ben ari et al. supplementary information · ben-ari et al. – supplementary information page 3...
Post on 04-Mar-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
BEN ARI ET AL. – SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
S1. Supplementary Experimental Methods
S1.1. BCAS Microsurgery
On the day of the first surgery, the animals were brought into an SPF environment in
the Center for Cardiac Research, Hadassah Medical Center and entered into an animal
operation room. Each animal was first administered analgesia with Rimadyl 5 mg/kg
i.p. (0.25 ml for 25 g animal body weight) and then anesthetized using a mixture of
ketamine and xylazine (ketamine 70 mg per kg animal body weight, xylazine 10 mg per
kg animal body weight, mixture administered 0.25 ml per 25 g animal body weight).
After the animals were anesthetized, the upper chest and neck area were shaved and
disinfected with chlorhexidine solution and then a longitudinal section was made with
a surgical blade at the right side of the neck, and the underlying fascia was separated,
exposing the muscles below. The sternocleidomastoid muscle was deflected, and the
common carotid artery was exposed. Two Ethicon sutures 4-0 were inserted below
the exposed part of the artery and the specialized constricting coil was wrapped
around the part of the artery between the two sutures. The coil is made of gold plated
piano spring stainless steel, with 0.18 mm internal diameter and is 2.5 mm total length.
After the coil implantation, the two silk sutures were removed, and the cut was
sutured. Sham operated animals underwent the same procedure but no coil was
implanted. Following implantation, operated animals were given another i.p. injection
of Rimadyl, and were monitored until they regained consciousness. After that the
animals were returned to their home cages and were followed up for the next 3 days
after surgery.
Fifteen out of 17 sham operated animals survived the protocol (two were taken out of
the experiment due to aggressive behavior). In contrast, 6 out of 21 BCAS mice died
throughout the experiment (28.5% mortality rate). Three of the deaths were within
48 hours of surgery; the rest were later in the experiment.
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 2
In the current study, both groups gained weight during the experimental protocol. This
result is consistent with our previous finding that young adult female mice did not lose
weight during the experiment and with other results in which young adult male mice
did not lose weight after BCAS (Shibata et al., 2007).
S1.2. Behavioral Tests
S1.2.1. Sucrose preference test (SPT): SPT was conducted twice: first as a baseline
experiment, prior to any manipulation, and second as part of the behavioral-cognitive
battery of tests used to assess the effects of BCAS microsurgery. The first conduction
required introduction of sucrose solution prior to the actual testing, hence was
consisted of 2 days habituation through which mice were given free access to water
and 2% sucrose solution, but the amounts drunk were not measured, followed by 2
days of test, through which the amounts of water and sucrose solution consumed per
cage were measured every 24 hours. In the second conduction mice were given free
access to water and 2% sucrose solution for 24 hours and the amounts of water and
sucrose solution consumed per cage were measured. Sucrose preference was
calculated as the ratio of sucrose consumed divided by the total liquid consumption
(water and sucrose).
S1.2.2. Open field test (OFT): Mice were placed in a 50 X 50 cm arena surrounded by
40 cm walls for a 6 min test. The center of the arena was defined as a 25 X 25 square
in the middle of the arena. Velocity of movement and presence in the center of the
arena were measured. Open field (OF) test was performed during the first week of the
behavioral battery, using Ethovision 11 system, providing fully computerized, blinded
and unbiased measurement.
S1.2.3. Elevated plus maze (EPM): The test apparatus consists of two open arms (30*5
cm) bordered by a 1 cm high rim across from each other and perpendicular to two
closed arms bordered by a rim of 16 cm. The center of the maze, in which the 4 arm
converge, is a 5*5 cm platform. The entire maze is lifted 75 cm from the floor. Mice
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 3
were placed in the central platform of the maze and were allowed to explore it for 6
minutes. Durations and number of visits in both the open and closed arms were
recorded.
S1.2.4. Rotarod: This is a test of motor abilities, which require mice to balance on a
rotating cylinder. The test was consisted on 3 4-minute trials. During each trial rod
rotation gradually increased up to 40 rotations/minute. The amount of time mice
balanced on the rod in each trail was measured. Trials were divided by at least 20-
minute breaks, to avoid mice exhausting. The experimenters were blind to the
experimental conditions of each mouse.
S1.2.5. Stress induced hyperthermia (SIH): This test is conducted using a single probe
thermometer connected to a specialized rectal probe. Upon insertion, basal rectal
temperature was measured. In order to test the effect of acute stress on rectal
temperature the probe was inserted again 10 minutes later, and rectal temperature
was measured.
