Table 1. Statistics.
| Figure | Test | Values | N |
|---|---|---|---|
| Figure 1e | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | NS, p=0.71 | WT n = 11 mice; Hdh150 n = 10 mice |
| Figure 1f | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | p=0.023 | WT n = 1204 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 933 cells in six mice |
| Figure 1h | Mann-Whitney test | p=0.006 | WT n = 765 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells in six mice |
| Figure 1i | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | NS, p=0.98 | WT n = 765 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells in six mice |
| Figure 1j | Two-way ANOVA test | Group: p<0.0001, Df = 1, F = 85.96, time: p<0.0001, Df = 16, F = 147, Interaction: p<0.0001, F = 4.9, Df = 16 | WT n = 765 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells in six mice |
| Figure 1l | Chi-square test | p=0.002, df = 1, Chi-square = 9.127 | WT n = 765 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells in six mice |
| Figure 2b | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 p=0.03; WT vs WT rand p<0.0001; Hdh150 vs Hdh150 rand p<0.0001 | WT n = 26126 Pearson's r in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 58050 Pearson's r in six mice |
| Figure 2c | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 mice: MM p=0.041 in Hdh150 mice; compared to LL: MM p=0.0496, MH p=0.005, HH p=0.009 | WT n = 26126 Pearson's r in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 58050 Pearson's r in six mice |
| Figure 2d | Two-way ANOVA test | Group: p<0.0001, Df = 1, F = 58.20 Distance: p=0.97, Df = 15, F = 0.44 Interaction: p=0.33, df = 15, F = 1.13 |
WT n = 26126 distances in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 58050 distances in six mice |
| Figure 2e | Two-way ANOVA test | p=0.35, Df = 1, F = 0.86 | WT rand n = 26126 distances in eight mice; Hdh150 rand n = 58050 distances in six mice |
| Figure 3b | Mann-Whitney test | p=0.031119 | WT n = 10 mice; Hdh150 n = 13 mice |
| Figure 4a | Mann-Whitney test | control vs 1 mM metformin p=0.084521, control vs 2.5 mM metformin p=0.023231 | Control n = 10, 1 mM metformin n = 11, 2.5 mM metformin n = 10. |
| Figure 4b | Mann-Whitney test | control siRNA vs MID1 siRNA p=0.008, control siRNA vs MID1 siRNA + metformin p=0.015 | Control siRNA n = 6, MID1 siRNAn = 6, MID1 siRNA + metformin n=6. |
| Figure 4c | RM two-way ANOVA | Treatment: p=0.0082, Df = 2, F = 5 Time: p<0.0001, Df = 47, F = 27.5 Interaction: p<0.0001, Df = 94, F = 5.9 |
ncontrol = 47, nmetformin 1mM = 44, nmetformin 2.5mM = 35 |
| Figure 4d | RM two-way ANOVA | Treatment: p=0.0021, Df = 3, F = 5.1 Time: p<0.0001, Df = 47, F = 64.1 Interaction: p<0.0001, Df = 141, F = 6.1 p<0.0001 |
ncontrol = 46, nmetformin = 49, nmetformin+OA = 51, nOA = 43 |
| Figure 4f | Unpaired t-test | p=0.0473 | Hdh150 n = 6; Hdh150 metformin n = 6 |
| Figure 4h | Unpaired t-test | p=0.0467 | Hdh150 n = 3; Hdh150 metformin n = 3 |
| Figure 4i | Unpaired t-test | p=0.0062 | Hdh150 n = 3; Hdh150 metformin n = 3 |
| Figure 4j | Unpaired t-test | p=0.8766 | Hdh150 n = 3; Hdh150 metformin n = 3 |
| Figure 5b | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 p=0.023, Hdh150 vs Hdh150 met p=0.03, Hdh150 vs WT met p=0.012 | WT n = 1204 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 933 cells in six mice; WT met n = 1915 cells in nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1585 cells in six mice |
