![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||
L1 CAM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR SMALL-DIAMETER PRIMARY AFFERENT SPROUTING AFTER DEAFFERENTATION 1 Department of Physiological Science, UCLA, Box 951606, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606 2 Brain Research Institute, UCLA, Box 951606, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606 *Please address correspondence to: Patricia E. Phelps, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiological Science, UCLA, Box 951606, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1606, FAX: (310) 206-9184, Telephone: (310) 825-7264, Email: pphelps/at/physci.ucla.edu Section Editor: Dr. Richard Weinberg, Sensory Systems The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Neuroscience.Abstract L1 is a cell adhesion molecule associated with axonal outgrowth and fasciculation during spinal cord development and may reiterate its developmental role in adults following injury; L1 is upregulated on certain sprouting and regenerating axons in adults, but it is unclear if L1 expression is necessary for, or contributes to, regrowth of axons. This study asks if L1 is required for small-diameter primary afferents to sprout by conducting unilateral dorsal rhizotomies (6 segments; T10-L2) on both wild-type and L1 mutant mice. First we determined that L1 co-localizes substantially with the peptidergic (calcitonin gene-related peptide; CGRP) but minimally with the nonpeptidergic (isolectin B4; IB4) primary afferents in intact wild-type and L1 mutant mice. However, we encountered a complication using IB4 to identify primary afferents post-rhizotomy; we detected extensive abnormal IB4 expression in the dorsal horn and dorsal columns. Much of this aberrant IB4 labeling is associated with fibrous astrocytes and microglia. Five days after dorsal rhizotomy a large decrease in peptidergic and nonpeptidergic afferents is evident on the deafferented side in both wild-type and L1 mutants. Three months after surgery the peptidergic primary afferents sprouted into the center of the denervated dorsal horn in both wild-type and mutant mice, and quantitative analyses confirmed a sprouting density of similar magnitude in both genotypes. In contrast, we did not detect sprouting in the nonpeptidergic primary afferents in either genotype. These results suggest that the absence of L1 neither diminishes nor enhances sprouting of peptidergic small-diameter primary afferent axons following a dorsal rhizotomy. Keywords: cell adhesion molecule, denervated, IB4, CGRP, nociceptors, rhizotomy The cell adhesion molecule L1 (L1 CAM) is an axonal glycoprotein and a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily (Kamiguchi et al., 1997). L1 plays a role in axonal outgrowth, fasciculation, and guidance during spinal cord development (Stallcup et al., 1985; Jessell, 1988; Stoeckli and Landmesser, 1995; Orlino et al., 2000; Tran and Phelps, 2000; Akopians et al., 2003) through homophilic and various heterophilic binding partners such as integrins (αVβ3 and α5β1) and the fibroblast growth factor receptor (Kamiguchi and Lemmon, 1997). L1 interacts with TAG-1 and DM-1 GRASP to promote neurite growth, whereas binding with neuropilin-1 and chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans results in inhibition of neurite growth (reviewed in Kamiguchi and Lemmon, 1997; Castellani et al., 2000). Mutations in X-linked L1 in humans cause major developmental errors and result in a group of symptoms that include corpus callosum hypoplasia, spastic paraplegia and hydrocephalus (Fransen et al., 1995). Two different lines of mice lacking L1 have distinct developmental defects that display a reduced corticospinal tract and corpus callosum, exhibit less sensitivity to pain, enlarged ventricles, and errors in the topographical mapping of retinal axons in the superior colliculus (Cohen et al., 1997; Dahme et al., 1997; Demyanenko et al., 1999; Demyanenko and Maness et al., 2003). While these mutant mice demonstrate the importance of L1 during development, the function of L1 in adults is less clear. L1 is among several growth-associated genes that are upregulated by neurons after nervous system injury (Daniloff, et al., 1986; Chaisuksunt et al., 2000; Kubasak et al., 2005), however its effects are contradictory. Some studies suggest that L1 CAM reiterates its developmental role following injury, as it is upregulated on sprouting and regenerating axons in many models (Daniloff et al., 1986; Martini and Schachner, 1988; Miragall et al., 1989; Styren et al., 1995; Chalmers et al., 1996; Brook et al., 2000; Kubasak et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2007). However, other studies conclude that L1 is