S2. Supplementary Results 1
Fig. S.1. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on flood flow change. Top Panel: External carotid blood 2
flow was recorded at a sample rate of 40/s with a laser Doppler flowmeter. Flux was measure 3
before and after coil placement. Top. Rostral flux measurement before BCAS (left) and after 4
BCAS (right) shows decrease in blood flow. Middle. Caudal flux measurement before (left) and 5
after BCAS (right), no change in blood flow. Bottom. Ratio between rostral to caudal flux in 6
arbitrary units (A.U.). B. Flow change (A.U.) ratio of rostral/caudal measurement. Bottom 7
panel: External carotid blood flow was recorded during sham operation after artery exposure. 8
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 5
Fig. S.2. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on body weight in young adult, male mice. 9
Change in body weight from baseline to the end of the 8th week following BCAS is 10
shown (t (28) =1.505, p = 0.14). 11
12
13
Fig. S.3. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on sucrose preference of young adult mice. Left: 14
Sucrose preference at baseline and after 8 weeks, F(1,11) = 0.81, p = 0.38. Right: 15
Change in sucrose preference from baseline to the end of the 8th week following BCAS 16
microsurgery, t (12) =-1.308, p = 0.21. (n=number of cages, 2-3 mice in each cage).17
0
1
2
3
4
5
Weig
ht
gain
(g
)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=15)
-0.45
-0.3
-0.15
0
0.15
0.3
Su
cro
se p
refe
ren
ce d
iffe
ren
ce (
ml)
Control (n=6) BCAS (n=7)
18
19
Fig. S.4. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on activity in the open field (OF). 20
Left: Velocity of young adult, sham and BCAS mice: t (29) =1.026, p = 0.31. 21
Right: Effect of BCAS microsurgery on time spent in center: t (29) =-0.212, p = 0.83. 22
23
Fig. S.5. 24
Left: Effect of BCAS microsurgery on time spent in the open arms of the EPM: t (29) 25
=1.107, p = 0.31. 26
Right: Effect of BCAS microsurgery on number of entries to open arms: t (29) =-0.095, 27
p = 0.92. 28
29
0
5
10
15
20
25
Tim
e in
cen
ter
(sec)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=16)
0
2
4
6
8
Op
en
fie
ld v
elo
cit
y (
cm
/s)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=16)
0
15
30
45
60
Tim
e in
op
en
arm
s
(sec)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=16)
0
3
6
9
12
15
Nu
mb
er
of
en
trie
s t
o
op
en
arm
s
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=16)
a b
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 7
30
31
Fig. S.6. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on balance, grip strength and motor coordination 32
in the rotarod test: t (29) =-0.22, p = 0.82. 33
34
35
36
37
Fig. S.7. Effect of BCAS microsurgery on stress induced hyperthermia (SIH): t (28) 0.21, 38
p = 0.83 for comparison of temperature increase. 39
40
41
42
0
25
50
75
100
Late
ncy t
o f
all
(sec)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=16)
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
Tem
pera
ture
ch
an
ge (º C
)
Control (n=15) BCAS (n=15)
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 8
43
44
Fig. S.8. Upper panel: Immunofluorescence staining of doublecortin (DCX) in the 45
granule cell layer of the dentate gyrus of hippocampi of control (A) and BCAS operated 46
(B) young adult male mice (X20 magnification). Lower panel: DCX cell quantification 47
in BCAS versus control mice: t[1, 26] =1.71, p=0.099. 48
49
50
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 9
Supplementary Table S1. Correlations between cognitive behavioral test (RAWM) and DTI 51
Variable Correlation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Number of errors Pearson Correlation 1 .878** -.868** .701* .356 -.641 .051
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .002 .035 .347 .063 .896
N 30 30 9 9 9 9 9
2 Duration of trial
(seconds) Pearson Correlation .878** 1 -.756* .433 .485 -.698* -.095
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .018 .244 .186 .036 .809
N 30 30 9 9 9 9 9
3 fractional Anisotropy (Corpus callosum)
Pearson Correlation -.868** -.756* 1 -.781** -.559 .621 .422
Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .018 .008 .093 .055 .225
N 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
4 Mean Diffusivity (internal
capsule right side-mm2/s)
Pearson Correlation .701* .433 -.781** 1 .523 -.642* -.181
Sig. (2-tailed) .035 .244 .008 .121 .045 .618
N 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
5 Mean Diffusivity (internal capsule left side-mm2/s)
Pearson Correlation .356 .485 -.559 .523 1 -.639* -.220
Sig. (2-tailed) .347 .186 .093 .121 .047 .542
N 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
6 Fractional Anisotropy
(anterior commissure left side)
Pearson Correlation -.641 -.698* .621 -.642* -.639* 1 -.183
Sig. (2-tailed) .063 .036 .055 .045 .047 .613
N 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
