The Most Important Ficain Entice

, Tokyo, Japan). Capillaries were mTOR inhibitor quantified manually by a single individual from the digital image of individual fibres. The following indices were measured: (1) the number of capillaries around a fibre (NCAF); (2) the capillary-to-fibre ratio on an individual-fibre basis (C/Fi); and (3) capillary density (CD), which was calculated by using the fibre area as the reference space (Hepple & Mathieu-Costello, 2001). Capillary-to-fibre perimeter exchange index (CFPE) was calculated as an estimate of the capillary-to-fibre surface area (Hepple, 1997). Quantification of the capillary supply was performed on at least 50 fibres (Porter et al. 2002) by randomly selecting a fibre in an artifact-free region (no holes due to freeze fracture and fibres intact). Fibre cross-sectional area (FCSA) and perimeter (FP) was measured with the image analysis system and commercial software (SigmaScan Pro version 5.0; Systat Software, Inc., Point Richmond, CA, USA). All data are presented as means ��s.e.m. Separate one-way ANOVAs were performed to compare the relevant group means for each dependent variable. To examine body mass, a 2 �� 3 [time (pretraining and post-training) �� group (control, trained and day 7 detrained)] mixed factorial ANOVA was performed. To examine the VEGF protein response at rest and following a single 1 h exercise work bout, separate 2 �� 3 [condition (basal or exercise) �� group (control, trained and day 7 detrained)] factorial ANOVA for the plantaris and soleus muscles were performed. When appropriate, Tukey's Small molecule library post hoc HSD was used to determine which means were significantly different from each other (Keppel & Wickens, 2004). An �� level at P�� 0.05 was selected for all statistical comparisons. The analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (version 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The 2 �� 3 mixed factorial ANOVA revealed a significant time �� group interaction [F(2,30) = 69.97, P Ficain differences among groups for the two time points. As shown in Table 1, these analyses indicated no differences in body mass among groups for the pretraining time point [F(2,30) = 0.89, P= 0.42], but differences at the post-training time point [F(2,30) = 83.9, P