Department of Neurobiology and Center for Neuroscience, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, 15238, USA.
Clin Auton Res. 2018 Apr;28(2):181-185. doi: 10.1007/s10286-018-0510-6. Epub 2018 Feb 16.
A recent developmental study of gene expression by Espinosa-Medina, Brunet and colleagues sparked controversy by asserting a revised nomenclature for divisions of the autonomic motor system. Should we re-classify the sacral autonomic outflow as sympathetic, as now suggested, or does it rightly belong to the parasympathetic system, as defined by Langley nearly 100 years ago? Arguments for rejecting Espinosa-Medina, Brunet et al.'s scheme subsequently appeared in e-letters and brief reviews. A more recent commentary in this journal by Brunet and colleagues responded to these criticisms by labeling Langley's scheme as a historical myth perpetuated by ignorance. In reaction to this heated exchange, I now examine both sides to the controversy, together with purported errors by the pioneers in the field. I then explain, once more, why the sacral outflow should remain known as parasympathetic, and outline suggestions for future experimentation to advance the understanding of cellular identity in the autonomic motor system.
最近，Espinosa-Medina、Brunet 和同事们对基因表达进行了一项发展研究，他们提出了自主运动系统划分的修订命名法，这引发了争议。我们应该像现在建议的那样，将骶自主传出重新归类为交感神经，还是像将近 100 年前 Langley 定义的那样，将其归为副交感神经系统？随后，在 e-letters 和简短评论中出现了反对 Espinosa-Medina、Brunet 等人方案的论点。该杂志最近的一篇评论文章中，Brunet 和同事们对这些批评做出了回应，他们将 Langley 的方案标记为无知造成的历史神话。针对这场激烈的争论，我现在从正反两方面来探讨这个问题，并解释该领域先驱者的错误。然后，我再次解释为什么骶传出应该仍然被称为副交感神经，并概述未来实验的建议，以推进对自主运动系统中细胞身份的理解。
