Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 357

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

The Rate of Regeneration of Nerve

Gutmann, E., Guttmann, L., Medawar, P. B., Young, J. Z.·1942·Journal of Experimental Biology

Abstract

Five different methods have been used to estimate the rate of advance of regeneration along nerves in the rabbit. Not all give the same result. When the advance of the axon tips is studied a higher rate is recorded than when the times necessary for functional recovery are considered. In the latter case the experiment gives a measure of the rate of advance not of the tips of the axons but of completed nerve fibres, able to function. The ‘scar delay’, or period before arrival of new axon tips in the peripheral stump, is nearly constant in all well-made sutures (7·3 days). After interruption of a nerve by complete crushing at one spot this delay is only slightly shorter (5·2 days). There is a further delay before maturation to the level of functional completion begins to advance down the nerve, so that the total latent period before advance of recovery begins is about 36 days after suture and 20 days after crushing a nerve. The rate of advance of the fastest axon tips was determined by finding the furthest point from the lesion at which reflexes could be elicited by pinching the nerve. After suture of the n. peroneus in the rabbit this rate was 3·5 and after crushing 4·4 mm./day. This rate of the axon tips is not significantly different after crushing the nerve at different distances from the nerve cell body, namely high in the thigh or below the knee. This rate is similar in the tibial, peroneal and sural divisions of the sciatic in the rabbit. The rate of advance of functional completion of nerve fibres was measured by making lesions at various levels and studying (a) the time necessary for return of response to nociceptive stimuli to a given point on the skin and (b) the time for recovery of a given motor function, namely, spreading of the toes. Both methods give rates of 2·0 mm./day after suture, and 3·0 mm./day after crushing. Analgesic areas on the foot shrink at the rate of 2·1 mm./day during recovery after crushing the nerve, 1·6 mm./day after suture. Comparison of the times of recovery of muscles at varying distances from a lesion gives an estimate of rate of advance of functional completion of 2·2 mm./day after crushing a nerve, but this method is only approximate in the rabbit. In rabbits of 1 month old the rate of advance of the axon tips is not greatly different from that in adults, but the delay in the scar is less, and maturation of the nerve fibres proceeds more rapidly.

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 · 10.1242/jeb.19.1.14

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

Cited by

See all 357

Metadata

Authors
Gutmann, E., Guttmann, L., Medawar, P. B., & Young, J. Z.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Biology
Published
1942-05-01
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
14-44
ISSN
  • 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-9145
OpenAlex
W2299155172
Cited by
357
References
3
FWCI
8.76
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: The Rate of Regeneration of Nerve. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1242/jeb.19.1.14
The paper
Gutmann, E., Guttmann, L., Medawar, P. B., & Young, J. Z. (1942). The Rate of Regeneration of Nerve. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.19.1.14

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.