Alright I'm really thrown off on this graph because I'm not doing the mean right (I was assuming the graphs were the mean of all the mice, is that wrong?) Or if I can't get it to look like what I think it should or how it should be answering these questions about osteoblast number and bone volume, but here is what they've given us:
In an experiment, researchers were testing the effects of two drugs (ascorbate and NAC) on the prevention of bone loss. To test these drugs, they compared the bones of normal mice (sham*) to those of mice with their ovaries removed (ovariectomized mice, OVX) and OVX mice treated with ascorbate or NAC. Below are their data. [*Sham refers to mice that had sham surgeries in which their abdominal cavities were exposed, but the surgeons left the ovaries intact. Researchers perform sham surgeries to test if the process of undergoing surgery and subsequent recovery affects the data.]
(b–g) shows data for sham (white bar), OVX (gray bar) &
OVX+ascorbate (black bar). (b), bone volume is the mineralized bone
per unit volume of the sample. (c), osteoclast number per
millimeter of bone surface. (d), percentage of bone surface covered
by osteoclasts. (e), percentage of bone surface that shows
scalloped, eroded appearance. (f), the number of osteoblasts per
millimeter of bone surface. (g), the percentage of bone surface
covered by osteoblasts.
(h-m), shows data for sham (white bar), OVX (gray bar) &
OVX+NAC (black bar) instead of ascorbate, but otherwise the same
measurements.
*P < 0.05 versus other groups. Data expressed as mean ± SEM. Oc,
osteoclast; ES/BS (%), percentage of bone surface that shows an
eroded surface appearance; Ob, osteoblast.
2. (4 pts) Using the data above for all groups, construct a scatter plot that shows the influence of mean osteoblast number/mm bone on mean bone volume (%). Give your graph a trend line. (Be sure to label axes for full credit.)
Alright I'm really thrown off on this graph because I'm not doing the mean right (I...