The uptake‐storage properties and synthesis of noradrenaline, and fluorescence morphology of adrenergic nerves which have been allowed to regenerate for 4 weeks after a chemical sympathectomy produced by 6‐hydroxydopamine have been investigated in mouse iris and atrium. The regenerated nerve terminals displayed a lower formaldehyde‐induced fluorescence intensity whereas the non‐terminal axons exhibited a stronger fluorescence intensity and a more beaded appearance compared with mature nerves. The endogenous noradrenaline concentration after 6‐hydroxydopamine was 30% in iris and 45% in atrium compared to control values. Recovery of [3H]noradrenaline uptake was found to be more rapid than that of endogenous noradrenaline concentration after the 6‐hydroxydopamine treatment. [3H]Noradrenaline uptake in regenerating and adult mature nerves both obeyed Michaelis‐Menten kinetics having identical Km values. There was a close correlation between [3H]noradrenaline uptake and nerve density of adrenergic nerves regenerated after 6‐hydroxydopamine. These results show that [3H]noradrenaline uptake is a better index for the number of regenerated nerve terminals than is the endogenous noradrenaline concentration. The retention of [3H]noradrenaline taken up and accumulated in vitro was about the same in regenerated and mature nerves, although a slight tendency to less effective retention was observed in the regenerated nerves. Subcellular distribution studies showed that relatively less [3H]noradrenaline was recovered in the microsomal fraction after 6‐hydroxydopamine treatment. The formation of 14C‐labelled catecholamines from [14C]DOPA was higher in regenerating nerves than indicated by the endogenous noradrenaline concentration but lower than that indicated by the [3H]noradrenaline. It is concluded that the regenerating nerves contain less endogenous noradrenaline than adult mature nerves and that the uptake mechanism develops promptly, whereas the development of the storage mechanism lags behind.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jönsson et al. (1972) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: