Figure 2: WT maximum amplitudes and decay rate constants
Manuscript figure 2 uses three subfigures to show WT maximum amplitude and decay rate constant variation over LPR5, LPR10, and LPR50 for the H2O condition (figure 2B); WT maximum amplitude variation over LPR5 for H2O, D2O, and H2O>D2O conditions (figure 2D); and WT maximum amplitude and decay rate constant variation over LPR5, LPR10, and LPR50 for D2O experiments (figure 2F).
The Dataset
We process the NeRh50_Table_S1_raw_data_used_in_figures.csv dataset to obtain the data for this analysis (Table 1).
Show the code
# Show interactive tables of dataDT::datatable(dfms$dfm_fig2_amp)DT::datatable(dfms$dfm_fig2_k)# Write datasets to file (commented out for website)#readr::write_csv(dfms$dfm_fig2_amp, "assets/data/01_fig2_amplitude.csv")#readr::write_csv(dfms$dfm_fig2_k, "assets/data/01_fig2_rate.csv")
Table 1: Measurements for WT across H2O, D2O and D2O>H2O conditions at varying levels of LPR
(a) Maximum amplitude
(b) Decay rate
We visualise the datasets in the style of manuscript figure 2 in Figure 1.
We have multiple questions for this dataset. Within each of the six plots we wish to present the effects of the parameters plotted along the x-axis, for each measurement.
The Models
We address these questions using a separate linear model for each set of figure data. For figures 2B and 2F we treat maximum amplitude and decay rate constant as dependent variables, and fit these to the LPR explanatory variable (Value ~ LPR). For figure 2D we proceed in a similar way, but fit to the Condition explanatory variable (Value ~ Condition).
Figure 2: Diagnostic plots for linear model fits of Value ~ LPR and Max_amplitude ~ Condition
There are no obvious departures from assumptions in Figure 2, although some of the diagnostic plots do have odd spline fits. We extract the contrasts in Table 2.
Table 2: Contrasts for model fits, with Sidak adjustment.
(a) Figure 2B(i): Maximum amplitude, H2O
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
LPR5 - LPR10
0.762
0.157
12
0.328
1.197
LPR5 - LPR50
1.410
0.167
12
0.947
1.873
LPR10 - LPR50
0.648
0.174
12
0.166
1.129
(b) Figure 2B(ii): Decay rate, H2O
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
LPR5 - LPR10
23.482
7.882
12
1.646
45.317
LPR5 - LPR50
43.994
8.402
12
20.718
67.271
LPR10 - LPR50
20.512
8.732
12
-3.677
44.702
(c) Figure 2D(i): Maximum amplitude, LPR5
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
H2O - D2O
0.832
0.140
14
0.454
1.210
H2O - D2O>H2O
0.147
0.162
14
-0.292
0.585
D2O - D2O>H2O
-0.685
0.157
14
-1.111
-0.259
(d) Figure 2D(ii): Decay rate, LPR5
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
H2O - D2O
-2.128
6.675
14
-20.210
15.954
H2O - D2O>H2O
10.351
7.744
14
-10.628
31.331
D2O - D2O>H2O
12.479
7.520
14
-7.892
32.851
(e) Figure 2F(i): Maximum amplitude, D2O
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
LPR5 - LPR10
0.232
0.084
14
0.006
0.458
LPR5 - LPR50
0.713
0.094
14
0.458
0.968
LPR10 - LPR50
0.481
0.097
14
0.218
0.743
(f) Figure 2F(ii): Decay rate, D2O
contrast
estimate
SE
df
lower.CL
upper.CL
LPR5 - LPR10
33.607
4.709
14
20.849
46.366
LPR5 - LPR50
51.345
5.306
14
36.972
65.718
LPR10 - LPR50
17.738
5.464
14
2.935
32.540
The following contrasts are indicated not to include zero in their 95% confidence interval (estimates in Table 2), which we interpret as indicating an effect due to differing lipid-protein ratio, or differing solvent condition:
Figure 3: WT measurements across three LPRs and three experimental conditions, representing figures 2B, 2D, and 2F from the draft manuscript. , with Sidak-adjusted p-values indicated