Table 2. Statistical Data Analyses (referred to in Figure 2).

Two-way ANOVA
Test	Effect	Significance
EPM-time (Figure 2a)	Stress	F(1,68)=29.091, p<0.001
	Treatment	F(3,68)=4.196, p<0.01
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=2.560, p=0.06
EPM frequency (Figure 2b)	Stress	F(1,68)=15.903, p<0.001
	Treatment	F(3,68)=4.411, p<0.01
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=4.014, p=0.01
LDT-time (Figure 2c)	Stress	F(1,68)=12.002, p=0.001
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=3.180, p<0.05
LDT frequency (Figure 2d)	Treatment	F(3,68)=3.881, p=0.01
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=5.277, p<0.01
FST immobility (Figure 2e)	Stress	F(1,68)=86.969, p<0.001
	Treatment	F(3,68)=18.945, p<0.001
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=7.112, p<0.001
FST-latency (Figure 2f)	Stress	F(1,67)=41.242, p<0.001
	Treatment	F(3,67)=12.261, p<0.001
	Treatment × stress	F(3,67)=6.141, p=0.001
Hot plate (Figure 2g)	Stress	F(1,68)=5.248, p<0.05
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=2.969, p<0.05
Von Frey (Figure 2h)	Stress	F(1,68)=4.552, p<0.05
	Treatment × stress	F(3,68)=3.326, p<0.05

Abbreviations: EPM, elevated plus maze; FST, forced swim test; LDT, light–dark test; Von Frey, referred to the Von Frey's filaments test carried out on day 0 and reported in Figures 2h and 3.

Two-way ANOVA of results shown in Figure 2. The effects of ‘stress', ‘treatment', and the ‘treatment × stress' interaction for each test (F and p values) are reported, for simplicity, only when a statistical significance or a tendency to significance was found. Results were further analyzed by Bonferroni's post-hoc test to identify differences between group means. Statistical results from post-hoc analysis are shown as asterisks in Figure 2.