Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 460

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged axotomy

Open access
Fu, SY, Gordon, T·1995·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The contribution of prolonged motoneuron axotomy to the poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair was determined by means of a nerve cross-anastomosis paradigm in the rat. The tibial nerve was axotomized up to 12 months before it was cross-sutured to the distal stump of the freshly cut common peroneal nerve to innervate the freshly denervated tibialis anterior muscle. Three to 17 months later, muscle and motor unit (MU) forces were measured to quantify the number of axons that had successfully regenerated and reinnervated the muscle. The extent of axonal branching was estimated by the innervation ratio (IR) (i.e., the number of muscle fibers innervated by each axon), which was obtained directly by counting muscle fibers in a single glycogen-depleted MU in each muscle and indirectly by calculation. The total number of MUs in each muscle significantly decreased with progression of axotomy and was only 35% of the control when axotomy was prolonged more than 3 months. Concurrently, MU force and IR increased exponentially, with a mean increase of threefold when axotomy was more than 3 months, which largely compensated for the reduction in the number of axons that reinnervated the muscle. Consequently, muscles reinnervated by tibial motor axons that had been axotomized up to 12 months produced as much force as those reinnervated by freshly axotomized tibial motor axons. Muscle weight, size, and muscle fiber size were similar to those after immediate nerve suture. Although prolonged axotomy does not compromise the number of muscle fibers innervated by each axon, it does reduce the capacity of motor axons to regenerate and thus is an important contributing factor to the poor functional recovery in delayed nerve repair.

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.15-05-03876.1995

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 460

Metadata

Authors
Fu, S., & Gordon, T.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
1995-05-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
3876-3885
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2164036959
Cited by
460
References
0
FWCI
1.14
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: Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged axotomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.15-05-03876.1995
The paper
Fu, S., & Gordon, T. (1995). Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged axotomy. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.15-05-03876.1995

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.