Literature DB >> 11068000

Postnatal development of the motor representation in primary motor cortex.

S Chakrabarty1, J H Martin.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine when the muscles and joints of the forelimb become represented in primary motor cortex (M1) during postnatal life and how local representation patterns change. We examined these questions in cats that were anesthetized (45-90 days, n = 14; adults, n = 3) and awake (n = 4; 52-86 days). We used intracortical microstimulation (45 ms duration train, 330 Hz, 0.2-ms balanced biphasic pulses, with a leading cathodic pulse; up to 100 microA). In young animals (less than day 70), we also used stimulus trains and pulses that could produce greater temporal summation (up to 200-ms train duration, down to 143-Hz stimulus frequency, up to 0.8-ms pulse width). Anesthetized animals were areflexic, and muscle tone was similar to that of the awake cats (i.e., relaxed, not weight or load bearing, with minimal resistance to passive stretch). We monitored the kinematic effects of microstimulation and changes in electromyographic (EMG) activity in forelimb muscles. There was an age-dependent reduction in the number of sites where microstimulation did not produce a motor effect (i.e., ineffective sites), from 95% in animals younger than 60 days to 33% between 81 and 90 days. In adults, 24% of sites were ineffective. Median current thresholds for evoking movements dropped from 79 microA in animals younger than day 60 to 38 and 28 microA in day 81-90 animals and adults, respectively. There was a proximal-to-distal development of the somatotopic organization of the motor map. Stimulation at the majority of sites in animals younger than day 71 produced shoulder and elbow movement. Wrist sites were first present by day 71, and digit sites by day 81. Sites at which multiple responses were evoked, between 1.0 and 1.5 times threshold, were present after day 71, and increased with age. A higher percentage of distal joints were co-represented with other joints, rather than being represented alone. We found that effective sites initially were scattered and new sites representing proximal and distal joints filled in the gaps between effective sites. During most of the period examined, development of the caudal M1 subregion lagged that of the rostral subregion (percent of effective sites; threshold currents), although these differences were minimal or absent in adults. Our results show that the M1 motor representation is absent at day 45 and, during the subsequent month, the motor map is constructed by progressively representing more distal forelimb joints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11068000     DOI: 10.1152/jn.2000.84.5.2582

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  30 in total

1.  Pyramidal tract neurons receptive to different forelimb joints act differently during locomotion.

Authors:  Erik E Stout; Irina N Beloozerova
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  Harnessing activity-dependent plasticity to repair the damaged corticospinal tract in an animal model of cerebral palsy.

Authors:  John H Martin; Samit Chakrabarty; Kathleen M Friel
Journal:  Dev Med Child Neurol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.449

3.  Motor Cortex Activity Organizes the Developing Rubrospinal System.

Authors:  Preston T J A Williams; John H Martin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Effects of cathodal trans-spinal direct current stimulation on mouse spinal network and complex multijoint movements.

Authors:  Zaghloul Ahmed
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 6.167

5.  Differential activity-dependent development of corticospinal control of movement and final limb position during visually guided locomotion.

Authors:  K M Friel; T Drew; J H Martin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 6.  Activity- and use-dependent plasticity of the developing corticospinal system.

Authors:  John H Martin; Kathleen M Friel; Iran Salimi; Samit Chakrabarty
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2007-05-17       Impact factor: 8.989

7.  Activity-dependent plasticity improves M1 motor representation and corticospinal tract connectivity.

Authors:  S Chakrabarty; K M Friel; J H Martin
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Activity-dependent codevelopment of the corticospinal system and target interneurons in the cervical spinal cord.

Authors:  Samit Chakrabarty; Brandon Shulman; John H Martin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2009-07-08       Impact factor: 6.167

9.  Bilateral activity-dependent interactions in the developing corticospinal system.

Authors:  Kathleen M Friel; John H Martin
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2007-10-10       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Cholinergic systems are essential for late-stage maturation and refinement of motor cortical circuits.

Authors:  Dhakshin S Ramanathan; James M Conner; Arjun A Anilkumar; Mark H Tuszynski
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 2.714

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.