Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Electrical stimulation of hindlimb increases neuronal cell death in chick embryo

Abstract

The daily treatment of chick embryos with neuromuscular blocking agents during the period of massive naturally occurring death of spinal motoneurones (days 5–10) reduces the normal loss of these cells1,2. Because both pre- and postsynaptic blocking agents have this effect3, the cause seems to be related to a reduction in synaptic and/or muscular activity. If this interpretation is correct, an experimentally induced increase in nerve or muscle activity (and/or an increased activation of acetylcholine receptors, AChR), during the normal cell death period should accelerate or enhance the loss of motoneurones. Consistent with this prediction, we have found that daily treatment with the nicotinic receptor agonist, carbachol, or with the anti-cholinesterase (anti-ChE) agent, eserine, leads to a significant enhancement of cell death of spinal motoneurones3. However, because in the same study other related agents (for example nicotine) failed to alter normal cell death, we believed that a different approach might provide a better test of our prediction. We now report that short-term continuous electrical stimulation of the hindlimb (the musculature and nerve trunks) initiated at any time between stages 31 (day 7) and stage 34 (day 8) results in a significant reduction in the number of healthy motoneurones and an increase in the number of pyknotic (degenerating) motoneurones in the lumbar lateral motor column (LMC). As the number of pyknotic cells in the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) is unaltered, this effect seems to be specific to motoneurones.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pittman, R. & Oppenheim, R. W. Nature 271, 364–366 (1978).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pittman, R. & Oppenheim, R. W. J. comp. Neurol. 187, 425–446 (1979).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oppenheim, R. W. & Maderdrut, J. L. Neurosci. Abstr. 7, 291 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hamburger, V. & Hamilton, H. L. J. Morph. 88, 49–92 (1951).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hamburger, V., Brunso-Bechtold, J. L. & Yip, J. J. Neurosci. 1, 60–71 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Chu-Wang, I. & Oppenheim, R. W. J. comp. Neurol. 177, 33–58 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Oppenheim, R. W. & Majors-Willard, C. Brain Res. 154, 148–152 (1978).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Toutant, M. & LeDourain, G. IRCS med. Sci. 8, 408–409 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lømo, T. & Westgaard, R. H. J. Physiol., Lond. 252, 603–626 (1975).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oppenheim, R. W. in Studies in Developmental Neurobiology: Essays in Honor of Viktor Hamburger (ed. Cowan, W. M.) 74–133 (Oxford, New York, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, M. C., Holland, R. L. & Hopkins, W. G. A. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 17–42 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dennis, M. J. A. Rev. Neurosci. 4, 43–68 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fambrough, D. M. Physiol. Rev. 59, 165–227 (1979).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lømo, T. Trends Neurosci. 3, 126–129 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pestronk, A., Drachman, D. B., Stanley, E. F., Price, D. L. & Griffin, J. W. Expl Neurol. 70, 690–696 (1980).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oppenheim, R., NÚN̄ez, R. Electrical stimulation of hindlimb increases neuronal cell death in chick embryo. Nature 295, 57–59 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1038/295057a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/295057a0

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing