Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 436

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electrical Stimulation Promotes Motoneuron Regeneration without Increasing Its Speed or Conditioning the Neuron

Open access
Brushart, Thomas M., Hoffman, Paul N., Royall, Richard M., Murinson, Beth B., Witzel, Christian, Gordon, Tessa·2002·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Motoneurons reinnervate the distal stump at variable rates after peripheral nerve transection and suture. In the rat femoral nerve model, reinnervation is already substantial 3 weeks after repair, but is not completed for an additional 7 weeks. However, this "staggered regeneration" can be temporally compressed by application of 20 Hz electrical stimulation to the nerve for 1 hr. The present experiments explore two possible mechanisms for this stimulation effect: (1) synchronization of distal stump reinnervation and (2) enhancement of regeneration speed. The first possibility was investigated by labeling all motoneurons that have crossed the repair at intervals from 4 d to 4 weeks after rat femoral nerve transection and suture. Although many axons did not cross until 3-4 weeks after routine repair, stimulation significantly increased the number crossing at 4 and 7 d, with only a few crossing after 2 weeks. Regeneration speed was studied by radioisotope labeling of transported proteins and by anterograde labeling of regenerating axons, and was not altered by stimulation. Attempts to condition the neuron by stimulating the femoral nerve 1 week before injury were also without effect. Electrical stimulation thus promotes the onset of motor axon regeneration without increasing its speed. This finding suggests a combined approach to improving the outcome of nerve repair, beginning with stimulation to recruit all motoneurons across the repair, followed by other treatments to speed and prolong axonal elongation.

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.22-15-06631.2002

Cites

4 of 4 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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 436

Metadata

Authors
Brushart, T. M., Hoffman, P. N., Royall, R. M., Murinson, B. B., Witzel, C., & Gordon, T.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2002-08-01
Volume
22
Issue
15
Pages
6631-6638
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1763112583
Cited by
436
References
4
FWCI
3.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Electrical Stimulation Promotes Motoneuron Regeneration without Increasing Its Speed or Conditioning the Neuron. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1523/jneurosci.22-15-06631.2002
The paper
Brushart, T. M., Hoffman, P. N., Royall, R. M., Murinson, B. B., Witzel, C., & Gordon, T. (2002). Electrical Stimulation Promotes Motoneuron Regeneration without Increasing Its Speed or Conditioning the Neuron. The Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.22-15-06631.2002

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.