Home Journals Articles Updates About
CN
image
收藏切换
Neuroregulatory Biomaterials for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration via Neuro-Disc Microenvironment Modulation
收藏切换
PDF
Ang Li1, Xiaohu Li1, Yi Yu1, Liang Chen2, Juan Wang2, *, Wenguo Cui2, *, Xiaodong Liu1, *
Research. Vol 9 Article ID 1062
Less
收藏切换
Research. Vol 9 Article ID 1062
• REVIEW ARTICLE •
Neuroregulatory Biomaterials for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration via Neuro-Disc Microenvironment Modulation
Full
Ang Li1, Xiaohu Li1, Yi Yu1, Liang Chen2, Juan Wang2, *, Wenguo Cui2, *, Xiaodong Liu1, *
Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthopedics, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200090, China.
  • 2Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.
About Author:

† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Published: 2026-02-20 doi: 10.34133/research.1062
Outline
收藏切换

Intervertebral discs have long been considered to lack neural innervation. However, recent studies have revealed that intervertebral disc degeneration is accompanied by marked pathological nerve invasion. In addition, the transmission mechanism of degeneration and related pain is exacerbated through the neural intervertebral disc microenvironment interaction network. Despite advances in this field, comprehensive reviews remain limited, and systematic analyses are lacking. In this review, we aimed to systematically analyze the potential application of “neural intervertebral disc microenvironment interaction” in the repair of intervertebral disc degeneration. First, in this article, we discussed the neural innervation and functional characteristics of healthy intervertebral discs, elaborated on the mechanism of abnormal nerve growth in the microenvironment of degenerated intervertebral discs, and explained how nerve invasion exacerbates intervertebral disc degeneration and its clinical symptoms by activating pain transmission pathways. Subsequently, we reviewed bioengineering strategies that provided new pathways for the innovative treatment of intervertebral disc degeneration through the synergistic effects of neural regulation and microenvironment interactions. Finally, we explored application prospects of neural-regulated biomaterials in precision medicine, clinical translation, and interdisciplinary fusion, providing a theoretical basis and technical guidance for neural-based intervertebral disc regeneration therapy.

Ang Li, Xiaohu Li, Yi Yu, Liang Chen, Juan Wang, Wenguo Cui, Xiaodong Liu. Neuroregulatory Biomaterials for Intervertebral Disc Regeneration via Neuro-Disc Microenvironment Modulation[J]. Research, 2026 , 9 (2) : 1062 - . DOI: 10.34133/research.1062
Full Text
Less
Introduction
Less
Intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD) is a major cause of low back pain (LBP) [1]. LBP seriously affects the quality of life of patients and imposes a huge burden on the social economy. Globally, more than 800 million people are affected, and both its prevalence and related burden are expected to continue to increase [2]. The occurrence of IDD is closely related to various factors, including mechanical injury, metabolic abnormalities, and persistent inflammatory reactions. These factors contribute to the loss of the intervertebral disc (IVD) structure and function [3]. However, the pathogenesis of IDD remains complex and incompletely understood, particularly the role of nerves in the degenerative microenvironment, which has gradually become a new research focus.
Currently, treatment methods for IDD mainly include conservative treatment and surgical interventions. These methods can alleviate pain and relieve some symptoms; however, they cannot fully restore the complete structure and biological function of the IVD [4]. With the rapid advancement in regenerative medicine, biomaterial-based therapies have provided new avenues for IVD repair. By reconstructing the mechanical support of the fibrous ring, annulus fibrosus (AF), and supplementing the osmotic pressure of the nucleus pulposus (NP), biomaterials can synergistically achieve structural repair and functional recovery of the IVD [5]. These biomaterials not only provide structural support [6] but also can inhibit nerve growth [7], promote organizational regeneration [8], and deliver drugs through intelligent responses, enabling more precise therapeutic effects [9]. However, existing research has mostly focused on mechanical support and component supplementation, with limited exploration of the regulation of the interaction between nerves and the IVD microenvironment.
In recent years, studies have revealed a positive correlation between nerve infiltration density and the progression of IDD [10]. Nerve fibers were once thought to be responsible only for pain transmission; recent evidence, however, suggests that they are involved in maintaining extracellular matrix (ECM) homeostasis in the ECM of IVD [11,12]. Sun et al. [13] have systematically summarized the roles of these nerve fibers and their neurotransmitters in IDD. These nerve fibers act through neurotransmitters, and factors produced in degenerative IVD can reverse the activation of adjacent neurons in the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and sympathetic ganglia. These signals are then transmitted through the nervous system to the ventromedial hypothalamic nucleus (VMH) and paraventricular nucleus (PVN). In turn, the central nervous system can also release neurotransmitters to IVD via this pathway and directly regulate IVD cell function through corresponding receptors, thereby contributing to the pathological process of IDD. Building on the existing literature, this review further integrates the mechanisms of action of neural, immune, and mechanical networks, and emphasizes the potential strategies of combining biomaterials to achieve precise neural regulation, providing new research perspectives and methodological guidance for IDD intervention. Neural regulation has thus emerged as an important research topic. Interventions targeting the interaction between nerves and the IVD microenvironment, such as local factor delivery, electromagnetic stimulation, and microenvironment reconstruction, have shown potential for relieving pain, promoting tissue regeneration, and inhibiting IDD progression. These strategies not only indirectly regulate the functions of sensory neurons and their associated glial cells that govern IDD but also provide more precise and effective targeted treatment options for IDD.
Therefore, in this study, we aimed to systematically explore the pathological mechanism of neural regulation in IDD and analyze the design concept of neural regulatory biomaterials and their application prospects in IVD repair. The first section introduces the neural mechanisms underlying IDD, with emphasis on the role of nerves. The second part explored the role of neural regulatory strategies in IVD regeneration. Then, the third section discusses the construction and mechanism of the neural regulation of biomaterials. The fourth section discusses application prospects and future research directions for neural regulation in IVD regeneration (Fig. 1).
Results and Discussion
Less
The neural mechanism basis of IDD
The anatomical structure and neural distribution of IVD
The IVD is a tough fibrous tissue that connects various vertebral bodies and serves as the main functional unit that constitutes the spinal motion segments [14]. It consists of 3 components: the NP located in the center, the surrounding AF, and the superior and inferior cartilaginous endplates (CEPs) connected to the adjacent vertebrae [15]. NP is a highly hydrated gelatinous tissue mainly composed of type II collagen and proteoglycans, which endows the IVD with the ability to resist compression [16,17]. AF is composed of multiple layers of interlaced collagen fibers, with an outer layer rich in type I collagen and an inner layer enriched with type II collagen and proteoglycans, providing the IVD with multidirectional mechanical strength and structural stability [18]. CEP is a transparent cartilage layer with a thickness of 600 to 1,000 μm, mainly composed of type II collagen, proteoglycans, and water. It functions as a mechanical barrier between the NP and vertebral bone, and a channel for nutrient transport in the IVD [19,20]. Healthy adult IVD is internally avascular and neurogenic, with blood vessels innervating the CEP and outer AF nerves innervating the outer one-third of the AF. Furthermore, nutrients and oxygen passively diffuse into the internal AF and NP (Fig. 2A) [21].
The IVD is a structure with visceral nerve innervation characteristics, which is innervated by both the sympathetic nervous system (SNA) and the sinovertebral nerve (SVN). The anterior part of a normal lumbar IVD is innervated by the SNA, while the posterior part is innervated by the sinovertebral nervous system (Fig. 2B and C) [22]. The SVN is composed of the spinal nerve and the gray communicating branch of the SNA. Its transverse branch innervates the AF, the descending branch innervates the posterior longitudinal ligament and some AF, and the ascending branch gives rise to the basivertebral nerve near the pedicle [23]. The basivertebral nerve and vertebral blood vessels pass through the intervertebral foramen, enter the center of the vertebral body to form a cluster of nerve vessels, and branch out to supply the CEP to the upper and lower vertebral bodies (Fig. 2D) [24]. In the normal NP, there was no nerve growth. In contrast, 3 types of nerve elements were detected in the CEP and AF, including sensory nerve fibers, independent of blood vessels, perivascular nerve fibers, and mechanoreceptors [25]. This neural distribution constitutes a complex neural IVD microenvironment interaction network, which plays a role in regulating the physiological and pathological processes of IVD.
Sensory nerve fiber innervation in IVD
Sensory nerves are responsible for transmitting stimulus signals, including sensations such as pain and pressure [26]. In the IVD, these nerves are primarily composed of myelinated A-δ fibers and unmyelinated C fibers [22], which synthesize neuropeptides involved in nociception, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and substance P (SP) [27]. CGRP is widely regarded as a pain-related neuropeptide associated with nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) in the IDD process [28], but some studies have also suggested that it can promote chondroitin sulfate synthesis by enhancing the expression of chondroitin sulfate synthase 1 (CHSY1), thereby maintaining the ECM homeostasis of NP [11]. Similarly, while SP is generally involved in the transmission of pain and inflammation in IVD [29], low-dose SP can promote the proliferation of AF cells and the deposition of proteoglycans [30].
