Figure | Data structure | Type of test | Sample size | Statistical data |
---|---|---|---|---|
Fig. 1F | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | Olig2+: n = 5S100β+: n = 5 | t = 3.932, df = 8, p = 0.0043Cohen’s d = 2.487 |
Fig. 1H | Normal distribution | One-way ANOVA | WT mice: n = 2 (three to five images/mouse) | F = 3.328, p = 0.0134, η2 = 0.299Tukey’s multiple comparison test:mPFC vs M2: p = 0.8229, Cohen’s d = 0.523mPFC vs CC: p = 0.0441, Cohen’s d = 1.79mPFC vs Pe: p > 0.9999, Cohen’s d = 0.115mPFC vs BLA: p = 0.9835, Cohen’s d = 0.355mPFC vs CoA: p = 0.9934, Cohen’s d = 0.236M2 vs CC: p = 0.4619, Cohen’s d =1.027M2 vs Pe: p = 0.9441, Cohen’s d = 0.435M2 vs BLA: p = 0.4175, Cohen’s d = 0.962M2 vs CoA: p = 0.9882, Cohen’s d = 0.262CC vs Pe: p = 0.1238, Cohen’s d = 1.791CC vs BLA: p = 0.0076, Cohen’s d = 3.228CC vs CoA: p = 0.1843, Cohen’s d = 1.309Pe vs BLA: p = 0.954, Cohen’s d = 0.52Pe vs CoA: p = 0.9997, Cohen’s d = 0.602BLA vs CoA: p = 0.8305, Cohen’s d = 0.139 |
Fig. 1I* | Normal distribution | Kruskal-Wallis test | WT mice: n = 2 (three to five images/mouse) | H = 19.22, p = 0.0007, ε2 = 0.534Dunnett’s multiple comparison test:mPFC vs M2: p > 0.9999, Cohen’s d = 0.353mPFC vs Pe: p = 0.4307, Cohen’s d = 1.229mPFC vs BLA: p = 0.0462, Cohen’s d = 1.81mPFC vs CoA: p = 0.1536, Cohen’s d = 1.354M2 vs Pe: p = 0.0929, Cohen’s d = 2.09M2 vs BLA: p = 0.0055, Cohen’s d = 3.246M2 vs CoA: p = 0.0247, Cohen’s d = 2.026Pe vs BLA: p > 0.9999, Cohen’s d = 0.489Pe vs CoA: p > 0.9999, Cohen’s d = 0.272BLA vs CoA: p > 0.9999, Cohen’s d = 0.127 |
Fig. 2A | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 12Il33−/− mice n = 13 | t = 6.911, df = 23, p < 0.0001Cohen’s d = 2.794 |
Fig. 2B | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 12Il33−/− mice n = 13 | t = 6.923, df = 23, p < 0.0001Cohen’s d = 2.701 |
Fig. 2C | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 12Il33−/− mice n = 13 | t = 0.1446, df = 23, p = 0.8863Cohen’s d = 0.058 |
Fig. 2D | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 9Il33−/− mice n = 7 | t = 4.447, df = 14, p = 0.0006Cohen’s d = 2.280 |
Fig. 3B | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 4Il33−/− mice n = 3–4 | mPFC; t = 2.972, df = 6, p = 0.0249, Cohen’s d = 2.103PCX; t = 3.401, df = 6, p = 0.0145, Cohen’s d = 2.406M2; t = 2.462, df = 6, p = 0.0490, Cohen’s d = 1.741S1BF; t = 8.439, df = 6, p = 0.0002, Cohen’s d = 5.697BLA; t = 1.885, df = 6, p = 0.2047, Cohen’s d = 1.334CeA; t = 3.149, df = 5, p = 0.0254, Cohen’s d = 2.177vHip; t = 1.414, df = 5, p = 0.2107, Cohen’s d = 3.071 |
Fig. 4A | Normal distribution | Pearson’s r | WT mice: n = 5Il33−/− mice n = 5IL-33 in WT mouse fold change of c-Fos in WT mice normalized with Il33 −/− mice | r = 0.1295 (95% CI −0.28 to 0.4991)R2 = 0.01677p = 0.5373 |
Fig. 4B | Normal distribution | Pearson’s r | WT mice: n = 5 | r = −0.07765 (95% CI −0.4587 to 0.3275)R2 = 0.006029p = 0.7122 |
Fig. 4C | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | Ctr: n = 8 imagesPost-EPM: n = 8 images (two images/mouse) | t = 0.03388, df = 14, p = 0.9735Cohen’s d = 0.017 |
Fig. 4D | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | Ctr: n = 3 imagesPost-EPM: n = 4 images (one images/mouse) | t = 0.2921, df = 5, p = 0.7820Cohen’s d = 0.221 |
Fig. 4E | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | Ctr: n = 4Post-EPM: n = 4 | t = 0.3453, df = 6, p = 0.7416Cohen’s d = 0.224 |
Fig. 5A | Two-factors (genotype and chamber) | Two-way ANOVA with RM | WT mice: n = 15Il33−/− mice: n = 9 | Genotype: F(1,22) = 0.09669, p = 0.7588, η2 = 0.009Mouse/Object: F(1,22) = 54.44, p < 0,0001Interaction: F(1,22) = 0.9178, p = 0.3485Sidak’s multiple comparisons test:Mouse/Object, WT: p < 0.0001Mouse/Object, Il33−/−: p < 0.0001 |
Fig. 5B | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 15Il33−/− mice: n = 9 | t = 0.9374, df = 22, p = 0.3587Cohen’s d = 0.395 |
Fig. 5C | Two-factors (genotype and chamber) | Two-way ANOVA with RM | WT mice: n = 15Il33−/− mice: n = 9 | Genotype: F(1,22) = 0.0224, p = 0.8824, η2 = 0.043Familiar/Novel: F(1,22) =26.34, p < 0,0001Interaction: F(1,22) = 4.681, p = 0.0416Sidak’s multiple comparisons test:Familiar/Novel, WT: p < 0.0001Familiar/Novel, Il33−/−: p = 0.1420 |
Fig. 5D | Normal distribution | Unpaired t test (two-tailed) | WT mice: n = 15Il33−/− mice: n = 9 | t = 2.407, df = 22, p = 0.0249Cohen’s d = 1.085 |
* In Fig. 1I, we did not include CC data for analysis because we could not detect IL-33+ S100β+ astrocytes in CC. In the Kruskal-Wallis test, we calculated ε2 for effect size: ε2 = H/((n2 − 1)/(n + 1)). H, Kruskal–Wallis test statistic value; n: total number of observations (King and Minium, 2003).