https://doi.org/10.5812/ans-149217

Fish Species Spinal Cord Injury Models Utility for Research: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Outcomes

authors:

avatar Kurosh Mojtabavi ORCID # 1 , avatar Seyed Danial Alizadeh ORCID # 1 , avatar Hadi Digaleh 2 , avatar Mohsen Sadeghi-Naini ORCID 3 , avatar Zahra Ghodsi ORCID 1 , avatar Faezeh Sahebdel ORCID 4 , † , avatar Mohammad Rezaei Zadeh Rukerd ORCID 5 , † , avatar Mohammad Saber Amirzade Iranagh 6 , avatar Morteza Gholami 7 , avatar Armin Khavandegar ORCID 1 , avatar James S Harrop ORCID 8 , avatar Seyed Mohammad Ghodsi 1 , * , avatar Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar ORCID 1 , **

Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Department of Neurosurgery, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Department of Neurosurgery, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khoram-Abad, Iran
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Department of Stem Cells and Developmental Biology, Cell Science Research Center, Royan Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Technology, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
Faculty of Veterinary of Medicine, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran
Metabolic Disorders Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Molecular‑Cellular Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Department of Neurological Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA
These two authors contributed equally to this work
Corresponding Authors: # These authors have contributed equally
Archives of Neuroscience: Vol.11, issue 4; e149217
published online: October 27, 2024
article type: Systematic Review
received: June 5, 2024
revised: August 28, 2024
accepted: September 14, 2024

how to cite: Mojtabavi K, Alizadeh S D, Digaleh H, Sadeghi-Naini M, Ghodsi Z, et al. Fish Species Spinal Cord Injury Models Utility for Research: A Systematic Review of Methodologies and Outcomes. Arch Neurosci. 2024;11(4):e149217. https://doi.org/10.5812/ans-149217.

Abstract

Context:

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating condition that results in severe disability and significant comorbidities. The complex pathophysiology of SCI repair and difficulties understanding neural regeneration are treatment challenges.

Objectives:

The aim of this study is to systematically review the diverse applications of various fish species as models for SCI research.

Evidence Acquisition:

PRISMA guidelines were used to review observational and interventional studies that utilized fish species as SCI models, published from inception to July 2023. Two independent reviewers screened and performed the data extraction. One independent reviewer assessed the risk of bias for the included studies.

Results:

Five thousand six hundred and thirty-three records were reviewed, and 144 met the inclusion criteria and were categorized by fish species. The majority of studies employed complete transection injuries, with the remainder being crush injuries, laser injuries, electro-ablations, and demyelination with substances. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) were most commonly utilized 102/144 (71%), primarily with larval models. Other models included Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus and Lethenteron reissneri); Goldfish (Carassius auratus); European eel (Anguilla Anguilla); Knifefish (Apteronotus leptorhynchus and Apteronotus albifrons); Sailfin Molly (Poecilia latipinna); and African turquoise killifish (Nothobranchius furzeri).

Conclusions:

This systematic review highlights that fish models, particularly zebrafish, goldfish, and European eels, are important models for further defining SCI pathophysiology and regenerative processes. These models provide a less complex model to gain insights into apoptosis and glial networks.

1. Context

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) results in damage to the spinal cord parenchyma and associated nerves, leading to loss of sensory, motor, and autonomic functions (1, 2). Spinal cord injury pathophysiology categorizes these injuries as primary (due to mechanical forces) and secondary injuries (resulting from ischemia, inflammation, and other pathways) (3).

The prevalence of SCI has risen over the past three decades, with males and elderly individuals being significantly more affected. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that between 13 and 33 million people worldwide have subsequent SCI, and there are 250,000 to 500,000 new cases annually. In the United States, the incidence is estimated at 54 cases per million people each year, contributing to healthcare costs exceeding $1.69 billion annually (1). The global impact of SCI can be reduced through effective prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and continuous healthcare (4). Current therapeutic options for SCI are limited, leaving patients with lifelong physical and mental health issues (1, 3, 5). However, developing effective therapies for SCI recovery requires improved comprehension of the initial and secondary mechanisms of injury, as well as regenerative pathways.

Several animal models have been developed to evaluate the anatomical and biological aspects of SCI to improve care (5). Animal models are essential for in vivo SCI research, as they provide controlled environments for studying physiological and pathological processes. To develop effective treatments, these models need to accurately mimic human conditions (6). Vertebrate animals can regenerate their spinal cords during early development, but their regenerative abilities in adulthood vary among phylogenetic groups. Although rodents are the most common species used in SCI models, other vertebrates such as fish have also been studied due to their distinctive regenerative capacities (5).

This review was performed to better understand the use of fish species as models for SCI research. Specifically, this manuscript categorizes the diverse methodologies and outcomes associated with using fish models, including their regenerative capacity.

2. Objectives

This systematic review classifies fish models for SCI based on study purpose, injury patterns and grades, outcome metrics, and fish species.

3. Evidence Acquisition

3.1. Electronic Searches

This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords such as "fishes," "goldfish," "spinal cord injuries," "spinal cord," "spinal injuries," "wounds and injuries," and "zebrafish" were employed to identify relevant articles up to July 2023. A detailed search strategy is included in Appendix 1 in Supplementary File. Google Scholar and reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were manually screened to capture additional relevant articles. The Ethics Committee of Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center at Tehran University of Medical Sciences approved the study protocol (reference number: IR.TUMS.SINAHOSPITAL.REC.1400.073).

3.2. Eligibility Criteria

This review included all observational and interventional studies published in peer-reviewed journals that used fish species as a model for SCI. Studies that focused on amphibians or used fish models for peripheral nerve injury were excluded. Reviews, abstracts, and editorial articles were also excluded from the analysis.

3.3. Selection and Data Collection Process

Two independent reviewers conducted the initial title-abstract screening and subsequent full-text evaluation of potentially eligible studies. Relevant studies were recorded in a predefined data collection sheet (Appendix 2 in Supplementary File). Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through adjudication with the corresponding author.

3.4. Assessment of Quality and Risk of Bias (RoB)

The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the RoB assessment tools designed for animal studies in SCI research (7). Studies that met at least eight of the 15 internal validity criteria were considered high-quality or low-bias. Out of the 144 animal studies reviewed, 101 were classified as high-quality, and 43 were identified as low-quality (Figure 1).

The risk of bias assessment of the included studies based on the Hassannejad et al., 2016 study (7). Each row contains a variable that checks through the included studies and scores them based on high, unclear, or low risk of bias.
The risk of bias assessment of the included studies based on the Hassannejad et al., 2016 study (7). Each row contains a variable that checks through the included studies and scores them based on high, unclear, or low risk of bias.
Figure 1.

The risk of bias assessment of the included studies based on the Hassannejad et al., 2016 study (7). Each row contains a variable that checks through the included studies and scores them based on high, unclear, or low risk of bias.

4. Results

4.1. Description of Studies

A total of 5,633 records were identified through title and abstract screening, of which 413 manuscripts underwent full-text review. After full-text analysis, 144 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 2).

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews
Figure 2.

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews

These studies were categorized based on the fish species used as SCI models:

Zebrafish (Danio rerio): One hundred and two studies

Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus and Lethenteron reissneri): Thirteen studies

Goldfish (Carassius auratus): Eleven studies

European eel (Anguilla Anguilla): Nine studies

Knifefish (Apteronotus leptorhynchus and Apteronotus albifrons): Six studies

African turquoise killifish (Nothobranchius furzeri): Two studies

Sailfin Molly (Poecilia latipinna): One study

In the 1920s, studies on goldfish (Carassius auratus) and crucian carp (Carassius carassius) showed functional recovery after SCI, although no notable morphological investigations supported these findings at the time (8). Subsequent research on species like guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and Japanese rice fish (Oryzias latipes) demonstrated that nerve fibers reconnect the severed spinal cord, leading to the restoration of swimming behavior (9). However, systematic exploration of fish models for SCI remains limited.

Spinal cord transection was the most common method used to induce spinal cord trauma in fish models. Tail amputation was another prevalent method for inducing injury, particularly in fish species that can regenerate entire tail structures, which is phylogenetically distinct from mammals that do not have tail segments. Thus, spinal cord transections are considered more consistent with mammalian SCI models.