Mechanical receptors are key components of sensory nerve endings and are widely distributed in the superficial and longitudinal ligaments of the AF, especially in the anterior part of the L5–S1 IVD [31]. The mechanoreceptors located at nerve endings can perceive external mechanical stimuli such as pressure, tension, and compression and convert them into biochemical signals that regulate the synthesis and degradation of the ECM in the IVD microenvironment [32]. In degenerative IVD, the number and activity of mechanoreceptors usually increase, which may not only alter the cell’s response to mechanical stress but also promote the occurrence of degenerative pain through abnormal signal transduction [33]. Therefore, mechanoreceptors play a dual role in maintaining the mechanical stability of IVD and regulating the metabolic balance, and their abnormal expression is an important pathological feature in the process of IDD.
Anatomically, the sensory nerve innervation of the IVD exhibits distinct segmental and intersecting features. Spinal nerve innervation is conically distributed, with one spinal nerve innervating multiple IVDs, while a single IVD is regulated by multiple segments and spinal nerve levels [34]. The labeling experiment in a rat model also showed that the sensory input of the L5–L6 IVD was primarily concentrated in the L1–L3 segment, particularly in the L2 DRG, indicating noncorresponding segmental cross-segmental projection features [35]. This convergence and cross-dominance form a complex sensory input network that provides an anatomical basis for IDD-related pain.
Sympathetic nerve fiber innervation in IVD
Compared to sensory nerves, sympathetic nerves play an important role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis and rhythmic regulation of IVD tissues, although they do not directly mediate pain transmission. The SNA that controls the IVD mainly originates from the paraspinal ganglia and reaches the periphery of the IVD through the posterior branch of the spinal nerve [36]. The sympathetic nerve fibers usually do not directly enter the interior of the IVD but instead achieve critical interactive communication through the SVN [37]. The SNA has a wide impact on the proliferation and differentiation of IVD cells by secreting various neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine (NE), neuropeptide Y (NPY), and vasoactive peptide (VIP) [38]. Among them, NE generally works by activating the ERK pathway [39], which plays a key role in IVD matrix degradation [40]. NPY exhibits the ability to inhibit ECM degeneration of NP in vitro, suggesting its protective role in regulating homeostasis [41], while VIP delays IDD progression via the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2)/FGF receptor substrate (FRS)/AKT signaling pathway [42].
The SNA exhibits rhythmic activity that is regulated both centrally, primarily by the brainstem, and locally by the spinal cord [43]. The tension level and neurotransmitter secretion of the SNA show marked fluctuations under the influence of circadian rhythms. Disruption of the circadian rhythm can lead to sustained activation of the SNA and an abnormal increase in neurotransmitters such as NE. This, in turn, triggers sustained activation of proinflammatory and matrix degradation signals in IVD cells, ultimately accelerating IDD [44]. Therefore, rhythmicity of the SNA is a fundamental characteristic of the nervous system and plays an important role in the regulation of the IVD microenvironment and degenerative pathology.
Neurological factors are involved in the progression of IDD
As age increases or with exposure to risk factors, such as obesity and smoking, the ECM of IVD cells is degraded. This leads to the loss of NP hydration and a decrease in overall IVD height and stiffness, ultimately resulting in IDD [45]. As degeneration progresses, the CEP undergoes calcification and microporous occlusion, which reduces the transport efficiency of essential nutrients to the IVD [46]. To enhance the internal nutrient supply, blood vessels and nerves grow toward the NP and internal AF [47]. On the other hand, IDD causes cracks in CEP and AF, which allow for communication with the external environment and allow immune cells to enter the IVD [48], disrupting the intact structure of healthy IVDs and further promoting neural ingrowth [49]. Collectively, these series of changes provide an important foundation for the involvement of neural factors in IDD.
Abnormal growth of nerve fibers not only induces IVD-induced pain [50] but also promotes IDD progression [51]. The nervous system interacts with the IVD microenvironment through multiple mechanisms, such as inflammation activation, neurotrophic factor expression, nerve regeneration, and immune regulation. These processes highlight the core role of the neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction in the progression of degeneration. A bidirectional signaling pathway of inflammatory and neurotrophic factors is formed between peripheral sensory neurons, the central nervous system, and peripheral glial cells, constructing a feedback amplification neural immune metabolic network. This network maintains the continuous transmission of pain signals but also drives local matrix degradation and tissue structure remodeling, accelerating the IDD process.
Inflammatory neural regeneration pathway
Toll-like receptor 4 is expressed on the surface of IVD cells, which can recognize exogenous stimuli and release inflammatory factors, including tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and IL-6 [52]. As degeneration progresses, rupture of the AF breaks down the original barrier, leading to immune cell infiltration into the NP region [53]. Among these, mast cells are one of the earliest infiltrating cells in IVD lesions [54]. Through degranulation, they release histamine and bioactive substances, promoting nerve growth and inflammatory cascade reactions [55]. Macrophages have also been widely observed in human and mouse IDD models [56,57]. They secrete various inflammatory factors [58] and promote the expression of nerve growth factor (NGF) and CGRP through autocrine or paracrine mechanisms [59], thereby exacerbating inflammation and degeneration [60]. As the disease progresses, local tissues evolve from acute inflammation to a chronic state, with macrophages showing an M2 polarization tendency. This promotes the formation of new capillaries, and the endothelial cells of neovascularization secrete neurotrophic factors such as NGF, which in turn induce the growth of nerve fibers [61]. In addition, lymphocytes have been identified as the key mediators of acquired immune responses in degenerated IVD tissues [62,63]. Activated lymphocytes can release various inflammatory factors that participate in local immune inflammatory responses and may also up-regulate the expression of neurotrophic factors or mediate neural activation [64]. The inflammation-mediated neural regeneration process reflects the complex interaction between multiple types of cells and signaling pathways in degenerative IVD, promoting the establishment and maintenance of the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction”.
Notably, sensory nerves can also be active drivers of inflammatory responses. Neurogenic inflammation refers to a local inflammatory response triggered by the release of neuropeptides (such as SP and CGRP) from sensory nerve endings at nonsynaptic sites. These neuropeptides promote vasodilation, increased vascular permeability, and immune cell recruitment [65]. After an IVD injury, the sensory neurons that control the IVD can continuously release neuropeptides. In turn, this induces local vasodilation and immune cell recruitment, and activates IVD cells to release proinflammatory cytokines and neurotrophic factors [66]. This atypical inflammatory pattern, starting from sensory nerve endings, is called IVD neurogenic inflammation (Fig. 3A) [67].
In addition, neurogenic inflammation is not limited to the primary damaged area. After inducing IVD injury in a rat segment, the levels of neurotransmitters in adjacent healthy segments were markedly increased, accompanied by the synchronous up-regulation of inflammatory cytokine levels (Fig. 3B)​​ [68]. This suggests that neurogenic inflammation may play a key role in the multi-segmental expansion of IDD and serves as an important mediator of nerve regeneration and pathological remodeling.
Neurotrophic factors and pain pathways
Inflammatory factors such as IL-1β and TNF-α directly act on pain receptors, reducing the excitation threshold of peripheral neurons and enhancing their sensitivity to mechanical and chemical stimuli. In addition, they drive NP and AF cells to secrete neurotrophic factors [including nerve growth factor (NGF) and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) [69]], which attract sensory nerve endings to invade the inner layer and promote the formation of “neuro–IVD microenvironment interaction” [70]. In turn, inflammatory mediators themselves can directly activate pain pathways, making it easier for neurons to trigger pain impulses [71]. On this basis, SP and CGRP released by sensory neurons form a positive feedback loop through vasodilation and immune cell recruitment, and exacerbate the inflammatory response and pain experienced during IVD [72].
Notably, the ability of neurons to perceive changes in the microenvironment also plays a key role in pain signal transduction. Transient receptor potential (TRP) channels are key ion receptors widely present in the nervous system and participate in environmental stimulus perception and neural signaling regulation [73]. TRPV1-positive sensory neurons that dominate the IVD mostly coexpress CGRP and release this neuropeptide upon nociceptive stimulation [74,75]. Additionally, TRPV1 is sensitive to acidic pH and inflammatory factors, and hence plays a key role in IDD-related pain [76,77]. TRPV2 was initially considered a thermosensitive channel [78]; however, its expression is up-regulated in the DRG and promotes the release of CGRP under inflammatory conditions [79,80]. Furthermore, TRPA1 is widely distributed in nociceptive sensory neurons. Upon activation, it can release neuropeptides and induce edema and leukocyte infiltration [81,82].
Pathological stimulation of the IVD affects peripheral neurons and activates central and peripheral glial cells. In a mouse model of IDD, astrocytes and microglia in the spinal dorsal horn are robustly activated [83,84]. Clinical studies have revealed that the level of the glial cell activation marker translocator protein (TSPO) is elevated in the brains of patients with chronic LBP, suggesting that central glial cell activation plays an important role in IVD-induced pain [85]. In peripheral glial cells, the IVD puncture model up-regulated satellite glial cell expression in the corresponding DRG [86]. These activated satellite glial cells can enhance the excitability of DRG neurons, thereby intensifying peripheral sensitization and sustaining chronic pain [87]. Therefore, synergistic activation of central and peripheral glial cells plays a central role in IVD-induced pain.
