Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Research ArticleResearch Article: Methods/New Tools, Novel Tools and Methods

Combination of Defined CatWalk Gait Parameters for Predictive Locomotion Recovery in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Rat Models

Ivanna K. Timotius, Lara Bieler, Sebastien Couillard-Despres, Beatrice Sandner, Daniel Garcia-Ovejero, Florencia Labombarda, Veronica Estrada, Hans W. Müller, Jürgen Winkler, Jochen Klucken, Bjoern Eskofier, Norbert Weidner and Radhika Puttagunta
eNeuro 16 February 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0497-20.2021; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0497-20.2021
Ivanna K. Timotius
1Machine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen 91052, Germany
2Department of Electronics Engineering, Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga 50711, Indonesia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Ivanna K. Timotius
Lara Bieler
3Institute of Experimental Neuroregeneration, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria
4Spinal Cord Injury and Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg (SCI-TReCS), Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Lara Bieler
Sebastien Couillard-Despres
3Institute of Experimental Neuroregeneration, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria
4Spinal Cord Injury and Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg (SCI-TReCS), Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria
5Austrian Cluster for Tissue Regeneration, Vienna 1200, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sebastien Couillard-Despres
Beatrice Sandner
6Spinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg 69118, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Garcia-Ovejero
7Laboratory of Neuroinflammation, Hospital Nacional de Paraplejicos, Servicio de Salud de Castilla-La Mancha, Toledo 45071, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniel Garcia-Ovejero
Florencia Labombarda
8Laboratorio de Bioquímica Neuroendocrina, Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Buenos Aires, C1428 ADN, Argentina
9Departamento de Bioquímica Humana, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Buenos Aires, C1121A6B, Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Veronica Estrada
10Molecular Neurobiology Lab, Department of Neurology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hans W. Müller
10Molecular Neurobiology Lab, Department of Neurology, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf 40225, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jürgen Winkler
11Department of Molecular Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jochen Klucken
11Department of Molecular Neurology, University Hospital Erlangen, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen 91054, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bjoern Eskofier
1Machine Learning and Data Analytics Lab, Department of Computer Science, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen 91052, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Norbert Weidner
6Spinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg 69118, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Radhika Puttagunta
6Spinal Cord Injury Center, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg 69118, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Radhika Puttagunta
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    An example of CatWalk image captured from below an injured rat. The paws in contact with the glass walkway are indicated with the colored boxes (magenta: right hindpaw; yellow: left forepaw).

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    Scatter plot of several gait parameters obtained from the individual run data from Study 1. The injured (red) and uninjured (dark gray) animals are denoted by color here. The different shapes in each group represent the different individuals. a, Forepaw swing time and forepaw stride length. b, Forepaw duty cycle and hindpaw BOS. c, Forepaw BOS and number of paw support = [Support_One + 2 × Support_Diagonal + 2 × Support_Girdle + 2 × Support_Lateral + 3 × Support_Three + 4 × Support_Four]/100.

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    (a, b) Combinations of gait parameters (pLDA) and BBB scores for each group in Study 1 without treatment (mean ± SEM). (c, d) Treated and untreated pLDA and BBB scores for moderate contusions. (e, f) Treated and untreated pLDA and BBB scores for moderate-severe contusions. UI: uninjured; Veh.Mod.: vehicle moderate SCI; Veh.Mod-Sev.: vehicle moderate-severe SCI; Exp.Mod.: experimental moderate SCI; Exp.Mod-Sev.: experimental moderate severe SCI; Exp.Mod-Sev.: experimental moderate severe SCI; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ####pcompared with UI < 0.0001.

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    (a, b) Combinations of gait parameters (pLDA) and BBB scores for vehicle and young groups in Studies 2 and 3, respectively (mean ± SEM). (c-d) The Two-way ANOVA in Study 2 shows significant effects on pLDA of both groups (p  = 0.037) and time (p < 0.00001), without significant interaction. In the RI-controlled BBB score (Study 2), significant effects of both groups (p  = 0.003) and time (p < 0.00001) were observed, as well as significant interaction (p  = 0.049). (e-f) The Two-way ANOVA in Study 3 shows significant effect on pLDA of both group (p < 0.00001) and time (p < 0.00001), with significant interaction (p < 0.001). In the BBB score (Study 3), significant effect of time (p < 0.00001) was observed, but no significant effect of group and interaction; *p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001 Prog.: progesterone; Veh.: vehicle.

