Table 5 Detailed statistics corresponding with Fig. 5
Comparison | Statistical test | n | Statistic | p-value | Outliers? | Figure |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | ||||||
In vivo matched NIF + D1r siRNA-NIF + scRNA injection: male | One sample t-test (from 100) | Three animals; eight sections/animal | t(2) = 2.81 | 0.107 | N/A | Fig. 5b |
B | ||||||
In vivo matched NIF + D1r siRNA-NIF + scRNA injection: female | One sample t-test (from 100) | Three animals; eight sections/animal | t(2) = 27.1 | 0.001 | N/A | Fig. 5d |
C | ||||||
Social play: NIF/Vehicle + si/scRNA males | One-way ANOVA | 9–10 animals/treatment | F(3,32) = 3.84 | 0.019 | Veh sc: 1; NIF si: 1 | Fig. 5f |
Veh sc: Veh si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 0.24 | 0.902 | ||
Veh sc: NIF sc | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 2.95 | 0.029 | ||
Veh sc: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 0.41 | 0.902 | ||
Veh si: NIF sc | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 2.71 | 0.042 | ||
Veh si: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 0.65 | 0.891 | ||
NIF sc: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 9:9 | t(32) = 3.35 | 0.012 | ||
D | ||||||
Social exploration: NIF/Vehicle + si/scRNA males | One-way ANOVA | 9–10 animals/treatment | F(3,34) = 0.56 | 0.664 | N/A | Fig. 5g |
E | ||||||
Social play: NIF/Vehicle + si/scRNA females | One-way ANOVA | Ten animals/treatment | F(3,36) = 4.42 | 0.010 | N/A | Fig. 5f |
Veh sc: Veh si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 0.19 | 0.845 | ||
Veh sc: NIF sc | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 2.98 | 0.030 | ||
Veh sc: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 2.23 | 0.122 | ||
Veh si: NIF sc | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 2.80 | 0.040 | ||
Veh si: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 2.05 | 0.137 | ||
NIF sc: NIF si | Holm-Sidak’s post-hoc | 10:10 | t(36) = 0.75 | 0.706 | ||
F | ||||||
Social exploration: NIF/Vehicle + si/scRNA females | One-way ANOVA | Ten animals/treatment | F(3,36) = 0.95 | 0.428 | N/A | Fig. 5i |