Literature DB >> 15509621

Reciprocal inhibition and corticospinal transmission in the arm and leg in patients with autosomal dominant pure spastic paraparesis (ADPSP).

C Crone1, N T Petersen, J E Nielsen, N L Hansen, J B Nielsen.   

Abstract

The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the development of spasticity are not clear, but the excitability of the disynaptic reciprocal inhibitory pathway is affected in many patients with spasticity of different origin. Patients with genetically identified autosomal dominant pure spastic paraparesis (ADPSP) develop spasticity and paresis in the legs, but usually have no symptoms in the arms. Comparison of the spinal and supraspinal control of the legs and arms in these patients may therefore provide valuable information about the pathophysiology of spasticity. In the present study, we tested the hypothesis that one of the pathophysiological mechanisms of spasticity in these patients is abnormal corticospinal transmission and that this may lead to decreased reciprocal inhibition. Ten patients and 15 healthy age-matched control subjects were investigated. The patients were all spastic in the legs (with hyperactive tendon reflexes, increased muscle tone and Babinski sign), but had no neurological symptoms in the arms (except for one patient). Disynaptic reciprocal Ia inhibition of flexor carpi radialis (FCR) and soleus (SOL) motoneurons was measured (as the depression of the background FCR and SOL EMG activity and as the short latency inhibition of the FCR and SOL H-reflex evoked by radial and peroneal nerve stimulation). In addition, the latency of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the FCR muscle and the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle was measured. In the patients, the mean reciprocal inhibition was normal in the arms, while it was significantly decreased in the leg compared with the healthy subjects. In the patients, the average latency of MEPs in the FCR muscle was normal, while the latency to the MEP in TA muscle was significantly longer than that found in healthy subjects. Four patients, however, differed from the other patients by having significant reciprocal inhibition in the leg and a significantly shorter latency of TA MEPs than found in the other patients. The six patients without reciprocal inhibition in the leg instead had significant short latency facilitation of the SOL H-reflex and a longer TA MEP latency than seen in the healthy subjects and in the four patients with retained reciprocal inhibition. These findings support the hypothesis that disynaptic reciprocal inhibition and short latency facilitation are involved in the development of spasticity and, furthermore, they suggest a positive correlation between impairment of corticospinal transmission and decrease of reciprocal inhibition/appearance of reciprocal facilitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15509621     DOI: 10.1093/brain/awh319

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Brain        ISSN: 0006-8950            Impact factor:   13.501


  10 in total

1.  Effects of motor skill learning on reciprocal inhibition.

Authors:  Mary Kay Floeter; Laura E Danielian; Yong Kyun Kim
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.406

2.  Upper Limbs Muscle Co-contraction Changes Correlated With the Impairment of the Corticospinal Tract in Stroke Survivors: Preliminary Evidence From Electromyography and Motor-Evoked Potential.

Authors:  Wenfei Sheng; Shijue Li; Jiangli Zhao; Yujia Wang; Zichong Luo; Wai Leung Ambrose Lo; Minghui Ding; Chuhuai Wang; Le Li
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 5.152

3.  Reduced reciprocal inhibition is seen only in spastic limbs in patients with neurolathyrism.

Authors:  C Crone; N T Petersen; S Gimenéz-Roldán; B Lungholt; K Nyborg; J B Nielsen
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Hand muscles corticomotor excitability in hereditary spastic paraparesis type 4.

Authors:  Federica Ginanneschi; Maria A Carluccio; Andrea Mignarri; Alessandra Tessa; Filippo M Santorelli; Alessandro Rossi; Antonio Federico; Maria T Dotti
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 3.307

5.  Characterization of inducible models of Tay-Sachs and related disease.

Authors:  Timothy J Sargeant; Deborah J Drage; Susan Wang; Apostolos A Apostolakis; Timothy M Cox; M Begoña Cachón-González
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 5.917

6.  Spasticity mechanisms - for the clinician.

Authors:  Angshuman Mukherjee; Ambar Chakravarty
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2010-12-17       Impact factor: 4.003

7.  Subcortical contribution to late TMS-induced I-waves in intact humans.

Authors:  John Cirillo; Monica A Perez
Journal:  Front Integr Neurosci       Date:  2015-05-27

Review 8.  Pathophysiology of spasticity: implications for neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  Carlo Trompetto; Lucio Marinelli; Laura Mori; Elisa Pelosin; Antonio Currà; Luigi Molfetta; Giovanni Abbruzzese
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-10-30       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Spatiotemporal correlation of spinal network dynamics underlying spasms in chronic spinalized mice.

Authors:  Vittorio Caggiano; Roberto Leiras; Carmelo Bellardita; Vanessa Caldeira; Andrea Fuchs; Julien Bouvier; Peter Löw; Ole Kiehn
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  Changes in Activity of Spinal Postural Networks at Different Time Points After Spinalization.

Authors:  Pavel V Zelenin; Vladimir F Lyalka; Grigori N Orlovsky; Tatiana G Deliagina
Journal:  Front Cell Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-21       Impact factor: 5.505

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.