JN Miami Valley Hospital
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (March 1, 2006). doi:10.1152/jn.00350.2005
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/6/3384    most recent
00350.2005v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Whitebone, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shi, R.
Right arrow Articles by Whitebone, J.
Submitted on April 4, 2005
Accepted on February 21, 2006

CONDUCTION DEFICITS AND MEMBRANE DISRUPTION OF SPINAL CORD AXONS AS A FUNCTION OF MAGNITUDE AND RATE OF STRAIN

Riyi Shi1* and Jim Whitebone1

1 Basic Medical Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: riyi{at}purdue.edu.

White matter strips extracted from adult guinea pig spinal cords were subjected to tensile strain (stretch) injury ex vivo. Strain was carried out at three magnitudes (25%, 50%, and 100%) and two strain rate regimes: slow (0.006 s-1 to 0.008 s-1) and fast (355 s-1 to 519 s-1). The cord samples were monitored physiologically using a double sucrose-gap technique and anatomically using a horseradish peroxidase assay. It appears that a higher magnitude of strain inflicted significantly more functional and structural damage within each strain rate group. Likewise, a higher strain rate inflicted more damage when the strain magnitude was maintained. It is evident that axons have remarkable tolerance to strain injury at a slow strain rate. Even a 100% strain at the slow rate only eliminated two-thirds of the compound action potential amplitude and resulted in almost no membrane damage when examined 30 minutes post strain. It is also clear that the spontaneous recovery is evident yet not complete compared to pre-injury levels at the fast strain rate. To examine the factors that might influence the vulnerability of axons to strain, we have shown that the axonal diameters did not play a significant role in dictating the susceptibility of axons to strain. Rather, it is speculated that the location of axons might be a more important factor in this regard. The knowledge gained from the current study is likely to be informative in elucidating the spinal cord biomechanical response to strain and strain rate.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2006 by the The American Physiological Society.