BME100 f2013:W900 Group7 L2

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
Owwnotebook icon.png BME 100 Fall 2013 Home
People
Lab Write-Up 1 | Lab Write-Up 2 | Lab Write-Up 3
Lab Write-Up 4 | Lab Write-Up 5 | Lab Write-Up 6
Course Logistics For Instructors
Photos
Wiki Editing Help
BME494 Asu logo.png


OUR TEAM

Name: Roberto A. Aguirre
Role(s)
Name: Shelby S. Martin
Role(s)
Name: Christopher G. Cusick
Role(s)
Name: Neel A. Pendyala
Role(s)
Name: Abby Monhollen
Role(s)
Name: student
Role(s)

LAB 2 WRITE-UP

Descriptive Statistics

Experiment 1 (Rats)

' ' Rat Study
Inflammotin Levels
0mg 10 mg
9.24 22.34
8.76 6.45
8.78 14.23
13.5 3.55
12.3 8.99
Average 10.516 11.112
Standard Deviation 2.225551617 7.402885924
Endpoint Number 5 5
Standard Error 0.995296941 3.310671231

Experiment 2 (Humans)

' ' Human Study ' '
Inflammotin Levels
0 mg 5 mg 10 mg 15 mg
5.23 10.72 100.19 793.17
1.01 9.29 75.92 476.67
4.23 8.46 23.46 771.45
1.87 10.19 70.87 795.09
3.67 7.29 19.27 181.27
2.98 7.54 99.65 752.78
5.83 8.67 38.37 934.23
5.24 6.15 76.26 554.87
4.27 10.92 35.25 692.23
4.01 10.09 76.98 627.65
Average 3.834 8.932 61.622 657.941
Standard Deviation 1.523010177 1.593931547 30.11069386 212.9429762
Endpoing Number 10 10 10 10
Standard Error 0.481618106 0.504045412 9.521837451 67.33848166




Results

Experiment 1 Average Inflammotin Levels for Rat Test Subjects Experiment 2 Average Inflammotin Levels for Human Test Subjects

(Please include well-labeled graphs of the results.)




Analysis

Experiment 1 (Rats)

' Treatment '
0 mg 10 mg
9.24 22.34
8.76 6.45
8.78 14.23
13.5 3.55
12.3 8.99
Average 10.516 11.112
Standard Deviation 2.225551617 7.402885924
T Test 0.867403497
Significant? No

Experiment 2 (Humans)

Anova: Single Factor ' ' ' ' ' '
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
0 mg 10 38.34 3.834 2.31956
5 mg 10 89.32 8.932 2.540617778
10 mg 10 616.22 61.622 906.6538844
15 mg 10 6579.41 657.941 45344.71112
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 3027016.695 3 1009005.565 87.25360195 1.40083E-16 2.866265551
Within Groups 416306.0267 36 11564.0563
Total 3443322.721 39
Post-Hoc Tests t test value Corrected P Value to Achieve Significance Significant?
0mg vs 5mg 8.59631E-07 0.0083 Yes
0mg vs 10mg 9.94377E-06 0.0083 Yes
0mg vs 15mg 1.39436E-08 0.0083 Yes
5mg vs 10mg 3.01859E-05 0.0083 Yes
5mg vs 15mg 1.57101E-08 0.0083 Yes
10mg vs 15mg 6.4824E-08 0.0083 Yes


In the first experiment with the rats, there was no statistical significance between 0 mg of the lipopolysaccaride and 10 mg of the lipopolysaccaride because the p value for the two tailed T-Test was less than .05 (less than 95% confidence). In the second test with the humans, there was a statistically significant difference between the treatment groups,as determined by the single factor ANOVA test. However, this did not determine which treatment groups were statistically significant. So, a Bonferroni Correction was applied and a corrected p value was determined to be .0083. A T-Test was then run between all treatment groups and all T-Test results were less than the corrected p value, indicating that they are statistically significant.





Summary/Discussion

Experiment 1 (rats): For this experiment, we saw a slight increase in protein levels from 0mg to 10mg of lipopolysaccharides. However, once we did the t-test we found the change to not be statistically significant due to the p-value of 0.867 being greater than alpha level of 0.05. Therefore, the results cannot be attributed to the change in dosage level in the pills and this is most likely due to chance.

Experiment 2 (humans): In this experiment, we observed an exponential increase between dosage amount and protein levels in human subjects. This is evident in the sharp increase in protein levels from 10 mg to 15 mg of lipopolysaccharide in the graph. Unlike the experiment with rats, a statistically significant relationship was found between dosage amount of lipopolysaccharide and protein levels. This was determined by performing an ANOVA analysis and then a Bonferroni Correction to show that the p-values of all treatment groups were less than 0.05 (95% confidence), indicating a statically significant relationship (as further explained in "Analysis" section). Since the p-values of all treatment groups were less than 0.05, we can conclude that the increase in protein levels was directly attributable to change in dosage levels of polysaccharide and not a result of natural variation or chance.