not essential for axonal growth into the injury site (Jakeman et al., 2006) and that nerve growth factor-induced sprouting is even reduced by co-expression of L1 (Chaudhry et al., 2006). Considering the conflicting reports on the function of L1 in sprouting and regeneration, we sought to better understand its role in a simple injury model of the adult wild-type and L1 mutant spinal cord. L1 expression in the superficial dorsal horn of adult mice co-localizes to different extents with markers of both the peptidergic (calcitonin gene-related peptide; CGRP) and nonpeptidergic (lectin IB4; P2X3) axons, which comprise the two major populations of small-diameter, unmyelinated primary afferents (Snider and McMahon, 1998; Runyan et al., 2005). The unilateral dorsal rhizotomy model, in which multiple dorsal roots are transected, established that intact axons from dorsal roots rostral and caudal to the rhizotomy can sprout into the partially denervated dorsal horn (Liu and Chambers, 1958; Goldberger and Murray, 1974; McNeill and Hulsebosch, 1987). Recently we used a unilateral rhizotomy model to demonstrate that L1 expression in laminae I-II is predominantly derived from the DRG and is expressed on sprouting axons that largely correlate with CGRP-labeled afferents (Runyan et al., 2005). To address the complex and sometimes contradictory role of L1 following injury we use a unilateral dorsal rhizotomy paradigm to determine if L1 is required for DRG axons to sprout by comparing the expression of peptidergic and nonpeptidergic primary afferent markers in both wild-type and L1 mutant mice. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES Animals and surgical procedures Wild-type (L1+/+) and L1 mutant (Y/-; B6;129S7-L1camtm1Sor; Cohen et al., 1997) mice originally obtained from both Dr. Vance Lemmon (University of Miami, Miami, Florida) and Jackson Labs were maintained as a breeding colony at UCLA and genotyped as reported in Demyanenko et al. (1999). Adult mice underwent unilateral, extradural dorsal rhizotomies as previously described in rats, although the deafferentation spanned from T10-L2 instead of the T12-L4 levels used previously (Runyan et al., 2005). Mice were anesthetized deeply with ketamine (133 mg/kg body weight) and xylazine (9 mg/kg body weight) administered intraperitoneally. Wild-type and L1 mutants were maintained for either 5–7 days (acute rhizotomy group; 3 wild-type/mutant pairs) or 3 months after surgery (chronic rhizotomy group; 3 pairs). Mice were perfused and spinal cords processed as described in Runyan et al. (2005). The Chancellor’s Animal Research Committee at UCLA approved all procedures. Immunocytochemical procedures Spinal cord sections throughout the six segment deafferentation were processed with L1 polyclonal antisera (1:30,000; rabbit anti-rat L1; Lemmon et al., 1989; gift from Dr. Vance Lemmon, University of Miami, Miami, Florida), CGRP (AB1971; 1:30,000; Chemicon; Temecula, CA), IB4 (1:400; Vector; Burlingame, CA), and an additional marker for a subgroup of nonpeptidergic axons, P2X3 (1:4,000; Chemicon), a receptor subunit in the P2X family of ATP-gated ion channels (Vulchanova et al., 1998). Immunocytochemical protocols for CGRP and IB4 are detailed in Runyan et al. (2005) and L1 labeling was performed according to the CGRP protocol. The P2X3 protocol was similar to that of CGRP with the following modifications. All steps in the P2X3 protocol used a phosphate-buffered saline containing 1% Triton (PBST), 3% normal horse serum for the blocking step, and the primary and secondary antibodies were diluted in PBST with 1% normal goat serum. To determine the source of the abnormal IB4 processes we used polyclonal antibodies to neuron specific class III β-tubulin (1:2500, Covance; Berkeley, CA) and two monoclonal antibodies to neurofilament proteins (RT97 1:1000; Wood and Anderton, 1981; 2H3 1:80; Dodd et al., 1988; Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA) to identify neuronal processes, anti-mouse F4/80 (1:25, gift from Dr. J. Tidball, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; HB-198, ATCC; Manassas, VA; Austyn and Gordon, 1981) to label microglia, RC-2 to stain radial glia (1:20; Misson et al., 1988; Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank), and monoclonal (1:10,000; BD Biosciences; San Jose, CA) and polyclonal (1:10,000, DAKO; Carpinteria, CA) GFAP antibodies to identify astrocytic cells and their processes. Photography and densitometry We photographed sections with a Zeiss AxioCam digital camera and Openlab 5.0.1 software. Openlab files were converted to Adobe Photoshop 7.0 files. We compared CGRP expression levels between the intact and deafferented sides by densitometry to quantify the extent of axonal