BACKGROUND: Nerve grafting with an autograft is considered the gold standard. However, the functional outcomes of long (>3 cm) nerve autografting are often poor. The authors hypothesized that a factor contributing to these outcomes is the graft microenvironment, where long compared to short autografts support axon regeneration to different extents. METHODS: A rat sciatic nerve defect model was used to compare regeneration in short (2 cm) and long (6 cm) isografts. Axon regeneration and cell populations within grafts were assessed using histology, retrograde labeling of neurons regenerating axons, immunohistochemistry, quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and electron microscopy at 4 and/or 8 weeks. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, for distances of both 1 and 2 cm from the proximal coaptation (equivalent regenerative distance), long isografts had reduced numbers of regenerated fibers compared with short isografts. Similarly, the number of motoneurons regenerating axons was reduced in the presence of long isografts compared with short isografts. Considering the regenerative microenvironments between short and long isografts, cell densities and general populations within both short and long isografts were similar. However, long isografts had significantly greater expression of senescence markers, which included senescence-associated β-galactosidase, p21, and p16, and distinct chromatin changes within Schwann cells. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: Nerve grafting with an autograft is considered the gold standard. However, the functional outcomes of long (>3 cm) nerve autografting are often poor. The authors hypothesized that a factor contributing to these outcomes is the graft microenvironment, where long compared to short autografts support axon regeneration to different extents. METHODS: A ratsciatic nerve defect model was used to compare regeneration in short (2 cm) and long (6 cm) isografts. Axon regeneration and cell populations within grafts were assessed using histology, retrograde labeling of neurons regenerating axons, immunohistochemistry, quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, and electron microscopy at 4 and/or 8 weeks. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, for distances of both 1 and 2 cm from the proximal coaptation (equivalent regenerative distance), long isografts had reduced numbers of regenerated fibers compared with short isografts. Similarly, the number of motoneurons regenerating axons was reduced in the presence of long isografts compared with short isografts. Considering the regenerative microenvironments between short and long isografts, cell densities and general populations within both short and long isografts were similar. However, long isografts had significantly greater expression of senescence markers, which included senescence-associated β-galactosidase, p21, and p16, and distinct chromatin changes within Schwann cells. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Louis H Poppler; Xueping Ee; Lauren Schellhardt; Gwendolyn M Hoben; Deng Pan; Daniel A Hunter; Ying Yan; Amy M Moore; Alison K Snyder-Warwick; Sheila A Stewart; Susan E Mackinnon; Matthew D Wood Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2016-07-07 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Scott J Farber; Gwendolyn M Hoben; Daniel A Hunter; Ying Yan; Philip J Johnson; Susan E Mackinnon; Matthew D Wood Journal: Muscle Nerve Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 3.217
Authors: Maria Shvedova; Rex Jeya Rajkumar Samdavid Thanapaul; Elizabeth L Thompson; Laura J Niedernhofer; Daniel S Roh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 5.169
Authors: Kate V Panzer; Justin C Burrell; Kaila V T Helm; Erin M Purvis; Qunzhou Zhang; Anh D Le; John C O'Donnell; D Kacy Cullen Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2020-11-20
Authors: Lisa Gfrerer; Frankie K Wong; Kelli Hickle; Kyle R Eberlin; Ian L Valerio; William G Austen Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-03-25
Authors: Henrik Lauer; Cosima Prahm; Johannes Tobias Thiel; Jonas Kolbenschlag; Adrien Daigeler; David Hercher; Johannes C Heinzel Journal: Biomedicines Date: 2022-08-03