Acellular nerve allografts (ANAs) and other nerve constructs do not reliably facilitate axonal regeneration across long defects (>3 cm). Causes for this deficiency are poorly understood. In this study, we determined what cells are present within ANAs before axonal growth arrest in nerve constructs and if these cells express markers of cellular stress and senescence. Using the Thy1-GFP rat and serial imaging, we identified the time and location of axonal growth arrest in long (6 cm) ANAs. Axonal growth halted within long ANAs by 4 weeks, while axons successfully regenerated across short (3 cm) ANAs. Cellular populations and markers of senescence were determined using immunohistochemistry, histology, and senescence-associated β-galactosidase staining. Both short and long ANAs were robustly repopulated with Schwann cells (SCs) and stromal cells by 2 weeks. Schwann cells (S100β(+)) represented the majority of cells repopulating both ANAs. Overall, both ANAs demonstrated similar cellular populations with the exception of increased stromal cells (fibronectin(+)/S100β(-)/CD68(-) cells) in long ANAs. Characterization of ANAs for markers of cellular senescence revealed that long ANAs accumulated much greater levels of senescence markers and a greater percentage of Schwann cells expressing the senescence marker p16 compared to short ANAs. To establish the impact of the long ANA environment on axonal regeneration, short ANAs (2 cm) that would normally support axonal regeneration were generated from long ANAs near the time of axonal growth arrest ("stressed" ANAs). These stressed ANAs contained mainly S100β(+)/p16(+) cells and markedly reduced axonal regeneration. In additional experiments, removal of the distal portion (4 cm) of long ANAs near the time of axonal growth arrest and replacement with long isografts (4 cm) rescued axonal regeneration across the defect. Neuronal culture derived from nerve following axonal growth arrest in long ANAs revealed no deficits in axonal extension. Overall, this evidence demonstrates that long ANAs are repopulated with increased p16(+) Schwann cells and stromal cells compared to short ANAs, suggesting a role for these cells in poor axonal regeneration across nerve constructs.
This study shows that axon regeneration is reduced in long compared with short isografts, where long isografts contained an environment with an increased accumulation of senescent markers. Although autografts are considered the gold standard for grafting, these results demonstrate that we must continue to strive for improvements in the autograft regenerative environment.
Introduction Neuroenhancing therapies are desired because repair of nerve injuries can fail to achieve recovery. We compared two neuroenhancing therapies, electrical stimulation (ES) and systemic tacrolimus (FK506), for their capabilities to enhance regeneration in the context of a rat model. Methods Rats were randomized to four groups: ES 0.5 mA, ES 2.0 mA, FK506, and repair alone. All groups underwent tibial nerve transection and repair, and outcomes were assessed by using twice per week walking track analysis, cold allodynia response, relative muscle mass, and nerve histology. Results Electrical stimulation and FK506 groups demonstrated improved functional recovery and myelinated axon counts distal to the repair compared with repair alone. Electrical stimulation provided improvements in nerve regeneration that were not different from optimized FK506 systemic administration. Discussion Providing ES after nerve repair improved regeneration and recovery in rats, with minimal differences in therapeutic efficacy to FK506, further demonstrating its clinical potential to improve management of nerve injuries.
Background: Repair of nerve injuries can fail to achieve adequate functional recovery. Electrical stimulation applied at the time of nerve repair can accelerate axon regeneration, which may improve the likelihood of recovery. However, widespread use of electrical stimulation may be limited by treatment protocols that increase operative time and complexity. This study evaluated whether a short-duration electrical stimulation protocol (10 minutes) was efficacious to enhance regeneration following nerve repair using rat models. Methods: Lewis and Thy1–green fluorescent protein rats were randomized to three groups: 0 minutes of electrical stimulation (no electrical stimulation; control), 10 minutes of electrical stimulation, and 60 minutes of electrical stimulation. All groups underwent tibial nerve transection and repair. In the intervention groups, electrical stimulation was delivered after nerve repair. Outcomes were assessed using immunohistochemistry, histology, and serial walking track analysis. Results: Two weeks after nerve repair, Thy1–green fluorescent protein rats demonstrated increased green fluorescent protein–positive axon outgrowth from the repair site with electrical stimulation compared to no electrical stimulation. Serial measurement of walking tracks after nerve repair revealed recovery was achieved more rapidly in both electrical stimulation groups as compared to no electrical stimulation. Histologic analysis of nerve distal to the repair at 8 weeks revealed robust axon regeneration in all groups. Conclusions: As little as 10 minutes of intraoperative electrical stimulation therapy increased early axon regeneration and facilitated functional recovery following nerve transection with repair. Also, as early axon outgrowth increased following electrical stimulation with nerve repair, these findings suggest electrical stimulation facilitated recovery because of earlier axon growth across the suture-repaired site into the distal nerve to reach end-organ targets. Clinical Relevance Statement: Brief (10-minute) electrical stimulation therapy can provide similar benefits to the 60-minute protocol in an acute sciatic nerve transection/repair rat model and merit further studies, as they represent a translational advantage.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.