Skip to main content
. 2019 Dec 4;7:100040. doi: 10.1016/j.ynpai.2019.100040

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

EPAC1 and 2 expression levels are unchanged after SCI in DRGs isolated from mice and rats. (A) EPAC1 and 2 expression levels were not significantly different in naïve versus SCI rats. (B) Bar graph represents band density for EPAC1 or EPAC2 levels normalized to total actin, with levels in the first lane (Naïve) set to 1. Naïve n = 4; Sham n = 5; SCI n = 3. Comparisons of data (mean ± SEM) were made by One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunn’s method for pairwise comparisons. (C) EPAC1 and 2 expression levels were not significantly different in wild-type sham versus SCI mice or EPAC2−/− naïve versus SCI mice. (D) Bar graph represents band density for EPAC1 or EPAC2 levels normalized to total protein as measured by stain-free imaging, with levels in the first lane of each blot set to 1. Wild-type Sham n = 4; wild-type SCI n = 5: EPAC2−/− naïve n = 7; EPAC2−/− SCI n = 6 Comparisons of data (mean ± SEM) were made by t-test. ANOVA, analysis of variance; DRG, dorsal root ganglion; EPAC, exchange protein activated by cAMP; GAPDH, glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase; n.s., non-significant; SCI, spinal cord injury; SEM, standard error of the mean; WT, wild-type.