. 2017 Mar 9;12(3):e0173085. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173085

Table 1. Effects of compounds on porcine coronary artery relaxation response to G-1.

Compounds	% reduction of the G-1 relaxation	% relaxation	EC₅₀ (μM)
G-1 ⁺		46.78 ± 2.52 (n = 10)	0.027
G-1 + BFA 50–100 μM	44.90%	25.78 ± 3.51 (n = 7) ^***	0.028
G-1 + BFA 100 μM + PKI 5 μM	76.98%	10.77 ± 0.87 (n = 11) ^***	0.174
G-1 + ESI-09 20 μM	58.12%	19.59 ± 3.73 (n = 4) ^***	0.146
G-1 + CE3F4 100 μM	68.98%	14.51 ± 3.35 (n = 4) ^***	0.028
DMSO ⁺⁺		11.39 ± 5.31 (n = 6)	5.56
8CPT-2Me-cAMP (007) 90 μM ⁺⁺⁺		72.10 ± 13.55 (n = 6) ^****	49.4
8CPT-2Me-cAMP (007) 90 μM + BFA 100 μM ⁺⁺⁺⁺		54.59 ± 4.22 (n = 4) ^***	49.5

Values are given as mean ± SEM. The number of experiments is indicated in parentheses.

***P<0.001

****P<0.0001, significant difference compared with control by using two-way ANOVA.

In rows 1–5 artery rings were pretreated with each of the inhibitors and the results were compared to G-1 (3 μM) alone group (+G-1).

In rows 6–8

⁺⁺DMSO group was used as solvent control.

⁺⁺⁺8-CPT-2Me-cAMP (007) was used as vasorelaxant agents and the result was compared to DMSO group.

⁺⁺⁺⁺Artery rings were pretreated with BFA, then relaxed with 8-CPT-2Me-cAMP (007) and the result was compared to 8-CPT-2Me-cAMP (007) alone group.