The generation of pain signals begins with the activation of peripheral nociceptors, where A-δ and C-type fibers transmit stimulation signals to the dorsal horn of the spinal cord and relay them via ascending pathway to the thalamus and cerebral cortex, resulting in pain perception (Fig. 4B) [50]. However, harmful stimuli to the IVD can also cause pain in the lower back and limbs [88]. The involvement of pain in the L2 corticospinal area is generally caused by pathological stimulation of the L5S1 IVD, and its transmission pathways are the IVD, SVN, L5 sympathetic ganglia, L2 sympathetic ganglia, white communicating branch, L2 DRG, L2 spinal cord, and cerebral cortex [89]. In rats, the inguinal skin and the sympathetic afferent sensation of the L5L6 IVD project simultaneously to the DRG of the L1 and L2 spinal nerves; thus, the pathological stimulation of this IVD can cause referred pain in the inguinal region [90]. Similarly, testicular pain is generally caused by stimulation from L4L5 IVD lesions, and its conduction pathway is the IVD, which converges with the reproductive femoral nerve and iliac inguinal nerve reproductive branch dermatome through the L1 and L2 DRGs [91].
Neural innervation remodeling and chronic pain formation
In normal IVD, nerve fibers are confined in the outer layer of the AF [92], where both physical barriers (Aggrecan) and chemical repellents (Semaphorin-3A) maintain the IVD structure [93,94]. However, during IDD, elevated levels of inflammatory and neurotrophic factors disrupt this balance and induce the inward growth of nerve fibers (Fig. 4A) [95–97]. The sensory nerve fibers that grow into the IVD secrete neuropeptides, including CGRP and SP, which are recognized by IVD cells. They locally infiltrate immune cells and induce them to secrete more NGFs and neuropeptides, further enhancing neural structural remodeling [71]. On this basis, NGFs enhance synaptic transmission and neural sensitivity, amplify pain signals, and maintain chronic states (Fig. 4C) [98]. In addition, adverse microenvironments such as acidity and inflammation in IDD lead to the depolarization of peripheral nociceptive nerve endings [99]. The resulting electrical signals are transmitted to the brain through nociceptive neurons, somatic DRGs, and the spinal cord sensory gray matter dorsal horn [100], ultimately inducing neuroplasticity and pain sensitization. This enhances central response to pain signals and promotes the maintenance of chronic pain states [99]. Consequently, the process is a manifestation of the continuous evolution and projection of the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interactions” to the central level.
The role of neural regulatory strategies in inhibiting IDD
Neuromodulation inhibition of IDD is an emerging therapeutic strategy aimed at intervening in the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction” process to reverse the degeneration process and restore tissue homeostasis. IDD is often accompanied by abnormal neural growth, chronic inflammation, and matrix degradation. Beyond serving as a conduit for pain transmission, the nervous system actively contributes to degenerative pathology by releasing neurotrophic factors, regulating immune responses, and affecting cell metabolism.
Promote beneficial neural direction
The sensory nerves surrounding the IVD not only are involved in pain transmission but also directly regulate the matrix metabolism of IVD cells by releasing neuropeptides (such as CGRP). This regulation helps to the level of water-containing macromolecules such as chondroitin sulfate in the NP. Conversely, blocking sensory nerves leads to a marked decrease in glycosaminoglycan content in the IVD, indicating the importance of neuronal activity for maintaining matrix integrity (Fig. 5A) [11].​ In addition, bidirectional regulation exists between the sensory system within the IVD and the central nervous network. Targeting the sensory mechanism within the IVD can inhibit the degeneration process and also alleviate related pain symptoms [101]. Among these internal sensory pathways, prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂) exhibits a dose-dependent dual effect. At physiological concentrations, it maintains local homeostasis by activating prostaglandin E (EP) receptors within the IVD. However, when it abnormally increases, it can induce degeneration-related signals [102]. Moderate sensory nerve activity and neurotrophic factor signaling provide not only the necessary physiological conditions for IVD structural repair and cellular function but also a theoretical foundation for neural regeneration strategies.
Inhibiting abnormal neural remodeling
The prevention of pathological nerve hyperplasia is essential for IVD regeneration and repair. First, the highly negatively charged physical barrier can be restored by supplementing or reconstructing the key component aggrecan, thereby hindering the invasion of sensory nerve fibers into the inner layer [103]. At the same time, targeting abnormal neurotrophic factor signals is also a key strategy. For instance, anti-NGF antibodies can inhibit nerve fiber proliferation induced by NGF secreted by IVD cells [104], while TRPA1 inhibitors can reduce the expression of CGRP in DRG neurons, indirectly alleviating nerve sensitization [105]. In addition, activation of inflammatory signaling pathways is an important source of neural remodeling abnormalities. Inhibiting the NF-κB pathway or targeting key proinflammatory factors such as IL-1β can effectively reduce the up-regulation of neurotrophic factors and abnormal invasion of nerve fibers [106,107].
In addition to anti-inflammatory approaches and channel blockade, direct intervention in the release mechanism of neuropeptides has become a cutting-edge direction in neuroimmune interventions. Studies have shown that blocking SNARE (soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptor)-mediated vesicle release in neurons can effectively reduce neuropeptide release [108]. In addition, chemical barriers can be strengthened by regulating axonal guiding molecules. In a rat model, Netrin-1 inhibitors markedly reduce neurogenesis and angiogenesis in degenerative IVD and alleviate pain sensitization (Fig. 5B) [109]. However, restoring the expression of Semaphorin-3A in the outer layer of healthy AF can inhibit nerve invasion [110]. Furthermore, the vitamin B6 analogs pyridoxine (Pyr) and vincristine (Vcr) can induce DRG axonal contractions without obvious cytotoxicity, indicating promising application prospects as local neuroinhibitory factors [111]. The above multiple strategies aim to maintain the normal structure and function of IVD while effectively suppressing the formation of pathological pain neural networks and interrupting the pathological circuit of “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction” evolving toward chronicity.
Regulating the neural immune mechanical interaction network
Healthy NPs are similar to the vitreous body of the eye and have a certain degree of immunity; however, an abnormal mechanical load can damage their physical barrier, leading to macrophage infiltration [112]. The inflammatory factors secreted by these macrophages promote the production of neurotrophic factors, such as NGF, thereby inducing the invasion of sensory nerve fibers and activating pain pathways [113]. In addition to the sensory nerves, glial cells play an important role in immune regulation [114,115]. Mechanical stress can be transmitted along nerve axons to the central nervous system, activating microglia and forming a sustained neurogenic inflammatory microenvironment [116]. Peripheral immune and central glial cells interact bidirectionally, driving neuroinflammation and amplifying chronic pain and IDD progression [117]. Similarly, peripheral glial cells can participate in inflammatory responses and maintain tissue homeostasis by regulating immune cell activity, revealing their undeniable immune regulatory role in the neural–immune interaction network [118]. Therefore, accurately intervening in the key interaction links in this network is becoming a new strategy for the systematic treatment of IDD (Fig. 5C and Table 1).
Regulating the neural immune mechanical interaction network
As the key role of neural mechanisms in the pathogenesis and pain maintenance of IDD has become increasingly clear, precise intervention of neural activity through material means has become an important direction in regenerative medicine research. Biomaterials can not only serve as delivery platforms for drugs, genes, and cells but also achieve multidimensional regulation of sensory neurons, glial cells, and even neuroimmune networks. These effects can be achieved by responding to internal microenvironment changes, external physical field stimuli, or synergistic effects with the immune system, providing a realistic path for intervening in the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction”.
Nanomaterial delivery system
Using nanomaterials as carriers, drugs, genes, or cells can be delivered to targeted IVD nerves. For example, by loading the NGF receptor antagonist tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA)-IN-1 into the ionic nanopolymer and embedding it within the acellular chemical fiber-ring matrix hydrogel, the composite system could be sustained in the IVD, effectively inhibiting excessive growth of nerve fibers and the production of pain mediators (Fig. 6A) [119]. Similarly, MnO₂ nanoparticles wrapped in macrophage membranes can be delivered to degenerative IVD disease and down-regulate the expression of pain neuropeptides CGRP and SP in the DRG, effectively alleviating discogenic pain (Fig. 6B) [120]. For gene delivery, nanoparticles with the surface-modified microglial-targeting peptide MG1 were used to precisely deliver miR-26a-5p to microglia and alleviate various types of chronic pain for 6 weeks via the nonclassical Wnt5a pathway [121].
Stimulus-responsive functional materials
In IDD, abnormally growing nerve fibers often cause neurogenic inflammation and further shape the highly inflammatory, hypoxic, acidic, and oxidative microenvironment [67]. This pathological state provides multi-dimensional stimulation signal sources for responsive functional materials, demonstrating the potential in nerve-mediated IDD repair. Neutrophils exhibit a rapid response and chemotactic ability to inflammatory signals, and their membrane structure is an ideal basis for constructing inflammatory microenvironment-responsive nanodelivery systems, endowing materials with specific recognition and regulation of pathological inflammation [122]. Based on this, studies have constructed poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) nanoparticles coated with neutrophil membrane to deliver transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1), combining inflammation recognition with sustained release. This system alleviated local inflammation and improved ECM homeostasis by inhibiting the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)–AKT pathway, demonstrating good potential for IVD repair (Fig. 7A) [123]. In addition, another study developed a phenolic boric acid-modified hydrogel that uses the reversible pH response bond formed by phenolic boric acid and quercetin to achieve the intelligent release of quercetin in an acidic environment. This system targeted clear senescent NP cells and alleviated IDD (Fig. 7B) [124]. Similarly, thioketone-modified liposomes achieve self-release in reactive oxygen species (ROS)-enriched degenerative IVD and activate the TGF-β pathway to inhibit NP collagen aging and promote ECM remodeling (Fig. 7C) [125].
