What do you think are some potential reasons your dosing experiment acting opposite to your other two experiments? What would you change to ensure more precise results in a repeat experiment?
Hi Vinny, Thanks for your question. You are correct that our data raised questions, especially with the dosing series. One of the problems with the dosing series is that the high dose that was a hit in this experiment was not a hit in the dosing series experiment. We don’t know why. Human error in the experiment is certainly a possibility. We would need to repeat this experiment to verify the data because it does not agree with our two other experiments.
When the experiment is repeated I would recommend testing several vials at each concentration and increasing the number of larvae tested to increase the population size. The week that we preformed this experiment had a low yield of larvae, so the lower numbers make it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion based on our results.
Very good presentation and poster. Do you think it is more likely that the dose response curve truly was opposite to what you expected due to unknown biological processes involving Allicin or is experimental error the more likely culprit? If the survival rate truly does increase as the dosage increases, I would be really interested to know why.
It is certainly a possibility that the dose response is a “reverse u” because that is a known physiologic response for some compounds, but it is of note that the results of this experiment contradicted the results of our other experiments. Specifically, the 2mg/mL dose that was a hit in our other experiments was not a hit in the dose response experiment. We observed that the week we did this experiment the yield of larvae in the lab was relatively low, so the number of larvae in our tested vials was lower. It is possible that the lower number of larvae skewed the results.
I would recommend repeating the experiment with more tested vials and more larvae to verify the results as a start. After that, it would also be helpful to do another dose response curve with a smaller range of concentrations to see if the “reverse u” result is repeated even at closer concentrations. I agree that it is an interesting and unexpected result.
You are correct that the 2mg/mL dose that was a hit in our other experiments was not a hit in the dose response experiment. We do not know why. Some possible explanations are human error or the low larvae count in the week that we preformed the experiment skewed the results. We recommend repeating this experiment to verify the results.
Thank you! We were first interested in Allicin because we thought it was interesting that it was a derivative of garlic. After a literature review to see if Allicin had any promising characteristics we found that there is some evidence that Allicin may induce apoptosis, promote autophagy, and increase sensitivity to radiation. So, those were promising attributes for a compound to possibly work as a chemotherapy in combination with radiation.
What do you think are some potential reasons your dosing experiment acting opposite to your other two experiments? What would you change to ensure more precise results in a repeat experiment?
Hi Vinny, Thanks for your question. You are correct that our data raised questions, especially with the dosing series. One of the problems with the dosing series is that the high dose that was a hit in this experiment was not a hit in the dosing series experiment. We don’t know why. Human error in the experiment is certainly a possibility. We would need to repeat this experiment to verify the data because it does not agree with our two other experiments.
When the experiment is repeated I would recommend testing several vials at each concentration and increasing the number of larvae tested to increase the population size. The week that we preformed this experiment had a low yield of larvae, so the lower numbers make it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion based on our results.
Very good presentation and poster. Do you think it is more likely that the dose response curve truly was opposite to what you expected due to unknown biological processes involving Allicin or is experimental error the more likely culprit? If the survival rate truly does increase as the dosage increases, I would be really interested to know why.
Hi Jared,
It is certainly a possibility that the dose response is a “reverse u” because that is a known physiologic response for some compounds, but it is of note that the results of this experiment contradicted the results of our other experiments. Specifically, the 2mg/mL dose that was a hit in our other experiments was not a hit in the dose response experiment. We observed that the week we did this experiment the yield of larvae in the lab was relatively low, so the number of larvae in our tested vials was lower. It is possible that the lower number of larvae skewed the results.
I would recommend repeating the experiment with more tested vials and more larvae to verify the results as a start. After that, it would also be helpful to do another dose response curve with a smaller range of concentrations to see if the “reverse u” result is repeated even at closer concentrations. I agree that it is an interesting and unexpected result.
Do you know why the lower dose had a higher death rate in the second experiment I believe?
Hi Nico,
You are correct that the 2mg/mL dose that was a hit in our other experiments was not a hit in the dose response experiment. We do not know why. Some possible explanations are human error or the low larvae count in the week that we preformed the experiment skewed the results. We recommend repeating this experiment to verify the results.
Great presentation! Was there anything in particular that made you choose to work with Allicin for these experiments?
Hi Nick,
Thank you! We were first interested in Allicin because we thought it was interesting that it was a derivative of garlic. After a literature review to see if Allicin had any promising characteristics we found that there is some evidence that Allicin may induce apoptosis, promote autophagy, and increase sensitivity to radiation. So, those were promising attributes for a compound to possibly work as a chemotherapy in combination with radiation.