Review



locomotor activity apparatus  (Columbus Instruments)


Bioz Verified Symbol Columbus Instruments is a verified supplier
Bioz Manufacturer Symbol Columbus Instruments manufactures this product  
  • Logo
  • About
  • News
  • Press Release
  • Team
  • Advisors
  • Partners
  • Contact
  • Bioz Stars
  • Bioz vStars
  • 96

    Structured Review

    Columbus Instruments locomotor activity apparatus
    Locomotor Activity Apparatus, supplied by Columbus Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1473 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pm37762458-248-4-9?v=Columbus+Instruments
    Average 96 stars, based on 1473 article reviews
    locomotor activity apparatus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    96/100 stars

    Images



    Similar Products

    96
    Columbus Instruments locomotor activity apparatus
    Locomotor Activity Apparatus, supplied by Columbus Instruments, 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/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pm37762458-248-4-9?v=Columbus+Instruments
    Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor activity apparatus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    96/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    95
    Omnitech Electronics locomotor activity apparatus locomotor activity
    Locomotor Activity Apparatus Locomotor Activity, supplied by Omnitech Electronics, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 95/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pmc07117981-57-0-29?v=Omnitech+Electronics
    Average 95 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor activity apparatus locomotor activity - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    95/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Anilab Inc locomotor activity apparatus
    Locomotor Activity Apparatus, supplied by Anilab Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pm38916640-58-8-11?v=Anilab+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor activity apparatus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    94
    Columbus Instruments locomotor apparatus
    Locomotor Apparatus, supplied by Columbus Instruments, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 94/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pmc09503672-62-6-9?v=Columbus+Instruments
    Average 94 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor apparatus - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    94/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Trikinetics Inc automated recording apparatus locomotor activity monitor
    Automated Recording Apparatus Locomotor Activity Monitor, supplied by Trikinetics Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pmc08422633-22-18-23?v=Trikinetics+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    automated recording apparatus locomotor activity monitor - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Trikinetics Inc locomotor activity apparatus lam25h
    Effects of different diets on activity, survival, and development. (A): Total activity was recorded in a group of 5 flies in narrow vials over 4 days in <t>LAM25H</t> TriKinetics activity monitor (n = 9 replicates, 5 flies per replicate). Y‐axis ‐activity counts. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Significant differences between different diets and the CD: †‐ versus Control females ( p < 0.0001), # ‐ versus Control males ( p < 0.0001). Significant difference between different diets and WD: ∅ ‐ versus WD females ( p < 0.01–0.0001), ∇ ‐ versus WD males ( p < 0.05). (B): Representative graph of circadian activity pattern of females and males maintained on a 12‐h LD cycle (lights on at 9:00am) over 4 days. Note a decrease in activity on the WD during daytime and increase at nighttime. Locomotor activity is expressed as the mean number of beam breaks per hour. (C): Total activity during night (9 pm ‐ 9 am) on different diets. Two‐way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: △‐ significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.0001), $‐ significant difference between WD males and SD males ( p < 0.05). (D): Cumulative survival over 14 days. Results are averages of nine replicates of 5 flies per vial. One‐way ANOVA. *‐ Significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.01–0.0001). (E, F): Survival of females on different diets (E). Two‐way ANOVA. a‐ significant difference between WD females and CD females ( p < 0.0001). Survival of males on different diets (F). The number of flies that survived was determined for each cohort once per day. Two‐way ANOVA. *‐ significant difference between WD males and CD males ( p < 0.05 – 0.0001). (G): Total number of pupae (mean ±s.e.m.) emerging from larvae sired by different fathers (CF, EF, WF, WEF). Two‐way ANOVA. b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). (H): Cumulative number of eclosed adult flies (mean ±s.e.m.) sired by different fathers. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test: b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). Error bars represent SEM. All experiments were repeated three times.
    Locomotor Activity Apparatus Lam25h, supplied by Trikinetics Inc, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/pmc07805546-114-7-6?v=Trikinetics+Inc
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor activity apparatus lam25h - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    90
    Muromachi Kikai locomotor activity measurement apparatus muromachi kikai co
    Effects of different diets on activity, survival, and development. (A): Total activity was recorded in a group of 5 flies in narrow vials over 4 days in <t>LAM25H</t> TriKinetics activity monitor (n = 9 replicates, 5 flies per replicate). Y‐axis ‐activity counts. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Significant differences between different diets and the CD: †‐ versus Control females ( p < 0.0001), # ‐ versus Control males ( p < 0.0001). Significant difference between different diets and WD: ∅ ‐ versus WD females ( p < 0.01–0.0001), ∇ ‐ versus WD males ( p < 0.05). (B): Representative graph of circadian activity pattern of females and males maintained on a 12‐h LD cycle (lights on at 9:00am) over 4 days. Note a decrease in activity on the WD during daytime and increase at nighttime. Locomotor activity is expressed as the mean number of beam breaks per hour. (C): Total activity during night (9 pm ‐ 9 am) on different diets. Two‐way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: △‐ significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.0001), $‐ significant difference between WD males and SD males ( p < 0.05). (D): Cumulative survival over 14 days. Results are averages of nine replicates of 5 flies per vial. One‐way ANOVA. *‐ Significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.01–0.0001). (E, F): Survival of females on different diets (E). Two‐way ANOVA. a‐ significant difference between WD females and CD females ( p < 0.0001). Survival of males on different diets (F). The number of flies that survived was determined for each cohort once per day. Two‐way ANOVA. *‐ significant difference between WD males and CD males ( p < 0.05 – 0.0001). (G): Total number of pupae (mean ±s.e.m.) emerging from larvae sired by different fathers (CF, EF, WF, WEF). Two‐way ANOVA. b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). (H): Cumulative number of eclosed adult flies (mean ±s.e.m.) sired by different fathers. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test: b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). Error bars represent SEM. All experiments were repeated three times.
    Locomotor Activity Measurement Apparatus Muromachi Kikai Co, supplied by Muromachi Kikai, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 90/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
    https://www.bioz.com/product/locomotor+activity+apparatus/us10131653-1509-12-16?v=Muromachi+Kikai
    Average 90 stars, based on 1 article reviews
    locomotor activity measurement apparatus muromachi kikai co - by Bioz Stars, 2026-08
    90/100 stars
      Buy from Supplier

