4.4 Article

Method for the assessment of neuromuscular integrity and burrowing choice in vermiform animals

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS
卷 264, 期 -, 页码 40-46

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2016.02.023

关键词

Burrowing; C. elegans; Locomotion

资金

  1. NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [P40 OD010440]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The study of locomotion in vermiform animals has largely been restricted to animals crawling on agar surfaces. While this has been fruitful in the study of neuronal basis of disease and behavior, the reduced physical challenge posed by these environments has prevented these organisms from being equally successful in the study of neuromuscular diseases. Our burrowing assay allowed us to study the effects of muscular exertion on locomotion and muscle degeneration during disease (Beron et al., 2015), as well as the natural burrowing preference of diverse Caenorhabditis elegans strains (Vidal-Gadea et al., 2015). New method: We describe a simple, rapid, and affordable set of assays to study the burrowing behavior of nematodes and other vermiform organisms which permits the titration of muscular exertion in test animals. Results: We show that our burrowing assay design is versatile and can be adapted for use in widely different experimental paradigms. Comparison with existing method(s): Previous assays for the study of neuromuscular integrity in nematodes relied on movement through facile and homogeneous environments. The ability of modulating substrate density allows our burrowing assay to be used to separate animal populations where muscular fitness or health are not visible differentiable by standard techniques. Conclusion: The simplicity, versatility, and potential for greatly facilitating the study of previously challenging neuromuscular disorders makes this assay a valuable addition that overcomes many of the limitations inherent to traditional behavioral tests of vermiform locomotion. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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