Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 278

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cross-excitation in dorsal root ganglia of nerve-injured and intact rats

Devor, M., Wall, P. D.·1990·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

1. Experiments based on teased fiber recording from rat sciatic nerve have shown that a small proportion of primary afferent neurons in intact dorsal root ganglia (DRGs) fire spontaneously. The prevalence of this discharge is substantially increased if the sciatic nerve has been chronically injured. 2. We now show that in most cases this ongoing DRG activity can be augmented by tetanic stimulation of the axons of neighboring neurons, where the active neuron itself has not been stimulated. In addition, some previously silent DRG neurons can be cross-excited by neighbors. This novel form of neuron-to-neuron communication is termed “DRG crossed afterdischarge.” Cross-excitation never occurred at fixed latency in response to single stimulus pulses and is therefore not a case of ephaptic cross talk. 3. Crossed afterdischarge occurred only if the spontaneously active neuron and the stimulated neighbors shared the same DRG. It occurred in 83.5% of the spontaneously active neurons sampled that had myelinated (A) axons, but in only 4.4% of spontaneously active neurons with unmyelinated (C) axons. Among initially silent neurons, stimulation of neighbors evoked firing in 3.1% of A-fibers but in no C-fibers. 4. Crossed afterdischarge responses began within 500 ms of stimulation onset (with the use of 50-Hz tetani) and increased in magnitude for about the first 30 s of stimulation, declining thereafter. Intense excitations were often followed by a short period of depression until the original rate of ongoing discharge was restored. 5. The magnitude of crossed afterdischarge responses increased with increasing stimulation frequency until saturation. Minimal responses occurred with the use of tetani of as little as 1 Hz. Maximal responses occurred with the use of 100-200 Hz tetani. 6. The inclusion of C-fibers in the afferent volley produced little if any augmentation of responses. 7. Cross-excitation was demonstrated in DRGs in which many or all peripheral afferent axons were intact and continued to innervate hind limb skin. In these preparations natural cutaneous stimulation was shown to be capable of evoking crossed afterdischarge responses. The most effective stimuli were gentle or firm rubbing of the foot. Noxious pinch, heat, cold, and chemical stimulation was ineffective. 8. DRG crossed afterdischarge is a mechanism whereby sensation in response to peripheral stimulation may be distorted in time, space, and modality. Because its prevalence is much increased after axotomy, it might contribute to neuropathic sensory abnormalities, including pain, in patients with nerve injury.

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 · 10.1152/jn.1990.64.6.1733

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.

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 278

Metadata

Authors
Devor, M., & Wall, P. D.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
1990-12-01
Volume
64
Issue
6
Pages
1733-1746
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W1878468192
Cited by
278
References
0
FWCI
1.79
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: Cross-excitation in dorsal root ganglia of nerve-injured and intact rats. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/jn.1990.64.6.1733
The paper
Devor, M., & Wall, P. D. (1990). Cross-excitation in dorsal root ganglia of nerve-injured and intact rats. Journal of Neurophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1990.64.6.1733

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.