Abstract

C-mechanoreceptors in humans comprise a population of unmyelinated afferents exhibiting a wide range of mechanical sensitivities. C-mechanoreceptors are putatively divided into those signaling gentle touch (C-tactile afferents, CTs) and nociception (C-mechanosensitive nociceptors, CMs), giving rise to positive and negative affect, respectively. We sought to distinguish, compare, and contrast the properties of a population of human C-mechanoreceptors to see how fundamental the divisions between these putative subpopulations are. We used microneurography to record from individual afferents in humans and applied electrical and mechanical stimulation to their receptive fields. We show that C-mechanoreceptors can be distinguished unequivocally into two putative populations, comprising CTs and CMs, by electrically evoked spike latency changes (slowing). After both natural mechanical stimulation and repetitive electrical stimulation there was markedly less latency slowing in CTs compared with CMs. Electrical receptive field stimulation, which bypasses the receptor end organ, was most effective in classifying C-mechanoreceptors, as responses to mechanical receptive field stimulation overlapped somewhat, which may lead to misclassification. Furthermore, we report a subclass of low-threshold CM responding to gentle mechanical stimulation and a potential subclass of CT afferent displaying burst firing. We show that substantial differences exist in the mechanisms governing axonal conduction between CTs and CMs. We provide clear electrophysiological "signatures" (extent of latency slowing) that can be used in unequivocally identifying populations of C-mechanoreceptors in single-unit and multiunit microneurography studies and in translational animal research into affective touch. Additionally, these differential mechanisms may be pharmacologically targetable for separate modulation of positive and negative affective touch information.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Human skin encodes a plethora of touch interactions, and affective tactile information is primarily signaled by slowly conducting C-mechanoreceptive afferents. We show that electrical stimulation of low-threshold C-tactile afferents produces markedly different patterns of activity compared with high-threshold C-mechanoreceptive nociceptors, although the populations overlap in their responses to mechanical stimulation. This fundamental distinction demonstrates a divergence in affective touch signaling from the first stage of sensory processing, having implications for the processing of interpersonal touch.

Highlights

  • NEW & NOTEWORTHY Human skin encodes a plethora of touch interactions, and affective tactile information is primarily signaled by slowly conducting C-mechanoreceptive afferents

  • The marking technique has only been validated in C-mechanosensitive nociceptors (CMs) (Schmelz et al 1995), and afferent characterization, based on latency changes, has not yet been applied to a population of www.jn.org human C-mechanoreceptors, including CTs, a case report has been made of a single low-threshold C fiber in a nerve-injured patient (Campero et al 2011)

  • Few differences were observed in the ability of CT and CM units to follow high-frequency (Ͼ50 Hz) electrical stimulation (Fig. 4A), and the only afferent following all pulses at 200 Hz was a CM with a low mechanical threshold

Read more

Summary

MATERIALS & METHODS

The experiment was approved by the University of Gothenburg ethics committee and performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and written informed consent was obtained. If mechanical activation caused an increase in response latency to electrical stimulation, the electrically evoked responses were presumed to originate from the physiologically characterized unit and further electrical stimulation was performed. Units were not electrically or mechanically stimulated for Ͼ2 min, to allow for the recovery of spike conduction to baseline levels. Conduction velocity was estimated by dividing the distance from the receptive field to the recording electrode insertion site by the latency of the first spike evoked after this period. Analyses of marking data involved counting the number of spikes evoked by a mechanical stimulus in the period between two electrical stimuli, with the latency change expressed as a percentage of the response before tactile stimulation.

RESULTS
B Mechanical Electrical
DISCUSSION
DISCLOSURES

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.