Skip to main content
. 2020 Aug 7;216(3):735–752. doi: 10.1534/genetics.120.303533

Figure 6.

Figure 6

REMS theta power following sleep deprivation is increased more strongly in Tfap2a+/− mice but less strongly in Tfap2b+/− mice compared with wild-type controls. (A) REMS time change in Tfap2a+/−, two-way ANOVA tests followed by Sidak’s pairwise comparison, the main effect of genotype: F(1, 30) = 1.698, P = 0.202; the main effect of time, F(2, 30) = 4.585, P = 0.018. (B) Average REMS bout duration change in Tfap2a+/−, two-way ANOVA tests followed by Sidak’s pairwise comparison, the main effect of genotype: F(1, 30) = 17.95, P = 0.010; the main effect of time, F(2, 30) = 5.365, P = 0.0002. ZT06–12: *P = 0.011. Z12–18: **P = 0.0079. Z18–24: P = 0.749. (C) Rebound differences of REMS in theta power (0.5–25 Hz) in Tfap2a+/−. Z06–12: 0.5–25 Hz, ****P < 0.0001. Z12–18: 0.5–25 Hz, ****P < 0.0001. Z18–24: 0.5–25 Hz, ****P < 0.0001. (D) REMS time change in Tfap2b+/−, two-way ANOVA tests followed by Sidak’s pairwise comparison, the main effect of genotype: F(1, 33) = 0.673, P = 0.418; the main effect of time, F(2, 33) = 16.86, P < 0.0001. (E) Average REMS bout duration in Tfap2b+/−, two-way ANOVA tests followed by Sidak’s pairwise comparison, the main effect of genotype: F(1, 33) = 0.234, P = 0.632; the main effect of time, F(2, 33) = 2.521, P = 0.096. (F) Rebound differences of REMS in theta power (0.5–25 Hz) in Tfap2b+/−. Z06–12: 0.5–25 Hz, ****P < 0.0001. Z12–18: 0.5–25 Hz, P = 0.119. Z18–24: 0.5–25 Hz, ****P < 0.0001. n = 5 for Tfap2a+/+, n = 7 for Tfap2a+/−, n = 7 for Tfap2b+/+, n = 6 for Tfap2b+/−. Wilcoxon two-sided signed-rank tests were used for power changes in (C and F). BSL, baseline sleep; R, recovery sleep. All data are shown as the mean ± SEM.