In addition to endogenous signals, functional materials based on electrical, magnetic, and photothermal responses can achieve precise local stimulation under external physical fields. This has become an important strategy for regulating neural excitability and is particularly suitable for intervening in abnormal neural excitability in IDD. For electrical regulation, cathodic electrical stimulation can activate voltage-gated potassium channels and enhance K+ efflux, triggering membrane hyperpolarization, thereby increasing action potential threshold and reducing neuronal excitability [126,127]. In addition to the direct electric field effects, electrically responsive materials can achieve indirect neural regulation. For example, piezoelectric materials can generate local electrical signals under an external pressure to simulate electrophysiological stimuli. Studies have shown that polyethylene glycol (PEG)-modified piezoelectric barium titanate nanoparticles can effectively inhibit abnormal neuronal discharge under ultrasound, providing new ideas for the use of piezoelectric materials in neural inhibition (Fig. 8A) [128]. For magnetic regulation, static magnetic field stimulation can regulate the excited state of the nervous system. Related studies have shown that cross-spinal static magnetic fields can reduce the excitability of the cortical spinal tract, demonstrating their potential as neuroregulatory tools [129]. For example, a micropatterned magnetic field platform can remotely activate magnetic nanoparticles, regulate the mechanical sensitivity of Ca²+ channels, and alleviate abnormal neural excitation (Fig. 8B) [130]. Photothermal regulation materials rely on local thermal effects induced by near-infrared light, which can alter the electrophysiological properties of neural cell membranes or activate thermosensitive ion channels, thereby achieving precise nongenetic regulation of neural activity (Fig. 8C) [131]. As a photothermal transduction material, polydopamine nanoparticles have excellent biocompatibility and thermal conversion efficiency and can effectively inhibit neuronal discharge under low-dose near-infrared light irradiation [132].
Neural invasion inhibition materials based on topology, stiffness, and biochemical barriers
Recent studies have revealed that physical properties, such as the topological structure [133] and mechanical stiffness [134] of materials, can accurately regulate the growth mode and invasion trend of nerve fibers at the microscopic level by affecting cell adhesion, migration, and differentiation. Rationally designed materials with spatial barrier effects and mechanical rejection ability may effectively inhibit the pathological growth of abnormal nerve fibers in tissues with highly structured IVD and complex microenvironments. For example, 3-dimensional structures with specific geometric angles can activate the miR-222-5p/cbfb/Runx2 key signaling pathway and regulate the differentiation fate of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. This markedly enhances the expression of osteogenesis-related genes, promotes bone regeneration and construction of neural vascular networks, and provides new ideas for neural invasion control (Fig. 9A) [135]. Similarly, multilevel biomimetic topological structure can accurately guide and restrict the growth path of axons, reflecting the key role of the microstructure in regulating the direction, speed, and targeting of nerve growth [136].
Sensory axons prefer a soft environment, while a rigid matrix inhibits nerve differentiation and axon extension through mechanical induction pathways, such as YAP and Rho, providing a new idea of physical barriers for inhibiting nerve invasion (Fig. 9B) [137]. For example, studies show that increasing the content of type I collagen in a methacryloylated hyaluronic acid/laminin/collagen ternary hydrogel can markedly improve matrix stiffness and inhibit the length of DRG axon extension in rats, without affecting the number of supporting cells. This suggests that the stiffness of the basement has a negative regulatory effect on sensory nerve axon invasion [138]. Furthermore, chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans in sulfated glycosaminoglycans (sGAGs) have a bidirectional regulatory effect on nerves, which can activate the RhoA/ROCK signaling pathway by binding their chondroitin sulfate side chains to cell membrane receptors. This induces neuronal growth cone collapse and axonal retraction, and concentration-dependent inhibition of sensory nerve axon extension, such as DRG, thus forming a biochemical barrier to prevent nerve invasion [139]. Based on this, researchers developed an acellular injectable hydrogel from pig NP tissue, which retained most of the sGAGs and showed pronounced nerve growth inhibition in the DRG coculture system, suggesting effective blockage of pathological nerve fiber invasion via the sGAG-mediated biochemical barrier mechanism (Fig. 9C) [140]. In addition, some studies introduced enzymes that degrade inhibitory glycosaminoglycans into hydrogels to reshape the scar microenvironment after injury, thereby effectively promoting the regeneration and extension of central nerve axons [141]. This strategy suggests that designing biomaterials that preserve or enhance glycosaminoglycan expression could be used to construct biochemical barriers that inhibit abnormal nerve fiber invasion. This provides new regulatory tools for low-density tissues such as IDD. By integrating spatial configurations, mechanical properties, and biochemical signals, biomaterials can construct microenvironmental barriers with neural exclusion capabilities, thereby becoming an important direction for IDD intervention.
Neuroimmune microenvironment regulating materials
Interrupting the neural–immune interaction axis requires constructing a biomaterial system with dual regulatory capabilities. Existing cases are mostly from other disease models; however, they still provide important insights into IDD material design. For example, researchers constructed an injectable hydrogel loaded with C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP) and Sema3A, which realized the coordinated intervention of local immune microenvironment regulation and inhibition of excessive sympathetic nerve regeneration in the myocardial infarction model. This markedly reduced macrophage infiltration and promoted M2 polarization while effectively blocking the germination of abnormal sympathetic nerve fibers (Fig. 10A) [142]. Similarly, in the spinal cord injury model, the fiber hydrogel scaffold loaded with metformin and anti-CD80 monoclonal antibody improved the immune microenvironment by inhibiting the T cell costimulatory signal and inducing the recruitment and differentiation of neural stem cells, realizing the dual regulation of the immune and nervous systems (Fig. 10B) [143]. Furthermore, a crosslinked hydrogel loaded with a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) inhibitor and propranolol can achieve dual inhibition of immune microenvironment remodeling and pathological neurotransmitter activity by degrading NETs and antagonizing catecholamine signaling (Fig. 10C) [144]. These cross-organizational neural immune dual target material strategies provide useful references for interrupting the abnormal neural immune interaction axis in IDD repair. Also, it plays an in-depth role in the intervention and regulation of the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction” from the perspective of material means (Table 2).
Outlook and Discussion
Less
Neural regulation strategies provide new treatment ideas for IDD, and regenerative medicine materials provide highly flexible intervention carriers; however, current research remains largely confined to early stages of “mechanism exploration and functional verification”, and a systematic breakthrough in accurate identification and intervention of “neuro-IVD microenvironment interactions” has not yet been achieved. In the absence of a deep understanding of the mechanism of neural–immune mechanical interactions, it is difficult to balance the dual needs of biological regulation and structural repair, resulting in insufficient clinical transferability, limited intervention persistence, and targeting.
The neural regulatory mechanism has not been fully analyzed yet
Previous studies have revealed changes in the expression of neurotrophic factors in IDD and the promoting effect of abnormal nerve fiber growth on pain and matrix degradation; however, there remains a lack of integrated models for the spatiotemporal dynamic behavior of neurons and glial cells at different stages of degeneration. Signal coupling between axon-guiding molecules (such as Semaphorin and Netrin) and local immune cells (macrophages and satellite glial cells), and how central peripheral neuroinflammatory feedback systematically forms and amplifies the pathological process of IDD, remains underexplored. Leveraging high-throughput omics and in vivo imaging, future research should aim to construct a multilevel neural immune mechanical interaction network map covering molecules, cells, and tissues. Such frameworks will clarify key nodes and modifiable targets at different stages to provide a solid theoretical basis for precise neural regulation strategies. In particular, neuropeptides such as CGRP exhibit dual roles in physiological and pathological states, which highlights that future interventions should prioritize “precise regulation” over “one-way inhibition”. Notably, CGRP may exert stage-dependent regulatory effects during IDD progression, reflecting its dual roles in inflammation and tissue repair. The dynamic modeling of “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction” will be essential in revealing the mechanisms of degeneration progression and neural sensitization patterns.
The material regulation strategy still lacks personalized and clinical translation considerations
Currently, the vast majority of neural regulatory biomaterials have been validated only in small animal models, overlooking the substantial differences in size, proteoglycan content, mechanical gradient, microenvironment acidity, and alkalinity of human IVD. In addition, interspecies variations in neuro-immune interactions may further complicate translational extrapolation, underscoring the need for preclinical models that more closely mimic human IVD physiology and immune–neural crosstalk. Although these materials have shown potential in small animal experiments, clinical translation faces many challenges, including long-term safety, degradation product impact, individualized design, and reproducibility that still need to be addressed. Particularly, the biocompatibility and degradation behavior of these materials under the harsh IVD microenvironment remain to be further clarified. Moreover, the release kinetics, biocompatibility, and long-term safety of the in vivo degradation products of material drug delivery systems have not been fully evaluated. Customized designs based on patient imaging characteristics, molecular spectra, and pain phenotypes are largely absent. In addition, critical aspects such as dose-timing optimization, targeted delivery, and reproducible manufacturing process standards for clinical applications remain underexplored. Furthermore, more systematic in vivo validation is required, and future work could benefit from comparative analyses summarizing the translational outcomes of different material systems. To bridge these gaps, it is imperative to integrate materials science with clinical needs, perform data-driven optimization based on large-scale samples, and conduct early human trials to achieve stable and safe therapeutic effects. Future translation will also benefit from patient-specific designs guided by imaging and pain phenotypes, as well as attention to scalability, sterilization, and regulatory pathways for neural regulatory biomaterials. In the process of clinical translation, it is also necessary to focus on potential immune reactions and biocompatibility issues, and avoid them through strategies such as material surface modification, sustained release control, and multiple rounds of in vitro/in vivo safety assessments.
