Table 5.
Statistical analysis for Figure 7
| Set of data | Type of statistical analysis | Results of statistical analysis | |
|---|---|---|---|
| A, P-Thr34 D32/D32 | |||
| Papaverine effect in each subregion | |||
| Subregion (1): control vs papaverine | Paired t test | t(5) = 5.006 | p = 0.0041 |
| Subregion (2-1): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.365) = 6.137 | p = 0.0013 |
| Subregion (2-2): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.779) = 7.555 | p < 0.001 |
| Subregion (2-3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.074) = 2.991 | p = 0.028 |
| Subregion (3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(4.167) = 5.067 | p = 0.0085 |
| Subregion (4): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.054) = 4.356 | p = 0.0071 |
| Subregion (5): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(3.002) = 4.181 | p = 0.0249 |
| B, P-Ser845 GluA1/GluA1 | |||
| Papaverine effect in each subregion | |||
| Subregion (1): control vs papaverine | Paired t test | t(5) = 5.298 | p = 0.0032 |
| Subregion (2-1): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.054) = 5.967 | p = 0.0018 |
| Subregion (2-2): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.049) = 5.41 | p = 0.0028 |
| Subregion (2-3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.04) = 4.896 | p = 0.0044 |
| Subregion (3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.037) = 6.561 | p = 0.0012 |
| Subregion (4): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.081) = 5.127 | p = 0.0035 |
| Subregion (5): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(3.094) = 4.5 | p = 0.0192 |
| C, P-Thr34 D32/D32 | |||
| Homogenate | |||
| Subregion (1): control vs papaverine | Paired t test | t(5) = 5.217 | p = 0.0034 |
| Subregion (2-3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.132) = 7.803 | p < 0.001 |
| Subregion (3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.245) = 6.065 | p = 0.0015 |
| D1-Flag | Two-way ANOVA | ||
| Subregion (1): control vs papaverine | Paired t test | t(4) = 3.762 | p = 0.0197 |
| Subregion (2-3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(5.241) = 10.71 | p < 0.001 |
| Subregion (3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(4.383) = 3.137 | p = 0.0308 |
| Two-way ANOVA for D1-Flag | |||
| Papaverine effect | Two-way ANOVA | F(1,24) = 56.48 | p < 0.001 |
| Subregion effect | Two-way ANOVA | F(2,24) = 2.111 | p = 0.1430 |
| Papaverine-subregion interaction | Two-way ANOVA | F(2,24) = 4.469 | p = 0.0224 |
| Papaverine: subregion (1) vs (2-3) | Bonferroni post hoc test | p = 0.0062 | |
| Papaverine: subregion (1) vs (3) | Bonferroni post hoc test | p = 0.0607 | |
| D2-Myc | Two-way ANOVA | ||
| Subregion (1): control vs papaverine | Paired t test | t(4) = 4.403 | p = 0.0117 |
| Subregion (2-3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(8) = 4.852 | p = 0.0031 |
| Subregion (3): control vs papaverine | t test (Welch's-correction) | t(8) = 4.596 | p = 0.0018 |