C Figure 4. IGF1 immunostaining, image evaluation by software in which the red colour represents the count pixel2) with Vitronectin Proteins custom synthesis statistical analysis (pvalues in the table). For information, see the text. The information are count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (p-values inside the table). For details, see the text. The information are immunolabelling (inserts), along with a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 m. presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 . count pixel2) with statistical evaluation (pvalues in the table). For details, see the text. The information are presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 m.Figure 5. DKK1 immunostaining, image analysis by application in which the red colour represents the immunolabelling (inserts), plus a graph representing the intensity of immunostaining (densitometric Figure 5. DKK1 immunostaining, image evaluation by software program in which the red colour 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 evaluation by software in which the red colour 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 analysis (p-values inside the table). For particulars, see the text. The data are presented as mean SD. Scale bars: 50 m.presented as imply SD. Scale bars: 50 .Nutrients 2018, ten,Nutrients 2018, ten,10 of10 of3.5.four. VDR In muscle fibers, VDR immunostaining was mostly cytoplasmic and, in some samples, nuclear. In muscle fibers, VDR immunostaining was primarily cytoplasmic and, in some samples, nuclear. The intensity of VDR immunostaining (densitometric count-pixel2) was higher in R, R-DS, HFB-DS, The intensity of VDR immunostaining (densitometric countpixel2) was greater in R, RDS, HFBDS, and HFEVO-DS groups. In detail: in R, the immunostaining was larger than in R-DR, HFB-DR, and Siglec-8 Proteins web HFEVODS groups. In detail: in R, the immunostaining was higher than in RDR, HFBDR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in R-DS, it was greater 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 reduce than in HFB-DS, HFB-DR, HFEVO-DS, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in HFB-DS, it was larger it was lower than in HFBDS, HFBDR, HFEVODS, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in HFBDS, it was higher than in HFB-DR, HFEVO-DR (p 0.01); in HFB-DR, it was lower than in HFEVO-DS (p 0.01); than in HFBDR, HFEVODR (p 0.01); in HFBDR, it was lower 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 greater than in HFEVODR (p 0.01) (Figure six). In relation for the immunostained area , the statistical results were analogues to those in the intensity of VDR immunostaining (information region , the statistical outcomes have been analogues to those of the intensity of VDR immunostaining not(data not shown). shown).three.5.4. VDRFigure six. VDR immunostaining, image evaluation by software in which the red colour represents the Figure six. VDR immunostaining, image ana.
