Close
  Indian J Med Microbiol
 

Figure 2: Hindlimb functional recovery as assessed by LadderWalk. There was a significant increase in the average number of missteps (± SEM) post-spinal cord injury (all coloured bars) compared to pre-injury (grey bar) see “a” (P < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). At D35 (A), spinal cord injury only (no cells), hMSCs, and APP96-110 + nv-hMSCs groups exhibited significantly fewer missteps (see “b”) than nv-hMSCs (light blue) (P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). At D56 (B), mAPP96-110 and APP96-110 exhibited significantly fewer missteps than mAPP96-110 + hMSCs (medium red) (see “c”) (P < 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). In the mAPP96-110 treatment group there was a significant reduction in the average number of missteps from D35 to D56 (P < 0.05, two-sample t-test). No group recovered to pre-injury scores (P > 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). Open bars indicate no peptide, horizontal striped bars indicate mAPP96-110 treatment, diagonal striped bars indicate APP96-110 treatment. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD. Numbers of animals (n = 4–8) for each treatment group are shown in [Table 1]. ANOVA: Analysis of variance; APP96-110: amyloid precursor protein peptide; hMSCs: human mesenchymal stromal cells; mAPP96-100: mutant amyloid precursor protein; nv: non-viable.

<b>Figure 2: Hindlimb functional recovery as assessed by LadderWalk.</b>
There was a significant increase in the average number of missteps (± SEM) post-spinal cord injury (all coloured bars) compared to pre-injury (grey bar) see “a” (<i>P</i> < 0.05, one-way analysis of variance followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). At D35 (A), spinal cord injury only (no cells), hMSCs, and APP96-110 + nv-hMSCs groups exhibited significantly fewer missteps (see “b”) than nv-hMSCs (light blue) (<i>P</i> < 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). At D56 (B), mAPP96-110 and APP96-110 exhibited significantly fewer missteps than mAPP96-110 + hMSCs (medium red) (see “c”) (<i>P</i> < 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). In the mAPP96-110 treatment group there was a significant reduction in the average number of missteps from D35 to D56 (<i>P</i> < 0.05, two-sample <i>t</i>-test). No group recovered to pre-injury scores (<i>P</i> > 0.05, two-way ANOVA followed by Fisher’s least significant difference test). Open bars indicate no peptide, horizontal striped bars indicate mAPP96-110 treatment, diagonal striped bars indicate APP96-110 treatment. Data are expressed as the mean ± SD. Numbers of animals (<i>n</i> = 4–8) for each treatment group are shown in [Table 1]. ANOVA: Analysis of variance; APP96-110: amyloid precursor protein peptide; hMSCs: human mesenchymal stromal cells; mAPP96-100: mutant amyloid precursor protein; nv: non-viable.