Cited by 64Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchNerve injury and regenerationNeurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms

Differential spine loss and regrowth of striatal neurons following multiple forms of deafferentation: a Golgi study

Cheng, Heng-Wei, Rafols, Jose A., Goshgarian, Harry G., Anavi, Yakir, Tong, Jiang, McNeill, Thomas H.·1997·Experimental Neurology

Abstract

Golgi-Cox method and morphometric analyses were used to study the plasticity of striatal medium spiny I neurons in 6-month-old C57BL/6N mice after unilateral or bilateral lesion of the cerebral cortex or combined lesions of the ipsilateral cerebral cortex and intralaminar thalamus. In adult mouse, unilateral lesions of the cerebral cortex did not result in a net gain or loss of linear dendritic length in a randomly selected population of striatal medium spiny I neurons. In addition, there was a well-defined time course of striatal spine loss and replacement occurring after a unilateral cortical lesion. By day 3 postlesion the average 20-microm dendritic segment had lost 30% of the unlesioned control spine value, reached its nadir, lost 45.5%, at 10 days postlesion, and recovered to 80% of unlesioned control levels by 20 days postlesion. The recovery of spines was blocked by a secondary lesion on the contralateral cortex but not on the ipsilateral intralaminar thalamus. These data suggest that striatal medium spiny I neurons of adult mice have a remarkable capacity for plasticity and reactive synaptogenesis following a decortication. The recovery of spine density is primarily induced by axonal sprouting of survival homologous afferent fibers from the contralateral cortex.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/exnr.1997.6618

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 73 · Cited by 64

Authors
Cheng, H.-W., Rafols, J. A., Goshgarian, H. G., Anavi, Y., Tong, J., & McNeill, T. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Cheng, Heng-Wei
Venue
Experimental Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-10
Volume
147
Issue
2
Pages
287-298
ISSN
0014-4886 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007889841
Cited by
64
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ns014705-11)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG-09793, P01AG009793)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (GM0816)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS 14705)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity mechanisms
Keywords
striatal medium spiny neurons, dendritic spine loss, deafferentation, cortical lesions, intralaminar thalamus, axonal sprouting, reactive synaptogenesis, neuroplasticity, dendritic morphology, decortication
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Cortex, Corpus Striatum, Dendrites, Denervation, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Nerve Regeneration, Neuronal Plasticity, Neurons, Synapses, Thalamus, Cell Size, Mice

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