Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Biol Rhythms. 2011 Oct;26(5):412–422. doi: 10.1177/0748730411414170

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Wheel-running locomotor activity rhythms in CCM and WT mice. (A and B) Double-plotted wheel-running actograms from a WT mouse (A) housed in LD (top panel) and in DD (lower panel) and from a CCM mouse (B) housed in LD (top panel) and in DD (lower panel). When mice were in LD cycles, the lights were on at 0600 h and off at 1800 h. (C) The WT mice had significantly higher total numbers of wheel revolutions (total activity counts) compared to CCM littermates. (D) There was no difference between WT and CCM mice in total number of bouts per day (bouts per day). (E) The CCM mice had significantly lower length of time for each bout on average (average bout length in minutes) compared to WT mice. (F) The WT mice had significantly higher counts of wheel revolutions for each bout (average counts/bout) compared to CCM mice. WT: n = 21; CCM: n = 17.