Figure 6.

Comparison of WT and OE data. Plots showing the ratio of data from Cav‐3 OE mice to those from WT mice, ± 95% confidence intervals, in sham (left) and in HF following TAC (right). The WT data have been published previously (Bryant et al., 2018a). The x‐axis shows the change relative to WT: an increase in Cav‐3 OE mice compared to WT results in a value >1, while a decrease results in a value <1. The coloured bands delineate different groups of data that correspond to those shown in Figs 1 (green, top) to 5 (grey, bottom). The data in red are significantly different in Cav‐3 OE and WT mice (statistical analysis performed using original data). LVVD, left ventricular volume at diastole, μl; LVVS, left ventricular volume at systole, μl; stroke volume, μl; ejection fraction, %; HW:TL, heart weight to tibial length ratio, mg mm⁻¹; LW:TL, lung weight to tibial length ratio, mg mm⁻¹; cell volume, pl; t‐tubule power, P ₁/P ₀; t‐tubule density, μm μm⁻³; Cav‐3, caveolin‐3 expression, %; JPH‐2, junctophilin expression, %; intact capacitance, whole cell capacitance, pF; intact I _Ca, whole‐cell I _Ca amplitude at 0 mV, pA; intact I _Ca density, whole‐cell I _Ca density at 0 mV, pA pF⁻¹; surface capacitance, surface membrane capacitance, pF; surface I _Ca, surface membrane I _Ca amplitude at 0 mV, pA; surface I _Ca density, surface membrane I _Ca density at 0 mV, pA pF⁻¹; t‐tubule capacitance, t tubule membrane capacitance, pF; t‐tubule I _Ca, t‐tubule membrane I _Ca amplitude at 0 mV, pA; t‐tubule I _Ca density, t‐tubule membrane I _Ca density, pA pF⁻¹; Ca²⁺ latency, calcium transient latency from action potential depolarization, ms; Ca²⁺ heterogeneity, calcium transient heterogeneity during upstroke, ms; Ca²⁺ amplitude, calcium transient amplitude, F/F ₀; Ca²⁺ time to peak, ms