HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zeredo, J.L. Articles by Soma, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zeredo, J.L. Articles by Soma, K.

Nature of Neck Motor Unit Activities Evoked by Different Trigeminal Inputs in Rats

¹ Orthodontic Science, Department of Orofacial Development and Function, Division of Oral Health Sciences, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8549, Japan; and
² Division of Integrative Sensory Physiology, Department of Developmental and Reconstructive Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki 852-8588, Japan;

^* corresponding author, jorge.orts{at}tmd.ac.jp

	ABSTRACT

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Recent reports have suggested functional interactions between the masticatory and head motor systems. However, the neurophysiological mechanisms behind these phenomena have not been thoroughly investigated. In this study, the motor unit activity was recorded bilaterally from the dorsal neck splenius muscles (SPL) while the cell bodies of trigeminal afferent fibers were stimulated at either the trigeminal mesencephalic nucleus (Me5) or the Gasserian ganglion (5Gn) in 13 barbiturate-anesthetized Wistar rats. After Me5 electrical stimulation, SPL motor unit responses were recorded ipsilaterally (n = 24), with an onset latency distribution between 1.3 and 1.8 ms. After 5Gn stimulation, SPL responses were recorded bilaterally from 18 single units, with latencies ranging from 2.2 to 2.4 ms. Our results suggest that there are at least two distinct pathways from the trigeminal afferents to the neck muscles, with significant functional differences.

KEY WORDS: trigeminal input • electromyography • motor unit • neck muscles • rat

	INTRODUCTION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The coordination of rhythmic movements of jaw and head motor systems has been reported in both animal models (Igarashi et al., 2000; Martaresche et al., 2000; Wilga and Motta, 2000) and humans (Ferrario et al., 1997; Eriksson et al., 2000; Matsubara et al., 2002). Recently, it was also observed that reflex activities and tonic responses in neck muscles could be elicited by periodontal mechanical stimulation (Zeredo et al., 2002). These reports suggest that trigeminal sensory inputs can produce head movements or modify the neck muscle tonus in addition to the modulation of jaw movements during mastication.

Previous studies have indicated that electrical stimulation of trigeminal nerve branches, such as the infra-orbital and alveolar nerves, can produce excitation of dorsal neck motoneurons in cats (Abrahams and Richmond, 1977; Sumino and Nozaki, 1977). Although this stimulation was not necessarily noxious, the reflex responses were regarded to be of a protective nature. Later studies have reinforced the hypothesis that such a reflex mechanism might be associated with more complex behaviors like grooming, feeding, or aggression (Alstermark et al., 1992; Abrahams et al., 1993; Bermejo and Zeigler, 1999).

From neurophysiological studies, the trigemino-cervical reflex evoked by Gasserian ganglion (5Gn) stimulation has been described in a cat model (Alstermark et al., 1992). This reflex is thought to be transmitted through at least two synapses from the ipsi- and contralateral trigeminal spinal subnucleus oralis to the dorsal neck motoneurons. Recent evidence from retrograde and intracellular labeling studies in rats, nevertheless, indicates that some primary trigeminal afferents with somata in the mesencephalic trigeminal nucleus (Me5) may project monosynaptically to neck motoneurons in the cervical spinal cord (Dessem and Luo, 1999).

The presence of two distinct populations of primary afferent neurons within the trigeminal sensory system, i.e., cells with origin in the 5Gn or Me5, suggests significant functional differences despite the redundant representation of some of the innervated structures (reviewed by Lazarov, 2002). Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare the nature of the trigemino-cervical reflexes evoked through the trigeminal mesencephalic and spinal trigeminal sensory nuclei.

