TABLE 2.
Depleted | Control | Loaded | |
---|---|---|---|
Mf (%) | |||
Lateral | 90 ± 6 | 94 ± 5a | 88 ± 5a |
Basal | 80 ± 11 | 85 ± 9 | 84 ± 7 |
Apical | 72 ± 12 | 76 ± 11 | 79 ± 4 |
D (μm2/s) | |||
Lateral | 1.08 ± 0.60 | 1.67 ± 0.89a | 0.81 ± 0.42a |
R2 | 0.84 ± 0.10 | 0.83 ± 0.09 | 0.87 ± 0.08 |
Basal | 0.97 ± 0.36b | 1.29 ± 0.47 | 1.64 ± 0.54b |
R2 | 0.84 ± 0.08 | 0.81 ± 0.11 | 0.75 ± 0.08 |
Apical | 3.22 ± 1.93 | 5.26 ± 3.95 | 3.71 ± 3.16 |
R2 | 0.60 ± 0.14 | 0.56 ± 0.17 | 0.58 ± 0.21 |
Only the lateral region showed significant changes in Mf after cholesterol treatments with loading decreased from control (p < 0.05). The effective diffusion coefficient, D, of the lateral region significantly decreased after cholesterol loading (p < 0.01). In the basal region, cholesterol loading and depletion resulted in D values that were statistically significant from one another (p < 0.01). No change was seen in the apical region D values following cholesterol manipulations (p > 0.3). Values shown are mean ± SD. In the lateral region, n was 10, 17, and 11 for depleted, control and loaded, respectively. In the basal region, n was 10, 13, and 11, and in the apical region, n was 10, 15, and 10. R2 values demonstrating goodness of fit for calculations of D are also provided
aSignificant differences from control
bSignificant difference between loading and depletion