C mAChR3 Antagonist Purity & Documentation Figure four. IGF1 immunostaining, image analysis by application in which the red color represents the count pixel2) with statistical analysis (pvalues in the table). For facts, see the text. The data are count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (p-values inside the table). For specifics, see the text. The information are immunolabelling (inserts), and also a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 m. presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 . count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (pvalues in the table). For specifics, see the text. The data are presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 m.Figure 5. DKK1 immunostaining, image analysis by computer Estrogen receptor Agonist web software in which the red color represents the immunolabelling (inserts), plus a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric Figure 5. DKK1 immunostaining, image analysis by application in which the red color represents the count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (pvalues in the table). For specifics, see the text. The information are Figure five. DKK-1 immunostaining, image analysis by computer software in which the red color represents the immunolabelling (inserts), in addition to a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 m. immunolabelling (inserts), andanalysis (pvalues in the table). For details, see the text. The data are a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric count pixel2) with statistical count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (p-values in the table). For facts, see the text. The data are presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 m.presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 .Nutrients 2018, 10,Nutrients 2018, 10,ten of10 of3.5.4. VDR In muscle fibers, VDR immunostaining was primarily cytoplasmic and, in some samples, nuclear. In muscle fibers, VDR immunostaining was mainly cytoplasmic and, in some samples, nuclear. The intensity of VDR immunostaining (densitometric count-pixel2) was larger in R, R-DS, HFB-DS, The intensity of VDR immunostaining (densitometric countpixel2) was larger in R, RDS, HFBDS, and HFEVO-DS groups. In detail: in R, the immunostaining was larger than in R-DR, HFB-DR, and HFEVODS groups. In detail: in R, the immunostaining was larger than in RDR, HFBDR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in R-DS, it was larger than in R-DR, HFB-DR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in R-DR, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in RDS, it was greater than in RDR, HFBDR, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in RDR, it was reduced than in HFB-DS, HFB-DR, HFEVO-DS, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in HFB-DS, it was larger it was reduce than in HFBDS, HFBDR, HFEVODS, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in HFBDS, it was greater than in HFB-DR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in HFB-DR, it was reduced than in HFEVO-DS (p 0.01); than in HFBDR, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in HFBDR, it was decrease than in HFEVODS (p 0.01); in HFEVO-DS, it was larger than in HFEVO-DR (p 0.01) (Figure six). In relation for the immunostained in HFEVODS, it was higher than in HFEVODR (p 0.01) (Figure six). In relation towards the immunostained area , the statistical benefits have been analogues to those with the intensity of VDR immunostaining (information area , the statistical results have been analogues to these of the intensity of VDR immunostaining not(data not shown). shown).3.five.4. VDRFigure 6. VDR immunostaining, image evaluation by software program in which the red colour represents the Figure 6. VDR immunostaining, image ana.