Another injury method involved laser axotomy, which was used in both larval and adult zebrafish across seven studies (10-16). Additionally, electroablation was employed in one study to induce spinal cord neural injury (17). In this technique, microelectrodes were positioned between the horizontal myoseptum and dorsal ridge of zebrafish larvae, and a 25 μA pulse was applied for 1 second to inflict damage (18).

One study used a substrate-induced method to damage the spinal cord by injecting α-bungarotoxin into the junction between the brainstem and spinal cord of adult zebrafish (17). For chemical demyelination, Cunha et al. (19) utilized lysolecithin. The results from studies employing these various methods to induce SCI, including those investigating axonal regeneration at the injury site, are consistent with findings from more commonly used techniques.

4.2. Zebrafish

Of the 102 studies that utilized zebrafish as an SCI model, 30 involved zebrafish larvae. The primary mechanism of injury in these studies was spinal cord transection. Fifteen studies employed alternative injury mechanisms, such as laser-induced spinal avulsion (10-16), electroablation using tungsten microelectrodes (18, 20-22) and pulled glass microelectrodes (23), and demyelination using substrates such as lysolecithin (19, 24) and α-bungarotoxin (17). The most common injury site was located 3 - 5 mm caudal to the brainstem-spinal cord junction, typically at the level of the 15th myotome. Other injury locations included the anal pore (22, 25, 26), optic tectum (27), 7th segment (28, 29), 16th-18th somites (24), and 17th - 20th somites (30). All these studies consistently described the injury as complete axotomies (Appendix 3 in Supplementary File).

This analysis revealed that zebrafish are the predominant fish species utilized for traumatic SCI models. Zebrafish are a well-established model for vertebrate development due to their embryonic transparency, which allows for easy observation of developmental processes. Furthermore, genomic sequencing has enabled the development of molecular assessment tools for detecting neuronal regrowth (31).

Following spinal cord transection in zebrafish, approximately 8% of actively dividing cells differentiate into motor neurons near the injury site (32). In adult zebrafish, the spinal cord undergoes significant structural and functional changes after injury, leading to the eventual restoration of normal function. These acute and chronic regenerative responses result in functional recovery around six weeks post-lesion (WPL) (33), with no additional improvement observed after ten WPLs (34). Upper motor neurons located in the nucleus of the medial longitudinal fascicle and intermediate reticular formation have the ability to repair their axons within the spinal cord. This regeneration is facilitated by the early activation of anti-apoptotic molecules. Regenerating axons from higher motor neurons migrate to the injury site within 10 - 15 days, crossing it within 4 - 6 weeks post-SCI. This process leads to an increase in anti-apoptotic molecules, including Bcl-2 and phospho-Akt, within 1 - 6 days after SCI (35).

Retrograde tracing studies have shown significant changes in dopaminergic and serotonergic systems during successful spinal cord regeneration in adult vertebrates. One study focused on localizing dopamine signals and revealed that Th1+ axons originating from the brain are the primary source of dopamine in the spinal cord (35). After a spinal cord lesion, significant dopaminergic system alterations occur, initially reducing rostral to the lesion and then continuously increasing with regrowth caudal to the lesion. The majority of Th1+ axons are dopaminergic, and their regrowth correlates with functional recovery. In the serotonergic system, circuitous axons with active synapses were observed, and lesion-induced changes included a reduction rostral to the lesion and a subsequent increase caudal to the lesion. The number of 5-HT+ axons caudal to the lesion correlated with the recovery of distal function. These findings highlight the plasticity and regenerative potential of the dopaminergic and serotonergic systems after SCI in zebrafish (35).

4.3. Lamprey

Thirteen studies employed Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and Asiatic Brook Lamprey (Lethenteron reissneri) as their SCI models, with ten using Lamprey larvae. The predominant injury mechanism was spinal cord transection at the 5th gill level. The severity of the injury in these studies was consistently described as complete, with no partially injured models employed (Appendix 4 in Supplementary File).