	MATERIALS & METHODS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Animal Preparation
Experiments were carried out in 13 female Wistar albino rats, weighing from 250 to 350 g each. The animals were anesthetized with 60 mg/kg (i.p.) thiamylal sodium (Isozol^®, Yoshitomi Pharmaceutical, Osaka, Japan). Supplemental injection of 5 mg/kg (i.p.) was administered when necessary. We monitored the level of anesthesia continuously by checking the pupil size, withdrawal, and corneal reflexes as well as heart rate. The body temperature was maintained at 37°C by means of a heating pad. The trachea was cannulated to establish artificial ventilation (3–4 mL/cycle, 70 rpm). The animals were then transferred in a prone position to a stereotaxic frame (RA-4 and EB-4, Narishige Scientific Instruments, Tokyo, Japan).

After the experiments, the brain was removed while each animal was under deep anesthesia for histological sectioning (50-µm frozen sections, cresyl violet staining), and the electrode position was confirmed by electrolytical markings (50 µA negative current for 10 sec) and signs of electrode penetration. The experimental procedure was in agreement with the Animal Care Standards of Tokyo Medical and Dental University and Nagasaki University, and had approval of the respective Animal Welfare Committees.

Stimulation and Recording
To allow for the introduction of the stimulating electrode, we incised the scalp at the midline and prepared a small aperture about 3 mm wide in the skull with a stereotaxic microengine. Monopolar tungsten microelectrodes were used (A-M Systems, Inc., Carlsborg, WA, USA; 250-µm diameter shaft with 8° tapered tip, 5 M of AC impedance). The electrode was inserted into the caudal third of the Me5 by means of a stereotaxic apparatus calibrated at the cranial point bregma. Electrode coordinates were: anterior/posterior, -9.1 mm; medial/ lateral, +1.4 mm; and ventral, +6.8 mm (Paxinos and Watson, 1998). For 5Gn stimulation, the stereotaxic coordinates were: anterior/posterior, -5.7 mm; medial/lateral, +3.3 mm; and ventral, +9.3 mm (Paxinos and Watson, 1998). After the electrode was positioned, the exposed brain was covered with a thin layer of liquid paraffin so that tissue dehydration would be avoided. Rectangular negative electrical stimulation was performed at 100-µs pulse duration. Double or triple pulses were given at 300 Hz.

Recording electrodes were placed in the dorsal neck splenius muscles (SPL) on both sides. Bipolar stainless steel wires (type E-2, Narishige Scientific Instruments, Tokyo, Japan), enamel-coated except for the tips, with 100-µm diameter and 1- to 3-mm interpolar distance, were used as recording electrodes. Spike signals were amplified by a differential amplifier (DAM-80, WPI, Sarasota, FL, USA; x1000 gain, 300 Hz and 3 KHz for low and high filters, respectively).

Data Analysis
Single-unit responses were recognized according to the all-or-none principle, where spikes showed full response after above-threshold stimulus and no response at all from a sub-threshold stimulus. All data were captured by means of a CED 1401 interface (Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK) and stored in a computer hard disc. The data were later analyzed off-line with the Spike2^® software for Windows (Version 4.02a, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK).

	RESULTS

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Clear SPL motor unit responses to Me5 electrical stimulation were observed ipsilaterally (Fig. 1A). Single-motor-unit spikes were recorded with an onset latency of 1.3 to 1.9 ms (1.5 ms ± 0.13 SD, 390 responses were totaled from 24 single motor units). The threshold for the ipsilateral SPL response ranged from 16 to 20 µA. For means of comparison, the ipsilateral masseter (MAS) motor unit activity was recorded following Me5 stimulation (MAS recording technique similar to that used in SPL). MAS motor units responded at about 0.5 to 0.8 times the threshold of the ipsilateral SPL, with an onset latency of 0.9 to 1.1 ms (1.0 ± 0.02 SD, 100 responses totaled from 5 single motor units). A schematic representation of the stimulated site is shown in Fig. 2.

