Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Mar 14.
Published in final edited form as: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2013 Dec;13(4):418–429.

Table 1.

Objectives and designs of Studies 1-3.

Study 1: Determine optimal parameters of vibration Study 2: Compare vibration to other physical activity interventions known to elicit muscle injury Study 3: Confirm that vibration is not injurious to muscle in more severely affected dystrophic mice
Mouse age at beginning of the study (wk) 6 8 3

Genotype mdx mdx mdx, het, dko

Sex males males males/females

Treatment groups (number of mice per group) Non-vibrated control (n=8) Non-vibrated control (n=10) Non-vibrated mdx (n=8)
30 Hz at 0.3 g (n=6) vibration (n=11) Vibrated mdx (n=9)
30 Hz at 0.6 g (n=6) wheel running (n=8) Non-vibrated het (n=8)
45 Hz at 0.3 g (n=8) eccentric contractions (n=8) Vibrated het (n=12)
45 Hz at 0.6 g (n=8) Non-vibrated dko (n=7)
90 Hz at 0.3 g (n=6) Vibrated dko (n=7)
90 Hz at 0.6 g (n=6)

Duration of vibration treatment (days) 14 3 7

Outcome measures:
Stress33,37: Body mass Cage activity Body mass
In vivo muscle function: N/A Yes Yes
Muscle inflammation and myogenesis: N/A Gastrocnemius muscle Tibialis Anterior muscle
Muscle damage: CK CK CK
Bone formation: Circulating osteocalcin, RNA from Tibial Bone N/A N/A

wk: week.

N/A: not applicable.

CK: Creatine kinase activity.