Currently there is a pretty robust spreadsheet and over the past few days Jake has cranked through some reps to see how the oysters that were mechanically stressed hold up. Below is how these data are integrated.
Currently the 8-10 samples (yellow) have been skipped, but we might have a look.
First up is having a look at the new HSP 70 reps. The mechanical data still needs some better resolution. Hopefully teh 8-10 samples migh shed some light.
Next up is two more reps of PGEEP4.
Looks good, and given the doubling of reps we could easily drop ‘outlier’ runs and still have triplicates, tight triplicates.
GRB2… now good to go, with the first pair of reps dead on.
BMP2…. could use some help from the other mechanical stress runs
TLR….seemed like a relatively easy fix (besides no detection) in that just needed to correct for machine.
And the correction indicating the fact that expression was so low, only able to be detected by Opticon
The 8-15 runs had minimal control and temp samples with mechanical run in dups.
This needs a little carressing before integrating into data.
This should be in two columns with empty cells where no samples were run- in this order.
8-15 run update
Mechanical looks decent after correcting.
However taken together, bothersome the difference in crude expression levels.
Had some wet works issues
Assuming correction is correct- still a big differences in mechanincal here- could be real.
No correction required as these were run on cfx, downside is some reps are not detected that would have been picked up with Opticon.
Do not see be shift in expression of mechanical stressed.
Easy correction but skeptical of some very, very low Cts