Extended Data Fig. 5: Gait analysis of mice treated with different bioconstructs.

a, Schematic of the experimental setup during Digigait data collection. The gait of mice was continuously imaged while they walked on a transparent treadmill. b, (top) Representative images of a walking mouse captured in (a), and (bottom) the digital paw prints generated by the Digigait analysis software. Each paw of the mice was recognized and labelled in a different color. c, (left) Schematic of digital paw print representing the indices measured in gait analysis. (right) A complete stride consisted of two phases: a stance phase and a swing phase. The stance phase could be further divided into a brake phase and a propel phase. d–n, Gait indices notably changed 6 weeks following VML injury. Compared with uninjured muscles, muscles with VML defects demonstrated gait abnormalities in brake time (d), max dA/dt (e), propel time (f), min dA/dt (g), stance time (h), swing time (i), stride time (j), stride frequency (k), stride length (l), paw area (m), and ataxia coefficient (n), which describes the step-to-step gait variability (n = 12 biologically independent experiments). o-r, Quantification of gait indices, including the stride time (o), the stride frequency (p), the stride length (q), and the paw area (r) after transplantation of MuSCs using Ctrl (dECM only), NC^FGF(E), or NC^FGF(E)/NC^IGF(L) scaffolds (n = 12 biologically independent experiments). Data in d-r are presented as the mean ± SEM. P values were determined by two-sided t test (d-n) or one-way ANOVA (o-r). *P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01, ***P ≤ 0.001, ****P ≤ 0.0001; ns, not significant.

Source data