| Literature DB >> 23533959 |
Saara Parkkinen1, Francisco J Ortega, Kristina Kuptsova, Joanna Huttunen, Ina Tarkka, Jukka Jolkkonen.
Abstract
The availability of proper tests for gait evaluation following cerebral ischemia in rats has been limited. The automated, quantitative CatWalk system, which was initially designed to measure gait in models of spinal cord injury, neuropathic pain, and peripheral nerve injury, is said to be a useful tool for the study of motor impairment in stroke animals. Here we report our experiences of using CatWalk XT with rats subjected to transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO), during their six-week followup. Large corticostriatal infarct was confirmed by MRI in all MCAO rats, which was associated with severe sensorimotor impairment. In contrast, the gait impairment was at most mild, which is consistent with seemingly normal locomotion of MCAO rats. Many of the gait parameters were affected by body weight, walking speed, and motivation despite the use of a goal box. In addition, MCAO rats showed bilateral compensation, which was developed to stabilize proper locomotion. All of these interferences may confound the data interpretation. Taken together, the translational applicability of CatWalk XT in evaluating motor impairment and treatment efficacy remains to be limited at least in rats with severe corticostriatal infarct and loss of body weight.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23533959 PMCID: PMC3603709 DOI: 10.1155/2013/410972
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Stroke Res Treat
CatWalk gait parameter statistics.
| MCAO | Time | Interaction | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| ||||||
| Cadence | 9.611 | 0.010* | 3.173 | 0.037* | 2.012 | 0.131 |
| Stance duration | ||||||
| RF | 8.692 | 0.013* | 2.917 | 0.048* | 3.015 | 0.043* |
| RH | 7.538 | 0.019* | 2.553 | 0.072 | 2.268 | 0.098 |
| LF | 6.951 | 0.023* | 2.591 | 0.069 | 2.605 | 0.068 |
| LH | 5.004 | 0.047* | 2.615 | 0.067 | 2.818 | 0.054 |
| Swing duration | ||||||
| RF | 2.226 | 0.163 | 0.088 | 0.966 | 0.229 | 0.875 |
| RH | 3.851 | 0.075 | 0.875 | 0.463 | 0.707 | 0.554 |
| LF | 6.512 | 0.026* | 2.313 | 0.094 | 2.379 | 0.087 |
| LH | 3.805 | 0.077 | 1.386 | 0.264 | 0.583 | 0.629 |
| Speed | 3.667 | 0.081 | 2.259 | 0.099 | 2.533 | 0.073 |
| Run duration | 5.28 | 0.042* | 1.521 | 0.227 | 2.814 | 0.054 |
| Swing speed | ||||||
| RF | 5.069 | 0.045* | 0.872 | 0.465 | 1.991 | 0.134 |
| RH | 9.524 | 0.010* | 1.43 | 0.251 | 2.822 | 0.053 |
| LF | 9.858 | 0.009** | 2.406 | 0.085 | 2.966 | 0.046* |
| LH | 7.993 | 0.016* | 1.6 | 0.208 | 3.51 | 0.026* |
|
| ||||||
| Stride length | ||||||
| RF | 4.855 | 0.049* | 1.079 | 0.371 | 3.242 | 0.034* |
| RH | 7.452 | 0.019* | 0.848 | 0.477 | 3.058 | 0.041* |
| LF | 2.582 | 0.136 | 0.436 | 0.728 | 1.704 | 0.185 |
| LH | 7.228 | 0.021* | 0.799 | 0.503 | 3.05 | 0.042* |
| Step cycle | ||||||
| RF | 9.026 | 0.012* | 1.465 | 0.242 | 2.146 | 0.113 |
| RH | 9.658 | 0.01** | 2.3 | 0.095 | 2.621 | 0.067 |
| LF | 8.684 | 0.013* | 2.375 | 0.087 | 2.432 | 0.082 |
| LH | 6.571 | 0.026* | 1.987 | 0.135 | 2.914 | 0.048* |
| Duty cycle | ||||||
| RF | 4.166 | 0.066 | 4.305 | 0.011* | 3.91 | 0.017* |
| RH | 1.296 | 0.279 | 2.794 | 0.055 | 1.252 | 0.306 |
| LF | 2.713 | 0.127 | 1.936 | 0.143 | 0.601 | 0.618 |
| LH | 1.164 | 0.334 | 0.197 | 0.659 | 1.224 | 0.312 |
| Base of support | ||||||
| Forepaw | 3.547 | 0.086 | 1.319 | 0.284 | 1.584 | 0.211 |
| Hindpaw | 3.73 | 0.079 | 5.626 | 0.003** | 3.785 | 0.019* |
|
| ||||||
| Regularity index | 0.124 | 0.730 | 0.123 | 0.945 | 0.146 | 0.931 |
| Phase dispersion (Diagonal) | ||||||
| LF → RH | 1.842 | 0.202 | 0.634 | 0.598 | 0.219 | 0.881 |
| RF → LH | 3.84 | 0.075 | 0.949 | 0.428 | 0.391 | 0.759 |
|
| ||||||
| Max contact area | ||||||
| RF | 0.737 | 0.408 | 5.338 | 0.004** | 0.186 | 0.905 |
| RH | 0.807 | 0.388 | 6.443 | <0.001*** | 0.767 | 0.520 |
| LF | 0.179 | 0.680 | 3.397 | 0.029* | 0.185 | 0.905 |
| LH | 2.558 | 0.138 | 10.29 | <0.0001*** | 0.515 | 0.674 |
| Max intensity | ||||||
| RF | 0.377 | 0.551 | 6.462 | <0.001*** | 1.786 | 0.169 |
| RH | 2.694 | 0.129 | 3.256 | 0.033* | 0.102 | 0.958 |
| LF | 0.3162 | 0.585 | 3.479 | 0.026* | 0.883 | 0.459 |
| LH | 0.271 | 0.612 | 6.399 | <0.001*** | 0.408 | 0.748 |
RF: right forepaw; LF: left forepaw; RH: right hindpaw; LH: left hindpaw.
