Table 1.

P values of the indicated statistical comparisons.

FigureMeasurementType of testComparisonAgeP value
Fig. 1BPV cell densityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 2.82, p = 0.018
Fig. 1CPV fluorescence intensityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 3.24, p = 0.009
Fig. 1DRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56p < 0.001
Fig. 1EFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KO (high PV)P56t(10) = 3.31, p = 0.008
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-high PV)P56t(10) = 1.91, p = 0.085
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-low PV)P56t(10) = 1.93, p = 0.083
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (low PV)P56t(10) = 1.81, p = 0.101
Fig. 1GPV cell densityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(10) = 0.61, p = 0.555
Fig. 1HPV fluorescence intensityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(10) = 3.24, p = 0.268
Fig. 1IRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28p = 0.002
Fig. 1JFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KO (high PV)P28t(10) = 0.32, p = 0.756
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-high PV)P28t(10) = 1.92, p = 0.083
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-low PV)P28t(10) = 1.29, p = 0.228
   WT vs. Mecp2 KO (low PV)P28t(10) = 1.54, p = 0.155
Fig. 2EVGLUT1 density on PV dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 3.62, p = 0.004
Fig. 2FVGAT density on PV dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(7) = 4.22, p = 0.003
Fig. 2GVGLUT1 density on PV somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 4.05, p = 0.002
Fig. 2HVGAT density on PV somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(8) = 1.97, p = 0.08
Fig. 2MVGLUT1 density on CR dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 2.50, p = 0.03
Fig. 2NVGAT density on CR dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(8) = 0.19, p = 0.85
Fig. 2OVGLUT1 density on CR somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 1.32, p = 0.21
Fig. 2PVGAT density on CR somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(8)= 1.79, p = 0.11
Fig. 3EVGLUT1 density on PV dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 4.89, p = 0.001
Fig. 3FVGAT density on PV dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 3.39, p = 0.009
Fig. 3GVGLUT1 density on PV somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(14) = 0.91, p = 0.38
Fig. 3HVGAT density on PV somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 0.24, p = 0.81
Fig. 3MVGLUT1 density on CR dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 0.24, p = 0.82
Fig. 3NVGAT density on CR dendritesUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 0.29, p = 0.78
Fig. 3OVGLUT1 density on CR somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(9) = 0.14, p = 0.89
Fig. 3PVGAT density on CR somaUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(8) = 0.02, p = 0.99
Fig. 4CVSD response (ΔF/F)Two-way ANOVAWT vs. Mecp2 KOP45-60Genotype F(1,136) = 37.07, p < 0.001
Fig. 4DSpatial spread of VSD signalTwo-way ANOVAWT vs. Mecp2 KOP45-60Genotype F(1,136) = 18.26, p < 0.001
Fig. 4ESpatial spread of VSD signalUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP45-60p < 0.05
Fig. 4GVSD response (ΔF/F)Two-way ANOVAWT vs. Mecp2 KOP24-26Genotype F(1,96) = 2.73, p = 0.108
Fig. 4HSpatial spread of VSD signalTwo-way ANOVAWT vs. Mecp2 KOP24-26Genotype F(1,96) = 12.44, p = 0.001
Fig. 4ISpatial spread of VSD signalUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP24-26p < 0.01
Fig. 5BPV cell densityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 3.67, p = 0.004
Fig. 5CPV fluorescence intensityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56t(10) = 1.74, p = 0.112
Fig. 5DRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP56p < 0.001
Fig. 5EFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KO (high PV)P56t(10) = 2.45, p = 0.034
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-high PV)P56t(10) = 0.81, p = 0.439
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-low PV)P56t(10) = 0.98, p = 0.349
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (low PV)P56t(10) = 0.46, p = 0.657
Fig. 5GPV cell densityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(6) = 1.43, p = 0.202
Fig. 5HPV fluorescence intensityUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28t(6) = 0.98, p = 0.366
Fig. 5IRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 KOP28p = 0.023
Fig. 5JFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 KO (high PV)P28t(6) = 0.92, p = 0.391
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-high PV)P28t(6) = 0.49, p = 0.645
WT vs. Mecp2 KO (medium-low PV)P28t(6) = 2.20, p = 0.070
   WT vs. Mecp2 KO (low PV)P28t(6) = 1.64, p = 0.152
Fig. 6ARotarod taskTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RRP56RR F(7,112) = 11.62, p < 0.0001
Genotype F(1,16) = 11.75, p = 0.003
Interaction F(7,112) =1.12, p = 0.356
Fig. 6CRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT AC vs. Mecp2 KO-ACP56p = 0.0449
WT AC vs. WT RRP56p = 0.0015
KO-AC vs. KO-RRP56p < 0.001
Fig. 6DFraction of PV INsTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RR (medium-high PV)P56Interaction F(1,18) = 6.19, p = 0.023
Fraction of PV INsTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RR (high PV)P56Interaction F(1,18) = 10.11, p = 0.005
Genotype F(1,18) = 20.06, p = 0.0003
RR F(1,18) = 5.93, p = 0.026
Fig. 6DCorrelation between % High PVPearson’s rWT and Mecp2 KOP56r: –0.653, p = 0.006
 and RR performance    
Fig. 7BVGLUT1 density on PV dendritesTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RRP56Genotype F(1,16) = 117.91, p < 0.001
RR F(1,16) = 11.25, p = 0.004
VGLUT1 density on PV somaTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RRP56Genotype F(1,18) = 37.20, p < 0.001
RR F(1,18) = 27.33, p < 0.001
VGAT density on PV dendritesTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RRP56Genotype F(1,16) = 43.89, p < 0.001
     RR F(1,16) = 17.78, p = 0.0007
Fig. 8BRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 Het2 Mp = 0.8219
Fig. 8ERelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 Het4 Mp = 0.9798
Fig. 8FFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 Het (high PV)4 Mt(10) = 1.51, p = 0.163
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-high PV)4 Mt(10) = 3.19, p = 0.009
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-low PV)4 Mt(10) = 1.03, p = 0.327
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (low PV)4 Mt(10) = 0.77, p = 0.456
Fig. 8HRelative frequency of PV INsMann–Whitney U testWT vs. Mecp2 Het8 Mp < 0.001
Fig. 8IFraction of PV INsUnpaired t testWT vs. Mecp2 Het (high PV)8 Mt(10) = 3.16, p = 0.013
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-high PV)8 Mt(10) = 0.52, p = 0.620
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (medium-low PV)8 Mt(10) = 4.06, p = 0.004
WT vs. Mecp2 Het (low PV)8 Mt(10) = 1.40, p = 0.200
Fig. 8JRotarod taskTwo-way ANOVAGenotype vs. RR8 MRR F(7,176) = 23.60, p < 0.001
Genotype F(1,176) = 42.81, p < 0.001
Interaction F(7,176) =0.66, p = 0.706
Fig. 8JCorrelation between % HIGH PV and RR performancePearson’s rWT and Mecp2 Het8 Mr: –0.481, p = 0.024