accurotor four animal rotarod (Omnitech Electronics)
Structured Review

Accurotor Four Animal Rotarod, supplied by Omnitech Electronics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 93/100, based on 234 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/product/accurotor-four-animal-rotarod/pmc12374248-75-4-8?v=Omnitech+Electronics
Average 93 stars, based on 234 article reviews
Images
1) Product Images from "A Longitudinal Study of Sex Differences in a TDP ‐43 Mouse Model Reveals STI1 Regulation of TDP ‐43 Proteinopathy and Motor Deficits"
Article Title: A Longitudinal Study of Sex Differences in a TDP ‐43 Mouse Model Reveals STI1 Regulation of TDP ‐43 Proteinopathy and Motor Deficits
Journal: Journal of Neurochemistry
doi: 10.1111/jnc.70204
Figure Legend Snippet: TAR4 mice show sex‐specific motor deficits. (a) Longitudinal timeline for hemizygous TAR4 mice. (b) At each timepoint mice were analyzed on rotarod, wire hang, catwalk gait analysis, hindlimb clasping, open field, and weight tracking. (c, d) Rotarod test of TAR4 and wild‐type male and female mice. The average amount of time spent on the rod is shown across four time points. (e, f) Wire hang task of male and female TAR4 and wild‐type mice. (g, h) Stride length in millimeters measured by catwalk gait analysis test for male and female TAR4 and wild‐type mice. (i, j) Swing time measured in seconds (s) by catwalk gait analysis test of male and female TAR4 and wild‐type mice. (k, l) BOS measurement in centimeters (cm) is shown for male TAR4 and wild‐type mice of front and hindlimbs. (m, n) Female TAR4 and wild‐type BOS. Mixed‐effects model with multiple comparisons was used to analyze differences within groups (black lines) and between groups (asterisks above time points). All data are represented as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. Numbers represent mice tested in each timepoint.
Techniques Used:
Figure Legend Snippet: Reducing cytoplasmic TDP‐43 levels in TAR4 mice does not rescue motor deficits in males. (a, b) Rotarod performance as measured by latency to fall in seconds (s) is shown for TAR4, TAR4‐STI1 −/+ , and TAR4‐STI1 TGA males and females over time, respectively. (c, d) Wire hang performance as measured by latency to fall in seconds (s) is shown for TAR4, TAR4‐STI1 −/+ , and TAR4‐STI1 TGA males and females over time, respectively. (e, f) Hindlimb clasping scores are shown at final time point of 15–17 months of age for males and females, respectively. (g, h) Probability of survival is shown for TAR4, TAR4‐STI1 −/+ , and TAR4‐STI1 TGA males and females, respectively. Mixed‐effects model with multiple comparisons was used to analyze datasets (a–d); differences within groups are represented as black lines and between groups as asterisks above time points. Ordinary one‐way ANOVA with multiple comparisons was used for analysis of datasets (e, f). Simple survival analysis (Kaplan–Meier) with multiple comparisons was used for analysis of (g, h) analysis. All data are represented as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. Numbers represent number of mice at each timepoint.
Techniques Used:
Figure Legend Snippet: Hypomorphic STI1 allele is sufficient to correct some motor deficits in TAR4 males. (a, b) Western blot of cytoplasmic TDP‐43 proteins from TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET male cortices quantified relative to amido black. (c, d) Western blot of urea‐soluble TDP‐43 levels from TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET male cortices quantified relative to amido black. (e) Rotarod performance as measured by latency to fall is shown for TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET males. (f) Wire hang performance as measured by latency to fall is shown for TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET males. (g–j) Catwalk gait analysis performance for TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET mice showing swing time (s), stride length, front BOS, and hind BOS. (k) Stride length for each paw of TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET mice at 15–17 months of age. (l) Hindlimb clasping reflex scores for TAR4 and TAR4‐ΔHET mice. Unpaired t‐tests were used for (a–d) analysis ( n = 5 mice/group). Mixed‐effects model with multiple comparisons was used to analyze datasets (e–j); differences within groups are represented as black lines and between groups as asterisks above time points. Two‐way ANOVA with multiple comparisons was used for (k) analysis. Unpaired t ‐test was used for analysis of dataset (l). All data are represented as mean ± SEM. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001. Numbers represent number of mice at each timepoint.
Techniques Used: Western Blot

