Table 3.

Statistical differences among the samples illustrated in Figure 5

Location	Data reference	Data structure	Type of test	Power
a	Fig. 5B, F_all HEK	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 995, n = 70,109; p = 2.18 × 10^–19
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 11412, n = 109,117; p = 2.48 × 10^–29
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 4182, n = 109,106; p = 4.32 × 10^–4
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 1015, n = 117,106; p = 2.36 × 10^–33
b	Fig. 5B, F_all N2a	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 16, n = 23,24; p = 1.13 × 10^–10
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 552, n = 24,23; p = 1.24 × 10^–13
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 173, n = 24,27; p = 0.004
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 9, n = 23,27; p = 1.80 × 10^–12
c	Fig. 5B, F_m HEK	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 1076, n = 61,109; p = 8.23 × 10^–15
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 10352, n = 109,117; p = 1.88 × 10^–17
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 6428, n = 109,106; p = 0.15
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 2320, n = 117,106; p = 2.34 × 10^–17
d	Fig. 5B, F_m N2a	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 11, n = 23,24; p = 2.42 × 10^–11
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 546, n = 24,23; p = 3.72 × 10^–12
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 679, n = 24,38; p = 0.0010
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 33, n = 23,38; p = 2.86 × 10^–12
e	Fig. 5B, F_i HEK	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 1356, n = 61,109; p = 2.40 × 10^–11
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 10638, n = 109,117; p = 3.26 × 10^–14
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 2362, n = 109,106; p = 5.77 × 10^–15
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 479, n = 117,106; p = 1.19 × 10^–32
f	Fig. 5B, F_i N2a	Nonnormal distribution	Mann–Whitney U test
	eGFP-KCC2 vs. WT			U = 41, n = 23,24; p = 3.03 × 10^–8
	WT vs. ΔNTD			U = 548, n = 24,23; p = 1.49 × 10^–12
	WT vs. ΔCTD			U = 142, n = 24,38; p = 1.62 × 10^–6
	ΔNTD vs. ΔCTD			U = 11, n = 23,38; p = 1.04 × 10^–14