1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0165-3806(97)00041-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Growth cone interactions with purified cell and substrate adhesion molecules visualized by interference reflection microscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Classic in vitro studies demonstrated that growth cones with flattened, lamellar morphologies were strongly attached to the underlying substrate (Letourneau, 1975). Subsequent work indicated that growth cones were large, flat, more adherent, and slower growing when extending on cell adhesion molecules and were small, filopodial, less adherent, and faster growing when extending on extracellular matrix proteins Lemmon et al, 1992;Drazba et al, 1997). In the present studies, nearly 90% of ORN growth cones stopped advancing after encountering SZ and NP glial cells.…”
Section: Growth Cone Responses To Sz and Np Glial Cellssupporting
confidence: 47%
“…Classic in vitro studies demonstrated that growth cones with flattened, lamellar morphologies were strongly attached to the underlying substrate (Letourneau, 1975). Subsequent work indicated that growth cones were large, flat, more adherent, and slower growing when extending on cell adhesion molecules and were small, filopodial, less adherent, and faster growing when extending on extracellular matrix proteins Lemmon et al, 1992;Drazba et al, 1997). In the present studies, nearly 90% of ORN growth cones stopped advancing after encountering SZ and NP glial cells.…”
Section: Growth Cone Responses To Sz and Np Glial Cellssupporting
confidence: 47%
“…[64] A few studies have also addressed the contact between a neuronal growth cone and substrate coated with various proteins involved in adhesion or migration. [65] …”
Section: Tight Adhesionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, it should be mentioned that it has recently been demonstrated that Cadherin-11 and the Ig family member, L1, which is a prominent inducer of neurite outgrowth [3], also interact with FGFR and induce neurite outgrowth [48,101], suggesting that a number of different CAMs may signal via interactions with FGFR. NCAM and N-cadherin (and other CAMs) are dynamically expressed in the growing tip of neurites [102][103][104] and the strength of adhesion at the neurite tip is highly dynamic. A relationship has been suggested to exist between growth rate and adhesion stability, such that tight adhesion correlates with slow growth and loose adhesion correlates with fast growth [102].…”
Section: Ncam-vs N-cadherin-mediated Neurite Outgrowthmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…NCAM and N-cadherin (and other CAMs) are dynamically expressed in the growing tip of neurites [102][103][104] and the strength of adhesion at the neurite tip is highly dynamic. A relationship has been suggested to exist between growth rate and adhesion stability, such that tight adhesion correlates with slow growth and loose adhesion correlates with fast growth [102]. Although this could be interpreted simply as a mechanical function of CAMs (e.g., tight adhesion prevents the tip from elongating), research over the past decade has established that many CAMs function as sensors of the environment that, upon extracellular cues (such as loose adhesion), induce intracellular signaling to promote neurite growth.…”
Section: Ncam-vs N-cadherin-mediated Neurite Outgrowthmentioning
confidence: 99%