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    a, Combinations of gait parameters (pLDA) of uninjured rats and vehicle SCI rats in Study 2 (S2: Th8 contusion), Study 4 (S4: Th8/9 dorsal hemisection), and Study 5 (S5: C4 bilateral dorsal column lesion). b, Combinations of gait parameters (pLDA) of vehicle SCI rats in Studies 2 and 4. c, BBB scores of vehicle SCI rats in Studies 2 and 4; mean ± SEM; ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001, ###pcompared with UI < 0.001, ####pcompared with UI < 0.0001; UI: uninjured; Veh.: vehicle; Cont.: contusion; DH.: dorsal hemisection.

  • Figure 6.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6.

    Schematic representation of the pLDA scores for varying lesion types and severities.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Overview of the studies

    Study 1Study 2Study 3Study 4Study 5
    AnimalsFemale Fischer 344Male WistarFemale Fischer 344Female WistarFemale Fischer 344
    SCITh8/9 Contusion
    Mod. and Mod.Sev
    (150 kDyn)
    Th8 Contusion
    Mod.Sev.
    (200 kDyn)
    Th8 Contusion
    Mod.Sev.
    (200 kDyn)
    Th8/9 Dorsal
    Hemisection
    Scouten wire-knife
    transection
    C4 bilateral dorsal column
    tungsten wire-knife
    transection
    Time points of gait
    assessment
    UI, 60 dpiUI, 7, 30, 60 dpiUI, 15, 22, 29, 36, 43 dpiUI, 30, 60 dpiUI, 30 dpi
    CatWalk systemCatWalk XTCatWalk 7.1CatWalk XTCatWalk XTCatWalk XT
    GroupsUI
    Veh.Mod
    Veh.Mod.-Sev
    Exp.Mod
    Exp.Mod.-Sev.
    UI
    SCI+Veh.
    SCI+Prog.
    Young SCI
    Old SCI
    UI
    SCI Veh.
    UI
    SCI Veh.
    • UI: uninjured; Prog.: progesterone; Mod.: Moderate; Sev.: severe; Veh.: vehicle; Exp.: experiment.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Number of animals and CatWalk runs of Study 1

    Study 1#Animals#Runs
    Uninjured627
    Vehicle*Mod.831
    Mod-Sev.730
    Experiment*Mod.838
    Mod-Sev.939
    • *60 dpi; Mod.: moderate; Mod-Sev.: moderate severe.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Number of animals and CatWalk runs of Study 2

    Study 2#Animals#Runs
    Uninjured518
    Vehicle
    (SCI)
    7 dpi416
    30 dpi732
    60 dpi732
    Experiment
    (SCI + Prog.)
    7 dpi727
    30 dpi829
    60 dpi727
    • Prog: progesterone.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Number of animals and CatWalk runs of Study 3

    Study 3#Animals#Runs
    Young: injury at 3 months0 dpi (uninjured)1991
    15 dpi27
    22 dpi629
    29 dpi628
    36 dpi625
    43 dpi728
    Old: injury at 20–24 months0 dpi (uninjured)12131
    15 dpi337
    22 dpi640
    29 dpi633
    • View popup
    Table 5

    Number of animals and CatWalk runs of Study 4

    Study 4#Animals#Runs
    0 dpi [baseline (uninjured)]1963
    30 dpi1642
    60 dpi1236
    • View popup
    Table 6

    Number of animals and CatWalk runs of Study 5

    Study 5#Animals#Runs
    C40 dpi (uninjured)636
    30 dpi636
    • View popup
    Table 7

    List of gait parameters pi (Np = 9) and their corresponding parameter-weight w1,i for the linear combination of parameters

    w1,ipi
    1Forepaw swing time (s)
    0.0015Forepaw stride length (cm)
    0.0005Forepaw duty cycle (%)
    −0.0103Hindpaw BOS (cm)
    0.00002RI (%)
    0.001Body speed (cm/s)
    −0.0001AB sequence (%)
    −0.0015Forepaw max contact at (%)
    −0.0017Hindpaw stride length (cm)
    • AB sequence: Alternate (LF-RH-RF-LH).

