4.7 Article

Age of Peak Performance Differs by Functional Task in Mice Tracked Over 2 Years

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glab048

Keywords

Body composition; Grip strength; Mouse model; Physical function; Translation

Funding

  1. Vision 2020 Award from the Osteopathic Heritage Foundations

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using data collected from multiple time points between 4 and 24 months of age in mice, this study found significant age-related changes in forelimb and hindlimb grip strength, balance, and body composition, emphasizing the importance of including intermediate time points for accurately evaluating physical function status in mice.
Mouse models are often used to validate novel interventions prior to human testing, although biological differences between mice and humans limit the translatability of outcomes. A common assumption in animal research is that maximal physical performance will be present at a young age, and that differences in task performance between young and old can be attributed to the aging process. However, this may not be true for all physical function tasks, and leaving out intermediate time points could drastically alter data interpretation. Here, we document age-related changes in forelimb and hindlimb grip strength, balance and coordination, and body composition in mice (n = 43) collected at multiple time points between 4 and 24 months of age. Maximal forelimb grip strength was recorded at 4 months of age, but maximal hindlimb grip strength was recorded at 15 months of age. Balance performance was stable from 4 to 15 months of age, declining significantly at 18 months. Both lean and fat mass peaked at 18 months before declining steadily. We conclude that the inclusion of intermediate time points is essential for the accurate evaluation of physical function status in mice, particularly in the context of translating intervention outcomes into strategies to be tested in humans.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available