Review



five lane mouse rotarod set up  (Med Associates Inc)


Bioz Verified Symbol Med Associates Inc is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Med Associates Inc manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
    • 96
      Buy from Supplier

    Structured Review

    Med Associates Inc five lane mouse rotarod set up
    Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in <t>Rotarod</t> (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].
    Five Lane Mouse Rotarod Set Up, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1009 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/five+lane+mouse+rotarod+set+up/pmc10206007-112-8-12?v=Med+Associates+Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1009 article reviews
    five lane mouse rotarod set up - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    96/100 stars

    Images

    1) Product Images from "Complement C4-deficient mice have a high mortality rate during PTZ-induced epileptic seizures, which correlates with cognitive problems and the deficiency in the expression of Egr1 and other immediate early genes"

    Article Title: Complement C4-deficient mice have a high mortality rate during PTZ-induced epileptic seizures, which correlates with cognitive problems and the deficiency in the expression of Egr1 and other immediate early genes

    Journal: Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience

    doi: 10.3389/fncel.2023.1170031

    Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in Rotarod (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].
    Figure Legend Snippet: Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in Rotarod (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].

    Techniques Used: Comparison, Mouse Assay, Whisker Assay



    Similar Products

    five lane mouse rotarod set up  (Med Associates Inc)
    96
    Med Associates Inc five lane mouse rotarod set up
    Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in <t>Rotarod</t> (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].
    Five Lane Mouse Rotarod Set Up, supplied by Med Associates Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/five+lane+mouse+rotarod+set+up/pmc10206007-112-8-12?v=Med+Associates+Inc
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    five lane mouse rotarod set up - by Bioz Stars, 2026-07
    96/100 stars
    		  Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in Rotarod (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].

    Journal: Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience

    Article Title: Complement C4-deficient mice have a high mortality rate during PTZ-induced epileptic seizures, which correlates with cognitive problems and the deficiency in the expression of Egr1 and other immediate early genes

    doi: 10.3389/fncel.2023.1170031

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Comparison of motor and cognitive functions of unmanipulated WT, C3-, and C4B-deficient mice. Unmanipulated WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice were assessed for their performance in Rotarod (A) and Barns maze (B,C) tests as described in Section “2. Materials and methods”. In panel (A) , the time to fall from the rotating rod is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Rotarod test on day 1, day 2, day 3, day 4, and day 5. The mean ± standard error (SE) of time to fall (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown [C3 –/– vs. WT: ** p < 0.01, C4 –/– vs. WT: *** p < 0.001; two-way ANOVA, C4 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 13.90; C3 –/– vs. WT: F (4,16) = 6.439; C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– : not significant; n = 3 mice]. In panels (B,C) , the latency time is shown for WT, or C3 –/– , or C4B –/– mice in the Barns maze test during the training period on day 1, day 2, day 3, and day 4 (B) , and the final trial on day 5 (C) . In panel (B) , the mean ± standard error (SE) of latency time (y-axis) vs. day of training (x-axis) is shown. The indicated difference on day 4 was statistically significant, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [* p < 0.05 for comparisons C4 –/– vs. WT and C4 –/– vs. C3 –/– on day 4; n = (4 mice × 3 trails) = 12]. In panel (C) , the median with 10%/90% percentiles of individual mice are shown in a box and whisker plot with the mean value indicated by “+”. The indicated differences were statistically significant for the final trial on day 5, as determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post-hoc tests [** p < 0.01 for comparisons between two groups; F (2,9) = 23.56; n = 4 mice].

    Article Snippet: To test motor functions, we utilized a standard five-lane mouse Rotarod set-up (Med Associates Inc., Fairfax, VT, USA) with programmed accelerated rotation (4–40 rpm).

    Techniques: Comparison, Mouse Assay, Whisker Assay