    • RF: right forepaw; LF: left forepaw; RH: right hindpaw; LH: left hindpaw.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Mean and SD of pLDA and several CatWalk parameters from vehicle moderate SCI and vehicle moderate-severe SCI models in Study 1 at 60 dpi and their p values as shown in Figure 3A

    Study 1Veh.Mod.
    Mean ± SD
    Veh.Mod-Sev.
    Mean ± SD
    p value
    pLDA0.059 ± 0.0150.037 ± 0.0160.018*
    Forepaw swing time (s)0.11 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.011
    Forepaw stride length (cm)10.5 ± 1.29.6 ± 0.80.21
    Forepaw duty cycle (%)64.7 ± 5.068.3 ± 3.40.25
    Hindpaw BOS (cm)3.6 ± 0.34.1 ± 0.70.15
    RI (%)93.8 ± 2.685.9 ± 10.50.077
    Body speed (cm/s)32.9 ± 6.527.5 ± 3.50.23
    AB sequence (%)64.1 ± 22.962.4 ± 16.81
    Forepaw max contact
    at (%)
    48.0 ± 3.952.9 ± 3.20.037*
    Hindpaw stride length (cm)12.2 ± 1.011.7 ± 1.61
    • *p < 0.05.

    • View popup
    Table 9

    Mean and SD of pLDA and several CatWalk parameters from the SCI and SCI+PROG models in Study 2 at 60 dpi and their p values as shown in Figure 4C

    Study 2SCI
    Mean ± SD
    SCI+PROG
    Mean ± SD
    p value
    pLDA0.029 ± 0.0210.059 ± 0.0270.040*
    Forepaw swing time (s)0.09 ± 0.010.12 ± 0.020.040*
    Forepaw stride length (cm)9.0 ± 1.510.4 ± 1.60.103
    Forepaw duty cycle (%)72.2 ± 3.267.6 ± 2.00.010*
    Hindpaw BOS (cm)5.1 ± 0.84.6 ± 0.80.28
    RI (%)89.8 ± 7.397.8 ± 2.40.027*
    Body speed (cm/s)27.9 ± 6.730.5 ± 8.10.52
    AB sequence (%)55.6 ± 15.466.3 ± 19.50.28
    Forepaw max contact
    at (%)
    43.5 ± 3.943.9 ± 1.70.79
    Hindpaw stride length (cm)11.6 ± 1.912.1 ± 1.20.60
    • *p < 0.05

    • View popup
    Table 10

    Mean and SD of pLDA and several CatWalk parameters from the young and old SCI models in Study 3 at 29 dpi and their p values as shown in Figure 4E

    Study 3Young
    Mean ± SD
    Old
    Mean ± SD
    p value
    pLDA0.034 ± 0.027−0.015 ± 0.0180.0049**
    Forepaw swing
    time (s)
    0.10 ± 0.010.088 ± 0.0090.21
    Forepaw stride
    length (cm)
    11.0 ± 2.19.1 ± 1.10.079
    Forepaw duty
    cycle (%)
    67.4 ± 6.674.0 ± 3.10.061
    Hindpaw
    BOS (cm)
    4.9 ± 0.86.4 ± 0.70.0036**
    RI (%)87.0 ± 14.785.5 ± 5.40.82
    Body speed
    (cm/s)
    37.2 ± 9.726.4 ± 5.00.043*
    AB sequence
    (%)
    56.8 ± 20.343.1 ± 12.40.20
    Forepaw max
    contact at (%)
    48.6 ± 5.960.8 ± 4.40.0028**
    Hindpaw stride
    length (cm)
    13.5 ± 2.612.3 ± 1.10.33
    • *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01

    • View popup
    Table 11

    Mean and SD of pLDA and several CatWalk parameters from Studies 2 and 4 at 30 dpi and their p values (ANOVA and multiple comparison tests by Bonferroni correction) shown in Figure 5A

