Table 2.

Statistical analysis

Test	Mean ± SEM	Significance and multiple comparisons	Parameter	N	Descriptive statistics	Figure
Repeated-measures ANOVA, with Tukey's post hoc	WT: 28.404 ± 1.700	Day: p < 0.001	Latency (s)	WT (7), 4Eki (8)	Day: F_(4,68) = 39.900	1B
	4Eki: 27.630 ± 1.792	Genotype: p = 0.758			Genotype: F_(1,17) = 0.098
	4Eki: 27.630 ± 1.792	Day × Genotype: p = 0.668			Day × Genotype: F_(4,68) = 0.595
	Target quadrant:	Quadrant: p < 0.001	No. of platform crossings		Day: F_(4,68) = 39.900
	WT: 6.857 ± 0.519	Genotype: p = 0.960			Genotype: F_(1,17) = 0.098
	4Eki: 6.500 ± 0.486	Quadrant × Genotype: p = 0.578			Day × Genotype: F_(4,68) = 0.595
	Right quadrant:
	WT: 3.857 ± 0.519
	4Eki 3.375 ± 0.486
	Opposite quadrant:
	WT: 3.286 ± 0.519
	4Eki: 3.250 ± 0.486
	Left quadrant:
	WT: 3.571 ± 0.519
	4Eki: 4.375 ± 0.486
	Target quadrant:	Quadrant: p < 0.001	Quadrant occupancy (%)		Quadrant: F_(3,52) = 18.160
	WT: 32.286 ± 1.922	Genotype: p = 0.946			Genotype: F_(1,52) = 0.005
	4Eki: 33.625 ± 1.798	Quadrant × Genotype: p = 0.756			Quadrant × Genotype: F_(3,52) = 0.396
	Right quadrant:
	WT: 24.714 ± 1.922
	4Eki: 23.00 ± 1.798
	Opposite quadrant:
	WT: 23.571 ± 1.922
	4Eki: 22.250 ± 1.798
	Left quadrant:
	WT: 19.286 ± 1.922
	4Eki: 20.625 ± 1.798
Student's t test	WT: 30.75 ± 6.35	p = 0.077	Freezing (%)	WT (8), 4Eki (8)	Genotype: F_(1,19) = 0.088	1C
Student's t test	4Eki: 3.57 ± 7.02	p = 0.077	Freezing (%)	WT (8), 4Eki (8)	Genotype: F_(1,19) = 0.088	1C
Student's t test	WT: 13.44 ± 4.337	p = 0.968	% potentiation	WT (7), 4Eki (6)	t = 3.551; df = 13	1E
Student's t test	4Eki: 13.18 ± 4.911	p = 0.968	% potentiation	WT (7), 4Eki (6)	t = 3.551; df = 13	1E
One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc	Down: 247.0 ± 6.660	Up versus down: p = 0.005	5′-UTR length	Down (651), up (52), control (325),	F_(3,53702) = 7.255C	2D
	Up: 138.0 ± 29.790	Control versus down: p < 0.001
	Control: 188.0 ± 14.530	Whole genome versus down: p = 0.014
	Whole genome: 219.7 ± 1.008	Control versus up: p = 0.468
		Whole genome versus up: p = 0.0524
		Whole genome versus Control: p = 0.0645
	Down: 59.38 ± 0.555	Up versus down: p = 0.663	5′-UTR GC % content		F_(3,53310) = 2.018
	Up: 61.46 ± 1.492	Control versus down: p = 0.453
	Control: 60.85 ± 0.602	Whole genome versus down: p > 0.999
	Whole genome: 59.43 ± 0.052	Control versus up: p = 0.986
		Whole genome versus up: p = 0.611
		Whole genome versus Control: p = 0.141
