We have presented a method to obtain a reliably complete sciatic nerve crush with precise marking of the crush site. As previously mentioned, sciatic nerve crush is a common model of peripheral nerve injury in mice and rats. Although each method of crush has its advantages and disadvantages, we found this method produced a complete crush that was easily marked with a minimum of special equipment (e.g. special clamps, etc).
Crush Methods
The most common instrument used for mouse sciatic nerve crush is the No. 5 angled forceps. While it is possible to obtain a complete crush using this method, we found that this instrument produced a variable crush (too little force leaving spared axons or too great tearing the nerve), especially in the hands of a new user.
Other less common methods used to produce crush include small aneurysm clips, forceps chilled in liquid nitrogen, and specially manufactured, calibrated, non-serrated clamps 9,12,5,7. Each of these instruments can reliably produce a complete crush. We chose hemostatic forceps because the instrument is easy to obtain, produces a reliable crush, and allows for clear marking of the crush site. One drawback of the hemostatic forceps is that we cannot readily measure the force produced during crush. However, once tested, a hemostatic forceps will reliably produce a complete crush, and can easily be replaced by an identical forceps if the forceps become damaged.
No matter the method chosen to perform a crush, perhaps the most critical part of the crush procedure is to verify completeness of nerve crush. This is especially important in the hands of a novel user. Semi-thin analysis of nerve distal to the injury site (Figure 2) provides a straightforward method to do so and can reveal a complete crush (Figure 2, panel B) or an incomplete crush (Figure 2, panel C).
The final consideration in the crush method is the duration of the crush. We tested crush durations from 15 seconds to 60 seconds of total crush time, with no difference in translucence of the nerve or preservation of myelinated fibers. This is consistent with the observations of Bridge and colleagues, who compared crushes of 15-60 second duration in the rat sciatic nerve using a jeweler's forceps and found no significant morphological, histological, electrophysiological, or functional differences between different crush durations18. However, longer crush times or crushes that significantly degrade the Schwann cell endoneurium will alter the rate and/or success of regeneration.
Marking Methods
The two viable methods for crush site marking other than powdered carbon are a 10-0 suture through the epineurium of the sciatic nerve13,19, and FluoSpheres produced by Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR1. A 10-0 suture grossly marks the crush site, but requires higher level of microsurgical skill, and variability in application of the suture results in less precise marking of the boundary of the crush site than carbon marking. When studying the rate of regeneration, the boundary of the crush site must be precisely marked following injury. We have not investigated FluoSpheres; however, they meet the criteria for the precision and persistence of crush-site marking. They are particularly useful when imaging in-vivo regeneration in YFP mouse lines1. For our purposes we found the carbon marking adequate and inexpensive, with the additional benefit of being easily seen in subsequent semi-thin or electron microscopic evaluation. In addition, we have found that carbon marking persists for at least six weeks making it suitable for longer duration experiments.
Analysis of Regeneration after Crush
A complete investigation of post crush regeneration combines functional, electrophysiologic, and morphological assessments5,16. Morphological assessments following regeneration are perhaps the most common. These assessments can be separated into those that assess latency of growth, rate of axonal growth, and specificity of reinnervation16. In this report, we have presented a whole mount muscle procedure that can be used to quickly assess morphological regeneration (Figure 3). In this analysis denervated NMJs labeled by alpha-bungarotoxin and Schwann cell GAP-43 are quantified and compared to re-innervated junctions as labeled by neurofilament, SV2, and alpha-bungarotoxin. GAP-43 is markedly upregulated by Schwann cells after denervation and nicely identifies denervated terminal Schwann cells at the neuromuscular junction20. Though GAP-43 is expressed by axons, the concomitant use of neurofilament readily distinguishes GAP-43 positive axons from Schwann cells. Furthermore, because NMJs deep within the muscle may not be readily labeled by antibody (as compared to the small molecule alpha-bungarotoxin) Schwann cell GAP-43 immunoreactivity importantly confirms the denervated status of a neuromuscular junction and improves accuracy when counting denervated NMJs.
This method provides a simple and efficient method to assess the reinnervation status of the entire muscle endplate band at once. Others have used thy-1-CFP(23)/S100-GFP mice that express cyan fluorescent protein in axons and GFP in Schwann cells to follow re-innervation of the anterior tibialis after sciatic nerve crush2. One caveat must be noted, though. This method relies on neurofilament and SV2 immunoreactivity to quantify re-innervation. It is possible that axon outgrowth may be unimpeded but subsequent expression of SV2 may be delayed21. Therefore, in some experiments it will be important to confirm that delayed regeneration and not delayed presynaptic expression of SV2 (i.e. pre-synaptic differentiation) account for an observed phenotype.