|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online August 30, 2006
Journal of Experimental Biology 209, 3485-3487 (2006)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2006
doi: 10.1242/jeb.02458
JEB Classics |
TRANSLATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR
Harvard University
jeff{at}mcb.harvard.edu, sanesj{at}mcb.harvard.edu
A peculiar concomitant of war is to stimulate highly focused, collaborative
scientific research endeavors that lead to extraordinary accomplishments. The
developments of radar and of nuclear weapons (The Manhattan Project), are
particularly well-known examples. Likewise, groups of biomedical researchers
have been assembled in wartime to aid in the efforts to treat the injuries
that inevitably occur. The paper discussed here
(Gutmann et al., 1942
) is a
result of one such effort in Britain, during the Second World
War.
|
Of all the non-fatal injuries that occur in battle, the most disabling are
neural, because of the limited ability of the human nervous system to
regenerate. With this in mind, the British Army and the British Medical
Research Council convened a group of neurologists and neurosurgeons in 1939 to
confront the special challenges of neurological injury. The group was led by
Hugh Cairns and Herbert Seddon, Professors of Surgery at Oxford University;
Seddon was also an expert in nerve injuries and their repair. They recruited
J. Z. Young (1903-1997), a brilliant cellular neuroscientist, to establish a
unit devoted to peripheral nerve repair. Young had already made an
unforgettable contribution to neurobiology by discovering and characterizing
the giant fiber system of the squid
(Young, 1939), whose large
caliber axon and huge synapse made possible the Nobel Prize-winning work of
Alan Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley on axonal conduction
(Hodgkin, 1964;
Huxley, 1964) and of Bernard
Katz on synaptic transmission (Katz,
1971).
Young, in turn, assembled a team that was, in his words `a curious mixture'
(Young, 1993). His three
co-authors on the paper featured here were Ernst Gutmann, Ludwig Guttmann and
Peter Medawar. Gutmann (1910-1977) was a Czech physician who, according to
Young (1993), had arrived in
Britain as a prisoner of war. He was sent to the group in response to their
request for `someone to clean out the animal house'
(Young, 1993), but it soon
became apparent that he was a knowledgeable and technically gifted researcher.
Guttmann (1899-1980) had been a leading neurologist in Germany, who had fled
to England in 1939. His refugee status prevented him from resuming his
practice, so he was eager to join a group that not only allowed him to gain a
livelihood but also to use his skills. Medawar (1915-1987) was a Fellow at
Oxford who had studied under Young, then gone on to do pioneering work on the
analysis of cell growth in tissue culture. Others in Young's group, but not
authors of this paper, included M. Abercrombie, D. Barker, W. Holmes and F. K.
Sanders.
Together, the group undertook a series of investigations aimed at
understanding why the regeneration of peripheral sensory and motor axons was
often imperfect and how it could be improved. `The Rate of Regeneration of
Nerve' published in The Journal of Experimental Biology in 1942,
was their first major work. It was written, as the title suggests, to
re-examine a simple question. The rate of regeneration had been studied
previously by several neuroscientists, beginning with Ramon y Cajal
(1928), but there was little
consensus on what the rate was, and little clarity on why estimates varied so
widely. Gutmann and colleagues were aware that the time of recovery from a
nerve lesion was affected by several factors including a latent period after
nerve damage and the speed at which nerves regrew. But the distinction between
the rate of growth and the separate, significant interval before functional
recovery was not well appreciated when these experiments were planned.
The basic protocol that the team used was to damage a peripheral nerve so that its axons would be severed, leading to degeneration of the distal part. They then followed the progress of regrowth from the cut stump over time. The experimental data in the paper consist of graphs plotting millimeters of regeneration versus days following nerve injury. Experimental subjects included young and adult rabbits and a few dogs; both sensory and motor nerve regeneration were monitored. Injuries included cuts, crushes near the spinal cord, crushes near the end organ, cuts followed by suture, and nerve cross-anastomoses, in which the proximal stump of one nerve was joined to the distal stump of another. Regeneration was assessed in several different ways. By directly pinching the nerve at various positions along its length, they could find the sensitive growing tip from which reflexes could most easily be elicited. Importantly, however, they also monitored recovery of sensory or motor function after muscle or skin were reinnervated. In most cases, no regeneration was seen for 3-7 days. Axons then appeared to grow at a constant rate of 3-5 mm per day. Surprisingly, however, functional recovery was not detectable for 2-3 weeks after the `pinch test' indicated that the first axons had reached the endorgan.
It was this difference between the results obtained by the pinch test and
by monitoring functional recovery that particularly caught the authors'
attention. The failure of previous workers to clearly distinguish regeneration
from recovery almost certainly led to the general view that axons grew much
more slowly (
1 mm day-1) than Gutmann and coworkers found. The
authors noted that direct histological measures of axonal length, such as
those made by Ramon y Cajal
(1928), might have provided
further insight; they also noted that Cajal's estimates of rate were fully
consistent with their own. On the other hand, the direct behavioral assessment
of functional recovery by Gutmann and the team added a new dimension. In any
event, by making the distinction, and by rigorously quantifying their results,
Gutmann et al. (1942) provided
data on which other scientists could rely.
