the dorsal horn, where they formed vesicle-filled synaptic buttons. Cord dorsum potential recordings confirmed that these were functional. In behavioral studies, NT3-treated (but not untreated or vehicle-treated) rats regained proprioception. Recovery depended on NT3-mediated sensory regeneration: preventing regeneration by root excision prevented recovery. NT3 treatment allows sensory axons to overcome inhibition present at the DREZ and may thus serve to promote functional recovery following dorsal root avulsions in humans.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 24%
Researcher 9 24%
Professor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 16%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 6 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2005.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from MCN: Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience
#458
of 1,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,341
of 132,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from MCN: Molecular & Cellular Neuroscience
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,359 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 132,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.