sprouting post-rhizotomy. We analyzed twelve nonadjacent sections at the center of the deafferented region (T12-T13) from three different animals in each of the four groups (wild-type acute and chronic, L1 mutant acute and chronic). Densitometry measurements of the superficial dorsal horn (laminae I-II) were obtained using Openlab 5.0.1 software. We then calculated the mathematical difference between density measurements of the intact and deafferented sides in three different animals from each experimental group and compared the mean differences in optical density between genotypes. Statistical significance (p < 0.05) was determined using a two-sided t-test. To best visualize the co-localization of L1 with CGRP and IB4 expression, we merged single z-plane confocal images captured by a Zeiss LSM510. RESULTS Distribution of small-diameter afferents in the dorsal horn of wild-type and L1 mutant mice We compared L1 expression with markers of both the peptidergic (CGRP) and nonpeptidergic (lectin IB4; P2X3) axons which comprise the two major populations of small-diameter, unmyelinated primary afferents, or C-fibers (Snider and McMahon, 1998) in wild-type and L1 mutant mice. The expression patterns of L1, CGRP, IB4, and P2X3 immunoreactivity in the superficial dorsal horn of adult wild-type mice resemble those reported in adult rats (Fig. 1
Similar to findings in adult rats (Runyan et al., 2005), L1 expression does not completely co-localize with either the peptidergic (CGRP) or nonpeptidergic (lectin IB4) axons in mice. L1-and CGRP-positive axons are double-labeled in laminae I-IIo (Fig. 2C, D Do peptidergic primary afferents sprout in L1 mutant mice? Previously we identified a population of L1-positive primary afferents that sprout into the center of the denervated area following a dorsal rhizotomy in rats (Runyan et al., 2005). Here we ask if L1 CAM is required for sprouting of these CGRP/L1-positive primary afferents by examining the effects of unilateral dorsal rhizotomy at the center of the deafferented region (T12-T13) in mice lacking the L1 gene. Five days after unilateral deafferentation, CGRP immunoreactivity in L1 wild-type mice greatly declines in laminae I-IIo in contrast to the robust labeling on the intact side (Figs. 3A, B
Next we examined L1 mutant mice to determine if the L1 protein is required for the peptidergic/CGRP-labeled axon population to sprout after rhizotomy. Five days post-rhizotomy CGRP immunoreactivity greatly declines in the denervated dorsal horn at the center of the deafferented region (T12-T13) in L1 mutant mice (Fig. 3C To quantify the changes in CGRP expression over time, we performed densitometric analyses of laminae I-II on sections from the central segments of the deafferented area in mice of both genotypes. The difference in mean density between the intact and deafferented sides indicates loss of CGRP expression; thus higher numbers represent a larger loss in CGRP expression relative to the intact side. Measurements of optical density revealed no significant difference in the loss of CGRP between wild-type and L1 mutants following either acute or chronic deafferentation (Fig. 4
Absence of nonpeptidergic sprouting post-rhizotomy To determine if the lack of L1 affects sprouting of the nonpeptidergic population of primary afferents, we compared the distribution of the IB4-positive afferents in wild-type and L1 mutant mice. IB4-positive axons are barely detectable in lamina II (T12-T13) on the deafferented side following acute rhizotomy in wild-type (Fig. 5A
Identification of the aberrant IB4-labeled processes following rhizotomy We sought to identify the source of the abnormal IB4-stained processes in the mouse dorsal horn and the dense reaction product in the dorsal columns. We tested the specificity of the IB4 labeling by conducting a serial dilution experiment (Supplemental Fig. 1). The nonpeptidergic primary afferent labeling in lamina IIi disappeared while the fiber-like processes and funicular labeling remained evident following a 10-fold dilution of the IB4 lectin (Supplemental Fig. 1). Therefore, these processes express the galactose moieties recognized by the IB4 lectin (Goldstein and Winter, 1999) but the fiber-like processes clearly are not primary afferents as they persist after acute rhizotomy and, in fact, appear more extensive on the deafferented than on the intact side in both genotypes (compare Fig. 5A, B and 5C, D To eliminate axons other than primary afferents as a source of the IB4-labeled fiber-like processes we examined three neuronal markers (neuron-specific β-tubulin, and two neurofilament antigens) and found that none of them recognized the extra IB4-positive fiber-like processes (data not shown). In some sections, IB4-positive fibers penetrated through the lateral funiculus, resembling the orientation of radial glia, but we found no specific staining with an anti-radial glial antibody (RC2; data not shown). Next we localized microglia (F4/80 antibody) and found many microglia in the area of the abnormal IB4 distribution, particularly in the dorsal columns and dorsal horn of the denervated side (Fig. 7J, L