Using gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) immunofluorescence, Romaus-Sanjurjo et al. (36) monitored anatomic changes at the transection site of mature lamprey larvae for 10 WPL. There was a notable reduction in GABA cells and fibers observed one hour after the injury at both the rostral and caudal directions to the lesion. The numbers of GABAergic cells and their innervation returned to control values within 1 to 2 WPL. The expression of transcripts for GABA type B receptor subunits 1 and 2 was considerably reduced in the spinal cord with lesions compared to control animals at 1, 4, and 10 WPL.

4.4. Goldfish

Eleven studies employed goldfish as their SCI fish model, with five studies using adult fish. The primary injury mechanism was spinal cord transection, although some studies employed variations such as crushing injury (37) and hemisection (38). The injury sites varied, including the left side of the spinal cord (39), spinomedullary level (40, 41), first spinal nerve (38), and posterior median septum (42). Consistent with the other fish species, the fish received complete injuries, except for two studies with the crush and hemisection injuries (Appendix 5 in Supplementary File).

In mammals, after SCI, the extracellular matrix inhibits neuroregeneration (43). Interestingly, these same proteins are present at the injury site in goldfish up to six WPL but do not interfere with neurogenesis (44). One such protein is chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans, which are present at the lesion site but do not obstruct the growth of regenerating axons in goldfish, as opposed to mammals. Neurites from the goldfish midbrain nucleus grow toward the spinal cord after the injury, promoting neurogenesis by innervating the spinal locomotor neurons. This re-establishment of locomotor nucleus neurons with their correct distal pathways may serve as the foundation for enabling functional recovery in goldfish (39). Two studies revealed the aberrant pathway choice of the Mauthner axon in the recovery of behavior and reactive cell invasion after Mauthner axon injury (45, 46).

4.5. European Eel

Eels are considered fish and specifically categorized as ray-finned fish. Nine studies utilized the European eel as an SCI model, with two employing immature eels. The injury mechanism in all these studies involved the transection of the spinal cord. The most common site of spinal cord lesion was 13 segments caudal to the anus, with the exception that some studies injured four segments rostral to the anus (47), the level of the third vertebra (48), and the level of body segment 60 (49). All included studies consistently described the injury as complete, without any partially injured models (Appendix 6 in Supplementary File).

Flight and Verheijen (48) analyzed a European eel’s four distinctive behavioral rehabilitation stages—head and body movement, swimming behavior, rheotaxis, and shelter-seeking—to monitor neurogenesis development. These authors noted no differences from normal behavior in lesioned eels after six weeks, where behavioral recovery was considered complete. These findings align with Doyle et al. (50), who reported that fish with spinal injuries were able to regain their normal tail functions after 5 weeks.

4.6. Other Teleost Fish

Five studies used brown ghost knifefish (Apteronotus leptorhynchus) as their SCI model, all employing a transection mechanism of injury. In two studies, the site of the lesion was 4 mm caudal to the brainstem-spinal cord junction. One adult and one larval African turquoise killifish were used in two studies. The site of injury in the adult killifish was not related to SCI but was a contusion injury on the left optic nerve, whereas the larval killifish underwent a complete transection at the opposite site of the anal pore. Black ghost knifefish (Apteronotus albifrons) and sailfin molly fish (Poecilia latipinna) were used in one study each as complete transection SCI models (Appendix 7 in Supplementary File).

Sîrbulescu and Zupanc (51) monitored the adult brown ghost knifefish at two hours post-injection in the injury site. The caustic agent was active-caspase-3/bromodeoxyuridine/Hu triple labeling, serving as a quantitative analysis of apoptosis. Only 8% of cells showed signs of apoptosis, increasing to 16% during 1 - 3 days post-injury. Between days 5 - 100, only 2% of cells underwent apoptosis. After 150 days, the number of cells labeled with these three markers was only 10% of the total number of apoptotic cells, and by 200 days, no labeled cells could be identified. The increased apoptosis along the lesion margins may suggest that apoptosis plays a role in clearing non-functioning cells and promoting tissue healing during spinal cord regeneration, in contrast to traditional mammalian models where SCI-related apoptosis is viewed negatively as a process that eliminates cells post-injury.

In contrast to mammals, Vitalo et al. (52) reported that the glial scar in the SCI model of brown ghost knifefish forms a well-developed network of radial glia in both intact and wounded spinal cords. This network supports the regeneration of tissue lost to injury and likely plays a crucial role in generating new neurons.

5. Discussion

This systematic review highlights the diverse applications of fish models in SCI research and their potential to elucidate SCI pathophysiology and regenerative processes. The widespread use of spinal cord transection across various fish species emphasizes the value of these models for investigating axonal regeneration and recovery mechanisms. However, it is recognized that this injury model differs from the blunt trauma mechanism typically seen in human SCI. Zebrafish, with their transparency and advanced molecular tools, are particularly valuable for studying regenerative responses in the spinal cord, while goldfish and European eels demonstrate significant potential for overcoming inhibitors of neuroregeneration. The findings related to apoptosis and the formation of glial networks in teleost fish models offer valuable insights into tissue repair mechanisms.

Future research should focus on standardizing injury paradigms and protocols across different fish species to enhance the comparability and reproducibility of results in SCI studies. Moreover, investigating the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying the regenerative capacities observed in fish models could offer promising avenues for developing targeted therapeutic strategies for treating human SCIs.

5.1. Limitations

There are significant variations in the methods and types of SCIs across different fish species and studies, making it challenging to compare findings and draw generalized conclusions. The diversity in study designs, species, and injury paradigms may also limit the generalizability of findings to the human SCI context. This review highlights the need for standardized protocols and injury mechanisms to improve comparability and reproducibility in future research involving fish SCI models.

References

  • 1.

    Ding W, Hu S, Wang P, Kang H, Peng R, Dong Y, et al. Spinal Cord Injury: The Global Incidence, Prevalence, and Disability From the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022;47(21):1532-40. [PubMed ID: 35857624]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9554757]. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000004417.

  • 2.

    Taheri T, Hosseindoost S, Kazemi H, Kamali S, Kolivand P, Gharaylou Z. Comorbidity in spinal cord injury in Iran: A narrative review. Transl Neurosci. 2024;15(1):20220343. [PubMed ID: 38979518]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11229886]. https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2022-0343.

  • 3.

    Li C, Luo Y, Li S. The roles of neural stem cells in myelin regeneration and repair therapy after spinal cord injury. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2024;15(1):204. [PubMed ID: 38978125]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11232222]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-024-03825-x.

  • 4.

    Zeller SL, Stein A, Frid I, Carpenter AB, Soldozy S, Rawanduzy C, et al. Critical Care of Spinal Cord Injury. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2024;24(9):355-63. [PubMed ID: 39008022]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-024-01357-8.

  • 5.

    Sharif-Alhoseini M, Khormali M, Rezaei M, Safdarian M, Hajighadery A, Khalatbari MM, et al. Animal models of spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2017;55(8):714-21. [PubMed ID: 28117332]. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2016.187.

  • 6.

    Batchelor PE, Skeers P, Antonic A, Wills TE, Howells DW, Macleod MR, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of therapeutic hypothermia in animal models of spinal cord injury. PLoS One. 2013;8(8). e71317. [PubMed ID: 23951131]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3739756]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071317.

  • 7.

    Hassannejad Z, Sharif-Alhoseini M, Shakouri-Motlagh A, Vahedi F, Zadegan SA, Mokhatab M, et al. Potential variables affecting the quality of animal studies regarding pathophysiology of traumatic spinal cord injuries. Spinal Cord. 2016;54(8):579-83. [PubMed ID: 26690856]. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2015.215.

  • 8.

    Pearcy JF, Koppanyi T. The Effects of Dislocation of the Eye Upon the Orientation of the Goldfish. Science. 1924;60(1561):502-3. [PubMed ID: 17811983]. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.60.1561.502.

  • 9.

    Kirsche W. Die regenerativen Vorgänge am Rückenmark erwachsener Teleostier nach operativer Kontinuitätstrennung. Verlag nicht ermittelbar; 1950.

  • 10.

    Bremer J, Marsden KC, Miller A, Granato M. The ubiquitin ligase PHR promotes directional regrowth of spinal zebrafish axons. Commun Biol. 2019;2:195. [PubMed ID: 31149640]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6531543]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0434-2.

  • 11.

