Table 1.

Statistics table

FigureData structureStatistical testSample sizeStatistical data
Figure 1B, metabolic labelling of protein synthesis with 50 μM lovastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 12per groupGenotype: p = 0.0106
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 12per groupCI: –0.2916 to –0.06786, p = 0.0032
WT 50 μM lovastatin vs Fmr1 KO 50 μM lovastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 12per groupCI: –0.1716 to 0.05214, p = 0.3516
Fmr1 KO vehicle vs Fmr1 KO 50 μM lovastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 12per groupCI: 0.007476 to 0.2312, p = 0.0368
Figure 1C, metabolic labelling of protein synthesis with 1–5 μM simvastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 10per groupTreatment:p < 0.0001, genotype: p = 0.0294
WT veh vs KO vehNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 10per groupCI: –0.3188 to 0.09835, p = 0.3451
WT veh vs KO vehNormally distributedPaired t testN = 10per groupCI: 0.008558 to 0.2119, p = 0.0366
WT veh vs WT 5 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 10per groupCI: –0.7435 to –0.3263, p = 0.0001
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO 5 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 10per groupCI: –0.8045 to –0.3873, p < 0.0001
Figure 1D, metabolic labelling of protein synthesis with 0.1–0.5 μM simvastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 9per groupTreatment: p < 0.0001, genotype: p = 0.0068
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.2483 to –0.06400, p = 0.0005
WT veh vs WT 0.3 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.2760 to –0.07980, p = 0.0002
WT veh vs WT 0.5 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.3394 to –0.1432,p < 0.0001
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO 0.3 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.2334 to –0.03724,p = 0.0035
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO 0.5 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.3121 to –0.1159,p < 0.0001
WT 0.1 μM simvastatin vs Fmr1 KO 0.1 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.1874 to –0.003152,p = 0.0406
WT 0.3 μM simvastatin vs Fmr1 KO 0.3 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.2057 to –0.02143,p = 0.0115
WT 0.5 μM simvastatin vs Fmr1 KO 0.5 μM simvastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 9per groupCI: –0.2210 to –0.03669,p = 0.0038
Figure 2B, phospho/total ERK1/2 with 50 μM lovastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 19per groupGenotype: p = 0.0146
(Continued)
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 19per groupCI: –0.02577 to 0.1893,p = 0.1539
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO lovastatinNormally distributedSidak’s post hocN = 19per groupCI: 0.04797 to 0.2630,p = 0.0048
Figure 2C, phospho/total ERK1/2 with 0.1–0.5 μM simvastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 11per groupGenotype: p = 0.7010, treatment: p = 0.8761
Figure 2D, phospho/total p70S6K with 0.1–0.5 μM simvastatin/vehicle
Normally distributedTwo-way RM ANOVAN = 10per groupGenotype: p = 0.2860, treatment: p = 0.6206
Figure 3B, AGS incidence with 3 mg/kg simvastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testN = 12per groupCI: 0.002672 to 0.3437, p = 0.0028
WT simvastatin vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testN = 12per groupCI: 0.002918 to 0.3808, p = 0.0028
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testN = 12per groupCI: 0.1915 to 5.221, p > 0.9999
Figure 3C, AGS severity distribution scores with 3 mg/kg simvastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testN = 12per groupCI: 0.000 to 2.000, p = 0.0028
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testN = 12per groupCI: –1.000 to 1.000, p = 0.9510
Figure 3D, AGS latency with 3 mg/kg simvastatin
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNormally distributedUnpaired two-tailed t testN = 12per groupCI: –11.56 to 43.11,p = 0.2388
Figure 3E, AGS incidence with 50 mg/kg simvastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO veh: n = 14WT veh: n = 12CI: 0.004960 to 0.5143, p = 0.0053
WT simvastatin vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO simva: n = 11WT simva:n = 13CI: 0.006556 to 0.7356, p = 0.0233
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO veh: n = 14 KO simva: n = 11CI: 0.2988 to 7.531, p = 0.6968
Figure 3F, AGS severity scores with 50 mg/kg simvastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testKO veh: n = 14WT veh: n = 12CI: 0.000 to 3.000, p = 0.0036
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testKO veh: n = 14 KO simva: n = 11CI: –3.000 to 0.000, p = 0.2254
Figure 3G, AGS latency with 50 mg/kg simvastatin
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNormally distributedUnpaired two-tailed t testKO veh: n = 14 KO simva: n = 11CI: –11.41 to 8.739,p = 0.7794
Figure 3H, AGS incidence with 100 mg/kg lovastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO veh: n = 16WT veh: n = 15CI: 0.01126 to 0.4341, p = 0.0032
WT lovastatin vs Fmr1 KO lovastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO lova: n = 14WT lova:n = 17CI: 0.06948 to 3.440, p = 0.6358
(Continued)
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO lovastatinNon-normal distributionTwo-tailed Fisher’s exact testKO veh: n = 16 KO lova: n = 14CI: 1.538 to 42.32, p = 0.0136
Figure 3I, AGS severity distribution scores with 100 mg/kg lovastatin
WT veh vs Fmr1 KO vehNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testKO veh: n = 16n = WT veh: n = 15CI: 0.000 to 3.000, p = 0.0064
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO lovastatinNon-normal distributionMann–Whitney testKO veh: n = 16 KO lova: n = 14CI: –3.000 to 0.000, p = 0.0204
Figure 3J, AGS latency with 100 mg/kg lovastatin
Fmr1 KO veh vs Fmr1 KO simvastatinNormally distributedUnpaired two-tailed t testKO veh: n = 16 KO lova: n = 14CI: 3.595 to 31.07,p = 0.0176