Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro

eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleNew Research, Sensory and Motor Systems

Functional Recovery of a Locomotor Network after Injury: Plasticity beyond the Central Nervous System

Joshua G. Puhl, Anthony W. Bigelow, Mara C. P. Rue and Karen A. Mesce
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0195-18.2018; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0195-18.2018
Joshua G. Puhl
Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Departments of Entomology and Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anthony W. Bigelow
Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Departments of Entomology and Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mara C. P. Rue
Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Departments of Entomology and Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karen A. Mesce
Graduate Program in Neuroscience, Departments of Entomology and Neuroscience, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    Overt crawling behavior after complete transection of the M2/M3 interganglionic connectives. A,B, Movement raster plots depicting elongation (E, black boxes) and contraction (C, gray boxes) movements over time for individual leeches that received a sham surgery (A) and an M2/M3 transection surgery (B). Movements are shown for time points before the surgery (Pre), 1, 7, and 21 days after surgery. C, Graph of crawling activity at several time points after surgery for a random subset of the leeches used in Figs. 2–6 (n = 10 for each group). Error bars denote the standard deviation. *, statistically significant differences (p < 0.01). D, Schematic depicting a truncated view of the CNS of a leech. All nerve recordings showing fictive locomotor activity were obtained from the dorsal posterior nerve root (DP nerve), which contains the axon of the motoneuron DE-3. Although all 21 segmental ganglia have DPs, only the DP associated with mid-body ganglion M8 (DP(8)) is illustrated here. Diagonal hash marks denote ganglia that were removed to simplify the cartoon.

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Fictive crawling-like activity of an in vitro whole recovered nerve cord treated with dopamine. A, Left, schematic of a nontransected control isolated nerve cord preparation. Traces, three dorsal posterior (DP) nerve root recordings from a control nerve cord treated with 100 µM dopamine. Inset, time-expanded view of several bursts from the traces showing intersegmental coordination among the ganglia. Boxes denote the source of the time-expanded traces. B, Left, schematic depicting a recovered whole nerve cord (M3-TG) from an M2/M3 transected leech that recovered crawling behavior. Traces, three DP nerve recordings of a recovered whole cord treated with 50 µM dopamine. Insets, time-expanded views of several time-spans of the recording presented. Boxes denote the sources of the time-expanded traces. Note: The largest unit in all DP recordings is the dorsal longitudinal excitor-3 motoneuron (DE-3).

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Quantification of whole recovered cord data. A, Boxplots of the mean cycle period of DE-3 bursting of isolated whole nerve cords treated with dopamine. White boxes are from controls (n = 10) and black boxes from M2/M3 transected and recovered leeches (n = 15). Note: The periods of the three DP nerves in the controls were isochronous, so only one box is shown. For preparations from transected and recovered leeches, each channel analyzed is shown. Lines within the boxes denote the median, and the box range denotes the 25th–75th percentiles. Error bars denote the entire range of the dataset. No statistical differences were found between the groups (n.s., Kruskal–Wallis H test, p > 0.5) B, Boxplots showing the frequency of observing crawl-specific coordination of individual DE-3 bursts. White boxes are from untransected control preparations. The black boxes depict the frequency of coordination between two adjacent ganglia (Adj.), ganglia within 2–3 segments from one another (Nearby), and among all ganglia recorded in a preparation (ALL). Box plot parameters are the same as in A. *, statistically significant difference between the control and transected/recovered groups (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed among the transected recordings (n.s.; Kruskal–Wallis H test, p > 0.5).

