. 2024 Jan 10;44(2):e1393222023. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1393-22.2023

Table 1.

Target new spine morphological characteristics and new spine outgrowth rates

Target new spine size
	Groups	n value (spines/cells)	Pixel value/1,000	Groups compared	p value	Test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα	16/16	10 ± 1	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.2	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα-K42R	14/14	14 ± 2	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.2	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 4	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	18/18	13 ± 2	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.7	One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons
	CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	10/10	16 ± 2	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.7
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	20/20	21 ± 2	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	0.02
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	20/20	21 ± 2	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.3
Fig. 5	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	60/9	14 ± 2	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.5
	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	29/6	17 ± 3	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.5
	Control (dsRed-Express)	51/9	13 ± 1	Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	0.9
	Control (dsRed-Express)	51/9	13 ± 1	Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.3
Target new spine length
	Groups	n value (spines/cells)	µm	Groups compared	p value	Test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα	16/16	1.2 ± 0.2	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.6	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα-K42R	14/14	1.3 ± 0.2	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.6	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 4	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	18/18	1.2 ± 0.1	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.1	One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons
	CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	10/10	0.8 ± 0.1	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.1
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	20/20	1.1 ± 0.1	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	0.9
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	20/20	1.1 ± 0.1	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.2
Fig. 5	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	60/9	1.1 ± 0.1	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.1
	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	29/6	1.5 ± 0.2	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.1
	Control (dsRed-Express)	51/9	1.3 ± 0.1	Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	0.6
				Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.3
New spine outgrowth rate
	Groups	n value (spines/cells)	# spines/µm /60 min	Groups compared	p value	Test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα	76/16	0.07 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.8	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 2	CaMKIIα-K42R	86/14	0.07 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα vs CaMKIIα-K42R	0.8	Unpaired two-tailed t test
Fig. 4	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	104/18	0.07 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.3	One-Way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons
	CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	57/10	0.06 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα* vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.3
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	148/20	0.06 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + CaMKIIα*	0.8
	CaMKIIα-shRNA	148/20	0.06 ± 0.01	CaMKIIα-shRNA vs CaMKIIα-shRNA + mCaMKIIα*	0.6
Fig. 5	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	60/9	0.06 ± 0.01	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.5
	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	29/6	0.05 ± 0.01	GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.5
	Control (dsRed-Express)	51/9	0.05 ± 0.01	Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D	0.7
	Control (dsRed-Express)	51/9	0.05 ± 0.01	Control vs GFP-CaMKIIα-T286D/K42R	0.9

The morphological characteristics of target new spines and outgrowth rates are compared at the time of first appearance (at the end of the first 60 min time-lapse interval).