2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2004.06.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Histological parameters for the quantitative assessment of muscular dystrophy in the mdx-mouse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

18
351
0
13

Year Published

2010
2010
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 361 publications
(382 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
18
351
0
13
Order By: Relevance
“…2F) and measured myofiber cross‐sectional area (CSA) and minimum Feret's diameter (MFD), which removes potential error from the sectioning process (Briguet et al ., 2004). Aging resulted in a 44% loss of CSA and a 28% loss in MFD in mice fed a control diet relative to young mice fed a control diet (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2F) and measured myofiber cross‐sectional area (CSA) and minimum Feret's diameter (MFD), which removes potential error from the sectioning process (Briguet et al ., 2004). Aging resulted in a 44% loss of CSA and a 28% loss in MFD in mice fed a control diet relative to young mice fed a control diet (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fiber size was studied by measuring the fibers' minimal inner diameter (at least 100 fibers per muscle), defined as the minimum diameter from inner border to inner border, passing through the center of the muscle fiber. This parameter has been shown to be very insensitive to deviations from the "optimal" cross-sectioning profile, as compared with direct measure of fiber cross-sectional area (28). Cross-sectional area (CSA) was calculated using this diameter, and results were expressed as mean CSA Ϯ S.E.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, at this age there is an already described similarity of fibrosis and muscular deterioration between humans and mdx mice age-matched. See schematic Figure 1 plotted with these similarities between both species according to the literature (Briguet et al;Grounds et al, 2008;Barnabei et al, 2011;Hyzewicz et al, 2015). This research was approved by the Ethics Committee on Animal Use of the University Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri (CEUA/UFVJM), protocol number 017/2011.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%