DISCUSSION We found that both peptidergic and nonpeptidergic populations of small-diameter primary afferents normally innervate the superficial dorsal horn in both wild-type and L1 mutant mice. Three months after unilateral dorsal rhizotomy of six adjacent dorsal roots, wild-type and L1 mutant mice both exhibit sprouting of peptidergic, but not nonpeptidergic, afferents into the center of the denervated dorsal horn. In spite of the temporal expression pattern of L1 that is highly expressed during embryonic axon pathfinding, down-regulated in postnatal development, and upregulated during axonal regeneration, we found that L1 is not required for axonal sprouting into the superficial dorsal horn post-rhizotomy. What is the source of the aberrant IB4 immunoreactivity? Following a dorsal rhizotomy in L1 wild-type and mutant mice, many fiber-like processes extend along a pathway similar to that of primary afferents and express IB4. However, such extensive regrowth of IB4-labeled primary afferents into the center of the deafferented region five days post-rhizotomy is unlikely, especially since the other nonpeptidergic marker, P2X3, is absent. Although IB4 is a common marker of nonpeptidergic afferents, the galactose recognized by the IB4 lectin also is expressed on microglia (Streit and Kreutzberg, 1987) and these microglia contribute to the dense IB4 expression we observed after rhizotomy. Additionally, the GFAP- and IB4-positive fiber-like processes we detected in the dorsal horn are most likely the long processes of fibrous astrocytes, i.e., fibers that contribute to gliotic scar formation in injured brain tissue (Hájos and Kálmán, 1989; Hantaz-Ambroise et al., 1994; Latov et al., 1979). Furthermore, the IB4-positive fibrous astrocytes are also present in control mice and other uninjured mouse models such as wild-type and reeler mice (see Fig. 4G, H in Villeda et al., 2006). These additional targets clearly limit the use of IB4 as a marker of the nonpeptidergic afferents in the mouse spinal cord following injury and, to a lesser degree, in the intact mouse spinal cord. Peptidergic and nonpeptidergic axonal sprouting in wild-type mice As in previous acute and chronic rhizotomy studies, we found that CGRP labels sprouting primary afferents in adult mice (McNeill and Hulsebosch, 1987; McNeill et al., 1990), but in a somewhat different pattern than detected in rats (Ondarza et al., 2003; Runyan et al., 2005). In the current study, CGRP-positive fibers that sprout into the center of the deafferented region remain within the normal lamination boundary, in contrast to reports of sprouting C-fibers expanding into novel laminae in rats (Ondarza et al., 2003; Runyan et al., 2005). These findings suggest that signals regulating the pattern and extent of primary afferent sprouting may differ between species. In contrast to the peptidergic sprouting, the P2X3 subpopulation of primary afferents is completely absent at the middle of the denervated area in adult mice. This finding is consistent with the limited or absence of nonpeptidergic sprouting post-rhizotomy in rats (Belyantseva and Lewin, 1999; Runyan et al. 2005). Although Li and Zhou (2001) demonstrate sprouting IB4-positive fibers in the DRG after a peripheral nerve injury, they note that the onset for this sprouting was slow compared to that of sympathetic and peptidergic neurons. Thus, more than three months may be needed for the nonpeptidergic population to sprout into the middle of the deafferented region. Alternatively, the rostrocaudal extent of this subpopulation may be shorter than that of the peptidergic neurons and, therefore, unable to reach the center of the denervated area (Belyantseva and Lewin, 1999). L1 is not required for CGRP-positive afferent sprouting L1 is expressed on sprouting primary afferents after dorsal rhizotomy in rats (Runyan et al., 2005) and is implicated as a possible factor for axonal growth following injury to the nervous system (Styren et al., 1995; Aubert et al., 1998; Brook et al., 2000; Roonprapunt et al., 2003; Kubasak et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2007). If L1 is necessary for primary afferent sprouting, we would expect to see little or no sprouting in its absence. However, our data reveal equivalent levels of CGRP-positive axons in the denervated superficial dorsal horn in both wild-type