Statistics for Anderson et al.
| Test | Groups | N (rats) | p-value | Grubbs’ test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Figure 1 | B | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (7,7) | <0.0001 | F(11,132) = 7.969 | |
| B | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (7,7) | 0.1029 | F(4.358,52.30) = 1.998 | ||
| B | RM two-way ANOVA (drug) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (7,7) | 0.6352 | F(1,12) = 0.2370 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (7,7) | <0.0001 | F(11,132) = 5.900 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (7,7) | 0.1536 | F(2.948,35.38) = 1.8688 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (drug) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (7,7) | 0.0146 | F(1,12) = 8.128 | ||
| D, left | t test | Self-administered saline versus heroin (SCN1b/beta-tubulin protein) | (7,7) | 0.0113 | t = 2.987, df = 12 | ||
| D, right | t test | Experimenter-administered saline versus heroin (SCN1b/beta-tubulin) | (8,8) | 0.9861 | t = 0.01771, df = 14 | ||
| G | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b | (3,3) | 0.0096 | t = 4.659, df = 4 | ||
| Figure 2 | C | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—rheobase | (19/8, 16/6) | 0.0002 | t = 4.153, df = 33 | One outlier removed |
| D | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—spiking | (19/8, 17/6) | 0.1783 | F(14,476) = 1.342 | ||
| D | RM two-ay ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—spiking | (19/8, 17/6) | <0.0001 | F(2.653,90.22) = 23.20 | ||
| D | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—spiking | (19/8, 17/6) | 0.4492 | F(1,34) = 0.5862 | ||
| F | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—amplitude | (19/8, 17/6) | 0.0149 | t = 2.565, df = 34 | ||
| G | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—rise time | (18/8, 17/6) | 0.0059 | t = 2.944, df = 33 | One outlier removed | |
| H | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—decay | (18/8, 17/6) | 0.0950 | t = 1.719, df = 33 | One outlier removed | |
| J | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—AMPA/NMDA ratio | (15/5,18/5) | 0.9820 | t = 0.02268, df=31 | One outlier removed | |
| L | t test | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—paired-pulse ratio | (7/3,12/3) | 0.3048 | t = 1.058, df = 17 | One outlier removed | |
| Figure 3 | B | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—infusions | (8,9) | 0.8629 | F(11,165) = 0.5548 | |
| B | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—infusions | (8,9) | 0.0001 | F(11,165) = 21.78 | ||
| B | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—infusions | (8,9) | 0.8987 | F(1,15) = 0.01676 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.8693 | F(11,165) = 0.5462 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.0001 | F(11,165) = 7.469 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.6782 | F(1,15) = 0.1790 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.6192 | F(11,165) = 0.8210 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.7658 | F(11,165) = 0.6696 | ||
| C | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.9014 | F(1,15) = 0.01587 | ||
| D | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—discrimination ratio | (8,9) | 0.7076 | F(11,165) = 0.7310 | ||
| D | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—discrimination ratio | (8,9) | <0.0001 | F(11,165) = 5.414 | ||
| D | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—discrimination ratio | (8,9) | 0.6216 | F(1,15) = 0.2539 | ||
| E | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—time-out responding | (8,9) | 0.8836 | F(11,165) = 0.5262 | ||
| E | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—time-out responding | (8,9) | 0.0001 | F(11,165) = 5.920 | ||
| E | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—time-out responding | (8,9) | 0.6500 | F(1,15) = 0.2144 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.9450 | F(5,75) = 0.2370 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.0001 | F(5,75) = 21.05 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction paired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.5487 | F(1,15) = 0.3765 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.9883 | F(5,75) = 0.1170 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.0001 | F(5,75) = 12.19 | ||
| F | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—extinction unpaired lever presses | (8,9) | 0.5620 | F(1,15) = 0.3517 | ||
| G | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—cue-induced reinstatement | (8,9) | 0.0471 | F(1,15) = 4.680 | ||
| G | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—cue-induced reinstatement | (8,9) | 0.0002 | F(1,15) = 23.85 | ||
| G | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | AAV-shLUC versus AAV-shSCN1b—cue-induced reinstatement | (8,9) | 0.0957 | F(1,15) = 3.160 | ||
| G | RM two-way ANOVA (virus) | Post hoc test following a significant interaction | (8,9) | 0.0096 | |||
| H | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (6,10) | <0.0001 | F(11,154) = 10.25 | ||
| H | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (6,10) | 0.3044 | F(2.653,37.15) = 1.249 | ||
| H | RM two-way ANOVA (drug) | Saline versus heroin (infusions) | (6,10) | 0.2161 | F(1,14) = 1.678 | ||
| I | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (6,10) | 0.0001 | F(11,154) = 3.646 | ||
| I | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (6,10) | 0.5600 | F(2.326,32.56) = 0.6337 | ||
| I | RM two-way ANOVA (drug) | Saline versus heroin (paired lever presses) | (6,10) | 0.1985 | F(1,14) = 1.822 | ||
| J | RM two-way ANOVA (interaction) | Saline versus heroin—extinction paired lever presses | (6,10) | <0.0001 | F(5,70) = 7.239 | ||
| J | RM two-way ANOVA (time) | Saline versus heroin—extinction paired lever presses | (6,10) | <0.0001 | F(2.047,28.66) = 12.77 | ||
| J | RM two-way ANOVA (drug) | Saline versus heroin—extinction paired lever presses | (6,10) | 0.0019 | F(1,14) = 14.45 | ||
| K | t test | Saline versus heroin plus extinction (SCN1b/beta-tubulin protein) | (6,10) | 0.2763 | t = 1.148, df = 14 |