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Dopamine-induced rhythmic activity in M3–M7 ganglion chain preparations of transected and recovered leeches. A, B, Left, schematic representations of the preparations showing dopamine-treated ganglia (gray shading). Traces, extracellular recordings from DP nerves in M3, M4, and M5 ganglia. Gray shading denotes dopamine-treated ganglia, which correspond with the schematics. Right, boxplots showing the frequency of single DE-3 bursts exhibiting crawl-specific coordination for pairs of DP nerve recordings of non-transected controls (white boxes) and transected/recovered (black boxes) preparations. Lines within the boxes denote the median, and the box range denotes the 25th–75th percentiles. Error bars denote the entire range of the dataset. A, DP activity from preparations where only M3 was treated with dopamine of a nontransected control (top traces) and a transected/recovered leech (bottom traces). B, DP activity of preparations where both M3 and M4 were treated with dopamine of controls (top traces) and transected/recovered (bottom traces) leeches. In DP(6) of the non-transected control, no DE-3 bursts were observed, but occasional DE-3 spikes were generated. All dopamine concentrations were 50 µM.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Dopamine-induced rhythmic activity in M3–M7 ganglion chain preparations of transected and recovered leeches. Left, schematic representation of the preparation showing all ganglia were dopamine-treated (50 µm; gray shading). Traces, extracellular recordings of DP nerve of M3, M4, and M6. Top traces show DP activity from a untransected control, and bottom traces are from an M2/M3 transected and recovered leech. Gray shading denotes dopamine-treated ganglia. Right, boxplots showing the frequency of single DE-3 bursts exhibiting crawl-specific coordination for pairs of DP nerve recordings. White boxes are from nontransected controls and black boxes are from transected/recovered preparations. Lines within the boxes denote the median, and the box range denotes the 25th–75th percentiles. Error bars denote the entire range of the dataset.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Dopamine-induced rhythmic activity in M8-M12 chain preparations from the middle body region of transected and recovered leeches. Left, schematic representation of the preparations. The middle ganglion (M10) was dopamine-treated (50 µm; gray shading). Traces, extracellular recordings of DP nerves of M9, M10, and M11. Top traces show DP activity from a nontransected control, and bottom traces are from a transected/recovered leech. Gray shading denotes dopamine-treated ganglia. Right, boxplots of the frequency of single DE-3 bursts exhibiting crawl-specific coordination for pairs of DP nerve recordings of nontransected controls (white boxes) and transected/recovered (black boxes) preparations. Lines within the boxes denote the median and the box range denotes the 25th–75th percentiles. Error bars denote the entire range of the dataset.

  • Figure 7.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 7.

    Overt crawling behavior after a surgery combining denervation of the lead ganglion (M3) with a complete transection of the M2/M3 interganglionic connectives. A, B, Movement rasters depicting elongation (E, black boxes) and contraction (C, gray boxes) movements over time for an individual receiving an M3-denervation only surgical procedure (A) and a leech undergoing M3-denervation combined with M2/M3 connective transection (B). Movements are shown for time points before the surgery (Pre), and 4, 8, and 25 days after surgery. C, Graph showing the percentage of leeches exhibiting crawling behavior for M3-denervation only (n = 8), M2/M3 transection only (n = 10), and M3 denervation combined with M2/M3 transection (n = 11). Additional quantitative analyses are presented in the body of the Results section.

  • Figure 8.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 8.

    Laser-scanning confocal micrographs of Cy3-labeled Neurobiotin nerve-root back-fills of the lead ganglion (M3) from transected and denervated leeches that recovered (A) and did not recover (B). A, Micrograph of the lead ganglion (M3) of a leech that received a surgery combining M3-denervation and M2/M3 connective transection and exhibited recovered crawling behavior. Back-fill procedure was performed 29 days posttransection (8 days postrecovery). Right, inset is a magnified view of the gray box. B, Micrograph of the lead ganglion (M3) of a leech that received the same M3 nerve-root denervation and M2/M3 connective transection surgery, but did not recover crawling after 40 days. Right, inset is a magnified view of the gray box. Dotted lines in A and B denote edges of the M3 ganglion, connectives, and nerve roots.

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 5 (4)
eNeuro
Vol. 5, Issue 4
July/August 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Functional Recovery of a Locomotor Network after Injury: Plasticity beyond the Central Nervous System
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Functional Recovery of a Locomotor Network after Injury: Plasticity beyond the Central Nervous System
Joshua G. Puhl, Anthony W. Bigelow, Mara C. P. Rue, Karen A. Mesce
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0195-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0195-18.2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Functional Recovery of a Locomotor Network after Injury: Plasticity beyond the Central Nervous System
Joshua G. Puhl, Anthony W. Bigelow, Mara C. P. Rue, Karen A. Mesce
eNeuro 2 July 2018, 5 (4) ENEURO.0195-18.2018; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0195-18.2018
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • CPG
  • dopamine
  • homeostatic plasticity
  • locomotion
  • spinal cord injury
  • crawling

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

New Research

  • Postnatal development of projections of the postrhinal cortex to the entorhinal cortex in the rat
  • Visual System Hyperexcitability and Compromised V1 Receptive Field Properties in Early-Stage Retinitis Pigmentosa in Mice
  • Enhancement of motor cortical gamma oscillations and sniffing activity by medial forebrain bundle stimulation precedes locomotion
Show more New Research

Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Optoception: perception of optogenetic brain perturbations
  • Attention cueing in rivalry: insights from pupillometry
  • Evidence for Independent Processing of Shape by Vision and Touch
Show more Sensory and Motor Systems

Subjects

  • Sensory and Motor Systems

  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.