The differences between the rate measurements of Gutmann et al. and those
of some predecessors also raised new questions. In the 1942 paper's
Discussion, the authors considered possible explanations for the unexpected
delay between axon arrival and functional recovery; they were unable at the
time to decide amongst them, but the clear demonstration that regeneration and
recovery were very different was a powerful impetus for further work. Indeed,
perhaps the most important feature of the paper by Gutmann et al.
(1942) is that it laid a solid
foundation for much of the work the group went on to do. One main set of
studies was aimed at elucidating the factors that limited the efficacy of
regeneration. For example, Holmes and Young
(1942) asked whether delaying
the onset of regrowth had a deleterious effect. To this end, they compared
regeneration under two different conditions: after the two ends of the nerve
were cut and sutured together immediately or after the two ends were kept
apart for protracted periods before being sutured to initiate regrowth. They
found that delay decreased the number of axons that regenerated, but not the
rate of regeneration, thus providing a novel explanation for the deleterious
effects of delay on recovery of function. Gutmann and Sanders
(1943) pointed to some aspects
of recovery that were incomplete even under optimal conditions, such as the
restoration of fiber diameter, and Sanders and Young
(1944) then performed
experiments suggesting that physical constrictions in the Schwann cell guides
through which regeneration occurred were important determinants of the
limitation. Knowing that these constrictions increased with time after
denervation, they stressed the importance of performing nerve repair surgery
as soon as possible following injury.
A second set of follow-up studies was strictly practical (see
Young, 1942, and
Guth, 1956 for summary and
citations). For example, Gutmann showed that fine white silk was a superior
suture material to catgut or colored silk; woman's hair, he thought, was
better still. Young and Medawar recommended the use of fibrin clots for
holding nerve ends together when suturing was infeasible. Gutmann, Sanders and
Young tested various materials for their ability to serve as grafts that could
support regeneration when nerves were so damaged that suturing was impossible.
The work on sutures and grafts presaged the current interest in `biomaterials'
to aid nerve repair and regeneration by a half century
(Schmidt and Leach, 2003).
Likewise, the surgeon in the group, Seddon, rapidly applied some of the
conclusions derived from work on experimental animals to humans
(Seddon et al., 1943), in an
early example of minimizing the `bench to bedside' lag.
For neuroscientists, perhaps the most impressive of the studies building on
that of Gutmann and colleagues
(1942) was a definitive
analysis of what happens when regenerating motor axons have finally completed
their journey to the muscle, and are faced with the problem of reestablishing
a synapse. Gutmann and Young
(1944) asked `what is the
delay between the arrival of the tips of nerve fibres at a muscle and the
onset of the power of transmission of impulses from one to the other'?
Also, following from the differences in efficacy between prompt and delayed
regeneration, they asked whether `this delay[is] the same after
short and long periods of muscle atrophy'. Emphasizing the practical
implications of their work, they pointed to several ways in which delaying
repair degraded regenerative ability. Among many influential observations,
they showed that the Schwann cell guides critical for regeneration through the
distal nerve also play critical roles in accurate reinnervation of muscle
fibres. In this regard, as with so many others, they expanded on the seminal
observations of Ramon y Cajal
(1928) and his students. Some
of our own recent work has extended this theme still further, by using live
imaging in transgenic mice to document the guidance that Schwann cell tubes
provide to regenerating motor axons and the factors that regulate its efficacy
(Sanes and Lichtman, 1999;
Nguyen et al., 2002;
Pan et al., 2003). Our
`high-tech' measurement of regeneration rate, 2.7 mm day-1
(Pan et al., 2003), is
remarkably similar to that obtained by Gutmann et al.
(1942) six decades earlier.
As the war came to an end, the members of the group went their own ways. Of
the four authors, Gutmann was the only one to continue working on the
peripheral nervous system. He received a PhD from Oxford University, UK for
his work with Young, then returned to Czechoslovakia, where he eventually
became Head of the Department of Physiology and Deputy Director of the
Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences
(Tucek, 1978). His work on
regeneration, neurotrophic relations and aging in the neuromuscular system
(Gutmann and Hanzlikova, 1973;
Gutmann, 1976) was world-class
at a time when little basic research of note was being done in Eastern Europe.
Guttman, whose interests remained primarily clinical, turned to the practical
applications of the work he had done with the group. He founded the National
Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville near London, and remained as
Director until 1966. A pioneer in organized physical activities for the
disabled (Guttmann, 1973), he
began `Stoke Mandeville Games for the Paralyzed' in 1948, and oversaw its
transformation into what is now the international Paralympic Movement. Medawar
pursued another war-time project, on the factors that limit the success of
skin grafts. His investigations on transplantation immunity won him a Nobel
Prize in 1960 (Medawar, 1991).
