Skip to main content
. 2017 Feb 22;7(4):562–576. doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.12203

Table 1.

Statistical analysis

Figure Normality test Multiple comparisons test Combination Summary Adjusted P value
1D Shapiro–Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.7134
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** < 0.0001
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** 0.0003
1E Shapiro–Wilk normality test Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns > 0.9999
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns 0.4292
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns > 0.9999
1F D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.6139
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0018
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi * 0.0163
1G Kalmogorov–Smirnov normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.9976
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0015
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0018
2A D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.7175
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0058
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi * 0.0398
2B Kalmogorov–Smirnov normality test Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.4329
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns > 0.9999
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns 0.9912
2C D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.3798
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns 0.6398
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns 0.8956
2D D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.9623
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0049
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.008
3B Shapiro–Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.6803
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** 0.0004
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0018
3C D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.1224
Shi/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0016
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** < 0.0001
4C D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. R83A12/+ ns 0.4911
Shi/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi * 0.0317
R83A12/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ** 0.0019
4D Kalmogorov–Smirnov normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. R83A12/+ ns 0.9334
Shi/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ** 0.0032
R83A12/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ** 0.0066
4E Shapiro–Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. R83A12/+ ns 0.458
Shi/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ns 0.7599
R83A12/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ns 0.1518
4F Shapiro–Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test Shi/+ vs. R83A12/+ ns 0.9007
Shi/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi * 0.0284
R83A12/+ vs. R83A12 > Shi ** 0.0095
5A D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/TH ns > 0.9999
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi ns > 0.9999
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** 0.0003
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi ns > 0.9999
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi * 0.0199
MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0036
5B D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparisons test TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/TH ns > 0.9999
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi ns > 0.9999
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0014
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi ns > 0.9999
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ** 0.0035
MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi * 0.0105
5C D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/TH *** < 0.0001
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi ns 0.7708
TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** < 0.0001
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi *** 0.0003
MBON‐γ1pedc/TH vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi ns 0.9355
MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi *** 0.0002
5D Shapiro‐Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Tukey's multiple comparisons test dTrpA1/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc/+ ns 0.9969
dTrpA1/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedcC>dTrpA1 ns 0.6142
MBON‐γ1pedc/+ vs. MBON‐γ1pedc>dTrpA1 ns 0.6614
6B D'Agostino & Pearson omnibus normality test ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,TH>Shi *** < 0.0001
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MB060B>Shi *** 0.0007
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,MB060B>Shi ns 0.7626
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MB504B>Shi *** < 0.0001
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,MB504B>Shi *** 0.0002
6C Shapiro–Wilk normality test ANOVA followed by Dunnett's multiple comparisons test MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MB438B>Shi ** 0.0033
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MB438B/MBON‐γ1pedc ** 0.0027
MBON‐γ1pedc>Shi vs. MBON‐γ1pedc,MB438B>Shi ns 0.3367

Statistical analyses of the behavioral experiments are summarized. The figure number (first column), the types of normality test (second column), the types of multiple comparisons test (third column), the data for comparison (fourth column), the significance symbol; *indicates P < 0.05, **indicates P < 0.01, ***indicates P < 0.001 and ns indicates P > 0.05 (fifth column) and the specific P value (sixth column) are indicated. See Materials and methods for details about the type of tests. [Correction added after online publication on 8 March 2017: data for 5D added]. [Corrections added after online publication on 22 March 2017: **** changed to ***].