	Down: 1112 ± 89.52	Up versus down: p = 0.998	3′-UTR length		F_(3,49949) = 2.146
	Up: 1095 ± 150.6	Control versus down: p = 0.452
	Control: 1293 ± 91.93	Whole genome versus down: p = 0.998
	Whole genome: 1095 ± 6.326	Control versus up: p = 0.780
		Whole genome versus up: p > 0.999
		Whole genome versus Control: p = 0.055
	Down: 46.34 ± 0.534	Up versus down: p = 0.7808	3′-UTR GC % content		F_(3,49949) = 1.963
	Up: 45.07 ± 0.877	Control versus down: p = 0.214
	Control: 44.86 ± 0.458	Whole genome versus down: p = 0.073
	Whole genome: 44.91 ± 0.039	Control versus up: p = 0.998
		Whole genome versus up: p = 0.999
		Whole genome versus Control: p = 0.999
One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc	WTveh-IFNγ: 0.011 ± 0.001	WTveh-IFNγ versus WTlps-IFNγ: p = 0.003	Concentration (pg/mg protein)	WT (10), 4Eki (10)	F_(3,36) = 52.02	3A
	WTlps-IFNγ: 0.024 ± 0.002	WTveh-IFNγ versus 4Ekiveh-IFNγ: p = 0.122
	4Ekiveh-IFNγ: 0.019 ± 0.002	WTveh-IFNγ versus 4Ekilps-IFNγ: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-IFNγ: 0.052 ± 0.003	WTlps-IFNγ versus 4Ekiveh-IFNγ: p > 0.999
		WTlps-IFNγ versus 4Ekilps-IFNγ: p < 0.001
		4Ekiveh-IFNγ versus 4Ekilps-IFNγ: p < 0.001
	WTveh-IL-2: 1.927 ± 0.064	WTveh-IL-2 versus WTlps-IL-2: p < 0.001			F_(3,36) = 266.7
	WTlps-IL-2: 7.412 ± 0.177	WTveh-IL-2 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-2: p < 0.001
	4Ekiveh-IL-2: 3.344 ± 0.230	WTveh-IL-2 versus 4Ekilps-IL-2: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-IL-2: 8.908 ± 0.273	WTlps-IL-2 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-2: p < 0.001
		WTlps-IL-2 versus 4Ekilps-IL-2: p < 0.001
		4Ekiveh-IL-2 versus 4Ekilps-IL-2: p < 0.001
	WTveh-TNFα: 2.728 ± 0.289	WTveh-TNFα versus WTlps-TNFα: p < 0.001			F_(3,36) = 208.7
	WTlps-TNFα: 9.028 ± 0.240	WTveh-TNFα versus 4Ekiveh-TNFα: p < 0.001
	4Ekiveh-TNFα: 7.062 ± 0.283	WTveh-TNFα versus 4Ekilps-TNFα: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-TNFα: 12.80 ± 0.339	WTlps-TNFα versus 4Ekiveh-TNFα: p < 0.001
		WTlps-TNFα versus 4Ekilps-TNFα: p < 0.001
		4Ekiveh-TNFα versus 4Ekilps-TNFα: p < 0.001
	WTveh-IL-6: 1.422 ± 0.096	WTveh-IL-6 versus WTlps-IL-6: p < 0.001			F_(3,36) = 102.5
	WTlps-IL-6: 4.467 ± 0.128	WTveh-IL-6 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-6: p > 0.999
	4Ekiveh-IL-6: 1.602 ± 0.126	WTveh-IL-6 versus 4Ekilps-IL-6: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-IL-6: 4.049 ± 0.240	WTlps-IL-6 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-6: p < 0.001
		WTlps-IL-6 versus 4Ekilps-IL-6: p = 0.414
		4Ekiveh-IL-6 versus 4Ekilps-IL-6: p < 0.001
	WTveh-IL-1β: 11.32 ± 0.290	WTveh-IL-1β versus WTlps-IL-1β: p < 0.001			F_(3,36) = 132.1
	WTlps-IL-1β: 27.47: 27.47 ± 0.687	WTveh-IL-1β versus 4Ekiveh-IL-1β: p > 0.999
	4Ekiveh-IL-1β: 11.03 ± 0.830	WTveh-IL-1β versus 4Ekilps-IL-1β: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-IL-1β: 25.24 ± 1.007	WTlps-IL-1β versus 4Ekiveh-IL-1β: p < 0.001
		WTlps-IL-1β versus 4Ekilps-IL-1β: p = 0.176
		4Ekiveh-IL-1β versus 4Ekilps-IL-1β: p < 0.001
	WTveh-IL-10: 0.376 ± 0.016	WTveh-IL-10 versus WTlps-IL-10: p < 0.001			F_(3,36) = 135.9
	WTlps-IL-10: 1.234 ± 0.050	WTveh-IL-10 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-10: p > 0.999
	4Ekiveh-IL-10: 0.397 ± 0.028	WTveh-IL-10 versus 4Ekilps-IL-10: p < 0.001
	4Ekilps-IL-10: 1.222 ± 0.057	WTlps-IL-10 versus 4Ekiveh-IL-10: p < 0.001
		WTlps-IL-10 versus 4Ekilps-IL-10: p = 0.414
		4Ekiveh-IL-10 versus 4Ekilps-IL-10: p < 0.001
Student's t test	WT-serotonin: 558.9 ± 22.96	p < 0.001	Concentration (pg/mg protein)	WT (20), 4Eki (20)	t = 4.025; df = 38	3B
Student's t test	4Eki-serotonin: 431.9 ± 21.64	p < 0.001	Concentration (pg/mg protein)	WT (20), 4Eki (20)	t = 4.025; df = 38	3B
One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc	Iba-1: WTveh: 1.141 ± 0.1125, WTlps: 4.214 ± 0.2336, 4Ekiveh: 2.686 ± 0.2241, 4Ekilps: 6.315 ± 0.4868	WTveh versus WTlps: p < 0.001	Concentration (pg/mg protein)	WT (10), 4Eki (10)	F_(3,36) = 55.02	3C
		WTveh versus 4Ekiveh: p = 0.0047
		WTveh versus 4Ekilps: p < 0.001
		WTlps versus 4Ekiveh: p = 0.0053
		WTlps versus 4Ekilps: p < 0.001
		4Ekiveh versus 4Ekilps: p < 0.001
Student's t test	WT: 83.05 ± 10.00	p = 0.015	Immobility (s) FST	WT (19), 4Eki (18)	t = 2.548; df = 35	4A
	4Eki: 121.06 ± 11.10	p = 0.015	Immobility (s) FST	WT (19), 4Eki (18)	t = 2.548; df = 35
	WT: 150.50 ± 9.91	p < 0.001	Immobility (s) TST	WT (14), 4Eki (18)	t = 4.761; df = 30
	4Eki: 213.39 ± 8.74	p < 0.001	Immobility (s) TST	WT (14), 4Eki (18)	t = 4.761; df = 30
	WT: 71.67 ± 15.24	p = 0.0015	Latency to consume food (s) NSF	WT (18), 4Eki (18)	t = 3.447; df = 34
	4Eki: 143.6 ± 14.23	p = 0.0015	Latency to consume food (s) NSF	WT (18), 4Eki (18)	t = 3.447; df = 34
Student's t test	WT center: 69.90 ± 5.923	p < 0.001, p < 0.001	Time spent in center (s), Time spent in proximity of walls or corners (s)	WT (10), 4Eki (12)	t = 6.792; df = 20, t = 10.32; df = 20
