<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
pmid: 31956744
pmc: PMC6959836
A recent study with Ca++-sensitive-dyes in neurons in whole DRGs (Table 5) found that much lower percentages of nociceptors were polymodal-nociceptors (PMNs) (Emery et al., 2016), than the 50-80% values in many electrophysiological fiber studies. This conflict highlighted the lack of knowledge about percentages of nociceptor-subtypes in the DRG. This was analysed from intracellularly-recorded neurons in rat lumbar DRGs stimulated from outside the skin. Polymodal nociceptors (PMNs) were 11% of all neurons and 19% of all nociceptors. Most PMNs had C-fibers (CPMNs). Percentages of C-nociceptors that were CPMNs varied with receptive field (RF) depths, whether superficial (∼80%), dermal (25%), deep (0%) or cutaneous (superficial + dermal) (40%). This explains CPMN percentages 40-90%, being highest, in electrophysiological studies using cutaneous nerves, and lowest in studies that also include deep RFs, including ours, and the recent Ca++-imaging studies in whole DRGs. Despite having been originally described in 1967 (Burgess and Perl), both Aβ-nociceptors and Aβ-moderate pressure receptors (MPRs) remain overlooked. Most A-fiber nociceptors in rodents have Aβ-fibers. Of rat lumbar Aβ-nociceptors with superficial RFs, 50% were MPRs with variable medium-low trkA-expression. Despite having conduction velocities at the two extremes for nociceptors, both CPMNs and MPRs have relatively low thresholds, superficial/epidermal RFs and low trkA-expression. For abbreviations used see Table 5.
A?-nociceptors, dorsal root ganglia (DRGs), moderate pressure receptors, 616, 610, C-polymodal nociceptors, Article
A?-nociceptors, dorsal root ganglia (DRGs), moderate pressure receptors, 616, 610, C-polymodal nociceptors, Article
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 28 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |