Table 1

Statistical results for Western blottings, estradiol immunoassay, and ICC (fold-change and multiple group comparisons)

Figure	Figure panel	Statistical test	Conditions	Results
1	B'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M NGM vs M Astro	K-W = 65.23
				p < 0.0001
1	B'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	F NGM vs F Astro	K-W = 65.23
				p < 0.0001
1	B'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M Astro vs F Astro	K-W = 65.23
				p > 0.9999
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M NGM vs M M-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p < 0.0001
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M NGM vs M F-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p < 0.0001
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M M-ACM vs M F-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p > 0.9999
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M M-ACM vs F M-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p = 0.0142
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M F-ACM vs F F-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p = 0.1693
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	F NGM vs F M-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p = 0.2781
1	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	F NGM vs F F-ACM	K-W = 77.03
				p = 0.0036
2	C'	One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison	M NGM vs M ACM	F_(3,75) = 10.29
				p = 0.0002
2	C'	One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison	F NGM vs F ACM	F_(3,75) = 10.29
				p = 0.0195
2	C'	One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc comparison	M ACM vs F ACM	F_(3,75) = 10.29
				p = 0.2119
2	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M NGM vs M ACM	K-W = 22.61
				p = 0.0165
2	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	F NGM vs F ACM	K-W = 22.61
				p = 0.0018
2	D'	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	M ACM vs F ACM	K-W = 22.61
				p > 0.9999
4	A	Unpaired Student's t test	TSP2 relative band intensity, male vs female	p = 0.568
4	B	Two-way ANOVA (interaction)	α2δ−1 relative band intensity	F_(2,12) = 0.220
				p = 0.805
4	B	Two-way ANOVA (sex)	α2δ−1 relative band intensity	F_(1,12) = 0.647
				p = 0.437
4	B	Two-way ANOVA (treatment)	α2δ−1 relative band intensity	F_(2,12) = 0.093
				p = 0.912
4	C	Linear mixed-effects model (REML) with Holm–Sidak’s post hoc comparison (sex)	E2 (pg/ml)	F_(1,55) = 6.999
				p = 0.011
4	D	Linear mixed-effects model (REML) with Holm–Sidak’s post hoc comparison (sex)	E2 (pg/ml)	F_(1,29) = 3.799
				p = ns
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs Astro	K-W = 52.57
				p = 0.0002
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs Astro + Let	K-W = 52.57
				p > 0.9999
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ACM	K-W = 52.57
				p = 0.0002
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ACM + Let	K-W = 52.57
				p > 0.9999
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	Astro vs Astro + Let	K-W = 52.57
				p = 0.0198
5	E, left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	ACM vs ACM + Let	K-W = 52.57
				p < 0.0001
5	E, right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs Astro	K-W = 66.18
				p < 0.0001
5	E, right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs Astro + Let	K-W = 66.18
				p = 0.0123
5	E, right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ACM	K-W = 66.18
				p < 0.0001
5	E, right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ACM + Let	K-W = 66.18
				p > 0.9999
5	E, right	Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	Astro vs Astro + Let	K-W = 66.18
				p = 0.2655
5	E, right	Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	ACM vs ACM + Let	K-W = 66.18
				p < 0.0001
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.0039
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs E2	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.2220
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs E2 TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p > 0.9999
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ICI	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.0452
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ICI TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.2420
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs PGE2	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.0377
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs PGE2 TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p = 0.0467
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	E2 vs E2 TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p > 0.9999
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	ICI vs ICI TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p > 0.9999
6	left	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	PGE2 vs PGE2 TSP2	K-W = 64.21
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs E2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs E2 TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ICI	K-W = 44.75
				p = 0.8729
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs ICI TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs PGE2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	NGM vs PGE2 TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p = 0.0002
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	E2 vs E2 TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p > 0.9999
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	ICI vs ICI TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p = 0.6315
6	right	Kruskal–Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc comparison	PGE2 vs PGE2 TSP2	K-W = 44.75
				p < 0.0001