In vivo echocardiograph of cTnI-ND,Tnni3−/− and WT mice and the effect of ISO treatment
| . | WT (n = 5) . | cTnI-ND,Tnni3−/− (n = 5) . | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Baseline . | ISO treated . | Δ difference . | Baseline . | ISO treated . | Δ difference . | |
| Body weight (g) | 17.54 ± 0.36 | 17.07 ± 0.21 | |||||
| Heart rate (bpm) | 481.8 ± 3.75 | 518.4 ± 2.77 | +36.6 ± 5.12 | 482.6 ± 4.35 | 514 ± 8.48 | +31.4 ± 7.32 | |
| LVEDD (mm) | 2.89 ± 0.11 | 2.65 ± 0.07 | −0.23 ± 0.06 | 3.04 ± 0.08 | 2.78 ± 0.10 | −0.26 ± 0.06 | |
| LVESD (mm) | 1.44 ± 0.06 | 1.162 ± 0.06 | −0.28 ± 0.08 | 1.58 ± 0.12 | 1.04 ± 0.12 | −0.55 ± 0.03* | |
| Fractional shortening % | 50.51 ± 1.24 | 57.55 ± 2.08 | +7.04 ± 1.80 | 48.07 ± 2.88 | 62.87 ± 3.53 | +14.8 ± 1.39* | |
| Ejection fraction % | 83.09 ± 1.08 | 88.45 ± 1.51 | +5.36 ± 1.50 | 80.24 ± 3.132 | 91.53 ± 2.22 | +11.29 ± 1.29* | |
| . | WT (n = 5) . | cTnI-ND,Tnni3−/− (n = 5) . | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Baseline . | ISO treated . | Δ difference . | Baseline . | ISO treated . | Δ difference . | |
| Body weight (g) | 17.54 ± 0.36 | 17.07 ± 0.21 | |||||
| Heart rate (bpm) | 481.8 ± 3.75 | 518.4 ± 2.77 | +36.6 ± 5.12 | 482.6 ± 4.35 | 514 ± 8.48 | +31.4 ± 7.32 | |
| LVEDD (mm) | 2.89 ± 0.11 | 2.65 ± 0.07 | −0.23 ± 0.06 | 3.04 ± 0.08 | 2.78 ± 0.10 | −0.26 ± 0.06 | |
| LVESD (mm) | 1.44 ± 0.06 | 1.162 ± 0.06 | −0.28 ± 0.08 | 1.58 ± 0.12 | 1.04 ± 0.12 | −0.55 ± 0.03* | |
| Fractional shortening % | 50.51 ± 1.24 | 57.55 ± 2.08 | +7.04 ± 1.80 | 48.07 ± 2.88 | 62.87 ± 3.53 | +14.8 ± 1.39* | |
| Ejection fraction % | 83.09 ± 1.08 | 88.45 ± 1.51 | +5.36 ± 1.50 | 80.24 ± 3.132 | 91.53 ± 2.22 | +11.29 ± 1.29* | |
In vivo cardiac functions were measured using echocardiography in 2-mo-old female WT and cTnI-ND,Tnni3−/− double transgenic mice. The ISO treatment (0.2 mg/kg) was given by i.p. injection. The functional parameters showed changes after ISO treatment as compared with the baseline in both WT and cTnI-ND,Tnni3−/− groups, in which paired Student’s t test showed significantly larger responses in LVESD, fraction shortening, and ejection fraction (*P < 0.05 vs. WT control). The values shown are mean ± SEM. n = 5 mice in each group.