    Dehnisch Ellstrom I, Spulber S, Hultin S, Norlin N, Ceccatelli S, Hultling C, et al. Spinal cord injury in zebrafish induced by near-infrared femtosecond laser pulses. J Neurosci Methods. 2019;311:259-66. [PubMed ID: 30389486]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.10.035.

  • 12.

    El-Daher F, Early JJ, Richmond CE, Jamieson R, Becker T, Becker CG. Controlled Semi-Automated Lased-Induced Injuries for Studying Spinal Cord Regeneration in Zebrafish Larvae. J Vis Exp. 2021;(177). [PubMed ID: 34866633]. https://doi.org/10.3791/63259.

  • 13.

    Gwee SSL, Radford RAW, Chow S, Syal MD, Morsch M, Formella I, et al. Aurora kinase B regulates axonal outgrowth and regeneration in the spinal motor neurons of developing zebrafish. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2018;75(23):4269-85. [PubMed ID: 29468257]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC11105541]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2780-5.

  • 14.

    Morsch M, Radford R, Lee A, Don EK, Badrock AP, Hall TE, et al. In vivo characterization of microglial engulfment of dying neurons in the zebrafish spinal cord. Front Cell Neurosci. 2015;9:321. [PubMed ID: 26379496]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4553390]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2015.00321.

  • 15.

    Sahu S, Zhang Z, Li R, Hu J, Shen H, Loers G, et al. A Small Organic Compound Mimicking the L1 Cell Adhesion Molecule Promotes Functional Recovery after Spinal Cord Injury in Zebrafish. Mol Neurobiol. 2018;55(1):859-78. [PubMed ID: 28070857]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12035-016-0254-z.

  • 16.

    Stone MC, Seebold DY, Shorey M, Kothe GO, Rolls MM. Dendrite regeneration in the vertebrate spinal cord. Dev Biol. 2022;488:114-9. [PubMed ID: 35644253]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10046145]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2022.05.014.

  • 17.

    Wahlstrom-Helgren S, Montgomery JE, Vanpelt KT, Biltz SL, Peck JH, Masino MA. Glutamate receptor subtypes differentially contribute to optogenetically activated swimming in spinally transected zebrafish larvae. J Neurophysiol. 2019;122(6):2414-26. [PubMed ID: 31642404]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6966307]. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00337.2019.

  • 18.

    Anguita-Salinas C, Sanchez M, Morales RA, Ceci ML, Rojas-Benitez D, Allende ML. Cellular Dynamics during Spinal Cord Regeneration in Larval Zebrafish. Dev Neurosci. 2019;41(1-2):112-22. [PubMed ID: 31390621]. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500185.

  • 19.

    Cunha MI, Su M, Cantuti-Castelvetri L, Muller SA, Schifferer M, Djannatian M, et al. Pro-inflammatory activation following demyelination is required for myelin clearance and oligodendrogenesis. J Exp Med. 2020;217(5). [PubMed ID: 32078678]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7201919]. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20191390.

  • 20.

    Hossainian D, Shao E, Jiao B, Ilin VA, Parris RS, Zhou Y, et al. Quantification of functional recovery in a larval zebrafish model of spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res. 2022;100(11):2044-54. [PubMed ID: 35986577]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC10695274]. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.25118.

  • 21.

    Moya-Diaz J, Pena OA, Sanchez M, Ureta DA, Reynaert NG, Anguita-Salinas C, et al. Electroablation: a method for neurectomy and localized tissue injury. BMC Dev Biol. 2014;14:7. [PubMed ID: 24528932]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3933190]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-14-7.

  • 22.

    Vandestadt C, Vanwalleghem GC, Khabooshan MA, Douek AM, Castillo HA, Li M, et al. RNA-induced inflammation and migration of precursor neurons initiates neuronal circuit regeneration in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2021;56(16):2364-2380 e8. [PubMed ID: 34428400]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2021.07.021.

  • 23.

    Hecker A, Anger P, Braaker PN, Schulze W, Schuster S. High-resolution mapping of injury-site dependent functional recovery in a single axon in zebrafish. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):307. [PubMed ID: 32533058]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7293241]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-1034-x.

  • 24.

