T imbalances in the sympathetic nervous system. [14] The increased heart rate does not appear to be a compensatory mechanism for decreased heart function, since the measurements of systolic function are normal. There was a trend towards normal heart rates in dy2J mice treated with 0.1 mg/kg omigapil, but this did not reach significance. Of interest, some of the functional data and the decreased fibrosis support a benefit of the lower dosing omigapil at 0.1 mg/ kg compared to the higher dose at 1 mg/kg. While some of the body weight and activity data from Erb et al. (2009) support increased benefits from a higher dose of 1 mg/kg, Waldmeieret al. (2000) published dose response curves in other mouse models that showed benefits were lost above 1 mg/kg/day of omigapil. [19] Our study supports these findings, even showing that diaphragm fibrosis was significantly decreased in 0.1 mg/kg compared to 1 mg/kg omigapil dosing. This important preclinical observation might aid in the selection of drug dosing for clinical trials. There were some limitations in this study. This study did not look at forelimb muscle force or histology. Due to the significant demyelination of the hindlimb and paralysis, hindlimb muscle changes were likely affected by mechanisms other than just laminin defects and may not reflect improvements seen in other muscle groups. This study also included a 10 week treatmentFigure 2. Apoptosis analysis of frozen tibialis anterior muscle with TUNEL assay on vehicle (A), Omigapil 0.1 mg/kg (B), Omigapil 1 mg/kg (C) treated dy2J and BL6 control (D) groups show vehicle treated dy2J mice had significantly more apoptosis than BL6 control (A, D, F; *P,0.05). Both Omigapil treated groups showed less apoptosis than vehicle treated group although statistically not different (AC, F). BL6 slide treated with TACS-Nuclease was used as positive control (E). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065468.gOmigapil Treatment in dy2J MiceTable 3. Outcome measures for 30?3 week old omigapil and vehicle treated dy2J mice after 17.5 weeks show significant improvements in respiratory rate and fibrosis in dy2J 0.1 mg/kg omigapil treated mice.dy2J vehicle N FS EF Heart rate (BPM) PA velocity (mm/s) Ao velocity (mm/s) E/A ratio Horizontal activity* Total distance (cm)* Movement time(second)* Rest time(second)* Vertical activity* GSM forelimb (KGF) Normalized GSM forelimb (KGF/kg) Body weight (g) Respiratory rate (bpm) Heart weight/BW Spleen weight/BW Gastroc Weight/BW Soleus weight/BW TA weight/BW Hindlimb maximal force Hindlimb Annabis cultivation (a controlled growing environment), and global availability of seeds specific force fibrosis ?gastroc fibrosis – diaphragm 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3461 6462 548618 724688 9246105 1.6660.05 dy2J Omigapil 0.1 mg N 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3363 6362 Title Loaded From File 527634 694674 9176106 1.6860.11 9066290; 778 (682?332) 1636110; 112 (69?24) 23614; 17 (11?5) 577614; 583 (555?89) 0.160.4; 0 (0?) 0.08460.012 4.31860.603 19.562.3 396611 4.3860.40 3.1360.63 2.1960.58 0.2860.05 1.2860.18 220641 193627 16.462.0 9.461.7 dy2J Omigapil 1 mg N 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3461 6462 563663 687693 942673 1.8160.15 6966258; 802 (203?1285) 128697; 115 (15?96) 19614; 18 (2?3) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE Vehicle vs. 0.1 mg (p = 0.026)MeasurementSignificantly different mean/medians6196111; 562 (487?48) 7 63620; 70 (34?4) 963; 10 (5?3) 59163; 590 (587?95) 060; 0 (0?) 0.09060.010 4.23960.483 21.462.6 371618 4.3460.36 3.3460.55 2.2560.47 0.2460.10 1.0860.32 223631 184628 20.662.T imbalances in the sympathetic nervous system. [14] The increased heart rate does not appear to be a compensatory mechanism for decreased heart function, since the measurements of systolic function are normal. There was a trend towards normal heart rates in dy2J mice treated with 0.1 mg/kg omigapil, but this did not reach significance. Of interest, some of the functional data and the decreased fibrosis support a benefit of the lower dosing omigapil at 0.1 mg/ kg compared to the higher dose at 1 mg/kg. While some of the body weight and activity data from Erb et al. (2009) support increased benefits from a higher dose of 1 mg/kg, Waldmeieret al. (2000) published dose response curves in other mouse models that showed benefits were lost above 1 mg/kg/day of omigapil. [19] Our study supports these findings, even showing that diaphragm fibrosis was significantly decreased in 0.1 mg/kg compared to 1 mg/kg omigapil dosing. This important preclinical observation might aid in the selection of drug dosing for clinical trials. There were some limitations in this study. This study did not look at forelimb muscle force or histology. Due to the significant demyelination of the hindlimb and paralysis, hindlimb muscle changes were likely affected by mechanisms other than just laminin defects and may not reflect improvements seen in other muscle groups. This study also included a 10 week treatmentFigure 2. Apoptosis analysis of frozen tibialis anterior muscle with TUNEL assay on vehicle (A), Omigapil 0.1 mg/kg (B), Omigapil 1 mg/kg (C) treated dy2J and BL6 control (D) groups show vehicle treated dy2J mice had significantly more apoptosis than BL6 control (A, D, F; *P,0.05). Both Omigapil treated groups showed less apoptosis than vehicle treated group although statistically not different (AC, F). BL6 slide treated with TACS-Nuclease was used as positive control (E). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065468.gOmigapil Treatment in dy2J MiceTable 3. Outcome measures for 30?3 week old omigapil and vehicle treated dy2J mice after 17.5 weeks show significant improvements in respiratory rate and fibrosis in dy2J 0.1 mg/kg omigapil treated mice.dy2J vehicle N FS EF Heart rate (BPM) PA velocity (mm/s) Ao velocity (mm/s) E/A ratio Horizontal activity* Total distance (cm)* Movement time(second)* Rest time(second)* Vertical activity* GSM forelimb (KGF) Normalized GSM forelimb (KGF/kg) Body weight (g) Respiratory rate (bpm) Heart weight/BW Spleen weight/BW Gastroc Weight/BW Soleus weight/BW TA weight/BW Hindlimb maximal force Hindlimb specific force fibrosis ?gastroc fibrosis – diaphragm 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3461 6462 548618 724688 9246105 1.6660.05 dy2J Omigapil 0.1 mg N 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3363 6362 527634 694674 9176106 1.6860.11 9066290; 778 (682?332) 1636110; 112 (69?24) 23614; 17 (11?5) 577614; 583 (555?89) 0.160.4; 0 (0?) 0.08460.012 4.31860.603 19.562.3 396611 4.3860.40 3.1360.63 2.1960.58 0.2860.05 1.2860.18 220641 193627 16.462.0 9.461.7 dy2J Omigapil 1 mg N 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Mean ?SD 3461 6462 563663 687693 942673 1.8160.15 6966258; 802 (203?1285) 128697; 115 (15?96) 19614; 18 (2?3) NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE Vehicle vs. 0.1 mg (p = 0.026)MeasurementSignificantly different mean/medians6196111; 562 (487?48) 7 63620; 70 (34?4) 963; 10 (5?3) 59163; 590 (587?95) 060; 0 (0?) 0.09060.010 4.23960.483 21.462.6 371618 4.3460.36 3.3460.55 2.2560.47 0.2460.10 1.0860.32 223631 184628 20.662.
