Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 May 21.
Published in final edited form as: Exp Physiol. 2019 Mar 14;104(5):654–666. doi: 10.1113/EP087304

Figure 2. Morphology of isolated myocytes.

Figure 2.

(A) Confocal images of t-tubules and surface sarcolemma stained with di-8-ANEPPS from representative sham (left) and TAC (right) Cav-3 OE myocytes. Scale bar: 5 μm. (B) Cell volume (pL) and (C) Cell capacitance from sham (n/N=19/5) and TAC (n/N=22/5) Cav-3 OE myocytes (right) compared with WT sham (n/N=41/10) and TAC (n/N=21/5) myocytes (left). (D-F) Analysis of t-tubule organization from di-8-ANEPPS labelled sham (n/N=23/5) and TAC (n/N=27/5) Cav-3 OE myocytes (right) and WT sham (n/N=40/8) and TAC (n/N=21/5) myocytes (left). (D) T-tubule Power (P1/P0); (E) T-tubule density (μm/μm3); and (F) T-tubule Orientation (degrees from transverse plane) in WT and Cav-3 OE myocytes. *** p<0.001 between treatments for a given phenotype (WT or Cav-3 OE); # p<0.05 between phenotypes for a given treatment (sham or TAC). The WT data have been published previously (Bryant et al., 2018a).