View larger version (12K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Short-latency, phasic SPL motor unit responses evoked by (A) Me5 and (B) 5Gn electrical stimulation (1.5 times the response threshold). (A) Me5 electrical stimulation at 20 µA evoked ipsilateral (top) SPL spikes with 1.3-ms latency, but failed to evoke contralateral (bottom) spike responses. (B) Ipsi- and contralateral SPL discharges with 2.2-ms latency, evoked by 5Gn electrical stimulation at 50 µA. Arrows indicate stimulus artifacts.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Schematic representation of the Me5 drawn from coronal sections of the brainstem, -9.1 mm posterior to bregma. An asterisk indicates the stimulated site. 4V, fourth ventricle; IRt, intermediate reticular nucleus; LC, locus coeruleus; Me5, trigeminal mesencephalic nucleus; Pr5, principal sensory trigeminal nucleus; py, pyramidal tract; sp5, spinal trigeminal tract; ts, tectospinal tract.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Latency histograms of spike responses generated from SPL motor units (30 bins of 0.1 ms each). (A) Responses evoked by above-threshold Me5 (ipsilateral, 390 responses), and (B) 5Gn electrical stimulation (ipsi- 2.3 ms ± 0.05 SD, 100 responses; contralateral 2.3 ms ± 0.05 SD, 53 responses).

View larger version (14K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. SPL motor unit responses were evoked by 5Gn electrical stimulation (A) before and (B) after injection of Xylocaine into the ipsilateral Me5. No difference was observed in the onset latency or stimulus threshold. Arrows indicate stimulus artifacts.

	DISCUSSION

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
The somata of most trigeminal afferent fibers lie in the 5Gn, except for afferents from muscle spindles of masticatory muscles and half the periodontal mechanoreceptors, which have their somata in the Me5 (Cody et al., 1972). Afferents from periodontal mechanoreceptors are present only in the caudal, triangular part of the nucleus (Minkels et al., 1991), where 60% of the Me5 cells are located (Rakhawy et al., 1972). In this study, we stimulated the 5Gn and the Me5 and compared the motor unit activities of the dorsal neck splenius muscles.

The latency values obtained after Me5 stimulation suggest a direct connection to the cervical spinal cord. The minimal latency of 1.3 ms for the ipsilateral SPL response would include only the conduction time to the C2/C3 level (about 14 mm), transmission in the synapses at the motoneurons, and transmission from the end plates to the muscle fibers. Of particular interest was the relative lack of contralateral response after Me5 stimulation. Given the intimate connections between Me5 afferents and the trigeminal spinal nuclei (Rokx et al., 1986; Shigenaga et al., 1988a,b, 1989; Luo et al., 2001), and the abundance of bilateral projections from these nuclei to the cervical spinal cord (Ruggiero et al., 1981; Matsushita et al., 1982; Phelan and Falls, 1991; Dessem and Luo, 1999), one would expect contralateral reflex responses in an oligosynaptic range.

Results from the 5Gn-stimulation were similar to those previously reported in cats (Alstermark et al., 1992). The average latency after 5Gn stimulation was the same for ipsi- and contralateral SPL responses, with values suggesting a disynaptic transmission. It would be unlikely to have a monosynaptic transmission, due to the lack of anatomically defined crossing projections from primary trigeminal afferents reaching the spinal cord (Matsushita et al., 1981; Dessem and Luo, 1999). The rather shorter ipsilateral latencies obtained after Me5 stimulation, however, suggest that trigeminal primary afferents may excite SPL motor units ipsilaterally through a monosynaptic pathway.

Our supplementary experiment indicated minimum interaction between the Me5- and 5Gn-evoked SPL responses, with likely independent pathways for both reflexes. Stimulation of 5Gn alone failed to evoke monosynaptic ipsilateral SPL action potentials at low intensity values, although such stimulation might have activated some of the passing fibers of Me5 afferents as well. This observation, together with those of other studies (Sumino and Nozaki, 1977; Alstermark et al., 1992; Dessem and Luo, 1999), suggests that trigeminal afferent feedback reaches the spinal cord predominantly via relays in the spinal trigeminal nuclei. Functionally, the short-latency, phasic SPL response after 5Gn stimulation might most likely be related to the head withdrawal reflex, while more complex orofacial behaviors would rely on oligo- or polysynaptic pathways according to different modalities of somatosensation.