Multidisciplinary integration
Neural regulation and repair of IDD span fields such as biomaterials science, neuroscience, tissue engineering, immunology, computational biology, and rehabilitation medicine, necessitating the creation of a truly interdisciplinary collaboration platform. Future research should integrate spatial omics and high-resolution in vivo imaging technology to monitor the material neural immune mechanical interaction process in real time. In addition, machine learning approaches should be leveraged to predict the impact of material formulations on neural behavior and tissue repair. These design results should be incorporated into early clinical rehabilitation pathways to optimize intervention plans. Such integration will accelerate the clinical implementation of neuroregulatory biomaterials and ultimately achieve precise intervention in the “neuro-IVD microenvironment interaction” across scales and dimensions.
References
Less
1.
de Schepper EI, Damen J, van Meurs JB, Ginai AZ, Popham M, Hofman A, Koes BW, Bierma-Zeinstra SM. The association between lumbar disc degeneration and low back pain: The influence of age, gender, and individual radiographic features. Spine. 2010;35(5):531–536.
2.
GBD 2021 Low Back Pain Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of low back pain, 1990–2020, its attributable risk factors, and projections to 2050: A systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021. Lancet Rheumatol. 2023;5(6):Article e316–e329.
3.
Francisco V, Pino J, González-Gay MÁ, Lago F, Karppinen J, Tervonen O, Mobasheri A, Gualillo O. A new immunometabolic perspective of intervertebral disc degeneration. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2022;18(1):47–60.
4.
Dowdell J, Erwin M, Choma T, Vaccaro A, Iatridis J, Cho SK. Intervertebral disk degeneration and repair. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:S46–S54.
5.
Narmawala F, Gaikwad M, Srivastava A. Implant biomaterials for intervertebral disc regeneration, reconstruction and restoration. Biomed Mater Devices. 2024;3:938–966.
6.
Wang J, Jiang Y, Zhu C, Liu Z, Qi L, Ding H, Wang J, Huang Y, Li Y, Song Y. Mitochondria-engine with self-regulation to restore degenerated intervertebral disc cells via bioenergetic robust hydrogel design. Bioact Mater. 2024;40:1–8.
7.
Romereim SM, Johnston CA, Redwine AL, Wachs RA. Development of an in vitro intervertebral disc innervation model to screen neuroinhibitory biomaterials. J Orthop Res. 2020;38(5):1016–1026.
8.
Chen Z, Lv Z, Zhuang Y, Saiding Q, Yang W, Xiong W, Zhang Z, Chen H, Cui W, Zhang Y. Mechanical signal-tailored hydrogel microspheres recruit and train stem cells for precise differentiation. Adv Mater. 2023;35(40):2300180.
9.
Tang J, Luo Y, Wang Q, Wu J, Wei Y. Stimuli-responsive delivery systems for intervertebral disc degeneration. Int J Nanomedicine. 2024;19:4735–4757.
10.
Lama P, Le Maitre CL, Harding IJ, Dolan P, Adams MA. Nerves and blood vessels in degenerated intervertebral discs are confined to physically disrupted tissue. J Anat. 2018;233(1):86–97.
11.
Hu B, Lv X, Wei L, Wang Y, Zheng G, Yang C, Zang F, Wang J, Li J, Wu X. Sensory nerve maintains intervertebral disc extracellular matrix homeostasis via CGRP/CHSY1 axis. Adv Sci. 2022;9(30):2202620.
12.
Chen Y, Guo B, Ma G, Cao H. Sensory nerve regulation of bone homeostasis: Emerging therapeutic opportunities for bone-related diseases. Ageing Res Rev. 2024;99:Article 102372.
13.
Sun K, Jiang J, Wang Y, Sun X, Zhu J, Xu X, Sun J, Shi J. The role of nerve fibers and their neurotransmitters in regulating intervertebral disc degeneration. Ageing Res Rev. 2022;81:Article 101733.
14.
Li A, Yuan H, Cai F, Wang J, Chen Z, Li X, Chang H, Cui W, Liu X. Biomimetic microstructural materials for intervertebral disk degeneration repair. Small Struct. 2025;6(1):2400330.
15.
Fournier DE, Kiser PK, Shoemaker JK, Battié MC, Séguin CA. Vascularization of the human intervertebral disc: A scoping review. JOR Spine. 2020;3(4):Article e1123.
16.
Sun Y, Lyu M, Lu Q, Cheung K, Leung V. Current perspectives on nucleus pulposus fibrosis in disc degeneration and repair. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(12):6612.
17.
Ghiselli G, Wang JC, Bhatia NN, Hsu WK, Dawson EG. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. JBJS. 2004;86(7):1497–1503.
18.
Bron JL, Helder MN, Meisel H-J, Van Royen BJ, Smit TH. Repair, regenerative and supportive therapies of the annulus fibrosus: Achievements and challenges. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(3):301–313.
19.
Roberts S, Menage J, Urban J. Biochemical and structural properties of the cartilage end-plate and its relation to the intervertebral disc. Spine. 1989;14(12):166–174.
20.
Moore RJ. The vertebral end-plate: What do we know? Eur Spine J. 2000;9(2):92–96.
21.
Frost BA, Camarero-Espinosa S, Foster EJ. Materials for the spine: Anatomy, problems, and solutions. Materials. 2019;12(2):253.
22.
Edgar M. The nerve supply of the lumbar intervertebral disc. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2007;89(9):1135–1139.
23.
Kim HS, Wu PH, Jang I-T. Lumbar degenerative disease part 1: Anatomy and pathophysiology of intervertebral discogenic pain and radiofrequency ablation of basivertebral and sinuvertebral nerve treatment for chronic discogenic back pain: A prospective case series and review of literature. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(4):1483.
24.
Bailey JF, Liebenberg E, Degmetich S, Lotz JC. Innervation patterns of PGP 9.5-positive nerve fibers within the human lumbar vertebra. J Anat. 2011;218(3):263–270.
25.
Groh AM, Fournier DE, Battié MC, Séguin CA. Innervation of the human intervertebral disc: A scoping review. Pain Med. 2021;22(6):1281–1304.
26.
Koop LK, Tadi P. Neuroanatomy, sensory nerves. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2019.
27.
Brown M, Hukkanen M, McCarthy I, Redfern D, Batten J, Crock H, Hughes S, Polak J. Sensory and sympathetic innervation of the vertebral endplate in patients with degenerative disc disease. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1997;79(1):147–153.
28.
Ahmed AS, Berg S, Alkass K, Druid H, Hart DA, Svensson CI, Kosek E. NF-κB-associated pain-related neuropeptide expression in patients with degenerative disc disease. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(3):658.
29.
Li F-X-Z, Xu F, Lin X, Wu F, Zhong J-Y, Wang Y, Guo B, Zheng M-H, Shan S-K, Yuan L-Q. The role of substance P in the regulation of bone and cartilage metabolic activity. Front Endocrinol. 2020;11:77.
30.
Ashton I, Eisenstein S. The effect of substance P on proliferation and proteoglycan deposition of cells derived from rabbit intervertebral disc. Spine. 1996;21(4):421–426.
31.
Dimitroulias A, Tsonidis C, Natsis K, Venizelos I, Djau S, Tsitsopoulos P. An immunohistochemical study of mechanoreceptors in lumbar spine intervertebral discs. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(6):742–745.
32.
Gillespie PG, Walker RG. Molecular basis of mechanosensory transduction. Nature. 2001;413:194–202.
33.
de Oliveira VM, Puertas EB, de Seixas lves MT, Yamashita HK.Comparative study of normal and degenerated intervertebral discs’ mechanoreceptors of human lumar spine X-ray, magnetic resonance and anatomopathologic study. Acta Ortop Bras. 2007;15:35–39.
34.
Takahashi Y, Chiba T, Kurokawa M, Aoki Y, Takahashi K, Yamagata M. Stereoscopic structure of sensory nerve fibers in the lumbar spine and related tissues. Spine. 2003;28(9):871–880.
35.
Takahashi Y, Aoki Y, Douya H, Ohtori S, Takahashi K. Projection field of primary afferent fibers innervating the ventral portion of the lumbar intervertebral disc in the spinal cord dorsal horn. Anat Sci Int. 2006;81(2):92–99.
36.
Scott-Solomon E, Boehm E, Kuruvilla R. The sympathetic nervous system in development and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2021;22:685–702.
37.
Breemer MC, Malessy MJ, Notenboom RG. Origin, branching pattern, foraminal and intraspinal distribution of the human lumbar sinuvertebral nerves. Spine J. 2022;22(3):472–482.
38.
Barczewska M, Juranek J, Wojtkiewicz J. Origins and neurochemical characteristics of porcine intervertebral disc sympathetic innervation: A preliminary report. J Mol Neurosci. 2017;63(1):50–57.
39.
Kwon Y, Mehta S, Clark M, Walters G, Zhong Y, Lee HN, Sunahara RK, Zhang J. Non-canonical β-adrenergic activation of ERK at endosomes. Nature. 2022;611(7934):173–179.
40.
Wang Y, Wu Y, Zhang B, Zheng C, Hu C, Guo C, Kong Q, Wang Y. Repair of degenerative nucleus pulposus by polyphenol nanosphere-encapsulated hydrogel gene delivery system. Biomaterials. 2023;298:Article 122132.
