Figure 1.
Figure 1. True inverse proportionality between [CaT] and muscle weight. (A) Values of total calcium concentration in EDL muscles of wild-type mice, as plotted in Fig. 7 A of Lamboley et al. (2015). The line is a best fit by the function represented in Eq. 1, with b = 22.4 nmol. (B) Total Ca content in individual muscles of A, calculated by multiplication of concentration and individual muscle weight. The line is traced at the average of all values (22.2 nmol). The fits in A and B represent alternative interpretations of the data; the one in A assumes an inverse relationship between total Ca concentration and weight, and the one in B assumes a total content that is independent of muscle weight. Lamboley et al. (2015) favor the first model, based on a separate comparison of muscle dry and wet weight.

True inverse proportionality between [CaT] and muscle weight. (A) Values of total calcium concentration in EDL muscles of wild-type mice, as plotted in Fig. 7 A of Lamboley et al. (2015). The line is a best fit by the function represented in Eq. 1, with b = 22.4 nmol. (B) Total Ca content in individual muscles of A, calculated by multiplication of concentration and individual muscle weight. The line is traced at the average of all values (22.2 nmol). The fits in A and B represent alternative interpretations of the data; the one in A assumes an inverse relationship between total Ca concentration and weight, and the one in B assumes a total content that is independent of muscle weight. Lamboley et al. (2015) favor the first model, based on a separate comparison of muscle dry and wet weight.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal