4.5 Article

Colour-coded pellets increase the sensitivity of the staircase test to differentiate skilled forelimb performances of control and 6-hydroxydopamine lesioned rats

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH BULLETIN
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 68-80

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.04.006

关键词

paw reaching; Montoya's staircase test; Parkinson's disease; drug-induced rotation; nigrostriatal system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Montoya staircase test has previously been used to study the skilled forelimb performance of mice and rats following lesions and cell implants in different parts of the central nervous system. Here we describe a modification of the original test design which introduces differently coloured food pellets for each step, and present the results of the new and modified method. In this study unilaterally 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) lesioned rats and healthy control rats were used. The new evaluation of reaching and grasping movements takes into consideration the various levels of reaching difficulty. The coloured food pellets code for different steps of the staircase. The comparison between the original versus the modified test methods revealed significant differences most prominently on the lower steps. It is important to notice that the pattern of grasping movements in the hemiparkinsonian rats changes from precise reaching (prior to lesion) to shuffling and unsuccessfully trying to reach pellets. The observation of this change in behaviour would not have been obtained through the evaluation of the original staircase test. In summary, the modified staircase test introduces a colour-coded pellet system which obviously increases the test sensitivity and discloses new insights into the skilled forelimb use in a rat model of Parkinson's disease. It may therefore become a valuable tool in future studies related to plasticity-induced changes in skilled forelimb reaching and grasping movements. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.5
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