and mutant genotypes. Thus L1 is not required for the CGRP-labeled axons to sprout, a finding similar to that of a recent study reporting that L1 expression is not essential for sprouting of the corticospinal tract following a spinal cord contusion in the same L1 mutant model (Jakeman et al., 2006). If L1 has a role in CGRP-positive afferent sprouting after injury, the present results indicate that alternate factors must compensate for its absence (Adcock et al., 2004; Jakeman et al., 2006). Although L1 promotes axonal outgrowth in some models (Kobayashi et al., 1995; Webb et al., 2001; Adcock et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2007), it also can have inhibitory effects depending on its binding partners (for review see Kamiguchi and Lemmon, 1997; Castellani et al., 2000). For example, Chaudhry et al. (2006) found that co-expression of L1 with nerve growth factor reduced CGRP-positive sprouting within the spinal cord, and that this reduction did not occur with other cell adhesion molecules. Furthermore, this finding (Chaudhry et al., 2006) is supported by the growth-cone collapsing interaction of L1 with neuropilin-1 and sema3A (Castellani et al., 2000) and the neurite growth inhibition due to interactions with the proteoglycans neurocan and phosphocan (Friedlander et al., 1994; Grumet et al., 1996). If L1 is playing a role in growth inhibition after rhizotomy, we would expect to see an increase in the CGRP-positive sprouting into the center of the denervated dorsal horn in the L1 mutant compared to wild-type mice. However, densitometry measurements of CGRP are similar in the two genotypes, both in the absence and presence of L1. In addition, we might expect to see P2X3-positive axons sprouting in the absence of L1, but this did not occur. Although the addition of L1 by soluble, viral, or genetic means produces conflicting evidence that L1 either can enhance or inhibit axonal outgrowth (Kobayashi et al., 1995; Webb et al., 2001; Adcock et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2005; Chen et al., 2007), results from the adult L1 mutant model provide clear-cut negative evidence that L1 is not required for C-fiber primary afferents (present study) or corticospinal tract axons (Jakeman et al., 2006) to sprout. Furthermore, we can conclude from the present data that the absence of L1 does not permit enhanced outgrowth of peptidergic sensory neurons after an injury. 01: Supplemental Figure 1 Serial dilution of the IB4 lectin (routinely used at 1:400) on sections from a wild-type mouse three months after dorsal rhizotomy. These thoracic sections taken from the edge of the deafferented region were incubated together in the same experiment to allow direct comparison of staining intensities. Intact (B, D, F) and denervated (A, C, E) dorsal horn images are photographed from the same section. A–B: A 1:1000 dilution detects IB4 immunoreactivity on the intact side (B) and high levels of aberrant IB4 signal on the deafferented side (A). C–D: With a 1:5000 dilution of IB4 the primary afferent labeling in the intact superficial dorsal horn is reduced (D), but not the fiber-like processes and dorsal funicular labeling on the deafferented side (C). E–F: After reducing the concentration to 1:10,000, the IB4 immunoreactivity on the intact side is nearly abolished (F) yet the aberrant labeling on the deafferented side is still detected (E). Scale bar = 50 μm. Click here to view.(8.0M, tif) Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Dr. Vance Lemmon for generously providing L1 breeding pairs and the L1 polyclonal antisera, and to Tiffany Yap for animal care and genotyping. Grant sponsors: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke R21 NS42000 and Christopher Reeves Paralysis Foundation PA 1-0101-2, PAC1-0102-2. ABBREVIATIONS Footnotes Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. References
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||
J Neurosci Res. 1997 Jul 1; 49(1):1-8.
[J Neurosci Res. 1997]J Neurosci. 1985 Apr; 5(4):1090-101.
[J Neurosci. 1985]Neuron. 1988 Mar; 1(1):3-13.
[Neuron. 1988]Neuron. 1995 Jun; 14(6):1165-79.
[Neuron. 1995]Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 2000 Dec 29; 125(1-2):117-30.
[Brain Res Dev Brain Res. 2000]Eur J Hum Genet. 1995; 3(5):273-84.
[Eur J Hum Genet. 1995]Curr Biol. 1998 Jan 1; 8(1):26-33.
[Curr Biol. 1998]Nat Genet. 1997 Nov; 17(3):346-9.
[Nat Genet. 1997]J Neurosci. 1999 Jun 15; 19(12):4907-20.
[J Neurosci. 1999]J Neurosci. 2003 Jan 15; 23(2):530-8.
[J Neurosci. 2003]J Cell Biol. 1986 Sep; 103(3):929-45.
[J Cell Biol. 1986]Exp Neurol. 2005 Aug; 194(2):363-75.
[Exp Neurol. 2005]J Cell Biol. 1988 May; 106(5):1735-46.
[J Cell Biol. 1988]Dev Biol. 1989 Oct; 135(2):272-86.
