Statistical power analysis
| Data structure | Type of test | Power | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trypan blue | Control vs H2O2 | Post hoc t test, two-tailed | 1.00 |
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm | 0.92 | ||
| Figure 1A | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 25 pm | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 pm | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 pm | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 1.25 nm | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 1B | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm | 1.00 | ||
| Figure 1C | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm 1× frozen | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm 1× frozen | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm 5× frozen | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm 5× frozen | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm 4°C | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm 4°C | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 1D | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm chEn2 | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm chEn2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hEn1Q50A | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hEn1Q50A | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hEn2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hEn2 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 2A | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hEn1 | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hEn1 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 2B | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hEn1 | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hEn1 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 2C | H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hEn1 | Dunnett’s multiple | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs 2.5 nm hEn1 | comparisons | 1.000 | |
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 12.5 nm hLhx9 | 1.00 | ||
| Figure 3B | H2O2 vs 2.5 nm mEn1 | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.00 |
| H2O2 vs 1.25 nm mEn1 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.62 nm mEn1 | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.31 nm mEn1 | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 3.3 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 1.65 nm mOtx2 | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.82 nm mOtx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.41 nm mOtx2 | 1.00 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.68 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 1.34 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.67 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.33 nm hGbx2 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 2.27 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 1.14 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.56 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| H2O2 vs 0.28 nm hLhx9 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 3C | H2O2 vs stavudine | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs hEn1 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 3D | H2O2 vs stavudine | Dunnett’s multiple comparisons | 1.000 |
| H2O2 vs hEn1 | 1.000 | ||
| Figure 4A | −hEN1 vs +hEN1 at 300 μm 6-OHDA | Post hoc t test, two-tailed | 1.000 |
| −hEN1 vs +hEN1 at 200 μm 6-OHDA | Post hoc t test, two-tailed | 1.000 | |
| Figure 4B | −hEN1 vs +hEN1 at 10 μm 6-OHDA | Post hoc t test, two-tailed | 1.000 |
| −hEN1 vs +hEN1 at 50 μm 6-OHDA | Post hoc t test, two-tailed | 1.000 | |