. 2014 May 28;111(23):8667–8672. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1403739111

Table 1.

Statistical comparison of the signal intensity distributions between STIM2 and STIM0 conditions

Cell	K-S P value	Motor function^*
B9	9.5E-35^†	Jaw closure
B1	7.3E-22^†	Gut peristalsis
B2	8.4E-15^†	Gut peristalsis
B3	4.8E-11^†	Jaw closure
B6	5.7E-08^†	Jaw closure
B8^‡	8.8E-07^†	Radula closure and retraction
B39	0.0016	Jaw closure
B4	0.0069	Undefined
B11	0.0221	Radula backward rotation
B62	0.0563	Radula protraction
B38	0.0582	Anterior jaw closure
B15	0.1392	Radula backward rotation and closure
B5	0.6277	Undefined
B61	0.8434	Radula protraction

According to Church and Lloyd (20, 21) and Hurwitz et al. (37).

^{^†}

P < 0.001.

^{^‡}

The average signal intensity is lower for STIM2 condition.