Fig. 3: ALMA analysis of fine paw placement in spinal cord injured mice in the ladder rung test. | Communications Biology

Fig. 3: ALMA analysis of fine paw placement in spinal cord injured mice in the ladder rung test.

From: A deep learning-based toolbox for Automated Limb Motion Analysis (ALMA) in murine models of neurological disorders

Fig. 3

a Timeline of the traumatic spinal cord injury experiment. b Schematic of the ladder rung system used to record the fine paw placement of mice during the spinal cord injury experiment indicating the DeepLabCut (DLC) markerless paw labeling (yellow, red, dark blue and light blue dots). c Photographic image of a mouse running on the treadmill showing the automatic detection of footfall, as predicted in time and space by the toolbox. d Automated detection algorithm used to predict footfalls in space and time. e Quantitative parameters extracted from ALMA for the regular walk showing the mean number, mean depth, and mean duration of footfalls for all time points (cyan, baseline; purple, 3 dpi; and orange, 21 dpi). Repeated one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used to the analyze the regular ladder rung results (mean no. footfalls, baseline vs. 3 dpi [P = 0.0002], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.021], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.223]; mean depth, baseline vs. 3 dpi [P = 0.003], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.013], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.612]; and mean duration, baseline vs. 3 dpi [p = 0.053], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.131], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.838]; n = 6). f Quantitative parameters extracted from ALMA for the regular walk showing the mean number, mean depth, and mean duration of footfalls for all time points (cyan, baseline; purple, 3 dpi; and orange, 21 dpi). Repeated one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used to the analyze the irregular ladder rung results (mean no. footfalls, baseline vs. 3 dpi: [P < 0.0001], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P < 0.0001], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.002]; mean depth, baseline vs. 3 dpi [P = 0.745], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P > 0.999], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P > 0.999]; and mean duration, baseline vs. 3 dpi, P = [0.028], baseline vs. 21 dpi [P = 0.028], 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi [P > 0.999]; n = 6). g Quantitative evaluation of the total depth and total duration of footfalls for all time points (cyan, baseline; purple, 3 dpi; and orange, 21 dpi). Repeated one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used to analyze total footfall depth on regular ladder rungs (baseline vs. 3 dpi, P = 0.0047; baseline vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.043; and 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.175; n = 6), total depth on irregular ladder rungs (baseline vs. 3 dpi, P < 0.0001; baseline vs. 21 dpi, P < 0.0001; 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.0039; n = 6), total duration on regular ladder rungs (baseline vs. 3 dpi, P = 0.0042; baseline vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.173; 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.101; n = 6), and total duration on irregular ladder rungs (baseline vs. 3 dpi, P < 0.0001; baseline vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.004; 3 dpi vs. 21 dpi, P = 0.041; n = 6). h Correlation between the ALMA automatic detection of the number of footfalls using the deviation algorithm and a fully manual detection (left panel; r = 0.9845, P < 0.0001; Pearson’s correlation coefficient) and between the ALMA semi-automatic detection of the number of footfalls using the deviation algorithm and a fully manual detection (left panel; r = 0.9989, P < 0.0001; Pearson’s correlation coefficient). In all panels, data are presented as mean ± SEM; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. Px pixels, dpi days post-injury.

Back to article page