Statistics table
EYFP and tdTomato DG percentage area comparison | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TAM administration | n | Test | Comparison | Statistic | P | Significant | |
2E | 3D Short | 3 | Two-way ANOVA | TAM × reporter | F(2,6) = 8.880 | 0.0161 | Yes* |
2E | 3D Long | 3 | TAM | F(2,6) = 11.32 | 0.0092 | Yes** | |
2E | 5D | 3 | Reporter | F(1,6) = 14.01 | 0.0096 | Yes** | |
Subject | F(6,6) = 12.52 | 0.0036 | Yes** | ||||
EYFP | tdTomato | ||||||
Post hoc | Comparisons | Adjusted P | Significant | Adjusted P | Significant | ||
Tukey’s multiple comparisons | 3D short vs 3D long | ≥0.9999 | No | 0.9976 | No | ||
3D short vs 5D | 0.0009 | Yes*** | 0.0274 | Yes* | |||
3D long vs 5D | 0.0009 | Yes*** | 0.0308 | Yes* | |||
EYFP and tdTomato DG percentage area correlation | |||||||
Figure | TAM administration | n | Test | Statistic | P | Significant | |
2F | All | 9 | Pearson's Correlation | r(8) = 0.9157 | 0.0005 | Yes*** | |
EYFP+ percentage area colocalization with tdTomato+ area | |||||||
TAM administration | n | Test | Statistic | P | Significant | ||
2H | 3D Short | 3 | One-sample t test w/ comparison to 100% | t(2) = 35.87 | 0.0008 | Yes*** | |
2H | 3D Long | 3 | t(2) = 13.15 | 0.0057 | Yes** | ||
2H | 5D | 3 | t(2) = 15.36 | 0.0042 | Yes** | ||
tdTomato+ percentage area colocalization with EYFP+ area | |||||||
Figure | TAM administration | n | Test | Statistic | P | Significant | |
2I | 3D Short | 3 | One-sample t test w/ comparison to 100% | t(2) = 119.7 | 0.0001 | Yes**** | |
2I | 3D Long | 3 | t(2) = 10.40 | 0.0091 | Yes** | ||
2I | 5D | 3 | t(2) = 11.27 | 0.0078 | Yes** | ||
DG percentage of NSPCs with True+ Signal | |||||||
Figure | TAM administration | n | Test | Comparison | Statistic | P | Significant |
4B | 3D Short | 3 | Two-way ANOVA | True signal × Tam | F(2,6) = 6.084 | 0.0360 | Yes* |
4B | 3D Long | 3 | True signal | F(1,6) = 3.215 | 0.1231 | No | |
4B | 5D | 3 | TAM | F(2,6) = 3.201 | 0.1132 | No | |
Subject | F(6,6) = 0.02808 | 0.9998 | No | ||||
Post hoc | Comparisons | Adjusted P | Significant | ||||
Tukey’s multiple comparisons | 3D short vs 3D long | 0.8875 | No | ||||
3D short vs 5D | 0.0225 | Yes* | |||||
3D long vs 5D | 0.0516 | No | |||||
DG percentage of NSPCs with True−Signal | |||||||
Figure | TAM administration | n | Test | Comparison | Statistic | P | Significant |
4B | 3D Short | 3 | Two-way ANOVA | True−Signal × TAM | F(2,6) = 6.084 | 0.0360 | Yes* |
4B | 3D Long | 3 | True−Signal | F(1,6) = 3.215 | 0.1231 | No | |
4B | 5D | 3 | TAM | F(2,6) = 3.201 | 0.1132 | No | |
Subject | F(6,6) = 0.02808 | 0.9998 | No | ||||
Post hoc | Comparisons | Adjusted P | Significant | ||||
Tukey’s multiple comparisons | 3D short vs 3D long | 0.9389 | No | ||||
3D short vs 5D | 0.0328 | Yes* | |||||
3D long vs 5D | 0.0179 | Yes* | |||||
DG percentage of NSPCs with True ± Signal | |||||||
Figure | TAM administration | n | Test | Statistic | P | Significant | |
4C | 3D Short | 3 | One-way ANOVA | F(2,6) = 3.201 | 0.1132 | No | |
4C | 3D Long | 3 | F(2,6) = 3.201 | 0.1132 | No | ||
4C | 5D | 3 | F(2,6) = 3.201 | 0.1132 | No |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001.