Table 1.
Statistical tests
| Figure | Data structure | Type of test | Sample size | Statistical data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figure 1B | Two factors (genotype and distance of regeneration) | Two-way ANOVA | CRMP4+/+ mice: n = 6; CRMP4−/− mice: n = 5 | Distance: F(13,126) = 18.95; p < 0.0001; genotype: F(1,126) = 12.49; p = 0.0006; interaction genotype/distance: F(13,126) = 0.5537; p = 0.8860; Sidak’s multiple comparison test: CRMP4+/+ vs CRMP4−/− at all distances from the injury site: n.s. |
| Figure 3C | Normal distribution | Unpaired Student t-test (two-tailed) | Wild-type DRG neurons: n = 8; CRMP4−/− DRG neurons: n = 7 | t = 4.105; df = 13; p = 0.0012 |
| Figure 4B | Two factors (genotype and duration of degeneration) | Mixed effects analysis | For CRMP4+/+ and CRMP4−/− mice: Intact sciatic nerves: n = 7; Transected sciatic nerves at 36 HPI: n = 4; Transected sciatic nerves at 3DPI and 7DPI: n = 3 | Time postinjury: F(3,14) = 110.5; genotype: F(1,12) = 8.569; p = 0.0127; interaction genotype/time postinjury: F(3,14) = 1.768; p = 0.1994; Sidak’s multiple comparison test: intact CRMP4+/+ vs CRMP4−/− nerves: n.s.; transected CRMP4+/+ vs CRMP4−/− nerves at 36 HPI: n.s.; transected CRMP4+/+ vs CRMP4−/− nerves at 3 DPI: p = 0.0016; Transected CRMP4+/+ vs CRMP4−/− nerves at 7 dpi: n.s. |
| Figure 4D | Normal distribution | Unpaired Student t-test (two-tailed) | CRMP4+/+ explants: n = 10; CRMP4−/− explants: n = 9 | t = 2.311; df = 17; p = 0.0336 |
| Figure 6E | Normal distribution | One-way ANOVA | Wild-type DRG neurons: n = 4 | F = 17.15; p = 0.0001; R2 = 0.8109; Tukey’s multiple comparison test: nontreated vs TAT-RFP: n.s.; nontreated vs TAT-CRMP4 NTF: p = 0.0006; nontreated vs TAT-CRMP4 CTF: p = 0.0105; TAT-RFP vs TAT-CRMP4 NTF: p = 0.0003; TAT-RFP vs TAT-CRMP4 CTF: p = 0.0053; TAT-CRMP4 NTF vs TAT-CRMP4 CTF: n.s. |
| Figure 6F | Normal distribution | One-way ANOVA | Wild-type DRG neurons: n = 3 | F = 15.06; p = 0.0012; R2 = 0.8496; Tukey’s multiple comparison test: TAT-RFP vs TAT-CRMP4 NTF: p = 0.0017; TAT-RFP vs GST: n.s.; TAT-RFP vs GST-CRMP4 NTF: n.s.; TAT-CRMP4 NTF vs GST: p = 0.0037; TAT-CRMP4 NTF vs GST-CRMP4 NTF: p = 0.0032; GST vs GST-CRMP4 NTF: n.s. |
| Figure 4G | Normal distribution | One-way ANOVA | CRMP4+/+ DRG explants: n = ; CRMP4−/− DRG explants: n = 4 | F = 24.79; p < 0.0001; R2 = 0.8230; Tukey’s multiple-comparison test: CRMP4+/++NGF vs CRMP4+/+-NGF: p = 0.0024; CRMP4+/++NGF vs CRMP4−/−+NGF: n.s.; CRMP4+/++NGF vs CRMP4−/−-NGF: p = 0.0025; CRMP4+/+-NGF vs CRMP4−/−+NGF: p = 0.0052; CRMP4+/+-NGF vs CRMP4−/−-NGF: n.s.; CRMP4−/−+NGF vs CRMP4−/−-NGF: p = 0.0048 |