Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 164

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

Human vs. Mouse Nociceptors – Similarities and Differences

Open access
Rostock, Charlotte, Schrenk-Siemens, Katrin, Pohle, Jörg, Siemens, Jan·2018·Neuroscience

Abstract

The somatosensory system allows us to detect a diverse range of physical and chemical stimuli including noxious ones, which can initiate protective reflexes to prevent tissue damage.However, the sensation of pain can -under pathological circumstances -outlive its usefulness and perpetrate ongoing suffering.Rodent model systems have been tremendously useful to help understand basic mechanisms of pain perception.Unfortunately, the translation of this knowledge into novel therapies has been challenging.We have investigated similarities and differences of human and mouse peptidergic (TRKA expressing) nociceptors using dual-color fluorescence in situ hybridization of dorsal root ganglia.By comparing the transcripts of a selected group of well-established nociceptive markers, we observed significant differences for some of them.We found co-expression of Trpv1, a key player for sensitization and inflammatory pain, with TrkA in a larger population in humans compared to mice.Similar results could be obtained for Na v 1.8 and Na v 1.9, two voltage gated sodium channels implicated in pathological forms of pain.Additionally, co-expression of Ret and TrkA was also found to be more abundant in human neurons.Moreover, the neurofilament heavy polypeptide was detected in all human sensory DRG neurons compared to a more selective expression pattern observed in rodents.To our knowledge, this is the first time that such detailed comparative analysis has been performed and we believe that our findings will direct future experimentation geared to understand the difficulties we face in translating findings from rodent models to humans.

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 · 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.11.047

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 164

Metadata

Authors
Rostock, C., Schrenk-Siemens, K., Pohle, J., & Siemens, J.
Venue
Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
387
Pages
13-27
ISSN
0306-4522 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771752272
Cited by
164
References
3
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Human vs. Mouse Nociceptors – Similarities and Differences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.11.047
The paper
Rostock, C., Schrenk-Siemens, K., Pohle, J., & Siemens, J. (2018). Human vs. Mouse Nociceptors – Similarities and Differences. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.11.047

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.