Table 3.

vWF, VCAM-1, and ICAM-1 protein expression in different treatment groups (mean ± SD)^a.

Swimming (min)	CPSM (mg kg−1)	vWF		VCAM-1		ICAM-1
Sham-operated		0.11 ± 0.03		0.21 ± 0.04		0.15 ± 0.05
0	0	0.43 ± 0.08		0.83 ± 0.26		0.67 ± 0.22
0	237	0.42 ± 0.13		0.64 ± 0.17		0.40 ± 0.12
0	474	0.53 ± 0.14		0.72 ± 0.22		0.38 ± 0.13
20	0	0.29 ± 0.05		0.45 ± 0.15		0.38 ± 0.12
20	237	0.34 ± 0.09		0.78 ± 0.23		0.63 ± 0.20
20	474	0.60 ± 0.17		0.63 ± 0.21		0.69 ± 0.19
40	0	0.34 ± 0.09		0.26 ± 0.08		0.14 ± 0.04
40	237	0.16 ± 0.03		0.519 ± 0.16		0.22 ± 0.07
40	474	0.15 ± 0.02		0.37 ± 0.10		0.35 ± 0.04
Two-way ANOVA		F	p	F	p	F	p
Swimming		24.25	<0.001	7.87	<0.001	17.08	<0.001
CPSM		5.82	0.01	6.70	<0.001	2.39	0.10
CPSM × swimming		9.29	<0.001	8.59	<0.001	3.62	0.01

Expression of vWF, VCAM-1, and ICAM-1were normalized with respect to β-actin.

^aAll data are expressed as the mean ± SD. The GLM procedure was applied for a two-way ANOVA to test for synergy. Comparisons between each pair of factor levels were analyzed using a Bonferroni post hoc test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.