7 Fractional Anisotropy (anterior commissure
right side) Pearson Correlation .051 -.095 .422 -.181 -.220 -.183 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .896 .809 .225 .618 .542 .613
N 9 9 10 10 10 10 10
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 10
Supplementary Table S.2. Correlations between cognitive behavioral test (RAWM) and FA of corpus callosum (controlled for treatment). 52
Correlations
Control Variables Number of
errors
Fractional Anisotropy
(Corpus callosum)
Treatment group - code Number of errors Correlation 1.000 -.850
Significance (2-tailed)
.007
df 0 6
Bootstrapa Bias 0.000 -.006
Std. Error 0.000 .076
BCa 99.9% Confidence Interval
Lower -.994
Upper -.537
fractional Anisotropy (Corpus callosum)
Correlation -.850 1.000
Significance (2-tailed)
.007
df 6 0
Bootstrapa Bias -.006 0.000
Std. Error .076 0.000
BCa 99.9% Confidence Interval
Lower -.994
Upper -.537
53
54
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 11
Supplementary Table S.3. Total, direct, and indirect effects 55
Model = 4
Y = RAWM_Err
X = Treat_co
M = DTI_FA_c
Sample size
9
**************************************************************************
Outcome: DTI_FA_c
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.81743829 .66820536 .00090242 14.09738727 1.00000000 7.00000000 .00712463
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .30490000 .01343446 22.69537232 .00000008 .25775365 .35204635
Treat_co -.07566250 .02015169 -3.75464876 .00712463 -.14638202 -.00494298
**************************************************************************
Outcome: RAWM_Err
Model Summary
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 12
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.90152983 .81 275603 1.53 821772 13.021 87755 2.0 0000000 6.00 000000 .006 56483
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 20.21638997 4.790087 4.220464 0.005558 2.383678 38.0491
DTI_FA_c -61.71331573 15.60468 -3.9548 0.007496 -119.807 -3.61965
Treat_co -1.98588375 1.444377 -1.37491 0.218294 -7.36306 3.391295
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************
Outcome: RAWM_Err
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.56978989 .32466051 4.75538100 3.36515728 1.00000000 7.00000000 .10923254
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant 1.40000000 .97523136 1.43555679 .19426626 -2.02243795 4.82243795
Treat_co 2.68350000 1.46284704 1.83443650 .10923254 -2.45015693 7.81715693
***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ********************
Total effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 13
2.68350000 1.46284704 1.83443650 .10923254 -2.45015693 7.81715693
Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
-1.98588375 1.44437672 -1.37490706 .21829438 -7.36306277 3.39129527
Indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c 4.66938375 2.00023219 1.55306275 13.18463702
Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c 1.88115228 .61864593 .73006127 3.75241648
Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c .99145431 .32226103 .42541143 2.12973660
Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c 1.74003494 12204561946981 -35.79705821 17.92975946
Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c -2.35128756 132.29639527 -1114.82770184 7.85603324
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 14
56 57 58
R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med)
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
DTI_FA_c .26566713 .31278849 -.51421867 .89557600
Normal theory tests for indirect effect
Effect se Z p
4.66938375 1.74342205 2.67828650 .00739999
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 15
Supplementary Table S.4. 59
Correlations
Iba_mm3_CC fa_cc_NEW
Spearman's rho Iba_mm3_CC Correlation Coefficient 1.000 -.810*
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
N 8 8
Bootstrapc Bias 0.000 -.023
Std. Error 0.000 .110
BCa 99% Confidence Interval
Lower -1.000
Upper -.556
fa_cc_NEW Correlation Coefficient -.810* 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .015
N 8 8
Bootstrapc Bias -.023 0.000
Std. Error .110 0.000
BCa 99% Confidence Interval
Lower -1.000
Upper -.556
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
c. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 1000 stratified bootstrap samples
60 61
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 16
Supplementary Table S.5. 62
Correlations
Control Variables Iba_mm3_CC fa_cc_NEW
Treat Iba_mm3_CC Correlation 1.000 -.666
Significance (2-tailed) .103
df 0 5
Bootstrapa Bias 0.000 .070
Std. Error 0.000 .323
BCa 90% Confidence Interval
Lower -.907
Upper -.142
fa_cc_NEW Correlation -.666 1.000
Significance (2-tailed) .103
df 5 0
Bootstrapa Bias .070 0.000
Std. Error .323 0.000
BCa 90% Confidence Interval
Lower -.907
Upper -.142
a. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 1000 stratified bootstrap samples
63 64 65
