Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 17;21(24):9617. doi: 10.3390/ijms21249617

Figure 2.

Figure 2

The effects of ADPN on the resting membrane potential and on passive membrane properties of a gastric smooth muscle cell (SMC) are prevented by L-NNA. (A) Typical tracing of resting membrane potential (RMP) from a single gastric SMC. Asynchronous and irregular waves of resting membrane potential recorded in basal condition and almost 15 min after ADPN (20 nM) addition (arrow). ADPN induced a persistent hyperpolarization occurring right after about 2–3 min from its application. (B) Typical tracing of RMP recorded in the presence of L-NNA (arrow) and almost 15 min after ADPN (20 nM) addition (arrow). (A,B) Continuous line is the mean value of resting membrane potential and dashed line is the maximal value of the peak waves. (C) Bar charts representing the effects of ADPN alone or in its concomitant presence of L-NNA on the RMP. (D) Bar charts showing the effect of ADPN and ADPN+L-NNA on the cell capacitance (Cm), index of cell surface, of the SMCs. (E) Bar charts showing the effect of ADPN and ADPN+L-NNA on the membrane conductance (Gm), index of membrane permeability, of the SMCs. For any parameter, data are evaluated in control condition (CTRL), 15 min after adiponectin addition to the bath solution (ADPN) and in the concomitant presence of L-NNA and ADPN (L-NNA+ADPN). One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons. *, p < 0.05 vs. control; #, p < 0.05 vs. ADPN. Values are means ± SD. Mean values are listed in Table 1.