41.
Sun K, Zhu J, Sun J, Sun X, Huan L, Zhang B, Lin F, Zheng B, Jiang J, Luo X. Neuropeptide Y prevents nucleus pulposus cells from cell apoptosis and IL-1β-induced extracellular matrix degradation. Cell Cycle. 2021;20(10):960–977.
42.
Sun K, Sun J, Yan C, Sun J, Xu X, Shi J. Sympathetic neurotransmitter, VIP, delays intervertebral disc degeneration via FGF18/FGFR2-mediated activation of Akt signaling pathway. Adv Biol. 2024;8(3):e2300250.
43.
Malpas SC. The rhythmicity of sympathetic nerve activity. Prog Neurobiol. 1998;56(1):65–96.
44.
Song Z, Yan M, Zhang S, Hu B, Qing X, Shao Z, Chen S, Lv X, Liu H. Implications of circadian disruption on intervertebral disc degeneration: The mediating role of sympathetic nervous system. Ageing Res Rev. 2024;104:102633.
45.
Kirnaz S, Capadona C, Wong T, Goldberg JL, Medary B, Sommer F, McGrath LB Jr, Härtl R. Fundamentals of intervertebral disc degeneration. World Neurosurg. 2022;157:264–273.
46.
Moon SM, Yoder JH, Wright AC, Smith LJ, Vresilovic EJ, Elliott DM. Evaluation of intervertebral disc cartilaginous endplate structure using magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(8):1820–1828.
47.
Adams MA, Roughley PJ. What is intervertebral disc degeneration, and what causes it? Spine. 2006;31(18):2151–2161.
48.
Risbud MV, Shapiro IM. Role of cytokines in intervertebral disc degeneration: Pain and disc content. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014;10(1):44–56.
49.
Diwan AD, Melrose J. Intervertebral disc degeneration and how it leads to low back pain. JOR Spine. 2023;6(1):Article e1231.
50.
Mohd Isa IL, Teoh SL, Mohd Nor NH, Mokhtar SA. Discogenic low back pain: Anatomy, pathophysiology and treatments of intervertebral disc degeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;24(1):208.
51.
Kao T-H, Peng Y-J, Tsou H-K, Salter DM, Lee H-S. Nerve growth factor promotes expression of novel genes in intervertebral disc cells that regulate tissue degradation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(4):653–661.
52.
Rajan NE, Bloom O, Maidhof R, Stetson N, Sherry B, Levine M, Chahine NO. Toll-like receptor 4(TLR4) expression and stimulation in a model of intervertebral disc inflammation and degeneration. Spine. 2013;38(16):1343–1351.
53.
Lan T, Hu Z, Guo W, Yan B, Zhang Y. Development of a novel inflammatory-associated gene signature and immune infiltration patterns in intervertebral disc degeneration. Oxidative Med Cell Longev. 2022;2022:2481071.
54.
Peng B, Hao J, Hou S, Wu W, Jiang D, Fu X, Yang Y. Possible pathogenesis of painful intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2006;31(5):560–566.
55.
Freemont AJ, Jeziorska M, Hoyland JA, Rooney P, Kumar S. Mast cells in the pathogenesis of chronic back pain: A hypothesis. J Pathol. 2002;197(3):281–285.
56.
Nakazawa KR, Walter BA, Laudier DM, Krishnamoorthy D, Mosley GE, Spiller KL, Iatridis JC. Accumulation and localization of macrophage phenotypes with human intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine J. 2018;18(2):343–356.
57.
Lee S, Millecamps M, Foster DZ, Stone LS. Long-term histological analysis of innervation and macrophage infiltration in a mouse model of intervertebral disc injury–induced low back pain. J Orthop Res. 2020;38(6):1238–1247.
58.
Miyagi M, Uchida K, Takano S, Fujimaki H, Aikawa J, Sekiguchi H, Nagura N, Ohtori S, Inoue G, Takaso M. Macrophage-derived inflammatory cytokines regulate growth factors and pain-related molecules in mice with intervertebral disc injury. J Orthop Res. 2018;36:2274.
59.
Richardson SM, Doyle P, Minogue BM, Gnanalingham K, Hoyland JA. Increased expression of matrix metalloproteinase-10, nerve growth factor and substance P in the painful degenerate intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(4):R126.
60.
Koroth J, Buko EO, Abbott R, Johnson CP, Ogle BM, Stone LS, Ellingson AM, Bradley EW. Macrophages and intervertebral disc degeneration. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(2):1367.
61.
Yamagishi A, Nakajima H, Kokubo Y, Yamamoto Y, Matsumine A. Polarization of infiltrating macrophages in the outer annulus fibrosus layer associated with the process of intervertebral disc degeneration and neural ingrowth in the human cervical spine. Spine J. 2022;22(5):877–886.
62.
Shamji MF, Setton LA, Jarvis W, So S, Chen J, Jing L, Bullock R, Isaacs RE, Brown C, Richardson WJ. Proinflammatory cytokine expression profile in degenerated and herniated human intervertebral disc tissues. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62(7):1974–1982.
63.
Virri J, Grönblad M, Seitsalo S, Habtemariam A, Kääpä E, Karaharju E. Comparison of the prevalence of inflammatory cells in subtypes of disc herniations and associations with straight leg raising. Spine. 2001;26:2311.
64.
Tian P, Xl M, Wang T, Jx M, Yang X. Correlation between radiculalgia and counts of T lymphocyte subsets in the peripheral blood of patients with lumbar disc herniation. Orthop Surg. 2009;1(4):317–321.
65.
Sousa-Valente J, Brain SD. A historical perspective on the role of sensory nerves in neurogenic inflammation. In: Seminars in immunopathology. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer; 2008.
66.
Miyagi M, Ishikawa T, Orita S, Eguchi Y, Kamoda H, Arai G, Suzuki M, Inoue G, Aoki Y, Toyone T. Disk injury in rats produces persistent increases in pain-related neuropeptides in dorsal root ganglia and spinal cord glia but only transient increases in inflammatory mediators: Pathomechanism of chronic diskogenic low back pain. Spine. 2011;36(26):2260–2266.
67.
Peng B-G, Li Y-C, Yang L. Role of neurogenic inflammation in intervertebral disc degeneration. World J Orthop. 2025;16(1):Article 102120.
68.
Li Y, Dai C, Wu B, Yang L, Yan X, Liu T, Chen J, Zheng Z, Peng B. Intervertebral disc injury triggers neurogenic inflammation of adjacent healthy discs. Spine J. 2024;24(8):1527–1537.
69.
Lyu F-J, Cui H, Pan H, Mc Cheung K, Cao X, Iatridis JC, Zheng Z. Painful intervertebral disc degeneration and inflammation: From laboratory evidence to clinical interventions. Bone Res. 2021;9(1):7.
70.
Yang G, Liao W, Shen M, Mei H. Insight into neural mechanisms underlying discogenic back pain. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(11):4427–4436.
71.
Krock E, Rosenzweig DH, Chabot-Doré AJ, Jarzem P, Weber MH, Ouellet JA, Stone LS, Haglund L. Painful, degenerating intervertebral discs up-regulate neurite sprouting and CGRP through nociceptive factors. J Cell Mol Med. 2014;18(6):1213–1225.
72.
Ye F, Lyu FJ, Wang H, Zheng Z. The involvement of immune system in intervertebral disc herniation and degeneration. JOR Spine. 2022;5(1):Article e1196.
73.
Moran MM, Xu H, Clapham DE. TRP ion channels in the nervous system. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004;14(3):362–369.
74.
Aoki Y, Takahashi Y, Ohtori S, Moriya H, Takahashi K. Distribution and immunocytochemical characterization of dorsal root ganglion neurons innervating the lumbar intervertebral disc in rats: A review. Life Sci. 2004;74(21):2627–2642.
75.
Gouin O, L’herondelle K, Lebonvallet N, Le Gall-Ianotto C, Sakka M, Buhé V, Plée-Gautier E, Carré J-L, Lefeuvre L, Misery L. TRPV1 and TRPA1 in cutaneous neurogenic and chronic inflammation: Pro-inflammatory response induced by their activation and their sensitization. Protein Cell. 2017;8(9):644–661.
76.
Dhaka A, Uzzell V, Dubin AE, Mathur J, Petrus M, Bandell M, Patapoutian A. TRPV1 is activated by both acidic and basic pH. J Neurosci. 2009;29(1):153–158.
77.
Yu L, Yang F, Luo H, Liu F-Y, Han J-S, Xing G-G, Wan Y. The role of TRPV1 in different subtypes of dorsal root ganglion neurons in rat chronic inflammatory nociception induced by complete Freund’s adjuvant. Mol Pain. 2008;4:61.
78.
Brederson J-D, Kym PR, Szallasi A. Targeting TRP channels for pain relief. Eur J Pharmacol. 2013;716(1–3):61–76.
79.
Shimosato G, Amaya F, Ueda M, Tanaka Y, Decosterd I, Tanaka M. Peripheral inflammation induces up-regulation of TRPV2 expression in rat DRG. Pain. 2005;119(1–3):225–232.
80.
Qin N, Neeper MP, Liu Y, Hutchinson TL, Lubin ML, Flores CM. TRPV2 is activated by cannabidiol and mediates CGRP release in cultured rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. J Neurosci. 2008;28(24):6231–6238.
81.
