Hi All

I'm almost finished with a poster and I was just double checking some graphs i've put on the results. I realised that for one data set, I primed some neutrophils for a little longer than 30 mins that I have stated in the methods (this was due to having a few experiments going on at the same time and some time points clashing). The actual results are fine, but I don't want the methods to be misleading - is it best to stick with 'neutrophils were treated with TNF alpha for 30 mins' as that was the standard protocol, or try and imply some neutrophils were left a little longer?

hi bilbo,
this will only be pointed out by someone who scrutinizes the graphs

if you want to use that graph anyway, how about putting a symbol on the graph and then there is a footnote in smaller print about the samples that have been left in slightly longer? that would explain the differences shown

I wouldn't worry too much about if for a poster because you can explain to the readers what you did face to face.

You can do as suggested by Satchi or you could write 'neutrophils were treated with TNF alpha for 30 to x mins' and then it's still correct for all.

Hi both

thanks for the tips. I've decided to just state ~30 mins in the methods, not the most scientific but as I'm not actually attending the conference, another Phd student is taking it for me, so hence a slight panic that I'm not able to discuss my work. The actual data point isn't obvious that it was left longer than the others, so only I'd know it was different but I think I'm very thorough about everything is correct and I'm not hiding anything!

But I do like the footnote idea, and may use it in my thesis