Young moved to University College London, where he was Chair of Anatomy from
1945 until 1974 (Boycott,
1998). He turned to cellular studies of memory in the octopus, an
animal whose prodigious feats of learning he was among the first to appreciate
(Young, 1965). His interests
shifted gradually to more cognitive levels, and eventually beyond laboratory
science to the philosophy of brain and mind
(Young, 1988).
In conclusion, the Second World War stimulated intensive, focussed research
on nerve regeneration. It is hard to imagine any other motivation for the
painstaking experiments that Gutmann et al.
(1942) undertook. These
studies, which were more descriptive than experimental, provided a lasting,
reliable data set upon which to compare the effects of various interventions
on nerve regrowth. This paper has been cited more than 270 times over the
years, with 10% of those in the 21st century, provide ample testimony to its
value. The eminent individuals involved and the brilliant careers that each
had are also a testament to the power of a pressing societal need that drove
these independent-minded individuals to work together for the greater common
good.
References
Boycott, B. B. (1998). John Zachary Young. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 44,486 -509.[CrossRef]
Guth, L. (1956). Regeneration in the mammalian
peripheral nervous system. Physiol. Rev.
36,441
-478.
Gutmann, E. (1976). Neurotrophic relations. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 38,177 -216.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gutmann, E and Hanzlikova, V. (1973). Basic mechanisms of aging in the neuromuscular system. Mech. Ageing Dev. 1,327 -349.[CrossRef][Medline]
Gutmann, E. and Sanders, F. K. (1943). Recovery
of fibre numbers and diameters in the regeneration of peripheral nerves.
J. Physiol. 101,489
-518.
Gutmann, E. and Young, J. Z. (1944). The reinnervation of muscle after various periods of atrophy. J. Anat. 78,15 -42.[Medline]
Gutmann, E., Guttmann, L., Medawar, P. B. and Young, J. Z. (1942). The rate of regeneration of nerve. J. Exp. Biol. 19,14 -44.[Abstract]
Guttmann, L. (1973). Sport and recreation for the mentally and physically handicapped. R. Soc. Health J. 93,208 -212.[Medline]
Hodgkin, A. L. (1964). The ionic basis of
nervous conduction. Science
145,1148
-1154.
Holmes, W. and Young, J. Z. (1942). Nerve regeneration after immediate and delayed suture. J. Anat. 77,63 .[Medline]
Huxley, A. F. (1964). Excitation and conduction
in nerve: quantitative analysis. Science
145,1154
-1159.
Katz, B. (1971). Quantal mechanism of neural
transmitter release. Science
173,123
-126.
Medawar, P. B. (1991). The Nobel Lectures in Immunology. The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, 1960. Immunological tolerance. Scand. J. Immunol. 33,337 -344.[Medline]
Nguyen, Q. T., Sanes, J. R. and Lichtman, J. W. (2002). Pre-existing pathways promote precise projection patterns. Nat. Neurosci. 5, 861-867.[CrossRef][Medline]
Pan, Y. A., Misgeld, T., Lichtman, J. W. and Sanes, J. R.
(2003). Effects of neurotoxic and neuroprotective agents on
peripheral nerve regeneration assayed by time-lapse imaging in vivo.
J. Neurosci. 23,11479
-11488.
Ramon y Cajal, S. (1928). Degeneration and Regeneration of the Nervous System. Oxford: Oxford University Press; reprinted, 1991.
Sanders, F. K. and Young, J. Z. (1944). The
role of the peripheral stump in the control of fiber diameter in regeneration
nerve. J. Physiol. 103,119
-136.
Sanes, J. R. and Lichtman, J. W. (1999). Development of the vertebrate neuromuscular junction. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 22,389 -442.[CrossRef][Medline]
Schmidt, C. E. and Leach, J. B. (2003). Neural tissue engineering: strategies for repair and regeneration. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 5,293 -347.[CrossRef][Medline]
Seddon, H. J., Medawar, P. B. and Smith, H.
(1943). Rate of regeneration of peripheral nerves in man.
J. Physiol. 102,191
.
Tucek, S. and Gutmann, E. (1978). J. Neurol. Sci. 35,399 -400.[CrossRef][Medline]
Young, J. Z. (1939). Fused neurons and synaptic
contacts in the giant nerve fibres of cephalopods. Phil. Trans. R.
Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 229,465
-503.
Young, J. Z. (1942). The functional repair of
nervous tissue. Physiol. Rev.
22,318
-374.
Young, J. Z. (1965). Croonian Lecture: The organization of a memory system. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 163,285 -320.[Medline]
Young, J. Z. (1988). Philosophy and the Brain. Oxford University Press.
Young, J. Z. (1993). Introduction. In: Peripheral Neuropathy, Third Edition (ed. P. J. Dyck and P. K. Thomas), pp. 2-5. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