    Image Search Results


    Effects of different diets on activity, survival, and development. (A): Total activity was recorded in a group of 5 flies in narrow vials over 4 days in LAM25H TriKinetics activity monitor (n = 9 replicates, 5 flies per replicate). Y‐axis ‐activity counts. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Significant differences between different diets and the CD: †‐ versus Control females ( p < 0.0001), # ‐ versus Control males ( p < 0.0001). Significant difference between different diets and WD: ∅ ‐ versus WD females ( p < 0.01–0.0001), ∇ ‐ versus WD males ( p < 0.05). (B): Representative graph of circadian activity pattern of females and males maintained on a 12‐h LD cycle (lights on at 9:00am) over 4 days. Note a decrease in activity on the WD during daytime and increase at nighttime. Locomotor activity is expressed as the mean number of beam breaks per hour. (C): Total activity during night (9 pm ‐ 9 am) on different diets. Two‐way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: △‐ significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.0001), $‐ significant difference between WD males and SD males ( p < 0.05). (D): Cumulative survival over 14 days. Results are averages of nine replicates of 5 flies per vial. One‐way ANOVA. *‐ Significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.01–0.0001). (E, F): Survival of females on different diets (E). Two‐way ANOVA. a‐ significant difference between WD females and CD females ( p < 0.0001). Survival of males on different diets (F). The number of flies that survived was determined for each cohort once per day. Two‐way ANOVA. *‐ significant difference between WD males and CD males ( p < 0.05 – 0.0001). (G): Total number of pupae (mean ±s.e.m.) emerging from larvae sired by different fathers (CF, EF, WF, WEF). Two‐way ANOVA. b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). (H): Cumulative number of eclosed adult flies (mean ±s.e.m.) sired by different fathers. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test: b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). Error bars represent SEM. All experiments were repeated three times.

    Journal: FASEB BioAdvances

    Article Title: Preference and detrimental effects of high fat, sugar, and salt diet in wild‐caught Drosophila simulans are reversed by flight exercise

    doi: 10.1096/fba.2020-00079

    Figure Lengend Snippet: Effects of different diets on activity, survival, and development. (A): Total activity was recorded in a group of 5 flies in narrow vials over 4 days in LAM25H TriKinetics activity monitor (n = 9 replicates, 5 flies per replicate). Y‐axis ‐activity counts. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test. Significant differences between different diets and the CD: †‐ versus Control females ( p < 0.0001), # ‐ versus Control males ( p < 0.0001). Significant difference between different diets and WD: ∅ ‐ versus WD females ( p < 0.01–0.0001), ∇ ‐ versus WD males ( p < 0.05). (B): Representative graph of circadian activity pattern of females and males maintained on a 12‐h LD cycle (lights on at 9:00am) over 4 days. Note a decrease in activity on the WD during daytime and increase at nighttime. Locomotor activity is expressed as the mean number of beam breaks per hour. (C): Total activity during night (9 pm ‐ 9 am) on different diets. Two‐way ANOVA, Tukey's multiple comparisons test: △‐ significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.0001), $‐ significant difference between WD males and SD males ( p < 0.05). (D): Cumulative survival over 14 days. Results are averages of nine replicates of 5 flies per vial. One‐way ANOVA. *‐ Significant difference between WD females and other female groups ( p < 0.01–0.0001). (E, F): Survival of females on different diets (E). Two‐way ANOVA. a‐ significant difference between WD females and CD females ( p < 0.0001). Survival of males on different diets (F). The number of flies that survived was determined for each cohort once per day. Two‐way ANOVA. *‐ significant difference between WD males and CD males ( p < 0.05 – 0.0001). (G): Total number of pupae (mean ±s.e.m.) emerging from larvae sired by different fathers (CF, EF, WF, WEF). Two‐way ANOVA. b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). (H): Cumulative number of eclosed adult flies (mean ±s.e.m.) sired by different fathers. Two‐way ANOVA. Tukey's multiple comparisons test: b ‐ significant difference between WD and CD groups ( p < 0.0001). Error bars represent SEM. All experiments were repeated three times.

    Article Snippet: Fly locomotor activity was measured in TriKinetics LAM25H locomotor activity apparatus.

    Techniques: Activity Assay, Control