Skip to main content
. 2016 May 24;3(3):ENEURO.0144-15.2016. doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0144-15.2016

Table 1.

Statistical analyses

Results Data structure Type of test n numbers Probability, p
(Fig. 2A, top) IB pull-down α GST-Arc(WT) vs GST Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(195-199A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
(Fig. 2A, middle) IB pull-down µ2 GST vs GST-Arc(WT) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 0.0007
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(195-199A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 0.0039
(Fig. 2B) IB pull-down dyn2-GFP GST-Arc(WT) vs GST Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 0.0159
(Fig. 2C) IB pull-down GFP-Triad3A GST-Arc(WT) vs GST Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 < 0.0001
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 0.0055
GST-Arc(WT) vs GST-Arc(195-199A) Two-factor, mean t test 3/3 0.0055
(Fig. 3A) IB Surface GluA1 pCIneo vs pArc(WT) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 3/3 0.1284
pCIneo vs pArc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 4/4 0.5543
(Fig. 3B) IB Surface GluA2 pCIneo vs pArc(WT) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 4/4 >0.9999
pCIneo vs pArc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 4/4 0.9637
(Fig. 3B) IB Surface EGFR pCIneo vs pArc(WT) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 4/4 0.6156
pCIneo vs pArc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 4/4 0.7621
(Fig. 3F) IF Surface GluA1 mCherry vs mCherry-Arc(WT) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 59/60 <0.0001
mCherry vs mCherry-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 59/42 0.3438
(Fig. 3G) IF mCherry expression mCherry vs mCherry-Arc(WT) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 3/3 0.5625
mCherry vs mCherry-Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 3/3 0.9211
(Fig. 3H) IB Arc expression mCherry-Arc(WT) vs mCherry- Arc(W197A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 3/3 0.6892
mCherry-Arc(WT) vs mCherry- Arc(195-199A) Two-factor, mean ANOVA Tukey’s 3/3 0.4951
(Fig. 4) Arc–AP-2 interaction Arc(WT) vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 12/20 0.0002 0.47
Arc(W197A) vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 13/20 0.121 0.98
Arc(195-199A) vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 10/20 0.372 0.18
eGFP vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 7/20 0.376 0.39
(Fig. 5) cDNA constructs and mEPSC kinetics All constructs vs untransfected rise decay Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 6/18 >0.05 >0.05
(Fig. 6) AP-2 requirement for Arc mediated changes in synaptic strength μ2-miRNA2 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 9/12 0.07 0.37
Arc(WT) + μ2-miRNA2 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 16/12 0.52 0.63
Arc(WT) + n.c.miRNA vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 7/12 0.001 0.08
μ2-miRNA3 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 10/8 0.68 0.45
Arc(WT) + μ2-miRNA3 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 6/8 0.27 0.14
(Fig. 7) The Arc-AP-2μ interaction is required for Arc-mediated changes in synaptic strength Arc(WT) +μ2-miRNA2+μ2 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 14/14 0.0001 0.37
Arc(195-199A)+μ2-miRNA2+μ2 vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 9/14 0.46 0.64
(Fig. 8) AP-2 is required for homeostatic scaling Control vs bicuculline (untransfected) amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 10/15 0.0001 0.64
miRNA2 (bicuculline) vs untransfected (bicuculline) amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 6/15 0.0001 0.59
n.c.miRNA (bicuculline) vs untransfected amplitude frequency Two-factor, mean Mann–Whitney 5/15 0.007 0.29