The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

176 protocols using rotarod

1

Motor Function Assessment in Animal Models

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The rotarod has been shown to be used for the study of animal models of muscle weakness and peripheral neuropathies19 (link). Motor performance of the animals was assessed using the rotarod (Ugo Basile, Italy) with slight modifications to the procedure of Varghese et al.20 (link) Briefly, mice were placed on the rotarod, which was set to accelerate from 4 to 40 rotations per minute over a period of 200 s. The time at which the mice could no longer hold onto the rotarod was recorded as latency to fall. Each mouse was tested two times per day for the duration of the study. The test was conducted in a room with minimal disturbances of sound, movement, light, and temperature. A hanging wire test (wire hang test) was conducted by placing the animals on the top of a wire mesh lid. The wire mesh was slowly turned upside down and the latency of animals to fall off the wire mesh was measured in seconds (up to a maximum of 120 s).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Rotarod Testing for Motor Coordination

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Rotarod testing was used as an indicator of motor coordination.25 (link) The Rotarod (Ugo Basile, Varese, Italy) consists of a motorized rotating cylinder that is divided into five compartments. One mouse is placed into each compartment, and the rotating cylinder accelerates at a constant speed of 4 rpm before the cylinder gradually accelerates to 40 rpm over 300 s. The time taken for the mice to fall onto the lever below is recorded as an indicator of motor coordination. Mice were tested weekly from 7 to 20 weeks of age after habituation at Week 6 (Fig. 1A). Habituation involved placing them on the cylinder at a constant speed of 4 rpm, before accelerating to 40 rpm across 300 s. Mice that clung to the rotating rod or changed orientation during the test, not turning back and/or getting back to the upright walk for three consecutive turns, were removed from the apparatus, and the maximum score was assigned.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Assessing Locomotor and Fatigue-like Behavior in Mice

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
For three consecutive days before OA induction, mice were trained on the Rotarod and Treadmill apparatus (Ugo Basile, Gemonio, Italy).
Rotarod test: locomotor activity was evaluated by an accelerating protocol: 4–20 rpm in 600 s. The test was considered finished when the animal fell down (fall time), arrived at the cut-off (600 s) or if the animal stood still and completed three full passive rotations (last rotation time) [41 (link)].
Treadmill test: the fatigue-like behavior was assessed with the treadmill apparatus (Ugo Basile, Gemonio, Italy) with a +10° inclination, according to the following protocol: a session in acceleration 3–20 m/min for 15 min, followed by a session at a constant speed of 20 m/min until the cut-off (120 min) or exhaustion (5 s in the fatigue zone, i.e., the final part (1/3) of the running lane) [46 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Evaluating Motor Function in Mice

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Beam walking: Mice were trained to run along a 1 m long beam (3 cm thick) to their home cage. The test was performed on five consecutive days on a 2 cm thick beam, with three runs each day. The mice were video-taped and timed crossing the beam.
Rotarod test: Mice were habituated to the test situation by placing them on a Rotarod (Ugo Basile, Gemonio, Italy) with constant rotation (5 rpm) for 5 min the day prior to the test. In the test phase, two trials per mouse were performed with accelerating rotation (2–50 rpm within 4 min) and maximum duration of 5 min, with the time measured until mice fell off the rod.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Tetrad Evaluation of Cannabinoid Compounds

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Compounds were dissolved in pure DMSO and administered intraperitoneally at different doses using five to eight mice for each treatment group. cis-PET, trans-PET, and Δ9-trans-THC were administered 1 hour before assessing locomotion, catalepsy, body temperature, and analgesia (collectively referred as tetrad test). The rectal temperature was measured before (basal) and 1 hour after injection with a thermocouple probe (1 to 2 cm; Testo AG, Switzerland), and the change in rectal temperature was expressed as the difference between basal and postinjection temperatures. Catalepsy was measured using the bar test, where mice were retained in an imposed position with forelimbs resting on a bar 4 cm high; the end point of catalepsy was considered when both front limbs were removed or remained over 120 s. Locomotion was determined using the rotarod test; animals were placed on the rotarod (Ugo Basile, Italy) at 6 rpm, and the latency to fall was measured with a cutoff time of 120 s. Catalepsy and locomotion were measured in three trials. The hot plate test was performed to evaluate analgesia using a 54° to 56°C hot plate (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) with a Plexiglas cylinder. The latency to the first nociceptive response (paw lick or foot shake) was measured.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Neuromuscular Function Assessment in Mice

