Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Dec;69(12):1485-91.
doi: 10.1093/gerona/glt188. Epub 2013 Dec 13.

Clinically relevant frailty index for mice

Affiliations

Clinically relevant frailty index for mice

Haiming Liu et al. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Dec.

Abstract

Frailty is a clinical syndrome associated with the aging process and adverse outcomes. The purpose of this short report was to initiate the development of a Frailty Index in 27- to 28-month-old C57BL/6 mice that matched the clinical criteria used in humans (weakness, slow walking speed, low activity level, poor endurance). The selected criteria included grip strength, walking speed, physical activity, and endurance. The criteria in mice were evaluated by the inverted-cling grip test, rotarod test, voluntary wheel running, and derived endurance scores. Each criterion had a designated cutoff point (1.5 SD below the cohort mean) to identify the mice with the lowest performance. If a mouse presented with three of the criteria scores below the cutoff points, it was identified as frail. Mild frailty was designated if two criteria were below the cutoff points. In this mouse cohort, one mouse was identified as frail and one was mildly frail. This prevalence of 9% frailty is consistent with the prevalence of frailty in humans at the same survival age. Collectively, our selected criterion, cutoff point, and Frailty Index provide a potential standardized definition for frailty in mice that is consistent with the operational definition of frailty in humans.

Keywords: Frailty; Muscle; Sarcopenia..

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Criterion 1: grip strength. Left: A–K were individual grip test scores, in seconds, for each animal. The cohort mean of the grip test was 99±14 seconds. Right: the frailty criterion of the grip strength. Animals A–K were ranked from high to low (top to the bottom). The cutoff point was 31 seconds, 1.5 SD below the mean. The grip strength scores of animal H (24 seconds) and G (28 seconds) were below the 1.5 SD cutoff point (dark bars), whereas the remaining animals were above the cutoff point (light bars).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Criterion 2: walking speed. Left: A–K were individual rotarod speed, in rpm, for each animal. The cohort mean of the rotarod test was 9.6±0.6rpm. Right: the frailty criterion of walking speed. Animals A–K were ranked from high to low (top to the bottom). The cutoff point was 6.8rpm, 1.5 SD below the mean. The walking speed score of animal H (6.3rpm) was below the 1.5 SD cutoff point (dark bar), whereas for the remaining animals, it is above the cutoff point (light bars).
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Criterion 3: physical activity. Left: A–K were individual voluntary wheel-running distances, in km/d, for each animal. The cohort mean of the voluntary wheel running was 1.53±0.25 km/d. Right: the frailty criterion of physical activity. Animals A–K were ranked from high to low (top to the bottom). The cutoff point was 0.37 km/d, 1.5 SD below the mean. The physical activity score of each mouse within our cohort was above the cutoff point (light bars).
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Criterion 4: endurance. Left: A–K were individual endurance scores, in seconds, for each mouse. The cohort mean of the endurance score was 74±9 seconds. Right: the frailty criterion of endurance score. Mice A–K were ranked from high to low (top to the bottom). The cutoff point was 33 seconds, 1.5 SD below the mean. The endurance scores of mouse H (23 seconds) and mouse G (31 seconds) were below the 1.5 SD cutoff point (dark bars), whereas the remaining mice were above the cutoff point (light bars).

References

    1. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, et al. ; Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–M156. 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146 - PubMed
    1. Rockwood K, Stadnyk K, MacKnight C, McDowell I, Hébert R, Hogan DB. A brief clinical instrument to classify frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 1999;353:205–206. 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)04402-X - PubMed
    1. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381:752–762. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62167-9 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC. Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60(8):1487–1492. 10.1111/ j.1532-5415.2012.04054.x - PubMed
    1. Morley JE, Vellas B, van Kan GA, et al. Frailty consensus: a call to action. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2013;14(6):392–397. 10.1016/j.jamda.2013.03.022 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources