Statistical differences among the samples illustrated in Figure 4
| Location | Data reference | Data structure | Type of test | Power |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a | Fig. 4B, plot Ft | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 185, n = 19,24; p = 0.30 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 161, n = 24,20; p = 0.06 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 357, n = 24,30; p = 0.97 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 274, n = 20,30; p = 0.72 | |||
| b | Fig. 4B, plot Fm | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 9, n = 19,24; p = 2.42 × 10–10 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 476, n = 24,20; p = 1.36 × 10–11 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 568, n = 24,30; p = 1.89 × 10–4 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 26, n = 20,30; p = 4.96 × 10–10 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔNTD | U = 220, n = 19,20; p = 0.4 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔCTD | U = 47, n = 19,30; p = 1.09 × 10–6 | |||
| c | Fig. 4B, plot Fi | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 420, n = 19,24; p = 2.28 × 10–7 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 476, n = 24,20; p = 1.36 × 10–11 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 106, n = 24,30; p = 2.86 × 10–6 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 8, n = 20,30; p = 2.84 × 10–12 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔNTD | U = 230, n = 19,20; p = 0.24 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔCTD | U = 14, n = 19,30; p = 2.58 × 10–8 | |||
| d | Fig. 4C, single Fm | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 14, n = 19,24; p = 1.27 × 10–9 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 447, n = 24,20; p = 7.95 × 10–12 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 647, n = 24,30; p = 5.59 × 10–8 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 14, n = 20,30; p = 2.16 × 10–11 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔNTD | U = 242, n = 19,20; p = 0.15 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔCTD | U = 70, n = 19,30; p = 1.08 × 10–5 | |||
| e | Fig. 4C, Fm density | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 16, n = 19,24; p = 2.28 × 10–9 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 470, n = 24,20; p = 1.58 × 10–10 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 452, n = 24,30; p = 0.11 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 33, n = 20,30; p = 2.25 × 10–9 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔNTD | U = 206, n = 19,20; p = 0.66 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔCTD | U = 58, n = 19,30; p = 3.36 × 10–6 | |||
| f | Fig. 4D | Nonnormal distribution | Mann–Whitney U test | |
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT | U = 0, n = 33,40; p = 2.64 × 10–13 | |||
| WT vs. ΔNTD | U = 1480, n = 40,37; p = 4.69 × 10–14 | |||
| WT vs. ΔCTD | U = 538, n = 40,46; p = 9.56 × 10–4 | |||
| ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD | U = 0, n = 37,46; p = 6.56 × 10–15 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔNTD | U = 719, n = 33,37; p = 0.2 | |||
| eGFP-KCC2 vs. ΔCTD | U = 0, n = 33,46; p = 4.65 × 10–14 |