Skip to main content
. 2006 Oct 9;149(7):909–919. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706917

Table 4.

Effects of atorvastatin, fluvastatin and fenofibrate treatments on membrane excitability of rat extensor digitorum longus muscle fibres

Treatment N rats/n fibres AP (mV) Ith (nA) Lat (ms) N spikes
Control 10/51 101±1.3 188±7.1 5.6±0.2 4.0±0.3
Atorvastatin (10 mg kg−1) 9/34 99±2.5 205±9.0 6.7±0.5 5.4±0.5
        *P<0.02 *P<0.02
Fluvastatin (5 mg kg−1) 8/23 106±2.1 175±9.1 8.3±0.4 6.3±0.5
    *P<0.05   *P<0.001 *P<0.001
Fluvastatin (20 mg kg−1) 7/21 107±2.9 130±7 10.3±0.5 7.0±0.7
    *P<0.025 *P<0.001 *P<0.001 *P<0.001
Fenofibrate (60 mg kg−1) 9/38 100±1.7 193±10 6.5±0.4 5.5±0.6
        *P<0.05 *P<0.01
    F=2.57 F=7.86 F=19.4 F=5.16
ANOVA   §P<0.05 §P<0.001 §P<0.001 §P<0.001

Abbreviation: ANOVA, analysis of variance.

The columns from left to right indicate as follows: N rats/n fibres, number of rats examined on number of fibres sampled; AP, amplitude of the first action potential (peak); Ith, threshold current (minimum current intensity that would elicit a single action potential); Lat, latency of the first action potential (maximal delay from the beginning of the current pulse to the onset of the spike); N spikes, maximum number of action potentials elicited by raising the intensity of a 100 ms-duration pulse in the same fibre. As detailed in the Methods section AP and Lat were calculated from traces obtained using Ith current. The values are mean±s.e.m.

§

Significantly different by ANOVA test

*

Significantly different with respect to control (by Bonferroni's t-test).