Scatter plotting as a simple tool to analyse relative organ to body weight in toxicological bioassays
- 158 Downloads
In toxicological bioassays, organ weight is often expressed as a ratio to body weight or another denominator to account for natural differences in animal sizes. However, the relationship of treatment-induced organ and body weight change is complicated and relative weights may accordingly confound a toxicological assessment. In addition, the statistical assessment of relative weights is challenging. The examples given in this document show that toxicological interpretation of organ weight data in relation to body weight can be vastly improved by simple bivariate scatter plotting. Conversely, plots of relative organ weight are of limited value and may lead to an incorrect interpretation of toxic effects when used in isolation. Scatter plots are useful for qualitative hazard characterization and to generate hypotheses. Bivariate summary statistics indicate effect levels and help to explore the actual correlation of organ to body weight.
KeywordsExperimental toxicology Regulatory toxicology Exploratory data analysis In vivo Hazard characterization
I would like to thank the following people for educational discussions related to relative organ weights and associated issues: Dr. Stanley E. Lazic, AstraZeneca, for general discussions and the development of Bayesian models to assess toxic effects. Prof. Christian Ritz, University of Copenhagen, with regard to benchmark dose modelling and, Prof. Ludwig A. Hothorn for discussing different statistical methods to statistically compare relative organ weights.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Cleveland WS (1985) The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth Publ. Co., BelmontGoogle Scholar
- Cleveland WS (1993) Visualizing data. AT & T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
- Cumming RR (1929) On the nature of hereditary size limitation. II. The growth of parts in relation to the whole. J Exp Biol 6(4):311–324Google Scholar
- Hothorn LA, Kluxen FM (2019) Robust multiple comparisons against a control group with application in toxicology. arXiv:1905.01838 [stat.AP]
- Marazzi A, Joss J (1993) Algorithms, routines, and S functions for robust statistics: the FORTRAN library ROBETH with an interface to S-PLUS. Wadsworth Publ. Co., BelmontGoogle Scholar
- Monette G (1990) Geometry of multiple regression and interactive 3-D graphics. In: Fox J, Long JS (eds) Modern methods of data analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 209–256Google Scholar
- National Toxicology Program (n.d.) 13 weeks gavage Study on female F344 rats administered with sodium dichromate dihydrate (VI) (CASRN: 7789-12-0, Study number: C20114. TDMS number: 2011402) Technical reportGoogle Scholar
- R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Rousseeuw P, Ruts I, Tukey JW (1999) The bagplot: a bivariate boxplot. Am Stat 53:382Google Scholar
- Shingleton A (2010) Allometry: the study of biological scaling. Nat Educ Knowl 3(10):2Google Scholar
- Thöni H (1988) Multiple comparisons and conditional joint confidence regions. In: Bauer P, Hommel G, Sonnemann E (eds) Multiple Hypothesenprüfung / Multiple Hypotheses Testing: Symposium, 6. und 7. November 1987. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-52307-6_16
- Tufte E (1990) Envisioning information. Graphics Press, Cheshire, CT, USAGoogle Scholar
- Tukey JW (1977) Exploratory data analysis. Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, ReadingGoogle Scholar
- Weichenthal S, Hancock S, Raffaele K (2010) Statistical power in the analyses of brain weight measures in pesticide neurotoxicity testing and the relationship between brain and body weight. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57(2):235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wickham H (2016) ggplot2—Elegant graphics for data analysis, 2nd edn. Springer International Publishing, ChamGoogle Scholar