    Morris AD, Kucenas S. A Novel Lysolecithin Model for Visualizing Damage in vivo in the Larval Zebrafish Spinal Cord. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:654583. [PubMed ID: 34095120]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8173112]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.654583.

  • 25.

    Vasudevan D, Liu YC, Barrios JP, Wheeler MK, Douglass AD, Dorsky RI. Regenerated interneurons integrate into locomotor circuitry following spinal cord injury. Exp Neurol. 2021;342:113737. [PubMed ID: 33957107]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2021.113737.

  • 26.

    Xing L, Cai Y, Yang T, Yu W, Gao M, Chai R, et al. Epitranscriptomic m6A regulation following spinal cord injury. J Neurosci Res. 2021;99(3):843-57. [PubMed ID: 33271625]. https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.24763.

  • 27.

    Herzog C, Greenald D, Larraz J, Keatinge M, Herrgen L. RNA-seq analysis and compound screening highlight multiple signalling pathways regulating secondary cell death after acute CNS injury in vivo. Biol Open. 2020;9(5). [PubMed ID: 32366533]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7225090]. https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.050260.

  • 28.

    Huang CX, Wang Z, Cheng J, Zhu Z, Guan NN, Song J. De novo establishment of circuit modules restores locomotion after spinal cord injury in adult zebrafish. Cell Rep. 2022;41(4):111535. [PubMed ID: 36288693]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2022.111535.

  • 29.

    Huang CX, Zhao Y, Mao J, Wang Z, Xu L, Cheng J, et al. An injury-induced serotonergic neuron subpopulation contributes to axon regrowth and function restoration after spinal cord injury in zebrafish. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):7093. [PubMed ID: 34876587]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8651775]. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27419-w.

  • 30.

    Lee HC, Lai WL, Lin CY, Zeng CW, Sheu JC, Chou TB, et al. Anp32a Promotes Neuronal Regeneration after Spinal Cord Injury of Zebrafish Embryos. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(24). [PubMed ID: 36555564]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC9786895]. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms232415921.

  • 31.

    Vajn K, Plunkett JA, Tapanes-Castillo A, Oudega M. Axonal regeneration after spinal cord injury in zebrafish and mammals: differences, similarities, translation. Neurosci Bull. 2013;29(4):402-10. [PubMed ID: 23893428]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5561943]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-013-1361-8.

  • 32.

    Reimer MM, Sorensen I, Kuscha V, Frank RE, Liu C, Becker CG, et al. Motor neuron regeneration in adult zebrafish. J Neurosci. 2008;28(34):8510-6. [PubMed ID: 18716209]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6671064]. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1189-08.2008.

  • 33.

    Noorimotlagh Z, Babaie M, Safdarian M, Ghadiri T, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Mechanisms of spinal cord injury regeneration in zebrafish: a systematic review. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2017;20(12):1287-96. [PubMed ID: 29238462]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5722987]. https://doi.org/10.22038/IJBMS.2017.9620.

  • 34.

    Becker CG, Lieberoth BC, Morellini F, Feldner J, Becker T, Schachner M. L1.1 is involved in spinal cord regeneration in adult zebrafish. J Neurosci. 2004;24(36):7837-42. [PubMed ID: 15356195]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6729920]. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2420-04.2004.

  • 35.

    Kuscha V, Barreiro-Iglesias A, Becker CG, Becker T. Plasticity of tyrosine hydroxylase and serotonergic systems in the regenerating spinal cord of adult zebrafish. J Comp Neurol. 2012;520(5):933-51. [PubMed ID: 21830219]. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22739.

  • 36.

    Romaus-Sanjurjo D, Valle-Maroto SM, Barreiro-Iglesias A, Fernandez-Lopez B, Rodicio MC. Anatomical recovery of the GABAergic system after a complete spinal cord injury in lampreys. Neuropharmacology. 2018;131:389-402. [PubMed ID: 29317225]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2018.01.006.

  • 37.

    Bentley AP, Zottoli SJ. Central nervous system lesion triggers inappropriate pathway choice in adult vertebrate system. Brain Res. 1993;630(1-2):333-6. [PubMed ID: 8118701]. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(93)90673-b.

  • 38.