	4Eki center: 25.00 ± 3.492 WTwall/corner: 126.9 ± 14.93 4Eki wall/corner: 372.7 ± 17.80	p < 0.001, p < 0.001			t = 6.792; df = 20, t = 10.32; df = 20
	WT: 403.2 ± 17.04	p = 0.801	Time spent outside center (s)		t = 0.199; df = 20	4B
	4Eki: 396.8 ± 18.27	p = 0.801	Time spent outside center (s)		t = 0.199; df = 20
	WT: 4193 ± 125.8	p = 0.830	Distance travelled (cm)		t = 0.216; df = 20
	4Eki: 4233 ± 133.3	p = 0.830	Distance travelled (cm)		t = 0.216; df = 20
One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc	WT: open 98.63 ± 5.227, closed 110.3 ± 5.876 4Eki: open 32.38 ± 10.97, closed 189.8 ± 5.786	p < 0.001	Time spent in arms (s)	WT (8), 4Eki (8)	F_(3,28) = 76.91	4C
One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc	WT veh: 100.3 ± 3.546	WT veh versus WT fl: p = 0.005	Immobility (s) FST	WT (12), 4Eki (12)	F_(3,44) = 25.320	5B
	WT fl: 69.33 ± 4.761	WT veh versus 4Eki veh: p = 0.0079
	4Eki veh: 129.8 ± 7.229	WT veh versus 4Eki fl: p < 0.001
	4Eki fl: 136.2 ± 7.817	WT fl versus 4Eki veh: p < 0.001
		WT fl versus 4Eki fl: p < 0.001
		4Eki veh versus 4Eki fl: p > 0.999
	WT veh: 135.1 ± 11.06	WT veh versus WTfl: p = 0.0081	Immobility (s) TST		F_(3,44) = 73.621	5C
	WT fl: 97.75 ± 6.516	WT veh versus 4Eki veh: p < 0.001
	4Eki veh: 229.5 ± 6.763	WT veh versus 4Eki fl: p < 0.001
	4Eki fl: 236.3 ± 7.334	WT fl versus 4Eki veh: p < 0.001
		WT fl versus 4Eki fl: p < 0.001
		4Eki veh versus 4Eki fl: p < 0.001
Student's t test	Input: WT:1.090 ± 0.05874, 4Eki: 1.048 ± 0.05977, cap: WT: 0.9975 ± 0.1723, 4EKI: 0.4875 ± 0.1062	Input: p = 0.630, cap: p = 0.045	rpL13a	WT (4), 4Eki (4) or, WT (8), 4EKi (8)	Input: t = 0.507, cap: t = 2.520; df = 6	6
	Input: WT:1.248 ± 0.335, 4Eki: 1.440 ± 0.583, cap: WT: 1.003 ± 0.142, 4Eki: 0.325 ± 0.075	Input: p = 0.784, cap: p = 0.005	eIF4A1		Input: t = 0.285, cap: t = 4.196; df = 6
	1.088 ± 0.08499, 0.9525 ± 0.05977, cap: WT: 0.997 ± 0.222, 4Eki: 0.9175 ± 0.199	Input: p = 0.241, cap: p = 0.798	eIF4E		Input: t = 1.299 , cap: t = 0.267; df = 6
	Input: WT:1.145 ± 0.078, 4Eki: 0.905 ± 0.099 , cap: WT: 1.002 ± 0.149, 4Eki: 0.830 ± 0.218	Input: p = 0.106, cap: p = 0.544	eIF4G		Input: t = 1.894, cap: t = 0.642; df = 6
	Input: WT:1.025 ± 0.108, 4Eki: 0.98 ± 0.108 , cap: WT: 1.002 ± 0.185, 4Eki:0.10.2 ± 0.185	Input: p = 0.839, cap: p = 0.382	Eprs		Input: t = 0.206, cap: t = 1.063; df = 14
	Input: WT: 0.998 ± 0.091, 4Eki: 0.901 ± 0.091 , cap: WT: 0.998 ± 0.254, 4Eki: 0.775 ± 0.254	Input: p = 0.106, cap: p = 0.544	Gapdh		Input: t = 1.060, cap: t = 0.880; df = 14