Krupkova O, Zvick J, Wuertz-Kozak K. The role of transient receptor potential channels in joint diseases. Eur Cell Mater. 2017;34:180–201.
82.
Kanerva A, Kommonen B, Grönblad M, Tolonen J, Habtemariam A, Virri J, Karaharju E. Inflammatory cells in experimental intervertebral disc injury. Spine. 1997;22(23):2711–2715.
83.
Yang G, Chen L, Gao Z, Wang Y. Implication of microglia activation and CSF1/CSF1R pathway in lumbar disc degeneration-related back pain. Mol Pain. 2018;14:1744806918811238.
84.
Miyagi M, Millecamps M, Danco AT, Ohtori S, Takahashi K, Stone LS. ISSLS prize winner: Increased innervation and sensory nervous system plasticity in a mouse model of low back pain due to intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine. 2014;39(17):1345–1354.
85.
Loggia ML, Chonde DB, Akeju O, Arabasz G, Catana C, Edwards RR, Hill E, Hsu S, Izquierdo-Garcia D, Ji R-R. Evidence for brain glial activation in chronic pain patients. Brain. 2015;138:604–615.
86.
Li Y, Xi C, Chi Z, Liu X, Yan J, Niu M. Activation of satellite cells in the dorsal root ganglia in a disc-punctured rat model. J Orthop Sci. 2011;16(4):433–438.
87.
Zhang Y, Song N, Liu F, Lin J, Liu M, Huang C, Liao D, Zhou C, Wang H, Shen J. Activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases in satellite glial cells of the trigeminal ganglion contributes to substance P-mediated inflammatory pain. Int J Oral Sci. 2019;11:24.
88.
O’Neill CW, Kurgansky ME, Derby R, Ryan DP. Disc stimulation and patterns of referred pain. Spine. 2002;27(24):2776–2781.
89.
Nakamura S, Takahashi K, Takahashi Y, Yamagata M, Moriya H. The afferent pathways of discogenic low-back pain: Evaluation of L2 spinal nerve infiltration. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1996;78(4):606–612.
90.
Sameda H, Takahashi Y, Takahashi K, Chiba T, Ohtori S, Moriya H. Dorsal root ganglion neurones with dichotomising afferent fibres to both the lumbar disc and the groin skin: A possible neuronal mechanism underlying referred groin pain in lower lumbar disc diseases. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2003;85(4):600–603.
91.
Peng B, Li D, Pang X. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with testicular pain. Pain Med. 2014;15(1):169–170.
92.
Raj PP. Intervertebral disc: Anatomy-physiology-pathophysiology-treatment. Pain Pract. 2008;8(1):18–44.
93.
Johnson WE, Caterson B, Eisenstein SM, Hynds DL, Snow DM, Roberts S. Human intervertebral disc aggrecan inhibits nerve growth in vitro. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(10):2658–2664.
94.
Tolofari SK, Richardson SM, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. Expression of semaphorin 3A and its receptors in the human intervertebral disc: Potential role in regulating neural ingrowth in the degenerate intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(1):R1.
95.
Freemont A, Watkins A, Le Maitre C, Baird P, Jeziorska M, Knight M, Ross E, O’brien J, Hoyland J. Nerve growth factor expression and innervation of the painful intervertebral disc. J Pathol. 2002;197(3):286–292.
96.
Aoki Y, Ohtori S, Ino H, Douya H, Ozawa T, Saito T, Moriya H, Takahashi K. Disc inflammation potentially promotes axonal regeneration of dorsal root ganglion neurons innervating lumbar intervertebral disc in rats. Spine. 2004;29(23):2621–2666.
97.
Binch AL, Cole AA, Breakwell LM, Michael AL, Chiverton N, Creemers LB, Cross AK, Le Maitre CL. Nerves are more abundant than blood vessels in the degenerate human intervertebral disc. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:370.
98.
García-Cosamalón J, Del Valle ME, Calavia MG, García-Suárez O, López-Muñiz A, Otero J, Vega JA. Intervertebral disc, sensory nerves and neurotrophins: Who is who in discogenic pain? J Anat. 2010;217(1):1–15.
99.
Brisby H. Pathology and possible mechanisms of nervous system response to disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:68–71.
100.
Hoppanova L, Lacinova L. Voltage-dependent CaV3. 2 and CaV2. 2 channels in nociceptive pathways. J Pflüg Arch Eur J Physiol. 2022;474(1):421–434.
101.
Zhu H, Ren J, Wang X, Qin W, Xie Y. Targeting skeletal interoception: A novel mechanistic insight into intervertebral disc degeneration and pain management. J Orthop Surg Res. 2025;20(1):159.
102.
Wang Y, Zheng G, Xie X, Yu W, Wang J, Zang F, Yang C, Xiao Q, Zhang R, Wei L. Low-dose celecoxib-loaded PCL fibers reverse intervertebral disc degeneration by up-regulating CHSY3 expression. J Nanobiotechnol. 2023;21(1):76.
103.
Johnson WE, Caterson B, Eisenstein SM, Roberts S. Human intervertebral disc aggrecan inhibits endothelial cell adhesion and cell migration in vitro. Spine. 2005;30(10):1139–1147.
104.
Richardson SM, Purmessur D, Baird P, Probyn B, Freemont AJ, Hoyland JA. Degenerate human nucleus pulposus cells promote neurite outgrowth in neural cells. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(10):Article e47735.
105.
Wang X-L, Cui L-W, Liu Z, Gao Y-M, Wang S, Li H, Liu H-X, Yu L-J. Effects of TRPA1 activation and inhibition on TRPA1 and CGRP expression in dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neural Regen Res. 2019;14(1):140–148.
106.
Zhang GZ, Liu MQ, Chen HW, Wu ZL, Gao YC, Ma ZJ, He XG, Kang XW. NF-κB signalling pathways in nucleus pulposus cell function and intervertebral disc degeneration. Cell Prolif. 2021;54(7):Article e13057.
107.
Lee JM, Song JY, Baek M, Jung HY, Kang H, Han IB, Kwon YD, Shin DE. Interleukin-1β induces angiogenesis and innervation in human intervertebral disc degeneration. J Orthop Res. 2011;29(2):265–269.
108.
Wang W, Kong M, Dou Y, Xue S, Liu Y, Zhang Y, Chen W, Li Y, Dai X, Meng J. Selective expression of a SNARE-cleaving protease in peripheral sensory neurons attenuates pain-related gene transcription and neuropeptide release. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16):8826.
109.
Zheng B, Li S, Xiang Y, Zong W, Ma Q, Wang S, Wu H, Song H, Ren H, Chen J. Netrin-1 mediates nerve innervation and angiogenesis leading to discogenic pain. J Orthop Transl. 2023;39(33):21.
110.
Mima Y, Suzuki S, Fujii T, Morikawa T, Tamaki S, Takubo K, Shimoda M, Miyamoto T, Watanabe K, Matsumoto M. Potential involvement of semaphorin 3A in maintaining intervertebral disc tissue homeostasis. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(4):972–980.
111.
San Lee F, Nguyen UN, Munns EJ, Wachs RA. Screening for axonal retraction and cytotoxicity using dorsal root ganglia explants to treat pain caused by aberrant nerve sprouting. 2023.
112.
Feng P, Che Y, Gao C, Zhu L, Gao J, Vo NV. Immune exposure: How macrophages interact with the nucleus pulposus. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1155746.
113.
Nakawaki M, Uchida K, Miyagi M, Inoue G, Kawakubo A, Satoh M, Takaso M. Changes in nerve growth factor expression and macrophage phenotype following intervertebral disc injury in mice. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(8):1798–1804.
114.
Mi Y, Qi G, Vitali F, Shang Y, Raikes AC, Wang T, Jin Y, Brinton RD, Gu H, Yin F. Loss of fatty acid degradation by astrocytic mitochondria triggers neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration. Nat Metab. 2023;5(3):445–465.
115.
Greenhalgh AD, David S, Bennett FC. Immune cell regulation of glia during CNS injury and disease. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2020;21(3):139–152.
116.
Navone S, Peroglio M, Guarnaccia L, Beretta M, Grad S, Paroni M, Cordiglieri C, Locatelli M, Pluderi M, Rampini P. Mechanical loading of intervertebral disc modulates microglia proliferation, activation, and chemotaxis. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2018;26(7):978–987.
117.
Palada V, Ahmed AS, Finn A, Berg S, Svensson CI, Kosek E. Characterization of neuroinflammation and periphery-to-CNS inflammatory cross-talk in patients with disc herniation and degenerative disc disease. Brain Behav Immun. 2019;75:60–71.
118.
Karjalainen J, Hain S, Progatzky F. Glial-immune interactions in barrier organs. Mucosal Immunol. 2025;18(2):271–278.
119.
Peng Y, Chen X, Rao Z, Wu W, Zuo H, Chen K, Li K, Lin H, Liu S, Xiao Y. Multifunctional annulus fibrosus matrix prevents disc-related pain via inhibiting neuroinflammation and sensitization. Acta Biomater. 2023;170:288.
120.
Yang W, Li K, Pan Q, Huang W, Xiao Y, Lin H, Liu S, Chen X, Lv X, Feng S. An engineered bionic nanoparticle sponge as a cytokine trap and reactive oxygen species scavenger to relieve disc degeneration and discogenic pain. ACS Nano. 2024;18:3053–3302.
121.
