Table 2.
Statistical analysis of cortical width and marker composition at P10
| Data | Comparison (n) | Data structure (normality?) | Equal variance? | Test | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cortical width (a) | WT-M (7) vs KO-M (5) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,10) = 1.495 p = 0.1658 |
| WT-F (7) vs HET-F (9) | No | Yes | Mann–Whitney |
U = 31 p > 0.9999 |
|
| WT-M (7) vs WT-F (7) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,12) = 0.6648 p = 0.5187 |
|
| % CUX1 over DAPI (b) | WT (4) vs KO (4) vs HET (4) | Yes | Yes | one-way ANOVA |
F(2,9) = 1.065 p = 0.3846 |
| % RORB over DAPI (c) | WT-M (4) vs KO-M (4) | No | Yes | Mann–Whitney |
U = 3 p = 0.2 |
| WT-F (4) vs HET-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 1.060 p = 0.3301 |
|
| WT-M (4) vs WT-F (4) | No | Yes | Mann–Whitney |
U = 7 p = 0.8857 |
|
| % SATB2 over DAPI (d) | WT-M (4) vs KO-M (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.6827 p = 0.5203 |
| WT-F (4) vs HET-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 1.105 p = 0.3113 |
|
| WT-M (4) vs WT-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.1644 p = 0.8749 |
|
| % CTIP2 over DAPI (e) | WT-M (4) vs KO-M (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 1.557 p = 0.1704 |
| WT-F (4) vs HET-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.7295 p = 0.4932 |
|
| WT-M (4) vs WT-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.2306 p = 0.8253 |
|
| % TBR1 over DAPI (f) | WT-M (4) vs KO-M (4) | No | Yes | Mann–Whitney |
U = 1 p = 0.0571 |
| WT-F (4) vs HET-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.3816 p = 0.7159 |
|
| WT-M (4) vs WT-F (4) | Yes | Yes | Unpaired t test |
t(2,6) = 0.8509 p = 0.4275 |
The table lists the data analyzed and the groups that have been compared, including the number of independent samples. Normality of the data and equality of variance for the groups compared are indicated, as well as the statistical test performed and the obtained results. The details of the tests performed for the layer distribution of individual markers have not been included, for simplicity.