Figure 3. Sexual dimorphism in electrical signal presentation in FXN-cKO mice.
(A) The impact of OMAV on electrical propagation in FXN-cKO remains uncertain regarding the activation of Nrf2. Created with BioRender.com. (B-C) Male FXN-cKO mice showed significant increase in QRS (*p<0.05) and QTc (**p<0.005). Female FXN-cKO mice showed significant increase in QRS (**p<0.005), and P-wave (*p<0.05). OMAV-treated FXN-cKO females showed a significant decrease in PR interval (*p<0.05) compared to FXN-cKO females. (D-F) Frequency distributions of male (top) and female (bottom) FXN-cKO mice with and without OMAV treatment for P, QTc, and RR intervals. (D) P interval values in control (17.53 ± 6.46 ms), FXN-cKO (20.79 ± 6.53 ms), and OMAV-treated KO (21.01 ± 7.51 ms) males (top row). P interval values in control (19.80 ± 5.42 ms), FXN-cKO (23.35 ± 6.31 ms), and OMAV-treated (18.73 ± 3.09 ms) females (bottom row). (E) QTc interval values in control (147.60 ± 20.22 ms), FXN-cKO (231.53 ± 45.53 ms), and OMAV-treated (189.14 ± 47.34 ms) males (top row). QTc interval values in control (169.51 ± 37.48 ms), FXN-cKO (216.70 ± 51.19 ms), and OMAV-treated FXN-cKO (190.35 ± 34.44 ms) females (bottom row). (F) RR intervals deviation from average values in control (283.30 ± 51.20 ms), FXN-cKO (247.74 ± 80.17 ms); and OMAV-treated FXN-cKO (271.01 ± 76.73 ms) males (top row). RR intervals variability away from the mean values in control (280.05 ± 26.90 ms), FXN-cKO (281.74 ± 93.21 ms), and OMAV-treated FXN-cKO (271.93 ± 60.94 ms) females (bottom row). Averaged male and female wild-type controls (gray), averaged male and female FXN-cKO (red) and averaged OMAV treatment (green).