*P < 0.05.
**P < 0.01.
***P < 0.001.
Figure 1Corticostriatal lesion. Representative T 2-weighted magnetic resonance images of coronal sections acquired 24 hours after MCAO.
Figure 2Graphical representation of selected gait parameters. The animal is walking towards the left. Black and white boxes represent time fractions where the paw is in contact with the surface or lifted at walking. RF: right forelimb; LF: left forelimb; RH: right hindlimb; LH: left hindlimb.
Figure 3Focal cerebral ischemia significantly affected cadence and base of support (BOS). (a) MCAO animals showed a decreased number of steps per second (cadence) when walking along the CatWalk runway at postoperative days 6 and 42. (b) Ischemic animals showed significantly larger hindlimb BOS at postoperative day 42. All values are given as mean ± SD. Statistics: **P < 0.01 versus sham-operated group.
Figure 4Effect of focal cerebral ischemia on temporal and comparative paw parameters. (a) Cerebral ischemia increased the duration of the stance phase of all paws at postoperative days 6 and 42. (b) Swing duration was only significantly different in the left forelimb (LF) at the acute phase after ischemia. (c) Stride length of MCAO animals was generally shorter. (d) Only the right forelimb (RF) of MCAO animals denoted longer duty cycle at postoperative day 6. All values are given as mean ± SD. Statistics: *P < 0.05 versus sham-operated group.
Figure 5Gait parameter correlations. Scatter plots showing the correlations between gait parameters and body weight ((a), (b)) and locomotor speed ((c), (d)) of the left and right forepaws. Linear regression lines were plotted in each group (solid lines for sham-operated and dotted lines for MCAO rats). The values of Pearson's Products Moment Correlations Coefficients (P cc) and P-values are shown for each group. Maximum contact area (a) and toe spread (b) showed positive correlation with body weight. By contrast, the maximum contact area (c) and stance (d) showed negative correlations with locomotor speed. Values for the left and right hindpaws followed the same correlation patterns (data not shown).
Relationships between body weight and speed with gait parameters.
| Body weight | Speed | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sham | MCAO | Sham | MCAO | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Infarct volume | — | — | −0.85 | 0.015* | Body weight | −0.01 | 0.95 | −0.02 | 0.90 |
| Run duration | Stride length | ||||||||
| LF | −0.04 | 0.83 | 0.08 | 0.68 | LF | 0.86 | <0.0001*** | 0.77 | <0.0001*** |
| RF | −0.05 | 0.84 | 0.07 | 0.65 | RF | 0.73 | <0.0001*** | 0.75 | <0.0001*** |
| Swing speed | Stance | ||||||||
| LF | 0.50 | 0.012* | 0.09 | 0.62 | LF | −0.92 | <0.0001*** | −0.87 | <0.0001*** |
| RF | 0.42 | 0.042* | 0.10 | 0.61 | RF | −0.93 | <0.0001*** | −0.87 | <0.0001*** |
| Max intesity | Max contact area | ||||||||
| LF | 0.42 | 0.042* | 0.20 | 0.28 | LF | −0.03 | 0.88 | −0.49 | 0.0086** |
| RF | 0.40 | 0.049* | 0.23 | 0.23 | RF | −0.24 | 0.26 | −0.49 | 0.0083** |
| Max contact area | Max intensity | ||||||||
| LF | 0.45 | 0.02* | 0.40 | 0.05* | LF | 0.18 | 0.40 | −0.33 | 0.09 |
| RF | 0.49 | 0.014* | 0.46 | 0.012* | RF | −0.19 | 0.36 | −0.20 | 0.30 |
| Print width | Print width | ||||||||
| LF | 0.53 | 0.007** | 0.54 | 0.003** | LF | 0.33 | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.59 |
| RF | 0.38 | 0.07 | 0.58 | 0.0013** | RF | 0.05 | 0.80 | 0.10 | 0.63 |
| Toe spread | Toe spread | ||||||||
| LF | 0.62 | 0.008** | 0.53 | 0.0005*** | LF | 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.11 | 0.59 |
| RF | 0.40 | 0.05* | 0.56 | 0.002** | RF | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.27 | 0.17 |
| Stride length | Base of support | ||||||||
| LF | 0.10 | 0.62 | 0.11 | 0.56 | Forelimb | 0.08 | 0.71 | 0.15 | 0.46 |
| RF | 0.18 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.29 | Hindlimb | 0.08 | 0.70 | 0.28 | 0.15 |
RF: right forepaw; LF: left forepaw.
*P < 0.05.
**P < 0.01.
***P < 0.001.