Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 189

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Sensory nerves in adult rats regenerate and restore sensory function to the skin independently of endogenous NGF

Open access
Diamond, J, Foerster, A, Holmes, M, Coughlin, M·1992·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

We have investigated the possible roles of NGF, and of impulse activity, in the regeneration of sensory nerves. Unexpectedly, the ability of crushed axons to regrow and to restore functional recovery of three sensory modalities in adult rat skin (A alpha-mediated touch, A delta-mediated mechanonociception, and C-fiber-mediated heat nociception) was totally unaffected by anti-NGF treatment. This finding applied even when the anti-NGF dosage was almost eight times that which entirely blocked collateral sprouting of the undamaged axons of both classes of nociceptive nerves (the A alpha-axons do not sprout in adult animals). In the same anti-NGF-treated animal, regeneration would proceed normally on the one side, while collateral sprouting was prevented on the other. Light microscopic and EM examination revealed that in the denervated skin the regenerating axons utilized the same dermal perineurial pathways followed by collaterally sprouting axons. Regeneration within these antibody-accessible pathways progressed normally during anti-NGF treatment, extending 1–2 cm beyond the former field borders, that is, into territory whose invasion by collaterally sprouting axons was totally blocked. The blood-nerve barrier is absent within the degenerating peripheral nerve trunk, a putative NGF source for regenerating fibers but not for sprouting ones. The NGF-independent regeneration was also found to be unaffected when putative spinal cord sources of NGF were eliminated by dorsal root excision. Anti-NGF treatment also failed to block regeneration across 4 mm excision gaps in the nerve trunk. The daily anti-NGF regime continued to be effective for at least 8 weeks, at which time newly evoked collateral sprouting could still be blocked. Exogenous NGF, in doses that evoke collateral sprouting de novo in normal skin, failed to influence regeneration. Finally, an electrical stimulus regime, which markedly reduces the latency of collateral sprouting, failed to affect the time to arrival of regenerating axons at the skin, or the rate of their arborization in it. We conclude that, in striking contrast to their collateral sprouting, the regeneration of nociceptive axons occurs independently of endogenous NGF and is unaffected by impulse activity. These findings further support the proposal that these two growth behaviors have basically different biological functions in the organism.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.12-04-01467.1992

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 189

Metadata

Authors
Diamond, J., Foerster, A., Holmes, M., & Coughlin, M.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1992-04-01
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
1467-1476
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2130396588
Cited by
189
References
0
FWCI
5.14
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: Sensory nerves in adult rats regenerate and restore sensory function to the skin independently of endogenous NGF. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.12-04-01467.1992
The paper
Diamond, J., Foerster, A., Holmes, M., & Coughlin, M. (1992). Sensory nerves in adult rats regenerate and restore sensory function to the skin independently of endogenous NGF. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.12-04-01467.1992

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.