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 17
Supplementary Table S.6. 66
Run MATRIX procedure:
************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.1 ******************
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com
Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
**************************************************************************
Model = 4
Y = fa_cc_NE
X = Treat
M = Iba_mm3_
Sample size
8
**************************************************************************
Outcome: Iba_mm3_
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.89780832 .80605978 3044467.542672 24.93736839 1.00000000 6.00000000 .00246770
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant -2253.79965233 1857.52430627 -1.21333521 .27059542 -5862.88161203 1355.28230736
Treat 6363.26996234 1274.25116157 4.99373291 .00246770 3887.46016333 8839.07976134
**************************************************************************
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 18
Outcome: fa_cc_NE
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.91214693 .83201202 .00067049 12.38201696 2.00000000 5.00000000 .01156633
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .36389521 .03076251 11.82917967 .00007600 .30192005 .42587037
Iba_mm3_ -.00001208 .00000606 -1.99381888 .10274747 -.00002429 .00000013
Treat -.00935484 .04293982 -.21785935 .83615067 -.09586282 .07715314
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL ****************************
Outcome: fa_cc_NE
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.83573383 .69845103 .00100297 13.89726587 1.00000000 6.00000000 .00976080
Model
coeff se t p LLCI ULCI
constant .39112000 .03371497 11.60078082 .00002470 .32561340 .45662660
Treat -.08622000 .02312828 -3.72790368 .00976080 -.13115716 -.04128284
***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ********************
Total effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
-.08622000 .02312828 -3.72790368 .00976080 -.13115716 -.04128284
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 19
Direct effect of X on
Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
-.00935484 .04293982 -.21785935 .83615067 -.09586282 .07715314
-0.09068
Indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ -.07686516 .10193588 -.14164040 -.01414878
Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ -1.43958687 1.80956709 -2.36521383 .38686201
Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ -.74505699 .91498992 -1.33783264 -.05718512
Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ .89150034 1.04464593 -.00147737 1.76083763
Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ 8.21661865 71.36725494 3.91419582 2291.84511358
R-squared mediation effect size (R-sq_med)
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Iba_mm3_ .69685640 .15718017 .32030704 .87182861
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 20
Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals:
5000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
90.00
NOTE: Some cases were deleted due to missing data. The number of such cases was:
23
NOTE: Kappa-squared is disabled from output as of version
2.16.
NOTE: Some bootstrap samples had to be replaced. The number of such replacements was:
210
------ END MATRIX ----
- 67
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 21
Supplementary Table S.7. 68
Run MATRIX procedure:
************* PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Release 2.16.1 ******************
Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com
Documentation available in Hayes (2013). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3
**************************************************************************
Model = 6
Y = rawm_err
X = Treat
M1 = Iba_mm3_
M2 = fa_cc_NE
Sample size
7
************************************************************************** Outcome:
Iba_mm3_
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.86359360 .74579390 3295630.992717 14.66907944 1.00000000 5.00000000 .01224739
Model
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 22
coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI constant -1707.80662850 2069.85996882 -.82508317 .44688739 -5877.81489395
2462.20163694 Treat 5817.27693850 1518.86197362 3.83002343 .01224739 2757.32743493
8877.22644207
************************************************************************** Outcome:
fa_cc_NE
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.87935157 .77325919 .00083809 6.82064406 2.00000000 4.00000000 .05141140
Model coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI constant .36383268 .03518325 10.34107781 .00049350 .28886352
.43880185 Iba_mm3_ -.00001206 .00000713 -1.69114297 .16607018 -.00002726
.00000314 Treat -.00936966 .04803988 -.19503915 .85486845 -.11173401
.09299469
************************************************************************** Outcome:
rawm_err
