This made the task very easy and straightforward even for the novice user as the analysis was done simply by the press of a button after data entry ( Fig. 2). Furthermore, the macro ensured consistency in the output for easy and accurate export of the data and results to the relational database (Microsoft Access) being maintained in the laboratory. The Excel macros proved to be very useful and convenient, and have become a staple in the Call laboratory. However, while the Hill equation was easily fit to the

data and the ET50 and Hill slope were determined quickly by the macros, the problem of meaningfully comparing an experimental line with the control still remained. In addition, an important goal of these assays was also to classify

a given click here fly line as having a sensitive, normal or resistant phenotype to the IA. To help resolve both problems, that is, comparing an experimental line to the control and classifying the experimental line as one of the above three types, the stand-alone computer program, HEPB, was developed. HEPB has an easy-to-use GUI that, in addition to estimating the parameters c and d in Eq.  (1), also computes the prediction band (at a given level of confidence) for the control fly data and solves for the X value when Y = 50% for each of the upper and lower limits of the prediction band. These form the cut-off values to objectively discriminate among sensitive, normal and resistant http://www.selleckchem.com/products/NVP-AUY922.html responses to a given anesthetic. These two limits each give the boundary value between sensitive and normal responses, and Metalloexopeptidase normal and resistant responses, respectively ( Fig. 3). This is similar to standard statistical practice

for a two-tailed test where the distribution under the null hypothesis is constructed, the critical regions delineated on either side of the curve, and the experimental value simply compared to the critical values on this curve to accept or reject the hypothesis. Our critical values are the ET50 values for the upper and lower limits of the prediction band for the null distribution (the control). If the ET50 value for the experimental run falls within these two limits, it is determined to be no different from that of the control (null hypothesis accepted), and if it falls outside the limits, the null hypothesis is rejected and we conclude that the experimental run is statistically different from the control. Specifically, the experimental fly line is determined to be sensitive or resistant if the corresponding ET50 falls outside the lower limit, or outside the upper limit, respectively. Furthermore, HEPB has the option of generating 500 values of the response variable based on simulation, for equally spaced values of the dose variable within the range specified in the original data file, based on the fit of the Hill equation to the original data.