SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A translational approach to capture gait signatures of neurological disorders in mice and humans.

Sci Rep · 2017-06-12

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03336-1PMID: 28607434

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

A method for capturing gait signatures in neurological conditions that allows comparison of human gait with animal models would be of great value in translational research. However, the velocity dependence of gait parameters and differences between quadruped and biped gait have made this comparison challenging. Here we present an approach that accounts for changes in velocity during walking and allows for translation across species. In mice, we represented spatial and temporal gait parameters as a function of velocity and established regression models that reproducibly capture the signatures of these relationships during walking. In experimental parkinsonism models, regression curves representing these relationships shifted from baseline, implicating changes in gait signatures, but with marked differences between models. Gait parameters in healthy human subjects followed similar strict velocity dependent relationships which were altered in Parkinson's patients in ways that resemble some but not all mouse models. This novel approach is suitable to quantify qualitative walking abnormalities related to CNS circuit dysfunction across species, identify appropriate animal models, and it provides important translational opportunities.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.