Fig 1.
Comparison of BMS scores between mice which fell down from the beam and those which retained on the beam after SCI.
(A, C, E, G) Percentages of ICR (A, E) and C57BL/6 (C, G) mice before (pre) and 1 day (d), and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks (w) after mild (A, C) and severe (E, G) SCI which did not fall down from the beam during the test. (B, D, F, H) ICR (B, F) and C57BL/6 (D, H) mice 1 day, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after mild (B, D) and severe (F, H) SCI were divided into those which dropped from the beam and those which retained on the beam and BMS scores of the 2 groups were compared. Mann-Whitney U test, **p < 0.01.
Fig 2.
Comparison of BMS scores between mice which did not move forward on the beam and those which did after SCI.
(A, C, E, G) Percentages of ICR (A, E) and C57BL/6 (C, G) mice before (pre) and 1 day (d), and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks (w) after mild (A, C) and severe (E, G) SCI which moved forward on the beam during the test. (B, D, F, H) ICR (B, F) and C57BL/6 (D, H) mice 1 day, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after mild (B, D) and severe (F, H) SCI were divided into those which did not move forward on the beam (immobility) and those which did. BMS scores of the 2 groups were compared. Mann-Whitney U test, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Fig 3.
Comparison of BMS scores between mice which did not reach the goal and those which did after SCI.
(A, C, E, G) Percentages of ICR (A, E) and C57BL/6 (C, G) mice before (pre) and 1 day (d), and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks (w) after mild (A, C) and severe (E, G) SCI which reached the goal during the test. (B, D, F, H) ICR (B, F) and C57BL/6 (D, H) mice 1 day, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after mild (B, D) and severe (F, H) SCI were divided into those which did not reach the goal and those which did. BMS scores of the 2 groups were compared. Mann-Whitney U test, **p < 0.01.
Fig 4.
Comparison of BMS scores among mice with different positions of hindlimbs on the beam after SCI.
ICR (A, C) and C57BL/6 (B, D) mice 1 day, and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after mild (A, B) and severe (C, D) SCI were divided into 4 groups according to positions of hindlimbs; (i) mice which could not use hindlimbs, (ii) those which sandwiched the beam from the both sides with thighs, (iii) those which sandwiched the beam from the both sides with plantar, (iv) those which put plantar on top of the beam. BMS scores of the groups were compared. Kruskal-Wallis test with Steel-Dwass analysis or Mann-Whitney U test, **p < 0.01.
Fig 5.
Scoring based on positions of hindlimbs on the beam after SCI.
(A) Scoring protocol. (B-E) The scores of ICR (B, C) and C57BL/6 (D, E) mice before (pre) and 1 day (d), and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks (w) after mild (B, D) and severe (C, E) SCI. Friedman test followed by Scheffe test was applied for comparison of the scores at each time point after SCI with those before SCI. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Fig 6.
Beam-walking test scoring protocol.
(A) The scoring protocol. One point each was given when the mice retained on the beam, moved forward, reached the goal and slipped with frequency of less than 60%. Regarding the appearance of hindlimbs on the beam, 0, 1, 2 or 3 points was given to mice which could not use hindlimbs, those which sandwiched the beam from the both sides with thighs, those which sandwiched the beam from the both sides with plantar and those which put plantar on top of the beam, respectively. Therefore, the total points ranges from 0 to 7. (B, C) The scores of ICR (B) and C57BL/6 (C) mice were compared between mild SCI and severe SCI 1 day (d), and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks (w) after SCI. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the score at each time point. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Fig 7.
Correlation between the beam walking test score and BMS score.
The scores of BMS (x-axis) and the beam walking test (y-axis) from mice 1 day and 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks after both mild and severe SCI were plotted in the graph. When there are multiple mice showing same beam walking score and BMS score, the corresponding dots were labeled with the numbers of mice. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was calculated.