It has been reported that neurons of the Me5 project ipsilaterally to the upper cervical segments as far as C2 or C3 (Matsushita et al., 1981). Later studies of retrograde and intracellular neuronal labeling indicated the presence of spinal-projecting collaterals of Me5 cells supplying jaw muscle spindles to the cervical spinal cord (Shigenaga et al., 1988a; Raappana and Arvidsson, 1993; Dessem and Luo, 1999).

It has been proposed that Me5 would play a role in the process of generating the central masticatory pattern (Taylor et al., 1981). Inputs from Me5, presumably jaw muscle spindles, may act as interneurons during mastication and provide positive feedback, thus increasing the cycle duration and electromyographic activity of jaw-closing muscles (Luschei and Goodwin, 1974). The Me5-evoked trigemino-cervical reflex observed in this study, and the previously reported concomitant jaw and head movements observed during fictive mastication (Igarashi et al., 2000) support the idea that the head motor system may be involved in the basic patterns of mastication generated in the brainstem.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
The authors thank Dr. E.S. Suhr for assistance in brain histology. This study was financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (no. 1387735, 2001–2002) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan.

Received June 26, 2002; Last revision November 4, 2002; Accepted January 31, 2003

	REFERENCES

TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION REFERENCES

 
Abrahams VC, Richmond FJ (1977). Motor role of the spinal projections of the trigeminal system. In: Pain in the trigeminal region. Anderson DJ, Matthew B, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, pp. 405–411.

Abrahams VC, Kori AA, Loeb GE, Richmond FJ, Rose PK, Keirstead SA (1993). Facial input to neck motoneurons: trigemino-cervical reflexes in the conscious and anaesthetised cat. Exp Brain Res 97:23–30.[ISI][Medline]

Alstermark B, Pinter MJ, Sasaki S, Tantisira B (1992). Trigeminal excitation of dorsal neck motoneurones in the cat. Exp Brain Res 92:183–193.[ISI][Medline]

Bermejo R, Zeigler HP (1999). Trigeminal deafferentation and conditioned pecking in pigeons. Behav Brain Res 99:181–189.[ISI][Medline]

Cody FW, Lee RW, Taylor A (1972). A functional analysis of the components of the mesencephalic nucleus of the fifth nerve in the cat. J Physiol 226:249–261.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Dessem D, Luo P (1999). Jaw-muscle spindle afferent feedback to the cervical spinal cord in the rat. Exp Brain Res 128:451–459.[ISI][Medline]

Eriksson PO, Haggman-Henrikson B, Nordh E, Zafar H (2000). Co-ordinated mandibular and head-neck movements during rhythmic jaw activities in man. J Dent Res 79:1378–1384.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Poggio CE, Schmitz JH, Tartaglia G (1997). A three-dimensional non-invasive study of head flexion and extension in young non-patient subjects. J Oral Rehabil 24:361–368.[ISI][Medline]

Igarashi N, Yamamura K, Yamada Y, Kohno S (2000). Head movements and neck muscle activities associated with the jaw movement during mastication in the rabbit. Brain Res 871:151–155.[ISI][Medline]

Lazarov NE (2002). Comparative analysis of the chemical neuroanatomy of the mammalian trigeminal ganglion and mesencephalic trigeminal nucleus. Prog Neurobiol 66:19–59.[ISI][Medline]

Luo P, Moritani M, Dessem D (2001). Jaw-muscle spindle afferent pathways to the trigeminal motor nucleus in the rat. J Comp Neurol 435:341–353.[ISI][Medline]

Luschei ES, Goodwin GM (1974). Patterns of mandibular movement and jaw muscle activity during mastication in the monkey. J Neurophysiol 37:954–966.[Free Full Text]

Martaresche M, Le Fur C, Magnusson M, Faure JM, Picard M (2000). Time structure of behavioral patterns related to feed pecking in chicks. Physiol Behav 70:443–451.[Medline]

Matsubara N, Hisano M, Minakuchi S, Soma K (2002). Head movements in the occlusal phase of mastication. J Med Dent Sci 49:37–42.[Medline]

