Table 1.

Statistical differences among the samples illustrated in Figures 1 and 2

Location	Data reference	Data structure	Type of test	Power
a	Fig. 1C, upper panel	Nonnormal distribution	Wilcoxon matched pairs test
	WT vs. pH			z = 1.68, n = 6; p = 0.090
	WT vs. ΔN			z = 2.09, n = 6; p = 0.031
	pH vs. ΔN-pH			z = 2.09, n = 6; p = 0.031
	ΔN vs. ΔN-pH			z = –0.84, n = 6; p = 0.840
b	Fig. 1C, lower panel	Nonnormal distribution	Wilcoxon matched pairs test
	WT vs. pH			z = 0, n = 6; p = 1.000
	WT vs. ΔC			z = –1.04, n = 6; p = 0.312
	pH vs. ΔC-pH			z = 0, n = 6; p = 1.000
	ΔC vs. ΔC-pH			z = 1.46, n = 6; p = 0.160
c	Fig. 1D, upper panel	Nonnormal distribution	Wilcoxon matched pairs test
	WT vs. pH			z = –0.21, n = 6; p = 0.840
	WT vs. ΔN			z = 0, n = 6; p = 1.000
	pH vs. ΔN-pH			z = 1.25, n = 6; p = 0.109
	ΔN vs. ΔN-pH			z = 1.35, n = 6; p = 0.093
d	Fig. 1D, lower panel	Nonnormal distribution	Wilcoxon matched pairs test
	WT vs. pH			z = –0.63, n = 6; p = 0.563
	WT vs. ΔC			z = –1.26, n = 6; p = 0.219
	pH vs. ΔC-pH			z = –1.26, n = 6; p = 0.922
	ΔC vs. ΔC-pH			z = –1.05, n = 6; p = 0.891
e	Fig.1 F	Nonnormal distribution	Mann-Whitney U-test
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 68, n = 12,12; p = 0.843
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 93, n = 12,12; p = 0.242
f	Fig. 1G, upper panel	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 12, n = 12,12; p = 5.8 × 10^–4
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 36, n = 12,12; p = 0.040
g	Fig. 1G, lower panel	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 72, n = 12,12; p = 0.976
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 62, n = 12,12; p = 0.562
h	Fig. 2B	Normal distribution	One-way ANOVA	F(2,28) = 118.15, p = 2.24 × 10^–14
	Mock vs. WT		Post hoc Tukey	p = 1.70 × 10^–13
	Mock vs. KCC2-pH_ext		Post hoc Tukey	p = 3.75 × 10^–13
	WT vs. KCC2-pH_ext		Post hoc Tukey	p = 0.89
i	Fig. 2C	Normal distribution	One-way ANOVA	F(2,29) = 12.46, p = 1.24 × 10^–4
	Mock vs. WT		Post hoc Tukey	p = 2.36 × 10^–4
	Mock vs. KCC2-pH_ext		Post hoc Tukey	p = 8.85 × 10^–4
	WT vs. KCC2-pH_ext		Post hoc Tukey	p = 0.95