Table 2.
Construct | r250 [%] | r500 [%] | r1000 [%] | r5000 [%] | n |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cav1.3L/β3 | 76.9 ± 3.3 | 62.2 ± 4.1 | 48.8 ± 4.4 | 22.6 ± 3.5 | 9 |
+ RIM2α | 88.9 ± 2.7** | 80.6 ± 3.5** | 69.6 ± 4.0** | 32.6 ± 4.1 | 11 |
+ RBP2 | 82.4 ± 2.4 | 70.9 ± 3.3 | 59.9 ± 3.8 | 31.8 ± 3.3 | 14 |
+ RIM2α/RBP2 | 94.9 ± 0.9*** | 90.6 ± 1.6*** | 83.7 ± 2.3***,# | 52.0 ± 3.7***,## | 17 |
Cav1.342A/β3 | 87.1 ± 2.1 | 76.0 ± 3.3 | 61.4 ± 4.2 | 26.1 ± 3.5 | 14 |
+ RIM2α | 97.3 ± 1.0* | 94.3 ± 1.6** | 88.4 ± 2.1*** | 53.8 ± 3.6*** | 11 |
+ RBP2 | 88.9 ± 3.1 | 79.4 ± 4.4 | 65.9 ± 5.5 | 27.3 ± 2.6 | 9 |
+ RIM2α/RBP2 | 90.9 ± 4.3 | 85.1 ± 6.0 | 74.6 ± 7.3 | 45.9 ± 6.4** | 9 |
Cav1.3L/β2a | 92.0 ± 2.6 | 85.0 ± 3.6 | 77.3 ± 5.0 | 51.3 ± 6.7 | 9 |
+ RIM2α | 91.1 ± 1.9 | 85.1 ± 3.2 | 77.7 ± 4.4 | 48.6 ± 6.6 | 7 |
+ RBP2 | 92.3 ± 0.4 | 85.7 ± 0.8 | 77.8 ± 0.9 | 49.5 ± 1.9 | 6 |
+ RIM2α/RBP2 | 92.6 ± 1.0 | 86.4 ± 1.7 | 79.3 ± 2.5 | 52.2 ± 3.9 | 10 |
Cav1.3L/β2e | 87.9 ± 2.1 | 78.9 ± 3.3 | 65.9 ± 4.5 | 31.1 ± 4.0 | 7 |
+ RIM2α | 90.8 ± 1.8 | 84.0 ± 2.5 | 70.0 ± 2.9 | 40.4 ± 3.4 | 8 |
+ RBP2 | 85.3 ± 4.7 | 77.3 ± 6.9 | 64.5 ± 9.1 | 34.8 ± 8.5 | 6 |
+ RIM2α/RBP2 | 87.9 ± 2.3 | 81.4 ± 3.1 | 73.0 ± 3.7 | 45.4 ± 3.4 | 10 |
Cav1.342A/β2a | 97.6 ± 0.8 | 95.0 ± 1.3 | 89.6 ± 1.8 | 62.0 ± 2.8 | 8 |
+ RIM2α | 96.5 ± 1.0 | 92.3 ± 1.6 | 85.6 ± 2.6 | 49.9 ± 3.8 | 10 |
+ RBP2 | 97.6 ± 0.9 | 94.6 ± 1.5 | 89.1 ± 2.2 | 59.9 ± 3.7 | 11 |
+ RIM2α/RBP2 | 96.7 ± 1.0 | 92.8 ± 1.5 | 85.8 ± 2.0 | 52.3 ± 2.8 | 10 |
Data are given as means ± SEM. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s multiple comparison post hoc test as indicated in the table. Versus control (Cav1.3 without RIM2α and/or RBP2): ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; RIM2α versus RIM2α/RBP2 ##p < 0.01; #p < 0.05