4.7 Article

Modified behavioural tests to detect white matter injury-induced motor deficits after intracerebral haemorrhage in mice

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-53263-6

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China from the National Key Basic Research Development Program (973 Program) of China [2014CB541606]
  2. Major Innovation Project of Southwest Hospital [SWH2016ZDCX1011]
  3. Talent Support Program of Southwest Hospital [SWH2018BJKJ-05]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81802509]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motor function deficit induced by white matter injury (WMI) is one of the most severe complications of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). The degree of WMI is closely related to the prognosis of patients after ICH. However, the current behavioural assessment of motor function used in the ICH mouse model is mainly based on that for ischaemic stroke and lacks the behavioural methods that accurately respond to WMI. Here, a series of easy-to-implement behavioural tests were performed to detect motor deficits in mice after ICH. The results showed that the grip strength test and the modified pole test not only can better distinguish the degree of motor dysfunction between different volumes of blood ICH models than the Basso Mouse Scale and the beam walking test but can also accurately reflect the severity of WMI characterized by demyelination, axonal swelling and the latency of motor-evoked potential delay induced by ICH. In addition, after ICH, the results of grip tests and modified pole tests, rather than the Basso Mouse Scale and the beam walking test, were worse than those observed after intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), which was used as a model of brain haemorrhage in non-white matter areas. These results indicate that the grip strength test and the modified pole test have advantages in detecting the degree of motor deficit induced by white matter injury after ICH in mice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据