Same as Fig. 3 g – n , respectively, except that experiments were performed using CD73-KO mice. hM 3 Dq group, n = 8 mice; tdTomato group, n = 8 mice. The statistical method was two-way repeated measures ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s post hoc multiple comparison test. In i , hM 3 Dq-CNO vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, P = 0.14; NREM, P = 0.78; REM, *** P < 0.001. hM 3 Dq-Saline vs hM 3 Dq-CNO: Wake, P = 0.85; NREM, P = 0.15; REM, *** P < 0.001. tdTomato-Saline vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, * P = 0.035; NREM, * P = 0.042; REM, P = 0.51. In j , hM 3 Dq-CNO vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, *** P < 0.001; NREM, *** P < 0.001; REM, * P = 0.017. hM 3 Dq-Saline vs hM 3 Dq-CNO: Wake, *** P < 0.001; NREM, *** P < 0.001; REM, ** P = 0.0020. tdTomato-Saline vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, P = 0.42; NREM, P = 0.38; REM, P = 0.30. In k , hM 3 Dq-CNO vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, ** P = 0.0028; NREM, *** P < 0.001; REM, P = 0.73. hM 3 Dq-Saline vs hM 3 Dq-CNO: Wake, ** P = 0.0011; NREM, *** P < 0.001; REM, P = 0.21. tdTomato-Saline vs tdTomato-CNO: Wake, P = 0.75; NREM, * P = 0.022; REM, P = 0.52. In m , hM 3 Dq-CNO vs tdTomato-CNO: delta, P = 0.063; theta, P = 0.18; sigma, * P = 0.045; beta, P = 0.18. hM 3 Dq-Saline vs hM 3 Dq-CNO: delta, *** P < 0.001; theta, *** P < 0.001; sigma, P = 0.50; beta, P = 0.58. tdTomato-Saline vs tdTomato-CNO: delta, P = 0.54; theta, P = 0.62; sigma, P = 0.064; beta, P = 0.52. In o , hM 3 Dq-CNO vs tdTomato-CNO: delta, P = 0.53; theta, *** P < 0.001; sigma, P = 0.89; beta, P = 0.36. hM 3 Dq-Saline vs hM 3 Dq-CNO: delta, P = 0.47; theta, *** P < 0.001; sigma, * P = 0.023; beta, ** P = 0.0076. tdTomato-Saline vs tdTomato-CNO: delta, P = 0.20; theta, P = 0.35; sigma, P = 0.28; beta, P = 0.69.
