Last updated: 2025-11-03
Checks: 2 0
Knit directory:
HairCort-Evaluation-Nist2020/
This reproducible R Markdown analysis was created with workflowr (version 1.7.1). The Checks tab describes the reproducibility checks that were applied when the results were created. The Past versions tab lists the development history.
Great! Since the R Markdown file has been committed to the Git repository, you know the exact version of the code that produced these results.
Great! You are using Git for version control. Tracking code development and connecting the code version to the results is critical for reproducibility.
The results in this page were generated with repository version 8527e68. See the Past versions tab to see a history of the changes made to the R Markdown and HTML files.
Note that you need to be careful to ensure that all relevant files for
the analysis have been committed to Git prior to generating the results
(you can use wflow_publish or
wflow_git_commit). workflowr only checks the R Markdown
file, but you know if there are other scripts or data files that it
depends on. Below is the status of the Git repository when the results
were generated:
Ignored files:
Ignored: .DS_Store
Ignored: .RData
Ignored: .Rhistory
Ignored: analysis/.DS_Store
Ignored: analysis/.Rhistory
Ignored: analysis/data/
Ignored: data/.DS_Store
Ignored: data/Test10/figs/
Ignored: data/Test3/.DS_Store
Ignored: data/Test4/.DS_Store
Ignored: data/Test7/.DS_Store
Ignored: data/Test7/figs/
Ignored: data/Test8/figs/
Ignored: data/Test9/.DS_Store
Ignored: data/Test9/figs/
Ignored: figure/.DS_Store
Unstaged changes:
Modified: analysis/Data_analysis.Rmd
Modified: analysis/about.Rmd
Note that any generated files, e.g. HTML, png, CSS, etc., are not included in this status report because it is ok for generated content to have uncommitted changes.
These are the previous versions of the repository in which changes were
made to the R Markdown (analysis/index.Rmd) and HTML
(docs/index.html) files. If you’ve configured a remote Git
repository (see ?wflow_git_remote), click on the hyperlinks
in the table below to view the files as they were in that past version.
| File | Version | Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rmd | 8527e68 | Paloma | 2025-10-30 | elisa10 |
| html | 8527e68 | Paloma | 2025-10-30 | elisa10 |
| Rmd | 936fd23 | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | index |
| html | 936fd23 | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | index |
| Rmd | d2bd6cf | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | index |
| html | d2bd6cf | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | index |
| html | 09b91fa | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | Update index.html |
| Rmd | 12cea30 | Paloma | 2025-10-27 | intro |
| Rmd | 7240d2e | Paloma | 2025-04-22 | organized files |
| html | 7240d2e | Paloma | 2025-04-22 | organized files |
| Rmd | d314be6 | Paloma | 2025-01-29 | updates |
| html | d314be6 | Paloma | 2025-01-29 | updates |
| Rmd | 5c064f5 | Paloma | 2025-01-16 | update description |
| html | 76f7f11 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | afd |
| html | 016578f | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | gjhghukj |
| Rmd | 8c54674 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | upodaptes |
| html | 8c54674 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | upodaptes |
| Rmd | 4c08739 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | updating file names |
| html | 4c08739 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | updating file names |
| Rmd | f033eb8 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | update page names |
| html | f033eb8 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | update page names |
| Rmd | 01e25c6 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | reorg documents |
| html | 01e25c6 | Paloma | 2024-11-11 | reorg documents |
| Rmd | 7258162 | Paloma | 2024-11-09 | improved explanations of experiment |
| html | 7258162 | Paloma | 2024-11-09 | improved explanations of experiment |
| Rmd | e435bbc | Paloma | 2024-10-25 | update result plots_non spiked |
| html | e435bbc | Paloma | 2024-10-25 | update result plots_non spiked |
| html | 91fbafe | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Build site. |
| Rmd | f42c096 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | index |
| html | f42c096 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | index |
| Rmd | 14c1638 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | update links again |
| html | 14c1638 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | update links again |
| Rmd | e8567d9 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | update links |
| html | e8567d9 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | update links |
| html | e56ef2f | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Build site. |
| html | 8e75be7 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Update index.html |
| html | f28b5e3 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Build site. |
| html | 4ee17fb | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 70a7581 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | about page and index |
| html | 2ed0880 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Build site. |
| Rmd | 4594242 | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | about page |
| html | 35b1a01 | GitHub | 2024-10-17 | Update index.html |
| html | 62a7e39 | GitHub | 2024-10-17 | Update index.html |
| html | 4e7632d | Paloma | 2024-10-17 | Update index.html |
| html | e4cf6f3 | Paloma | 2024-10-16 | initial files |
| Rmd | fd1d59b | Paloma | 2024-10-16 | Start workflowr project. |
This protocol is different from others in that it should make possible to quantify cortisol in low-mass hair samples (i.e. less than 20 mg). The study conducted by Nist et al. quantifies cortisol in hair samples form neonates, but to our knowledge, it has not been tested with low-mass adult samples.
The increased sensibility of Nist et al. 2020 is provided by two modifications in the traditional protocol:
I tested this protocol by running an ELISA plate with 40 samples from one adult individual. In order to find optimal parameters for my adult samples, I tested different mass, dilution, and the addition (or not) of a spike.
The results suggest that the method proposed by Nist et al. 2020 does not produce reliable results, and does not allow us to quantify cortisol from adult hair. However, it remains a question if using lower-mass samples would result in accurate results (more testing forthcoming).
Among the non-spiked samples, and using a double extraction, we found that a dilution of 250 uL, and using between 20 to 35 mg of hair provides the most consistent results.
This is how data is obtained:
|-- Plate reader produces optical density (OD) values
|
|
|---> Myassays.com uses ODs and map of plate layout to:
1) Subtract readings for the NSB (non-specific binding) well
(0% binding) from all values
2) Normalize values dividing by reading for zero standard
(blank, or B0)
3) Fit a 4-Parameter Logistic curve (for a sigmoidal shape)
to the standard readings
4) Extrapolate cortisol concentration values from the curve
* Obtained values for each replicate separately by
treating them as a single sample when providing
the plate layout
* These values do not control for differences
in dilution, sample weight, spike, etc.
* Values obtained are in the same unit as the
standards provided (pg/ml)
|
|
|------> In R I calculate final values using the formula:
A / B x C / D x E
▪ A = output myassays.com (pg/ml)
▪ B = sample mass (mg)
▪ C = methanol added for extraction (mL)
▪ D = methanol recovered (mL)
▪ E = reconstitution volume (mL)File with complete dataset has the following columns for each single data point:
Find more details in the pages below:
Plate overall description
| Test # | Date | Observations |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | 10-08-25 | Used multichannel, slower dispensing but worked well overall |
| 8 | 09-02-25 | Plate washer overflowed, washed twice |
| 7 | 08-10-25 | Had issues with repeater: addition of conjugate and antibody was not homogeneous (particularly the antibody) |
| 6 | 05-30-25 | Did not use results. Plate broke, individual wells got disorganized, not sure if put it back in the right order |
| 5 | 05-13-25 | Mistake: added TMB before washing plate. Washed the plate and added TMB again. Overall, it seems like values are smaller than in previous plates. Also, Tina’s samples were much more pulverized than mine |
| 4 | 02-19-25 | |
| 3 | 09-15-24 |