Table 2

Statistical table

FigureComparisonEffect size [95CI]Pairwise comparisonType of test
a11BEGFP vs mCherry-CD9-1037.7 [28.7; 44.9]0.00384**Student’s t test
a21CObserver # 1 vs Observer #20.95 [0.84; 0.98]5.1e−08****Pearson’s R2 correlation
b12BiDendritic protrusion density (#/10 µm)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
2.36 [1.28; 3.54]
–3.24 [–4.54; –2.21]
–3.72 [–5.17; –2.15]
–6.08 [–7.84; –4.51]
0.03517*
0.00268**
0.00026***
7.10e−09****
Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction
dfMean2FPr(>F)
Genotype19.612.6790.1095
Plasmid1252.4870.4322.34e-10
Interaction122.056.1510.0174
b22BiiDendritic protrusion length (µm)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–0.13 [–0.397; 0.131]
0.105 [–0.21; 0.417]
0.031 [–0.31; 0.36]
0.161 [–0.178; 0.53]
>0.9999
>0.9999
>0.9999
>0.9999
Two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni’s correction
dfMean2FPr(>F)
Genotype10.11330.6180.436
Plasmid10.20181.1010.300
Interaction10.00850.0460.831
c14BiDendritic protrusion formation (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–3.02 [–5.39; –0.803]
3.75 [–0.755; 10.3]
5.21 [1.21; 9.14]
8.23 [ 4.54; 11.8]
0.2267
>0.9999
0.2111
0.0028**
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 14.593, df = 3,
p = 0.0022
c24BiiDendritic protrusion elimination (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–2.57 [–5.85; –0.209]
5.27 [0.455; 11.5]
9.06 [4.02; 13.8]
11.6 [7.5; 15.8]
0.62307
0.15616
0.00959
0.00024***
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 25.245, df = 3,
p = 1.372e-05
c34BiiiDendritic protrusion lability (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–1.11 [–3.17; 0.786]
2.34 [–0.966; 6.76]
6.2 [2.5; 9.81]
7.31 [3.92; 10.6]
>0.9999
>0.9999
0.0291**
0.0034**
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 13.421, df = 3,
p = 0.00381
c44BivDendritic protrusion motility (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–13.3 [–18.5; –8.42]
0.816 [–7.12; 9.33]
–3.1 [–9.89; 3.97]
10.2 [4.53; 16]
0.00016***
>0.9999
>0.9999
0.03582*
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 20.442, df = 3,
p = 0.0001374
d15BiDendritic protrusion survival fraction (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
2.21 [0.0663; 5.03]
–4.4 [–9.04; –0.308]
–8.19 [–12.3; –3.65]
–10.4 [–14; –6.58]
0.81748
0.2034
0.00909**
0.00028***
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 24.351, df = 3,
p = 2.11e-05
d25BiiDendritic protrusion turnover (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–4.48 [–7.73; –2.01]
6.68 [0.967; 14.7]
8.07 [2.84; 13]
12.5 [8.06; 17]
0.0092**
0.5205
>0.9999
0.0027**
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 19.895, df = 3,
p = 0.0001784
d35BiiiDendritic protrusion Δmovement (%)
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs WT-PANX1-EGFP
WT-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
Panx1 KO-EGFP vs Panx1 KO-PANX1-EGFP
–17.8 [–23.6; –11.9]
7.49 [–3.45; 20.1]
4.98 [–4.1; 13.8]
22.8 [15; 30.4]
6.2e-05****
>0.9999
>0.9999
0.00033***
Kruskal–Wallis χ2 = 28.526, df = 3, p = 2.816e-06
  • Significance codes: ****<0.0001, ***<0.001, **<0.01, *<0.05.