A COMPARISON OF TWO METHODS FOR THE DETECTION OF FECAL POLLUTION IN DRINKING WATER (HYDROGEN SULFIDE, INDICATOR, MODIFICATION)

A new technique for the detection of microbiological fecal pollution in drinking and in raw surface water has been modified and tested against the standard multiple-tube fermentation technique (most-probable-number, MPN). The performance of the new test in detecting fecal pollution in drinking water has been tested at different incubation temperatures. The basis for the new test was the detection of hydrogen sulfide produced by the hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria which are usually associated with the coliform group. The positive results are indicated by the appearance of a brown to black color in the contents of the fermentation tube within 18 to 24 hours of incubation at 35 (+OR-) .5(DEGREES)C. For this study 158 water samples of different sources have been used. The results were analyzed statistically with the paired t-test and the one-way analysis of variance. No statistically significant difference was noticed between the two methods, when tested 35 (+OR-) .5(DEGREES)C, in detecting fecal pollution in drinking water. The new test showed more positive results with raw surface water, which could be due to the presence of hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria of non-fecal origin like Desulfovibrio and Desulfomaculum. The survival of the hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria and the coliforms was also tested over a 7-day period, and the results showed no significant difference. The two methods showed no significant difference when used to detect fecal pollution at a very low coliform density. The results showed that the new test is mostly effective, in detecting fecal pollution in drinking water, when used at 35 (+OR-) .5(DEGREES)C. The new test is effective, simple, and less expensive when used to detect fecal pollution in drinking water and raw surface water at 35 (+OR-) .5(DEGREES)C. The method can be used for qualitative and/or quantitative analysis of water in the field and in the laboratory. ^

Statistical Methods for Differential Expressions of Genes Detected in Multiple-Condition Experiment of Microarray

Most studies of differential gene-expressions have been conducted between two given conditions. The two-condition experimental (TCE) approach is simple in that all genes detected display a common differential expression pattern responsive to a common two-condition difference. Therefore, the genes that are differentially expressed under the other conditions other than the given two conditions are undetectable with the TCE approach. In order to address the problem, we propose a new approach called multiple-condition experiment (MCE) without replication and develop corresponding statistical methods including inference of pairs of conditions for genes, new t-statistics, and a generalized multiple-testing method for any multiple-testing procedure via a control parameter C. We applied these statistical methods to analyze our real MCE data from breast cancer cell lines and found that 85 percent of gene-expression variations were caused by genotypic effects and genotype-ANAX1 overexpression interactions, which agrees well with our expected results. We also applied our methods to the adenoma dataset of Notterman et al. and identified 93 differentially expressed genes that could not be found in TCE. The MCE approach is a conceptual breakthrough in many aspects: (a) many conditions of interests can be conducted simultaneously; (b) study of association between differential expressions of genes and conditions becomes easy; (c) it can provide more precise information for molecular classification and diagnosis of tumors; (d) it can save lot of experimental resources and time for investigators.^

New methods for quantification and analysis of quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction data

Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is a sensitive gene quantitation method that has been widely used in the biological and biomedical fields. The currently used methods for PCR data analysis, including the threshold cycle (CT) method, linear and non-linear model fitting methods, all require subtracting background fluorescence. However, the removal of background fluorescence is usually inaccurate, and therefore can distort results. Here, we propose a new method, the taking-difference linear regression method, to overcome this limitation. Briefly, for each two consecutive PCR cycles, we subtracted the fluorescence in the former cycle from that in the later cycle, transforming the n cycle raw data into n-1 cycle data. Then linear regression was applied to the natural logarithm of the transformed data. Finally, amplification efficiencies and the initial DNA molecular numbers were calculated for each PCR run. To evaluate this new method, we compared it in terms of accuracy and precision with the original linear regression method with three background corrections, being the mean of cycles 1-3, the mean of cycles 3-7, and the minimum. Three criteria, including threshold identification, max R2, and max slope, were employed to search for target data points. Considering that PCR data are time series data, we also applied linear mixed models. Collectively, when the threshold identification criterion was applied and when the linear mixed model was adopted, the taking-difference linear regression method was superior as it gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount and a reasonable estimation of PCR amplification efficiencies. When the criteria of max R2 and max slope were used, the original linear regression method gave an accurate estimation of initial DNA amount. Overall, the taking-difference linear regression method avoids the error in subtracting an unknown background and thus it is theoretically more accurate and reliable. This method is easy to perform and the taking-difference strategy can be extended to all current methods for qPCR data analysis.^

Robust effect sizes and their confidence intervals for group difference between trajectories in hierarchical linear growth model

Hierarchical linear growth model (HLGM), as a flexible and powerful analytic method, has played an increased important role in psychology, public health and medical sciences in recent decades. Mostly, researchers who conduct HLGM are interested in the treatment effect on individual trajectories, which can be indicated by the cross-level interaction effects. However, the statistical hypothesis test for the effect of cross-level interaction in HLGM only show us whether there is a significant group difference in the average rate of change, rate of acceleration or higher polynomial effect; it fails to convey information about the magnitude of the difference between the group trajectories at specific time point. Thus, reporting and interpreting effect sizes have been increased emphases in HLGM in recent years, due to the limitations and increased criticisms for statistical hypothesis testing. However, most researchers fail to report these model-implied effect sizes for group trajectories comparison and their corresponding confidence intervals in HLGM analysis, since lack of appropriate and standard functions to estimate effect sizes associated with the model-implied difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM, and also lack of computing packages in the popular statistical software to automatically calculate them. ^ The present project is the first to establish the appropriate computing functions to assess the standard difference between grouping trajectories in HLGM. We proposed the two functions to estimate effect sizes on model-based grouping trajectories difference at specific time, we also suggested the robust effect sizes to reduce the bias of estimated effect sizes. Then, we applied the proposed functions to estimate the population effect sizes (d ) and robust effect sizes (du) on the cross-level interaction in HLGM by using the three simulated datasets, and also we compared the three methods of constructing confidence intervals around d and du recommended the best one for application. At the end, we constructed 95% confidence intervals with the suitable method for the effect sizes what we obtained with the three simulated datasets. ^ The effect sizes between grouping trajectories for the three simulated longitudinal datasets indicated that even though the statistical hypothesis test shows no significant difference between grouping trajectories, effect sizes between these grouping trajectories can still be large at some time points. Therefore, effect sizes between grouping trajectories in HLGM analysis provide us additional and meaningful information to assess group effect on individual trajectories. In addition, we also compared the three methods to construct 95% confident intervals around corresponding effect sizes in this project, which handled with the uncertainty of effect sizes to population parameter. We suggested the noncentral t-distribution based method when the assumptions held, and the bootstrap bias-corrected and accelerated method when the assumptions are not met.^