Lu Y, Liu S, Wang P, Guo X, Qin Z, Hou H, Tao T. A novel microglia-targeting strategy based on nanoparticle-mediated delivery of miR-26a-5p for long-lasting analgesia in chronic pain. J Nanobiotechnol. 2024;22(1):128.
122.
Zhang Q, Dehaini D, Zhang Y, Zhou J, Chen X, Zhang L, Fang RH, Gao W, Zhang L. Neutrophil membrane-coated nanoparticles inhibit synovial inflammation and alleviate joint damage in inflammatory arthritis. Nat Nanotechnol. 2018;13(12):1182–1190.
123.
Zhou L, Cai F, Zhu H, Xu Y, Tang J, Wang W, Li Z, Wu J, Ding Z, Xi K. Immune-defensive microspheres promote regeneration of the nucleus pulposus by targeted entrapment of the inflammatory cascade during intervertebral disc degeneration. Bioact Mater. 2024;37:132–152.
124.
Wang W, Liu L, Ma W, Zhao L, Huang L, Zhou D, Fan J, Wang J, Liu H, Wu D. An anti-senescence hydrogel with pH-responsive drug release for mitigating intervertebral disc degeneration and low back pain. Bioact Mater. 2024;41:355–370.
125.
Li A, Li Q, Chang H, Li X, Yu Y, Chen L, Wang J, Cui W, Liu X. Surface-bound gene-functionalized injectable short fibers via reversing collagen aging for inhibiting intervertebral disc degeneration. Adv Funct Mater. 2025;35(45):Article 2502028.
126.
Cameron MA, Al Abed A, Buskila Y, Dokos S, Lovell NH, Morley JW. Differential effect of brief electrical stimulation on voltage-gated potassium channels. J Neurophysiol. 2017;117(5):2014–2024.
127.
Vasu SO, Kaphzan H. The role of axonal voltage-gated potassium channels in tDCS. Brain Stimul. 2022;15(3):861–869.
128.
Zheng Y, Ju Y, Liu Y, Yang F. Piezoelectric nanoparticle-based ultrasound wireless piezoelectric neuromodulation inhibits epileptiform activity of primary neurons. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2024;7(12):8543–8551.
129.
Nakagawa K, Nakazawa K. Static magnetic field stimulation applied over the cervical spinal cord can decrease corticospinal excitability in finger muscle. Clin Neurophysiol Pract. 2018;3:49–53.
130.
Tay A, Di Carlo D. Magnetic nanoparticle-based mechanical stimulation for restoration of mechano-sensitive ion channel equilibrium in neural networks. Nano Lett. 2017;17(2):886–892.
131.
Wang Y, Garg R, Cohen-Karni D, Cohen-Karni T. Neural modulation with photothermally active nanomaterials. Nat Rev Bioeng. 2023;1:193–207.
132.
Gholami Derami H, Gupta P, Weng KC, Seth A, Gupta R, Silva JR, Raman B, Singamaneni S. Reversible photothermal modulation of electrical activity of excitable cells using polydopamine nanoparticles. Adv Mater. 2021;33(32):e2008809.
133.
Sharifi M, Kamalabadi-Farahani M, Salehi M, Ebrahimi-Barough S, Alizadeh M. Recent advances in enhances peripheral nerve orientation: The synergy of micro or nano patterns with therapeutic tactics. J Nanobiotechnol. 2024;22(1):194.
134.
Han R, Luo L, Wei C, Qiao Y, Xie J, Pan X, Xing J. Stiffness-tunable biomaterials provide a good extracellular matrix environment for axon growth and regeneration. Neural Regen Res. 2025;20(5):1364–1376.
135.
Wang J, Yang Q, Saiding Q, Chen L, Liu M, Wang Z, Xiang L, Deng L, Chen Y, Cui W. Geometric angles and gene expression in cells for structural bone regeneration. Adv Sci. 2023;10(32):e2304111.
136.
Kong L, Gao X, Yao X, Xie H, Kang Q, Sun W, You Z, Qian Y, Fan C. Multilevel neurium-mimetic individualized graft via additive manufacturing for efficient tissue repair. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):6428.
137.
Cheng X, Xu B, Lei B, Wang S. Opposite mechanical preference of bone/nerve regeneration in 3D-printed bioelastomeric scaffolds/conduits consistently correlated with YAP-mediated stem cell osteo/neuro-genesis. Adv Healthc Mater. 2024;13(7):e2301158.
138.
Nguyen UN, Lee FS, Caparaso SM, Leoni JT, Redwine AL, Wachs RA. Type I collagen concentration affects neurite outgrowth of adult rat DRG explants by altering mechanical properties of hydrogels. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 2024;35(2):164–189.
139.
Miller GM, Hsieh-Wilson LC. Sugar-dependent modulation of neuronal development, regeneration, and plasticity by chondroitin sulfate proteoglycans. Exp Neurol. 2015;274:115–125.
140.
Piening LM, Lillyman DJ, Lee FS, Lozano AM, Miles JR, Wachs RA. Injectable decellularized nucleus pulposus tissue exhibits neuroinhibitory properties. JOR Spine. 2022;5(1):Article e1187.
141.
Park HH, Kim Y-M, Kim HS, Kim SH, Jin X, Hwang DH, Kwon MJ, Song S-C, Kim BG. Dual-functional hydrogel system for spinal cord regeneration with sustained release of arylsulfatase B alleviates fibrotic microenvironment and promotes axonal regeneration. Biomaterials. 2022;284:Article 121526.
142.
Yang P, Shi Y, Hu H, Wang Y, Wang Y, Li X, Zhang L, Wang Y, Yu L, Xia H. Inhibition of neuron and cardiac remodeling by microenvironment-responsive injectable hydrogels with sympatho-immune regulation properties for myocardial infarction therapy. Compos Part B. 2025;297:Article 112300.
143.
Hu W, Luo J, Chen C, Wang X, Niu J, Shen H, Zhou X-z, Sun J, Yang H, Chen Z. The “inner–outer” molecules-loaded fiber-hydrogel scaffolds coordinate specific immunity and neural differentiation for repairing SCI. ACS Mater Lett. 2024;6(3):822–836.
144.
Zhou H, Zhu C, Zhao Q, Ni J, Zhang H, Yang G, Ge J, Fang C, Wei H, Zhou X. Wrecking neutrophil extracellular traps and antagonizing cancer-associated neurotransmitters by interpenetrating network hydrogels prevent postsurgical cancer relapse and metastases. Bioact Mater. 2024;39:14–24.
145.
Zhang S, Hu B, Liu W, Wang P, Lv X, Chen S, Shao Z. The role of structure and function changes of sensory nervous system in intervertebral disc-related low back pain. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2021;29:17–27.
146.
Ravaillault S, Samarut E, Ploteau S, Hamel A, Decante C, Moles A, Salaud C. Involvement of the sinuvertebral nerve in the treatment of chronic low back pain through dorsal root ganglion neurostimulation: An anatomical study. Surg Radiol Anat. 2025;47(1):160.
147.
Barrette KF, Conger A, Hirsch JA, McCormick ZL. Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for vertebrogenic pain. In: Essentials of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2024. p. 561–577.
148.
Song C, Cai W, Liu F, Cheng K, Guo D, Liu Z. An in-depth analysis of the immunomodulatory mechanisms of intervertebral disc degeneration. JOR Spine. 2022;5(4):Article e1233.
Appendix
Less
Year 2026 volume 9 Issue 2
PDF
108
58
Cite this Article
BibTeX
Article Info
doi: 10.34133/research.1062
  • Receive Date：2025-09-21
  • Online Date：2026-10-16
  • Published：2026-02-20
Article Data
Affiliations
History
  • Received：2025-09-21
  • Revised：2025-12-02
  • Accepted：2025-12-04
Affiliations
    1Department of Orthopedics, Yangpu Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai 200090, China.
    2Department of Orthopaedics, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Diseases, Shanghai Institute of Traumatology and Orthopaedics Ruijin Hospital Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai 200025, China.

Corresponding:

* Address correspondence to: (J.W.);
* Address correspondence to: (W.C.);
* Address correspondence to: (X.L.)
References
Share
https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/research/EN/10.34133/research.1062
Share to
QR

Scan QR to access full text

Cite this article
BibTeX
Citations
表12种不同金属材料的力学参数
科
Family		 属数
Number of
genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of
total species (%)		 属
Genus		 种数
Number of
species		 占总种数比例
Percentage of total
species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae 2 11 5.26 鹅膏菌属 Amanita 10 4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae 2 12 5.74 丝盖伞属 Inocybe 5 2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae 8 14 6.70 蜡蘑属 Laccaria 5 2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae 3 23 11.00 小皮伞属 Marasmius 6 2.87
小菇属 Mycena 11 5.26
光柄菇属 Pluteus 5 2.39
红菇属 Russula 17 8.13
栓菌属 Trametes 5 2.39
关闭全屏
  • BibTeX
  • EndNote
  • RefWorks
  • TxT
Links
Articles
Latest Articles
Most Read
Collections
Updates
Events
News
Multimedia
About
About Us
Contact
No. 86 Xueyuan South Road, Haidian District, Beijing
100081
010-62662699(Operation and Technical Support)
qkjq@cast.org.cn

Copyright © 2025 China Association for Science and Technology. All rights reserved. For all open access content, the relevant licensing terms apply.
Sponsored by the Office of the Leading Group for Cybersecurity and Informatization of CAST, and supported by Science and Technology Review Publishing House