Matsushita M, Okado N, Ikeda M, Hosoya Y (1981). Descending projections from the spinal and mesencephalic nuclei of the trigeminal nerve to the spinal cord in the cat. A study with the horseradish peroxidase technique. J Comp Neurol 196:173–187.[ISI][Medline]

Matsushita M, Ikeda M, Okado N (1982). The cells of origin of the trigeminothalamic, trigeminospinal and trigeminocerebellar projections in the cat. Neuroscience 7:1439–1454.[ISI][Medline]

Minkels RF, Juch PJ, Ter Horst GJ, Van Willigen JD (1991). Projections of the parvocellular reticular formation to the contralateral mesencephalic trigeminal nucleus in the rat. Brain Res 547:13–21.[ISI][Medline]

Paxinos G, Watson C (1998). The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates. 4th ed. New York: Academic Press.

Phelan KD, Falls WM (1991). A comparison of the distribution and morphology of thalamic, cerebellar and spinal projection neurons in rat trigeminal nucleus interpolaris. Neuroscience 40:497–511.[ISI][Medline]

Raappana P, Arvidsson J (1993). Location, morphology, and central projections of mesencephalic trigeminal neurons innervating rat masticatory muscles studied by axonal transport of choleragenoid-horseradish peroxidase. J Comp Neurol 328:103–114.[ISI][Medline]

Rakhawy MT, Shehata SH, Badawy ZH (1972). Experimental and histological study of the mesencephalic nucleus of the fifth cranial nerve and its relation to the muscles of mastication in the rat. Acta Anat (Basel) 81:586–601.[ISI][Medline]

Rokx JT, Juch PJ, van Willigen JD (1986). Arrangement and connections of mesencephalic trigeminal neurons in the rat. Acta Anat (Basel) 127:7–15.[ISI][Medline]

Ruggiero DA, Ross CA, Reis DJ (1981). Projections from the spinal trigeminal nucleus to the entire length of the spinal cord in the rat. Brain Res 225:225–233.[ISI][Medline]

Shigenaga Y, Mitsuhiro Y, Yoshida A, Cao CQ, Tsuru H (1988a). Morphology of single mesencephalic trigeminal neurons innervating masseter muscle of the cat. Brain Res 445:392–399.[ISI][Medline]

Shigenaga Y, Yoshida A, Mitsuhiro Y, Doe K, Suemune S (1988b). Morphology of single mesencephalic trigeminal neurons innervating periodontal ligament of the cat. Brain Res 448:331–338.[ISI][Medline]

Shigenaga Y, Doe K, Suemune S, Mitsuhiro Y, Tsuru K, Otani K, et al. (1989). Physiological and morphological characteristics of periodontal mesencephalic trigeminal neurons in the cat—intra-axonal staining with HRP. Brain Res 505:91–110.[ISI][Medline]

Sumino R, Nozaki S (1977). Trigemino-neck reflex: its peripheral and central organization. In: Pain in the trigeminal region. Anderson DJ, Matthews B, editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier/North Holland, pp. 365–374.

Taylor A, Appenteng K, Morimoto T (1981). Proprioceptive input from the jaw muscles and its influence on lapping, chewing, and posture. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 59:636–644.[ISI][Medline]

Wilga CD, Motta PJ (2000). Durophagy in sharks: feeding mechanics of the hammerhead Sphyrna tiburo. J Exp Biol 203(Pt 18):2781–2796.[Abstract]

Zeredo JL, Toda K, Soma K (2002). Neck motor unit activities induced by inputs from periodontal mechanoreceptors in rats. J Dent Res 81:39–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Haggman-Henrikson, E. Nordh, H. Zafar, and P.-O. Eriksson Head Immobilization can Impair Jaw Function. J. Dent. Res., November 1, 2006; 85(11): 1001 - 1005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Figures Only Full Text (PDF) Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zeredo, J.L. Articles by Soma, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zeredo, J.L. Articles by Soma, K.