. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jul 1.

Published in final edited form as: J Neurochem. 2019 May 9;150(1):56–73. doi: 10.1111/jnc.14702

Table 2:

Statistics details

Figure		Statistics	F (DFn, DFd)	P value	Statistics details

Figure 3	A	Two-way ANOVA	F_{81, 1449} = 4.571	P < 0.001	P < 0.01, *P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
	B	Two-way ANOVA	F_{81, 1448} = 5.030	P < 0.001	P < 0.01, *P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
	C	Two-way ANOVA	F_{81, 1364} = 2.127	P < 0.001	P < 0.01, *P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
	D	Two-way ANOVA	F_{81, 1442} = 4.213	P < 0.001	P < 0.05, **P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
Figure 4	A	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 143} = 25.62	P < 0.001	P < 0.05, **P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
	B	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 143} = 26.99	P < 0.001	P < 0.01, *P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old wWT mice
	C	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 134} = 9.883	P < 0.001	P < 0.05, P < 0.01, **P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
	D	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 140} = 23.03	P < 0.001	***P < 0.001 MP compared to 8 weeks old WT mice
Figure 5	A	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 59} = 8.524	P < 0.001	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 10.56	P =0.002	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 122.4	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	B	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 53} = 3.138	P = 0.082	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 6.862	P = 0.011	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 122.4	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	C	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 93.2	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 865.1*X + 23.59 R² = 0.4331, R = 0.65 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 94} = 53.82	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 671.9*X + 30.49 R² = 0.3641, R = 0.63 (10P/25Hz)
	D	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 121.4	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 2140*X − 395.0 R² = 0.4988, R = 0.7 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 142.7	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 968.8*X − 360.4 R² = 0.5391, R = 0.73 (10P/25Hz)
	E	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 59} = 8.524	P < 0.001	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 10.56	P =0.002	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 139} = 32.57	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	F	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 53} = 3.138	P = 0.082	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 6.862	P = 0.011	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 139} = 32.57	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	G	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 55.28	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 175.9*X + 39.51 R² = 0.3118, R = 0.55 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 53.14	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 146.9*X + 33.44 R² = 0.3034, R = 0.55 (10P/25Hz)
	H	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 77.66	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 452.9*X − 52.74 R² = 0.3890, R = 0.62 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 83.26	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 201.4*X − 42.34 R² = 0.4056, R = 0.63 (10P/25Hz)
Figure 6	A	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 59} = 8.524	P < 0.001	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 10.56	P =0.002	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 25.04	P < 0.001	* p < 0.05, p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	B	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 53} = 3.138	P = 0.082	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 6.862	P = 0.011	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 25.04	P < 0.001	* p < 0.05, p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	C	Linear I regression	F _{1, 122} = 142.2	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 106.0*X − 9.917 R² = 0.5383, R = 0.73 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 146.8	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 90.37*X − 14.80 R² = 0.5461, R = 0.73 (10P/25Hz)
	D	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 88.01	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 215.5*X − 42.38 R² = 0.4191, R = 0.64 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 138.6	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 105.7*X − 45.89 R² = 0.5319, R = 0.72 (10P/25Hz)
	E	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 53} = 3.138	P = 0.082	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 10.56	P =0.002	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 91.89	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	F	Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 53} = 3.138	P = 0.082	### p < 0.001 WT (1P/25Hz) vs. MP (1P/25Hz)
		Two-way ANOVA	F_{1, 56} = 6.862	P = 0.011	$ $ $ p < 0.001 WT (10P/25Hz) vs. MP (10P/25Hz)
		One-way ANOVA	F_{10, 140} = 91.89	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	G	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 344.6	II P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 65.44*X − 17.62 R² = 0.7385, R = 0.86 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 453.9	III P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 57.24*X − 21.58 R² = 0.7882, R = 0.89 (10P/25Hz)
	H	Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 248.7	IV P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 143.8*X − 41.97 R² = 0.6709, R = 0.81 (1P/25Hz)
		Linear regression	F _{1, 122} = 386.8	P < 0.0001	Equation Y = 66.65*X − 40.99 R² = 0.7602, R = 0.87 (10P/25Hz)
Figure 7	C	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 66} = 80.17	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	D	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 66} = 134.7	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
Figure 8	A	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 141} = 17.56	P < 0.001	Tonic: *** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
		One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 145} = 18.49	P < 0.001	Phasic: p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	B	One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 133} = 12.52	P < 0.001	Tonic: p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
		One-way ANOVA	F_{9, 133} = 14.11	P < 0.001	Phasic: * p < 0.05, p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
Figure5-1	A	Two-way ANOVA	F_{9, 242} = 72.32	P < 0.001	*** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	B	Two-way ANOVA	F_{9, 234} = 13.16	P < 0.001	p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	C	Two-way ANOVA	F_{8, 208} = 12.25	P < 0.001	* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001 WT vs. MP
	D	Two-way ANOVA	F_{9, 235} = 9.380	P < 0.001	p < 0.01, * p < 0.001 WT vs. MP

ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test for multiple comparisons