We analyzed the electrophysiological results using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices). We tested normality (Agostino test) to determine whether data followed a normal distribution. We expressed data with the median and a 95% confidence interval. We used the Kruskal–Wallis test to evaluate statistical differences and the stars * correspond to the difference from the control. We considered the differences significant at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***), or p < 0.0001 (****).
Clampfit pclamp v10.0
Manufactured by Molecular Devices
Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0) is a comprehensive software application designed for the analysis of electrophysiological data. It provides a suite of tools for data acquisition, analysis, and visualization.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
7 protocols using clampfit pclamp v10.0
1
Electrophysiological Analysis of Neural Responses
2
Electrophysiological Data Analysis Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological data were analyzed using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0, Molecular Devices) and custom MATLAB programs (The MathWorks, Inc.). Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean). When indicated, an ANOVA with a Dunnett post hoc test or a t-test was performed. Differences were considered significant at a ∗P < 0.05, ∗∗P < 0.01, or ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
3
Electrophysiological Data Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological data were analyzed using macros in Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices) and custom scripts written using MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc.). The results are expressed as means ± SEM. Statistical comparisons were performed using a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post hoc test in SigmaPlot (Systat Software). Differences were deemed significant at p < 0.05. The p values and number of measurements are indicated in the text or figure legends. Further information about the equations used for fits or to calculate the fraction of channels modified by pyrethroid insecticides are available in the supplemental information section.
4
Electrophysiological Data Analysis Workflow
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological data were analyzed using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices) and custom-written MATLAB programs (The MathWorks Inc.). Data are expressed as means ± SEM. When indicated, a t test was performed using SigmaPlot software (Jandel Scientific Software). Differences were considered significant at a P < 0.05 (*), < 0.01 (**), or < 0.001 (***).
5
Electrophysiological Data Analysis Protocol
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological data were analyzed using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices) and custom scripts written using MATLAB (The MathWorks Inc.). The results are expressed as means ± SEM. Statistical comparisons were performed using a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s post-hoc test in SigmaPlot (Systat Software). Differences were deemed significant at P < 0.05. The p-values and number of measurements are indicated in the text or figure legends.
6
Comprehensive Data Analysis Techniques
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological results were analyzed using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices) and custom-written MATLAB programs (The MathWorks Inc.). The AFM results were analyzed using custom-written MATLAB programs (The MathWorks Inc.). The confocal microscopic results were analyzed using ImageJ and AutoTT software. The AutoTT software was kindly provided by Dr. Long–Sheng (University of Iowa). Cell sorting results were analyzed using Diva software (BD FACSDivaTM) and Flowing software 2. Molecular dynamic simulation images were obtained using VMD software53 . Results are expressed as means ± SEM. When indicated, a t test was performed using GraphPad prism software (GraphPad Software, Inc.). Differences were considered significant at a p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), or p < 0.001 (***).
7
Statistical Analysis of Experimental Data
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The electrophysiological results were analysed using Clampfit (pCLAMP v10.0; Molecular Devices) and custom‐written MATLAB programs (The MathWorks Inc.). The contractile function was analysed using custom‐written MATLAB programs. The confocal microscopic results were analysed using ImageJ and custom‐written MATLAB programs.
A normality test (Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test) was always used to determine whether data follow a normal distribution. In most of cases, the normality test failed indicating a nonnormal distribution. In such cases, data are expressed as median (lower 95% confidence interval/upper 95% confidence interval). When specifically stated, results are expressed as means ± SEM. When indicated, for comparing two conditions, a parametric or nonparametric t‐test was performed using GraphPad prism software (GraphPad Software, Inc.). When indicated, for comparing more than two conditions with nonnormal distribution, a nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons) was performed using GraphPad prism software. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***) or p < 0.0001 (****).
A normality test (Agostino and Pearson omnibus normality test) was always used to determine whether data follow a normal distribution. In most of cases, the normality test failed indicating a nonnormal distribution. In such cases, data are expressed as median (lower 95% confidence interval/upper 95% confidence interval). When specifically stated, results are expressed as means ± SEM. When indicated, for comparing two conditions, a parametric or nonparametric t‐test was performed using GraphPad prism software (GraphPad Software, Inc.). When indicated, for comparing more than two conditions with nonnormal distribution, a nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test (with Dunn's correction for multiple comparisons) was performed using GraphPad prism software. Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05 (*), p < 0.01 (**), p < 0.001 (***) or p < 0.0001 (****).
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!