Remaining Analyses Part 4

Investigating those bad samples

Based off of Emma’s advice from our environmental data meeting, I looked at when the technical replicates for samples I removed were run. I found that the second technical replicate for these samples were run just before we changed the column! File 87 was the first sample file I checked and felt confident with after we changed the column.

Sample ID Site Habitat Replicate 1 Replicate 2
O006 Case Inlet Eelgrass 24 71
O014 Case Inlet Bare 9 85
O049 Fidalgo Bay Eelgrass 2 70
O052 Port Gamble Bay Bare 3 76
O071 Port Gamble Bay Eelgrass 10 69
O103 Skokomish River Delta Eelgrass 18 81
O122 Willapa Bay Bare 6 77
O128 Willapa Bay Bare 12 80
O145 Willapa Bay Eelgrass 11 68

The two samples with the worst technical replication based on CV filtering are O14 and O128. Both of these samples had 100 transitions where the technical replicates had a coefficient of variance greater than 20. I’m going to give the remaining ctenidia samples to Emma, since her labmate offered to rerun them for me and see if we can replicate the poor technical replication.

Edit 11/13/17 at 12:10 p.m.

Based on the conversation in this issue, I’m going to pick 2 samples I did not remove from my analysis to rerun. This will give us a good idea if the techncial replication issue was a result of the column, or if there was something else involved and we need to rerun the entire set. I’ll pick O35 and O131.

Written on November 13, 2017