Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2001; 17(3): 185-192
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14350
HISTORICAL REVIEW

Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Rat-Strain Differences in Recovery Following Peripheral-Nerve Allotransplantation

George T. Calvert, Vaishali B. Doolabh, Aaron G. Grand, Daniel A. Hunter, Susan E. Mackinnon
  • Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The rat model is commonly utilized in peripheral nerve research. Due to the short length of the rat limb and the animal's inherent neuroregenerative capacity, the timing of assessment of nerve regeneration is critical, and significant differences between groups can be lost if assessment is done too late. Additionally, the comparison of data from different rat-strain combinations has been questioned. This study better defines the time course of recovery after peripheral nerve grafting, and examines differences between Buffalo (BUF), Lewis (LEW), and ACI rats. Tibial-nerve isografts and allografts were performed and harvested at 6, 8, 10, or 14 weeks. Histomorphometry documented a statistically significant difference in the ACI/LEW and LEW/LEW combination at 10 weeks. No strain differences in graft rejection were noted. The optimal time to assess for histomorphometric differences in the ACI/LEW and LEW/LEW combination is at 10 weeks postoperatively.

KEYWORD

Nerve - allotransplantation - strain

REFERENCES

  • 1 Mackinnon S E, Hudson A R, Hunter D A. Histologic assessment of nerve regeneration in the rat.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1985;  75 384-388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Evans P J, Midha R, Mackinnon S E. The peripheral nerve allograft: a comprehensive review of regeneration and neuroimmunology.  Prog Neurobiol . 1994;  43 187-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lassner F, Schaller E, Steinhoff G. Cellular mechanisms of rejection and regeneration in peripheral nerve allografts.  Transplantation . 1989;  48 386-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schaller E, Berger A. Peripheral nerve allograft.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1987;  80 870-871
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hertl M C, Strasberg S, Mackinnon S E. The dose-related effect of monclonal antibodies against adhesion molecules ICAM-1 and LFA-1 on peripheral nerve allograft rejection in a rat model.  Restor Neurol Neurosci . 1996;  10 147-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Genden E M, Mackinnon S E, Yu S, Flye M W. Induction of donor-specific tolerance to rat nerve allografts with portal venous donor alloantigen and anti-ICAM-1/LFA-1 monoclonal antibodies.  Surgery . 1998;  124 448-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Nakao Y, Mackinnon S E, Strasberg S R. Immunosuppressive effect of monoclonal antibodies to ICAM-1 and LFA-1 on peripheral nerve allograft in mice.  Microsurgery . 1995;  16 612-620
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bain J R, Mackinnon S E, Hudson A R. The peripheral nerve allograft: a dose-response curve in the rat immunosuppressed with cyclosporin A.  Plast Reconstr Surg . 1988;  82 447-457
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Panczak A, Bila V, Sladka M. Genetic analysis of graft-versus-host disease using rat recombinant inbred strains.  Transplant Proc . 1997;  29 1734-1735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fandrich F, Zhu X, Dresske B. Impact of RT1. C-encoded MHC antigens on host-versus-graft and graft- versus-host reactions in a model of small bowel transplantation in the rat.  Transplant Proc . 1997;  29 1730-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lorentzen J C, Klareskog L. Comparative susceptibility of DA, LEW, and LEW.1AV1 rats to arthritis induced with different arthritogens: mineral oil, mycobacteria, muramyl dipeptide, avridine and rat collagen type II.  Transplant Proc . 1997;  29 1692-1693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Carr M M, Best T J, Mackinnon S E, Evans P J. Strain differences in autotomy in rats undergoing sciatic nerve transection or repair.  Ann Plast Surg . 1992;  28 538-544
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Panerai A E, Sacerdote P, Brini A. Autotomy and central nervous system neuropeptides after section of the sciatic nerve in rats of different strains.  Pharmacol Biochem Behav . 1987;  28 385-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gong D, Fang Z, Ionescu P. Rat strain minimally influences anesthetic and convulsant requirements of inhaled compounds in rats.  Anesth Analg . 1998;  87 963-966
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Strasberg J E, Strasberg S, Mackinnon S E. Strain differences in peripheral-nerve regeneration in rats.  J Reconstr Microsurg . 1999;  15 287-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wonigeit K, Washington D, Hundrieser J. Lessons from rat models on the genetic basis of interindividual differences in lymphocyte phenotype.  Transplant Proc . 1998;  30 2341-2343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zalewski A A, Silvers W K. An evaluation of nerve repair with nerve allografts in normal and immunologically tolerant rats.  J Neurosurg . 1980;  52 557-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mackinnon S, Hudson A, Falk R. Nerve allograft response: a quantitative immunological study.  Neurosurgery . 1982;  10 61-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mackinnon S E, Hudson A R, Falk R E, Hunter D A. The nerve allograft response-an experimental model in the rat.  Ann Plast Surg . 1985;  14 334-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Schaller E, Lassner F, Becker M. Regeneration of autologous and allogenic nerve grafts in a rat genetic model: preliminary report.  J Reconstr Microsurg . 1991;  7 9-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
      >