Skip to main content
. 2016 Feb 2;5:e12248. doi: 10.7554/eLife.12248

Figure 5. The gradient did not affect branch extension and retraction rates.

Figure 5.

(A) Histogram of the number of cells with different numbers of branches after 5 hr of growth. The number (mean ± std) of branches per neuron in the control condition was 4.2 ± 1.8 (n=324 cells) and in the gradient condition was 4.4 ± 1.9 (n=297 cells), p = 0.9 Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. (B) The distribution of interval times between two successive branching events of the same cell. The interval (mean ± std) in the control condition was 23.1 ± 22.8 min (n=315 intervals) and in the gradient condition was 24.1 ± 23.5 min (n=287 intervals), p = 0.7 KS test. (C) Branch lifetime (mean ± std) in the control condition was 87 ± 79 min (n=245 branches) and in the gradient condition was 92 ± 81 min (n=213 branches), p = 0.2 KS test. (D) Histogram of the number of branches pointing up the gradient vs down the gradient (p = 0.8, KS test).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12248.012

Figure 5—source data 1. The number of branches per cell after 5 hr of growth in the control and NGF gradient (Columns A,B).
In the gradient, we counted the number of branches pointing up and down the gradient (Columns C,D). We measured the time intervals between successive branching events in the same cell in the control and NGF gradient over 5 hr (Columns E-F). For branches that retracted in the 5 hr imaging time, we measured their lifetimes in the control and NGF gradient (Columns G,H).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.12248.013
elife-12248-fig5-data1.xlsx (43.9KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.12248.013