Behavioral Analysis after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury

1. Behavioral Analysis after Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Zin Khaing May 5th, 2010.

2. Cervical SCI Study #2 • Animals: 12 rats total. 4 gelfoam, 4 GMHA gel implants, 4 LN/GMHA gel implants • (lost 1 HA hydrogel, and 1 HA/LN hydrogel implanted animals) • Injury: Lateral hemisection at cervical cord C3-C4 • Objectives: • - develop surgical proficiency • determine appropriate behavioral tests • perform histological analysis after 12 weeks

3. Behavioral Tests • Cylinder test (Limb preference (cylinder) test • Forelimb exploration will be assessed. • The numbers of forelimb contacts (left, right, and both) with the cylinder walls were counted and expressed as a percentage of total placements. • 2. Foot fault (Grid test) • Paw placement on the grid bar for each limb was assessed as animals walked on a plastic-coated wire mesh. • 3. Forelimb placing • Forelimb placing tests response to sensorimotor/proprioceptive detection of sensory stimuli with the vibrissae (whiskers). This test has been described previously (Schallert et al., 2002) • 4. Adhesive removal (Sensory bias) • Small adhesive backed (sticky) labels are placed on the distal–radial aspect of both forelimbs • Contact and removal times are recorded • Tests preference for responding sensory stimuli as well as motor coordination

4. Enhanced Function of the Good Limb

5. Enhanced Function of the Good Limb

7. Forelimb Locomotor Scale Sandrow et al, 2008, Exp Neurol. 2008 April ; 210(2): 489–500

8. Forelimb Locomotor Scale

9. All animals

11. Alternators ONLY

12. Alternators ONLY

13. Cylinder Preference Test

14. Cylinder Height

15. Behavioral Tests • Cylinder test (Limb preference (cylinder) test • Forelimb exploration will be assessed. • The numbers of forelimb contacts (left, right, and both) with the cylinder walls were counted and expressed as a percentage of total placements. • 2. Foot fault (Grid test) • Paw placement on the grid bar for each limb was assessed as animals walked on a plastic-coated wire mesh. • 3. Forelimb placing • Forelimb placing tests response to sensorimotor/proprioceptive detection of sensory stimuli with the vibrissae (whiskers). This test has been described previously (Schallert et al., 2002) • 4. Adhesive removal (Sensory bias) • Small adhesive backed (sticky) labels are placed on the distal–radial aspect of both forelimbs • Contact and removal times are recorded • Tests preference for responding sensory stimuli as well as motor coordination

16. Sticky Dot Test

17. Sticky Dot Test

18. Behavioral Tests • Cylinder test (Limb preference (cylinder) test • Forelimb exploration will be assessed. • The numbers of forelimb contacts (left, right, and both) with the cylinder walls were counted and expressed as a percentage of total placements. • 2. Foot fault (Grid test) • Paw placement on the grid bar for each limb was assessed as animals walked on a plastic-coated wire mesh. • 3. Forelimb placing • Forelimb placing tests response to sensorimotor/proprioceptive detection of sensory stimuli with the vibrissae (whiskers). This test has been described previously (Schallert et al., 2002) • 4. Adhesive removal (Sensory bias) • Small adhesive backed (sticky) labels are placed on the distal–radial aspect of both forelimbs • Contact and removal times are recorded • Tests preference for responding sensory stimuli as well as motor coordination

19. Forelimb placement test Obtained from: M.T. Woodlee et al. / Experimental Neurology 191 (2005) 310–317

20. Placing

21. Hair Removal

22. Hair Removal

23. Hair Removal