Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 227

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nerve injury proximal or distal to the DRG induces similar spinal glial activation and selective cytokine expression but differential behavioral responses to pharmacologic treatment

Winkelstein, Beth A., Rutkowski, Maria D., Sweitzer, Sarah M., Pahl, Janice L., DeLeo, Joyce A.·2001·Journal of Comparative Neurology

Abstract

The specific mechanisms by which nervous system injury becomes a chronic pain state remain undetermined. Historically, it has been believed that injuries proximal or distal to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) produce distinct pathologies that manifest in different severity of symptoms. This study investigated the role of injury site relative to the DRG in (1) eliciting behavioral responses, (2) inducing spinal neuroimmune activation, and (3) responding to pharmacologic interventions. Rats received either an L5 spinal nerve transection distal to the DRG or an L5 nerve root injury proximal to the DRG. Comparative studies assessed behavioral nociceptive responses, spinal cytokine mRNA and protein expression, and glial activation after injury. In separate studies, intrathecal pharmacologic interventions by using selective cytokine antagonists (interleukin‐1 [IL‐1] receptor antagonist and soluble tumor necrosis factor [TNF] receptor) and a global immunosuppressant (leflunomide) were performed to determine their relative effectiveness in these injury paradigms. Behavioral responses assessed by mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia were almost identical in the two models of persistent pain, suggesting that behavioral testing may not be a sensitive measure of injury. Spinal IL‐1β, IL‐6, IL‐10, and TNF mRNA and IL‐6 protein were significantly elevated in both injuries. The overall magnitude of expression and temporal patterns were similar in both models of injury. The degree of microglial and astrocytic activation in the L5 spinal cord was also similar for both injuries. In contrast, the pharmacologic treatments were more effective in alleviating mechanical allodynia for peripheral nerve injury than nerve root injury, suggesting that nerve root injury elicits a more robust, centrally mediated response than peripheral nerve injury. Overall, these data implicate alternate nociceptive mechanisms in these anatomically different injuries that are not distinguished by behavioral testing or the neuroimmune markers used in this study. J. Comp. Neurol. 439:127–139, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cne.2000

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 227

Metadata

Authors
Winkelstein, B. A., Rutkowski, M. D., Sweitzer, S. M., Pahl, J. L., & DeLeo, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Comparative Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-10-15
Volume
439
Issue
2
Pages
127-139
ISSN
  • 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9861
OpenAlex
W2093836826
Cited by
227
References
3
FWCI
7.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.