Cited by 62Muscle Physiology and DisordersNerve injury and regenerationTissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

The Regeneration of Noninnervated Musele Grafts and Marcaine-Treated Muscles in Young and Old Rats

Carlson, B. M., Faulkner, J. A.·1996·The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences

Abstract

Free grafts of the extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle in 4-month-old rats regenerate 2-3 times better than in 24-month-old rats. Based on these data, we formulated the working hypothesis that deficient reinnervation is one of the most important age-related environmental factors within the host that might account for the poor regeneration. In the present experiments, we compared the regeneration of EDL muscles in two groups of young and old rats: (a) 21-day grafts, with fibers regenerating in the absence of nerves, and (b) Marcaine-treated muscle with fibers regenerating in the presence of uninterrupted innervation. The specific hypothesis was that, under each of these circumstances, reinnervation was not involved and age-related differences in regeneration would not be seen. Differences were assessed by measurements of mass and maximum isometric force normalized to values for age-matched control muscles. In the absence of nerves, the degree of regeneration in 21-day noninnervated EDL grafts was not significantly different between young and old rats. Similarly, when EDL muscles were damaged by Marcaine and regenerated in the presence of uninterrupted innervation, no differences were noted between young and old rats. These data support the working hypothesis that a deficiency in reinnervation with increasing age accounts, at least in part, for the poorer success of muscle regeneration in grafts in old compared with young rats.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/gerona/51a.1.b43

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carlson, B. M., & Faulkner, J. A.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences
Published
1996-01-01
Volume
51A
Issue
1
Pages
B43-B49
ISSN
  • 1079-5006 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-535X
OpenAlex
W2125147604
Cited by
62
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journals of Gerontology Series A (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P01AG010821)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Muscle Physiology and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Nerve injury and regeneration
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine
Keywords
muscle regeneration, free muscle graft, extensor digitorum longus, reinnervation, aging, marcaine, muscle denervation, age differences, isometric force, innervation
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Bupivacaine, Male, Muscle Contraction, Muscles, Rats, Inbred F344, Regeneration, Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms, Rats

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