| Figure 5c | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 p=0.006; Hdh150 vs Hdh150 met p=0.007; Hdh150 vs WT met p=0.008 | WT n = 765 cells in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells in six mice; WT met n = 1199 in nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1014 cells in six mice |
| Figure 5d | Two-way ANOVA test | Group: p<0.0001, Df = 3, F = 61.80 Time: p<0.0001, Df = 16, F = 345.9 Interaction: p<0.0001, Df = 48, F = 3.64 |
WT n = 765 cells eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells six mice; WT met n = 1199 cells nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1012 cells six mice |
| Figure 5e | Chi-square test | p=0.62, df = 1; Chi-square = 0.24 | WT n = 765 cells eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells six mice; WT met n = 1199 cells nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1012 cells six mice |
| Figure 5f | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 p=0.03; Hdh150 vs Hdh150 met p=0.002; Hdh150 vs WT met p=0.003 | WT n = 765 cells eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells six mice; WT met n = 1199 cells nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1012 cells six mice |
| Figure 5g | Two-way ANOVA test | Group: p<0.0001, Df = 3, F = 85.96 Distance: p=0.99, Df = 45, F = 0.58 Interaction: p=0.0007, Df = 15, F = 2.63 |
WT n = 765 cells eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells six mice; WT met n = 1199 cells nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1012 cells six mice |
| Figure 5i | Mann-Whitney test | WT vs Hdh150 p=0.002, Hdh150 vs Hdh150 Met p=0.002, Hdh150 vs. WT met p=0.02, WT vs Hdh150 Met p=0.82 | WT n = 10; Hdh150 n = 13; WT met n = 6; Hdh150 met n = 8 mice |
| Figures supplements | Test | values | n |
| Figure 1—figure supplement 1e | Mann-Whitney test | p=0.002 | n = 6 neurons, n = 6 astrocytes |
| Figure 1—figure supplement 1f | Mann-Whitney test | p=0.002 | n = 6 neurons, n = 6 astrocytes |
| Figure 1—figure supplement 3d | Mann-Whitney test | In WT mice: SS vs SL p=0.5, SS vs SM p=0.9, SS vs LL p=0.1, SS vs LM p=0.2, SS vs MM p=0.1, SL vs SM p=0.4, SM vs LL p=0.1, SM vs MM p=0.1, LL vs MM p=0.9, LM vs MM p=0.4, LM vs SM, p=0.2. In Hdh150 mice: SS vs SL p=0.8, SS vs SM p=0.5, SS vs SH p=0.9, SS vs SH p=0.9, SS vs LL p=0.9, SS vs LM p=0.9, SS vs LH p=1, SS vs MM p=0.1, SS vs MH p=0.1, SS vs HH p=0.4, SL vs SM p=0.8, SL vs SH p=0.9, SL vs LL p=0.9, SL vs LM p=0.9, SL vs LH p=0.8, SL vs MM p=0.5, SL vs MH p=0.6, SL vs HH p=0.7, SN vs SH p=0.6, SM vs LL p=0.7, SM vs LM p=0.6, SN vs LH p=0.4, SM vs MM p=0.3, SN vs MH p=0.4, SN vs HH p 0 0.6, SH vs LL p=0.7, SH vs LM p=1, SH vs LH p=1, SH vs MM p=0.4, SH vs MH p=0.3, SH vs HH p=0.6, LL vs LM p=0.9, LL vs LH p=1, LL vs MM p=0.5, LL vs MH p=0.7, LL vs HH p=0.8, LM vs LH p=0.6, LM vs MM p=0.3, LM vs MH p=0.3, LM vs HH p=0.5, LH vs MM p=0.3, LH vs MH p=0.3, LH vs HH p=0.5, MM vs MH p=0.7, NN vs HH p=0.8, MH vs HH p=0.9 In WT vs WT rand: WT mice: SS p=0.5, SL p=0.7, SM p=0.3, LL p=0.3, LM p=0.8, MM p=0.1. In Hdh150 vs Hdh150 rand: SS p=0.6, SL p=1, SM p=1, SH p=0.6, LL p=0.7, LM p=0.6, LH p=0.2, MM p=0.6, MH p=0.8, HH p=0.7 NS |
WT n = 72595 distances eight mice; Hdh150 n = 132009 distances six mice |
| Figure 2—figure supplement 1a | Mann-Whitney test | LL p=0.005; LM p<0.0001; MM p<0.0001 | WT n = 26126 Pearson's r in eight mice |
| Figure 2—figure supplement 1b | Mann-Whitney test | LL p=0.004; LM p=0.0006; LH p=0.041; MM p<0.0001; MH p=0.0002; HH p=0.01. In Hdh150 mice, compared to LL: MM p=0.049; MH p=0.005; HH p=0.009 | Hdh150 n = 58050 Pearson's r in six mice |
