The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Restitution of function and collateral sprouting in the cat spinal cord: The partially hemisected animal
Abstract
The hypothesis that collateral sprouting might be correlated with recovery of function was tested by a combination of behavioral and anatomical studies. Partial hemisections, sparing the dorsal columns, were made between T 12 and L 1 of cat spinal cord. Initially, all reflex and locomotor hindlimb activity was depressed ipsilaterally. During two postoperative weeks behavioral and electromyographic responses increased in response to intrinsic reflex elicitation but not to descending or crossed reflex elicitation. Marked improvement in use of the limb occurred as intrinsic reflex activity increased and became, in some cases, hyperactive. The status then remained stable for ten months. Since intrinsic reflexes are mediated by ipsilateral dorsal roots, the intraspinal distribution of L 5 or L 6 dorsal roots was determined by degeneration methods ten months after hemisection or by quantitative radioautography 20 days after hemisection. By both methods, the dorsal root distribution was found to be asymmetrical in the spinal gray. It was greater on the experimental side and the distribution was altered, having a greater distribution medially in Rexed's lamina VI and laterally in lamina VII. These anatomical changes are considered as signs of collateral sprouting from dorsal roots in response to degeneration of descending tracts on the same side. Dorsal root distribution to dorsal horn (laminae I–IV), motor nuclei, and nucleus gracilis is symmetrical. Regions of increased and of expanded dorsal root input can be correlated with electrophysiologically determined location of interneurons in the path of cutaneous reflexes and of stretch reflex facilitation. Behavioral and anatomical changes were selective; intrinsic reflexes recovered or became hyperactive and ipsilateral dorsal roots showed evidence of collateral sprouting during the recovery period, although a causal relationship between the two cannot be proven, by the present experiments.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A Sensitive and Reliable Locomotor Rating Scale for Open Field Testing in Rats
BASSO, D. M., BEATTIE, M. S., & BRESNAHAN, J. C. (1995) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.1995.12.1 · Cited by 3,963
Plasticity of motor systems after incomplete spinal cord injury
Raineteau, O., & Schwab, M. E. (2001) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/35067570 · Cited by 803
Spinal shock revisited: a four-phase model
Ditunno, J. F., Little, J. W., Tessler, A., & Burns, A. S. (2004) · Spinal Cord · doi:10.1038/sj.sc.3101603 · Cited by 441
Matthews, D. A., Cotman, C., & Lynch, G. (1976) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(76)90820-9 · Cited by 384
Early locomotor training with clonidine in spinal cats
Chau, C., Barbeau, H., & Rossignol, S. (1998) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1998.79.1.392 · Cited by 142
Metadata
- Authors
- Murray, M., & Goldberger, M. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Comparative Neurology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1974-11
- Volume
- 158
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-36
- ISSN
- 0021-9967 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2011228416
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.80
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Restitution of function and collateral sprouting in the cat spinal cord: The partially hemisected animal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cne.901580103
- The paper
- Murray, M., & Goldberger, M. E. (1974). Restitution of function and collateral sprouting in the cat spinal cord: The partially hemisected animal. Journal of Comparative Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.901580103
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.