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Rotarod test: Mice were habituated to the test situation by placing them on a Rotarod (Ugo Basile) with constant rotation (5 rpm) for 5 min at two consecutive days with two trials per mouse per day separated by an interval of 30 min. In the test phase, two trials per mouse were performed with accelerating rotation (2–50 rpm within 4 min) with a maximum trial duration of 5 min in which the time was measured until mice fell off the rod. Beam walking test: Mice were trained by using a beam of 3 cm width and 100 cm in length at two consecutive days (one trial per mouse per day). At the test day, mice had to pass a 1 cm wide beam, 100 cm in length and beam crossing time and number off paw slips upon crossing was measured during three trials per mouse that were separated by an interval of 20 min. To determine the number of mistakes the number of paw slips per trial was counted upon examination of recorded videos. Wire Hang test: To measure limb grip strength mice were placed with their four limbs at a grid with wire diameter of 1 mm at 20 cm over the layer of bedding material, and the hanging time was measured until mice loosened their grip and fell down. Three trials of maximal 60 s per mouse were performed that were separated by an interval of 30 min.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Rotarod Test for Evaluating Mouse Balance

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
In the rotarod test, a mouse is placed on a rotating rod and must balance themselves in order to prevent from falling. On each trial, the rotarod (Ugo Basile, Italy) accelerated from 5 to 40 RPM over the course of 300 s, and the latency for each mouse to fall from the rotarod was noted. If the mouse performed a complete rotation holding onto the rod, this was also treated as a fall and the trial was ended. If the mouse reached the maximum allowed time, the trial was ended and scored as 300 s. The rotarod was wiped with ethanol between each mouse. Testing was performed at the same time on each day during the light phase of the light/dark cycle. Each mouse performed 3 trials per day on each of 4 consecutive days, with a one-hour inter-trial interval. Latency to fall off the rotarod on the three trials each day was averaged for each mouse to obtain a daily average.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Rotarod Assessment of Motor Function

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The motor function of mice was assessed using an automated Rotarod (Ugo Basile, Comerio, Italy). All mice were pretrained before injury at a constant speed of 40 rpm and were tested on day 14 post-TBI. The average latency to fall from the rod was recorded, and the maximum cutoff time was 180 s.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Accelerating Rotarod Motor Function Assay

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Mice were assessed for gross motor function using an accelerating Rotarod (Ugo Basile). Mice were trained until they were able to remain on the Rotarod (4 rpm) for 120 s. One hour after training, five consecutive trials were performed on an accelerating Rotarod with 5 min between trials. Latency to fall was measured as the apparatus accelerated from 4 to 40 rpm over 5 min.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Evaluating Neuroprotective Effects of CN016

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The baseline of every neurological behavior test
was measured in 6-week-old C57BL/6J female mice prior to treatment.
In the first week, 7-week-old C57BL/6J female mice did not undergo
any tests, and CN016 (5, 10 and 20 mg/kg) was given by IP 1 h before
IP of paclitaxel (4.5 mg/kg) on alternate days (days 1, 3, 5, and
7). Three behavioral tests were performed on the same groups of animals
once per week and no more than two behavioral tests on the same day.
The first behavioral experiment was performed on the next day after
the last course of treatment. Mechanical hyperalgesia was evaluated
by using von Frey filament (#2390, IITC Inc., USA), thermal sensitivity
was determined by the tail immersion assay (water temperature: 48–49
°C), and motor coordination was assessed by rotarod (#7750, Ugo
Basile Biological Research Apparatus, Italy). After the first drug
implantation, the body weight was recorded every 6 days throughout
the entire experiment.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!