Table 1 Study 1—Immunohistochemistry of axons in Thy1-YFP-16 mice (Figs. 2 and 3). Student’s t-test or two-way ANOVA results with Holm-Sidak post hoc test and Cohen’s d effect size

YFP particles

t₁₂ = 9.785; p < 0.0001

Interaction:

F_1,10 = 0.098, p = 0.7607

Sex:

F_1,10 = 0.022, p = 0.8852

Drug:

F_1,10 = 78.30, p < 0.0001

Males:

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0006

Females:

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0002

4-AP: TBI males vs TBI females:

p = 0.9381

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 5.231

% Area of

YFP particles

t₁₂ = 10.05; p < 0.0001

Interaction:

F_1,10 = 1.205, p = 0.2980

Sex:

F_1,10 = 0.00000275, p = 0.9987

Drug:

F_1,10 = 98.41, p < 0.0001

Males:

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0005

Females:

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p < 0.0001

4-AP: TBI males vs TBI females:

p = 0.7028

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 5.370

Caspr+ heminodes

Interaction:

F_1,12 = 17.21, p = 0.0013

Injury:

F_1,12 = 61.00, p < 0.0001

Drug:

F_1,12 = 16.80, p = 0.0015

sham veh vs TBI veh:

p < 0.0001

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

ns, p = 0.0651

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0003

sham veh vs TBI veh:

d = 5.591

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 1.917

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 3.713

Caspr length difference

Interaction:

F_1,12 = 15.66, p = 0.0019

Injury:

F_1,12 = 31.46, p = 0.0001

Drug:

F_1,12 = 15.66, p = 0.0019

sham veh vs TBI veh:

p = 0.0001

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

ns, p = 0.6040

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0005

sham veh vs TBI veh:

d = 5.340

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 0.754

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 3.302

% Atypical

Kv1.2 domains

Interaction:

F_1,12 = 14.47, p = 0.0025

Injury:

F_1,12 = 293.7, p < 0.0001

Drug:

F_1,12 = 7.281, p = 0.0194

sham veh vs TBI veh:

p < 0.0001

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

p < 0.0001

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

p = 0.0012

sham veh vs TBI veh:

d = 11.136

sham 4-AP vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 6.312

TBI veh vs TBI 4-AP:

d = 5.511