| Figure 2—figure supplement 2c | Mann-Whitney test | routine p=0.4, leak p=0.5, CI p=0.6, CI + CII p=0.5, ETS p=0.2 | WT n = 6 mice; Hdh150 n = 6 mice |
| Figure 3—figure supplement 1b | RM two-way ANOVA | Genotype: p=0.6, Df = 1, F = 0.3 Time: p<0.0001, Df = 6, F = 86.1 Interaction: p=0.6, Df = 6, F = 0.7 |
WT n = 16 mice; Hdh150 n = 13 mice |
| Figure 3—figure supplement 1c | RM two-way ANOVA | Genotype: p=0.5, Df = 1, F = 0.5 Time: p<0.0001, Df = 9, F = 35.4 Interaction: p=0.03, Df = 9, F = 2.2 |
WT n = 16 mice; Hdh150 n = 13 mice |
| Figure 3—figure supplement 1d | RM two-way ANOVA | Genotype: p=0.8, Df = 1, F = 3.4 Time: p<0.01, Df = 6, F = 3.4 Interaction: p=0.97, Df = 6, F = 0.2 |
WT n = 16 mice; Hdh150 n = 13 mice |
| Figure 3—figure supplement 1e | Mann-Whitney test | p=0.3 | WT n = 10; Hdh150 n = 13; WT met n = 6; Hdh150 met n = 8 mice |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 1a | RM two-way ANOVA | Treatment p=0.0342, Df = 2, F = 3.5; Time p<0.0001, Df = 47, F = 45.3; Interaction p<0.0001, Df = 94, F = 3.5 |
ncontrol = 36, nmetformin 1mM = 42, nmetformin 2.5mM = 44 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 1b | RM two-way ANOVA | Treatment p=0.2986, Df = 1, F = 1.9; Time p=0.0654, Df = 20, F = 1.8; Interaction p=0.9988, Df = 20, F = 0.3. |
control n = 7, metformin n = 8 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 1dc | Unpaired t-test | p=0,1826 | Hdh150 n = 4; Hdh150 metformin n = 4 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 2a | Mann-Whitney test | p<0.0001 | control n = 65, metformin n = 65 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 2b | Mann-Whitney test | Q40 vs. Q40 Met p<0.0001 | Q40n = 43, Q40 Met n = 43 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 2c | Mann-Whitney test | Ctrl vs. 5 mM p=0.0078, Ctrl vs. 10 mM p<0.0001 | n = 45 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 2d | Mann-Whitney test | p<0.0001 | Control n = 72, arc-1 RNAi n = 74 |
| Figure 4—figure supplement 2e | Mann-Whitney test | p<0.0001 | Control n = 60, arc-1 RNAi n = 62 |
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1b | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | WT met vs. Hdh150 met p=0.39, WT vs. WT met p=0.7, Hdh150 vs. Hdh150 met p=0.9 | WT n = 11; Hdh150 n = 10; WT met n = 9; Hdh150 met n = 6 mice |
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1c | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | WT vs WT met p=0.024 | WT n = 765 cells eight mice; Hdh150 n = 695 cells six mice; WT met n = 1199 cells nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 1012 cells six mice |
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1d | Unpaired t test, two-tailed | WT met: LL vs LM p=0.04 and LL vs MM p<0.0001; Hdh150 met: LL vs LM p=0.4, LL vs MM p=0.004 | WT met n = 57140 Pearson's r in nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 49535 Pearson's r in six mice |
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1e | Mann-Whitney test | LM WT vs LM Hdh150; MM WT vs MM Hdh150 p=0.04 | WT n = 26126 Pearson's r in eight mice; Hdh150 n = 58050 Pearson's r in six mice; WT met n = 57140 Pearson's r in nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 49535 Pearson's r in six mice |
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1f | Mann-Whitney test | SS p=0.1, SL p=0.1, SM p=0.1, LL p=0.4, LM p=0.3, MM p=0.2 | WT met n = 140467 distances in nine mice; Hdh150 met n = 117485 distances in six mice |