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.93983255 .88328522 1.70954791 7.56789539 3.00000000 3.00000000 .06527006
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 23
Model coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI constant 30.01888555 8.36836422 3.58718678 .03709694 10.36019922
49.67757187 Iba_mm3_ -.00064936 .00042181 -1.53946071 .22132259 -.00164026
.00034154 fa_cc_NE -84.96050720 22.58212045 -3.76229094 .03283849 -138.00968273 -
31.91133167 Treat -.04589903 2.17997744 -.02105482 .98452402 -5.16703043
5.07523236
************************** TOTAL EFFECT MODEL **************************** Outcome:
rawm_err
Model Summary
R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p
.52893065 .27976763 6.32964450 1.94220392 1.00000000 5.00000000 .22220387
Model coeff se t p LLCI
ULCI constant -1.53350000 2.86854281 -.53459199 .61583950 -7.31256110
4.24556110 Treat 2.93350000 2.10493495 1.39362976 .22220387 -1.30717148
7.17417148
***************** TOTAL, DIRECT, AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ********************
Total effect of X on Y
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 24
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
2.93350000 2.10493495 1.39362976 .22220387 -1.30717148 7.17417148
Direct effect of X on Y
Effect SE t p LLCI ULCI
-.04589903 2.17997744 -.02105482 .98452402 -5.16703043 5.07523236
Indirect effect(s) of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Total: 2.97939903 2.05628242 -1.01632852 5.29783886
Ind1 : -3.77751010 2.61803294 -7.69532767 .13805706
Ind2 : 5.96085822 3.01138606 .21285908 10.22952428
Ind3 : .79605091 3.12433645 -1.97676864 8.61348040
(C1) -9.73836833 5.07966164 -17.68054573 -2.32519602
(C2) -4.57356102 3.85326350 -12.44526051 1.12338447
(C3) 5.16480731 5.67213919 -8.84873678 11.76242443
Partially standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Total: 1.10094584 .76734913 -.92706090 1.87651558
Ind1 : -1.39586339 1.07184500 -4.11787693 .06644090
Ind2 : 2.20265295 1.13448897 .06224532 3.59479367
Ind3 : .29415628 1.18977157 -1.21662203 3.04467206
Completely standardized indirect effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Total: .53720656 .36537294 -.37384660 .92245448
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 25
Ind1 : -.68111159 .52806105 -1.70692356 .02511230
Ind2 : 1.07478459 .57295175 .03327152 1.83292402
Ind3 : .14353357 .58492676 -.53649385 1.56923992
Ratio of indirect to total effect of X on Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Total: 1.01564651 17185483335307 -5.44061287 2.26584128
Ind1 : -1.28771437 4346450313815 -7.18159504 3.75746526
Ind2 : 2.03199530 35481658679690 -10.33064502 7.30426086
Ind3 : .27136558 14033131252172 -1.83930930 4.35120871
Ratio of indirect to direct effect of X on
Y
Effect Boot SE BootLLCI BootULCI
Total: -64.91202085 15.36182856 -9.64552384 9.64993701
Ind1 : 82.30042765 24.38533742 -21.82739342 14.89478053
Ind2 : -129.86892621 41.19733078 -19.90501864 32.10184765
Ind3 : -17.34352229 5.44680855 -9.13105305 3.82488436
Indirect effect key
Ind1 : Treat -> Iba_mm3_ -> rawm_err
Ind2 : Treat -> Iba_mm3_ -> fa_cc_NE -> rawm_err
Ind3 : Treat -> fa_cc_NE -> rawm_err
Specific indirect effect contrast definitions
(C1) Ind1 minus Ind2
(C2) Ind1 minus Ind3
(C3) Ind2 minus Ind3
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 26
******************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND WARNINGS *************************
Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:
20000
Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:
90.00
NOTE: Some cases were deleted due to missing data. The number of such cases was:
24
NOTE: Some bootstrap samples had to be replaced. The number of such replacements was:
16788
------ END MATRIX -----
69
70
Ben-Ari et al. – Supplementary Information Page 27
S3. Supplementary References 71
72
73
74
1. Shibata, M., Ohtani, R., Ihara, M., Tomimoto, H. (2004). White matter lesions 75
and glial activation in a novel mouse model of chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. 76
Stroke. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000143725.19053.60 77
78
2. Shibata, M., Yamasaki, N., Miyakawa, T., Kalaria, R.N., Fujita, Y., Ohtani, R., 79
Ihara, M., Takahashi, R., Tomimoto, H. (2007). Selective impairment of working 80
memory in a mouse model of chronic cerebral hypoperfusion. Stroke. doi: 81
10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.490151 82
83
Wolf, G., Lotan, A., Lifschytz, T., Ben-Ari, H., Kreisel Merzel, T., Tatarskyy, P., … 84
Lerer, B. (2017). Differentially severe cognitive effects of compromised 85
cerebral blood flow in aged mice: Association with myelin degradation and 86
microglia activation. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 9, 191. 87
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2017.00191 88
top related