The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Contributing factors to poor functional recovery after delayed nerve repair: prolonged axotomy
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
The cellular and molecular basis of peripheral nerve regeneration
Fu, S. Y., & Gordon, T. (1997) · Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/bf02740621 · Cited by 1,202
Self-citationPeripheral Nerve Reconstruction after Injury: A Review of Clinical and Experimental Therapies
Grinsell, D., & Keating, C. P. (2014) · BioMed Research International · doi:10.1155/2014/698256 · Cited by 1,048
Brief Electrical Stimulation Promotes the Speed and Accuracy of Motor Axonal Regeneration
Al-Majed, A. A., Neumann, C. M., Brushart, T. M., & Gordon, T. (2000) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.20-07-02602.2000 · Cited by 849
Self-citationAdvances in peripheral nerve regeneration
Scheib, J., & Höke, A. (2013) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2013.227 · Cited by 758
Electrical stimulation promotes sensory neuron regeneration and growth-associated gene expression
Geremia, N. M., Gordon, T., Brushart, T. M., Al-Majed, A. A., & Verge, V. M. K. (2007) · Experimental Neurology · doi:10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.01.040 · Cited by 430
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Fu, S., & Gordon, T.
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for 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.