    30 dpiStudy 2
    Mean ± SD
    Study 4
    Mean ± SD
    p value
    pLDA0.025 ± 0.0170.075 ± 0.029<0.001***
    Forepaw swing
    time (s)
    0.09 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.020.006**
    Forepaw stride
    length (cm)
    9.2 ± 0.813.3 ± 2.90.001**
    Forepaw duty
    cycle (%)
    72.8 ± 3.158.8 ± 7.6<0.0001****
    Hindpaw BOS
    (cm)
    5.0 ± 0.73.6 ± 0.90.003**
    RI (%)91.2 ± 2.878.8 ± 29.40.69
    Body speed (cm/s)29.3 ± 5.942.8 ± 10.60.007**
    AB sequence (%)44.2 ± 11.162.9 ± 28.90.26
    Forepaw max
    contact at (%)
    44.3 ± 5.741.3 ± 6.50.80
    Hindpaw stride
    length (cm)
    12.0 ± 1.716.8 ± 2.3<0.0001****
    • **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001

    • View popup
    Table 12

    Mean and SD of pLDA and several CatWalk parameters from Study 5 and their p values (t test without assuming equal variances) shown in Figure 5A

    Study 5Uninjured C4
    Mean ± SD
    C4 SCI, 30 dpi
    Mean ± SD
    p value
    pLDA0.112 ± 0.0120.120 ± 0.0100.28
    Forepaw swing
    time (s)
    0.14 ± 0.010.14 ± 0.010.55
    Forepaw stride
    length (cm)
    13.1 ± 1.415.2 ± 0.60.01**
    Forepaw duty
    cycle (%)
    61.3 ± 4.157.9 ± 1.20.10
    Hindpaw BOS (cm)2.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.50.78
    RI (%)98.2 ± 1.699.4 ± 1.40.18
    Body speed (cm/s)32.6 ± 8.741.5 ± 3.90.06
    AB sequence (%)93.1 ± 11.183.3 ± 9.10.13
    Forepaw max
    contact at (%)
    43.1 ± 3.040.6 ± 2.90.18
    Hindpaw stride
    length (cm)
    12.9 ± 1.315.1 ± 0.60.008**
    • **p < 0.01

Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 8 (2)
eNeuro
Vol. 8, Issue 2
March/April 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Combination of Defined CatWalk Gait Parameters for Predictive Locomotion Recovery in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Rat Models
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Combination of Defined CatWalk Gait Parameters for Predictive Locomotion Recovery in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Rat Models
Ivanna K. Timotius, Lara Bieler, Sebastien Couillard-Despres, Beatrice Sandner, Daniel Garcia-Ovejero, Florencia Labombarda, Veronica Estrada, Hans W. Müller, Jürgen Winkler, Jochen Klucken, Bjoern Eskofier, Norbert Weidner, Radhika Puttagunta
eNeuro 16 February 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0497-20.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0497-20.2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Combination of Defined CatWalk Gait Parameters for Predictive Locomotion Recovery in Experimental Spinal Cord Injury Rat Models
Ivanna K. Timotius, Lara Bieler, Sebastien Couillard-Despres, Beatrice Sandner, Daniel Garcia-Ovejero, Florencia Labombarda, Veronica Estrada, Hans W. Müller, Jürgen Winkler, Jochen Klucken, Bjoern Eskofier, Norbert Weidner, Radhika Puttagunta
eNeuro 16 February 2021, 8 (2) ENEURO.0497-20.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0497-20.2021
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Significance Statement
    • Introduction
    • Material and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
    • Synthesis
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • CatWalk
  • gait parameter
  • linear discriminant analysis
  • locomotion recovery
  • preclinical development
  • spinal cord injury

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Research Article: Methods/New Tools

  • Age-related decline in myelin markers and oligodendrocyte density in rhesus macaque prefrontal cortex
  • Different behavioral measures of conditioned magazine activity can tell different stories about brain function
  • Inducible CreERT2 mouse lines for characterization of retinal bipolar cell subtypes
Show more Research Article: Methods/New Tools

Novel Tools and Methods

  • Age-related decline in myelin markers and oligodendrocyte density in rhesus macaque prefrontal cortex
  • Different behavioral measures of conditioned magazine activity can tell different stories about brain function
  • Inducible CreERT2 mouse lines for characterization of retinal bipolar cell subtypes
Show more Novel Tools and Methods

Subjects

  • Novel Tools and Methods
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.