[Dev Biol. 1989]Exp Neurol. 1995 Feb; 131(2):165-73.
[Exp Neurol. 1995]Neuron. 1998 Apr; 20(4):629-32.
[Neuron. 1998]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]AMA Arch Neurol Psychiatry. 1958 Jan; 79(1):46-61.
[AMA Arch Neurol Psychiatry. 1958]J Comp Neurol. 1974 Nov 1; 158(1):37-53.
[J Comp Neurol. 1974]Neurosci Lett. 1987 Oct 16; 81(1-2):57-62.
[Neurosci Lett. 1987]Curr Biol. 1998 Jan 1; 8(1):26-33.
[Curr Biol. 1998]J Neurosci. 1999 Jun 15; 19(12):4907-20.
[J Neurosci. 1999]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]Neuron. 1989 Jun; 2(6):1597-603.
[Neuron. 1989]Eur J Neurosci. 1998 Nov; 10(11):3470-8.
[Eur J Neurosci. 1998]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]Biosci Rep. 1981 Mar; 1(3):263-8.
[Biosci Rep. 1981]Neuron. 1988 Apr; 1(2):105-16.
[Neuron. 1988]Neuron. 1998 Apr; 20(4):629-32.
[Neuron. 1998]Neurosci Lett. 1984 Nov 23; 52(1-2):199-204.
[Neurosci Lett. 1984]J Neurocytol. 1990 Oct; 19(5):789-801.
[J Neurocytol. 1990]Eur J Neurosci. 1998 Nov; 10(11):3470-8.
[Eur J Neurosci. 1998]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]J Comp Neurol. 1989 Sep 8; 287(2):225-37.
[J Comp Neurol. 1989]Eur J Neurosci. 1998 Nov; 10(11):3470-8.
[Eur J Neurosci. 1998]Mol Cell Neurosci. 1998 Nov; 12(4-5):256-68.
[Mol Cell Neurosci. 1998]J Neurosci. 2002 May 15; 22(10):4057-65.
[J Neurosci. 2002]Subcell Biochem. 1999; 32():127-41.
[Subcell Biochem. 1999]J Neurocytol. 1987 Apr; 16(2):249-60.
[J Neurocytol. 1987]Exp Brain Res. 1989; 78(1):164-73.
[Exp Brain Res. 1989]J Neurocytol. 1994 Mar; 23(3):179-92.
[J Neurocytol. 1994]Dev Biol. 1979 Oct; 72(2):381-4.
[Dev Biol. 1979]Neuroscience. 2006; 139(4):1385-96.
[Neuroscience. 2006]Neurosci Lett. 1987 Oct 16; 81(1-2):57-62.
[Neurosci Lett. 1987]J Comp Neurol. 1990 Jun 8; 296(2):263-8.
[J Comp Neurol. 1990]Exp Neurol. 2003 Nov; 184(1):373-80.
[Exp Neurol. 2003]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]Eur J Neurosci. 1999 Feb; 11(2):457-68.
[Eur J Neurosci. 1999]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]J Comp Neurol. 2001 Oct 22; 439(3):259-74.
[J Comp Neurol. 2001]J Comp Neurol. 2005 May 16; 485(4):267-79.
[J Comp Neurol. 2005]Exp Neurol. 1995 Feb; 131(2):165-73.
[Exp Neurol. 1995]J Comp Neurol. 1998 Sep 14; 399(1):1-19.
[J Comp Neurol. 1998]Eur J Neurosci. 2000 Sep; 12(9):3224-38.
[Eur J Neurosci. 2000]J Neurotrauma. 2003 Sep; 20(9):871-82.
[J Neurotrauma. 2003]Neurosci Lett. 1995 Mar 31; 188(3):191-4.
[Neurosci Lett. 1995]Biomaterials. 2001 May; 22(10):1017-28.
[Biomaterials. 2001]Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Sep; 20(6):1425-35.
[Eur J Neurosci. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 11; 102(41):14883-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Brain. 2007 Apr; 130(Pt 4):954-69.
[Brain. 2007]Neurosci Lett. 1995 Mar 31; 188(3):191-4.
[Neurosci Lett. 1995]Biomaterials. 2001 May; 22(10):1017-28.
[Biomaterials. 2001]Eur J Neurosci. 2004 Sep; 20(6):1425-35.
[Eur J Neurosci. 2004]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 11; 102(41):14883-8.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Brain. 2007 Apr; 130(Pt 4):954-69.
[Brain. 2007]