    Takeda A, Fujita M, Funakoshi K. Distribution of 5HT receptors during the regeneration process after spinal cord transection in goldfish. J Chem Neuroanat. 2023;131:102281. [PubMed ID: 37119932]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2023.102281.

  • 39.

    Takeda A, Okada S, Funakoshi K. Chondroitin sulfates do not impede axonal regeneration in goldfish spinal cord. Brain Res. 2017;1673:23-9. [PubMed ID: 28801063]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2017.08.004.

  • 40.

    Takeda A, Shuto M, Funakoshi K. Chondroitin Sulfate Expression in Perineuronal Nets After Goldfish Spinal Cord Lesion. Front Cell Neurosci. 2018;12:63. [PubMed ID: 29662439]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5890146]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2018.00063.

  • 41.

    Zottoli SJ, Freemer MM. Recovery of C-starts, equilibrium and targeted feeding after whole spinal cord crush in the adult goldfish Carassius auratus. J Exp Biol. 2003;206(Pt 17):3015-29. [PubMed ID: 12878670]. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.00512.

  • 42.

    Takeda A, Kanemura A, Funakoshi K. Expression of matrix metalloproteinases during axonal regeneration in the goldfish spinal cord. J Chem Neuroanat. 2021;118:102041. [PubMed ID: 34774721]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2021.102041.

  • 43.

    Michel ME, Reier PJ. Axonal-ependymal associations during early regeneration of the transected spinal cord in Xenopus laevis tadpoles. J Neurocytol. 1979;8(5):529-48. [PubMed ID: 553146]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01208508.

  • 44.

    Battisti WP, Shinar Y, Schwartz M, Levitt P, Murray M. Temporal and spatial patterns of expression of laminin, chondroitin sulphate proteoglycan and HNK-1 immunoreactivity during regeneration in the goldfish optic nerve. J Neurocytol. 1992;21(8):557-73. [PubMed ID: 1380544]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01187117.

  • 45.

    Koganti L, Liu J, DeMajewski A, Agostini MA, Wong TW, Faber DS, et al. Invasion of microglia/macrophages and granulocytes into the Mauthner axon myelin sheath following spinal cord injury of the adult goldfish, Carassius auratus. J Morphol. 2020;281(1):135-52. [PubMed ID: 31774588]. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.21086.

  • 46.

    Zottoli SJ, Faber DS, Hering J, Dannhauer AC, Northen S. Survival and Axonal Outgrowth of the Mauthner Cell Following Spinal Cord Crush Does Not Drive Post-injury Startle Responses. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:744191. [PubMed ID: 34869332]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC8640457]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.744191.

  • 47.

    De Heus RB, Diegenbach PC, Van Raamsdonk W, Roberts BL. Changes in enzyme histochemical profiles of identified spinal motoneurons of the European eel, Anguilla anguilla, following cordotomy. Histochem J. 1996;28(5):335-40. [PubMed ID: 8818680]. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331396.

  • 48.

    Flight WGF, Verheijen FJ. The ‘neck‐cut’(spinal transection): not a humane way to slaughter eel, Anguilla anguilla (L.). Aquaculture Research. 1993;24(4):523-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.1993.tb00627.x.

  • 49.

    Doyle LM, Roberts BL. Exercise enhances axonal growth and functional recovery in the regenerating spinal cord. Neuroscience. 2006;141(1):321-7. [PubMed ID: 16675131]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2006.03.044.

  • 50.

    Doyle LM, Stafford PP, Roberts BL. Recovery of locomotion correlated with axonal regeneration after a complete spinal transection in the eel. Neuroscience. 2001;107(1):169-79. [PubMed ID: 11744256]. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-4522(01)00402-x.

  • 51.

    Sirbulescu RF, Zupanc GK. Dynamics of caspase-3-mediated apoptosis during spinal cord regeneration in the teleost fish, Apteronotus leptorhynchus. Brain Res. 2009;1304:14-25. [PubMed ID: 19782669]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.09.071.

  • 52.

    Vitalo AG, Sirbulescu RF, Ilies I, Zupanc GK. Absence of gliosis in a teleost model of spinal cord regeneration. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2016;202(6):445-56. [PubMed ID: 27225982]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-016-1089-9.