Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 25;115(6):62. doi: 10.1007/s00395-020-00821-z

Table 2.

Cardiac function and morphometry in N1-Tg and N3-Tg mice 14 days after I/R

Sham I/R
WT
N = 19
N1-Tg
N = 16
N3-Tg
N = 8
WT
N = 8
N1-Tg
N = 17
N3-Tg
N = 9
FAC (%) 61 ± 4 58 ± 6 54 ± 3 51 ± 7§§ 54 ± 5
LVEDA (mm2) 18.4 ± 3.0 19.2 ± 2.2 18.0 ± 1.5 18.9 ± 0.9 18.4 ± 2.7 20.0 ± 1.1
LVESA (mm2) 7.5 ± 1.3 7.5 ± 1.3 7.6 ± 1.1 8.6 ± 0.7 9.0 ± 0.7§ 9.3 ± 1.3
HR (bpm) 567 ± 23 565 ± 31 559 ± 18 522 ± 25** 551 ± 31# 527 ± 23++
BW (g) 28 ± 3 29 ± 3 26 ± 3 28 ± 2 28 ± 3 28 ± 2
HW (mg) 107 ± 11 114 ± 13 108 ± 13 105 ± 9 129 ± 14§§## 109 ± 9
HW/BW 3.9 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 0.7 4.2 ± 0.3 3.7 ± 0.2 4.8 ± 0.8§§## 3.9 ± 0.2

All values are depicted as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was done using Two-Way-ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test

FAC Fractional area change, LVEDA left ventricular end-diastolic area, LVESA left ventricular end-systolic area, HR heart rate, bpm beats per minute, BW body weight, HW heart weight

**P < 0.01 WT I/R vs. WT sham

§P < 0.05 N1-Tg I/R vs. N1-Tg sham

§§P < 0.01 N1-Tg I/R vs. N1-Tg sham

++P < 0.01 N3-Tg I/R vs. N3-Tg sham

#P < 0.05 N1-Tg I/R vs. WT I/R

##P < 0.01 N1-Tg I/R vs. WT I/R

HHS Vulnerability Disclosure