a slight trendP = 0.09
The GFAP area analysis showed a slight trend to more GFAP signal in βB1‐CTGF mice (3.36 ± 0.41 area [%]/section) compared to WT (2.39 ± 0.28 area [%]/section; P = 0.09; Figure 4 B).
The GFAP area analysis showed a slight trend to more GFAP signal in βB1‐CTGF mice (3.36 ± 0.41 area [%]/section) compared to WT (2.39 ± 0.28 area [%]/section; P = 0.09; Figure 4 B).