17.5 – Testing regression coefficients

Introduction

Whether the goal is to create a predictive model or an explanatory model, then there are two related questions the analyst asks about the linear regression model fitted to the data:

1. Does a line actually fit the data
2. Is the linear regression statistically significant?

We will turn to the first question pertaining to fit in time, but for now, focus on the second question.

Like the one-way ANOVA, we have the null and alternative hypothesis for the regression model itself. We write our hypotheses for the regression

H₀ : linear regression fits the data vs. H_A : linear regression does not fit

We see from the output in R and Rcmdr that an ANOVA table has been provided. Thus, the test of the regression is analogous to an ANOVA — we partition the overall variability in the response variable into two parts: the first part is the part of the variation that can be explained by there being a linear regression (the linear regression sum of squares) plus a second part that accounts for the rest of the variation in the data that is not explained by the regression (the residual or error sum of squares). Thus, we have

As we did in ANOVA, we calculate Mean Squares , where x refers to either “regression” or “residual” sums of squares and degrees of freedom. We then calculate F-values, the test statistics for the regression, to test the null hypothesis.

The degrees of freedom (DF) in simple linear regression are always

where

and F_DFregression, DF_residual are compared to the critical value at Type I error rate α, with DFregression, DFresidual.

Linear regression inference

Estimation of the slope and intercept is a first step and should be accompanied by the calculation of confidence intervals.

What we need to know if we are to conclude that there’s a functional relationship between the X and Y variable is whether the same relationship exists in the population. We’ve sampled from the population, calculated an equation to describe the relationship between them. However, just as in all cases of inferential statistics, we need to consider the possibility that, through chance alone, we may have committed a Type I error.

The graph below (Fig 1) shows a possible outcome under a scenario in which the statistical analyst would likely conclude that there is a statistically significant linear model fit to the data, but the true relationship in the population was a slope of zero. How can this happen? Under this scenario, by chance alone the researchers sampled points (circled in red) from the population that fall along a line. We will conclude that there is linear relationship — that’s what are inferential statistics work would indicate — but there was none in the population from which the sampling was done; there would be no way for us to recognize the error except to repeat the experiment — the principal of research reproducibility — with a different sample.

Figure 1. Scatterplot of hypothetical x,y data for which the researcher may obtain a statistically significant linear fit to sample of data from population in which null hypothesis is true relationship between x and y.

So in conclusion, you must keep in mind the meaning of statistical significance in the context of statistical inference: it is inference done on a background of random chance, the chance that sampling from the population leads to a biased sample of subjects.

Tests of coefficients

One criterion for a good model is that the coefficients in the model, the intercept and the slope(s) are all statistically significant.

For the statistical of the slope, b₁, we generally treat the test as a two-tailed test of the null hypothesis that the regression slope is equal to zero.

H₀ : b₁ = 0 vs. H_A : b₁ ≠ 0

Similarly, for the statistical of the intercept, b₀, we generally treat the test as a two-tailed test of the null hypothesis that the Y-intercept is equal to zero.

H₀ : b₀ = 0 vs. H_A : b₀ ≠ 0

For both slope and intercept we use t-statistics.

We’ll illustrate the tests of the slope and intercept by letting R and Rcmdr do the work. You’ll find this simple data set at the bottom of this page (scroll or click here). The first variable is the number of matings, the second is the size of the paired female, and the third is the size of the paired male. All body mass were in grams.

R code

After loading the worksheet into R and Rcmdr, begin by selecting

Rcmdr: Statistics → Fit model → Linear Regression

Note that more than one predictor can be entered, but only one response (dependent) variable may be selected (Fig 2).

Figure 2. Screenshot linear regression menu. More than explanatory (predictor or independent) variables may be selected, but only one response (dependent) variable may be selected.

This procedure will handle simple and multiple regression problems. But before we go further, answer these two questions for the data set.

Question 1. What is the Response variable?

Question 2. What is the Explanatory variable?

Answers. See below in the R output to see if you were correct!

If there is only one predictor, then this is a Simple Linear Regression; if more than one predictor is entered, then this is a Multiple Linear Regression. We’ll get some more detail, but for now, identify and evaluate the test (p-value) of the slope coefficient (labeled after the name of the predictor variable), the test of the intercept coefficient, and some new stuff.

R output

RegModel.1 <- lm(Matings ~ Female, data=birds)
summary(RegModel.1)
Call: lm(formula = Matings ~ Female, data = birds) 
Residuals: 
     Min       1Q     Median         3Q        Max 
-2.32805 -1.59407   -0.04359    1.77292    2.67195 

Coefficients: 
              Estimate    Std. Error     t value    Pr(>|t|) 
(Intercept)    -8.6175        3.5323      -2.440     0.02528 * 
Female          0.3670        0.1042       3.524     0.00243 ** 
--- 
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1 
Residual standard error: 1.774 on 18 degrees of freedom 
Multiple R-squared: 0.4082, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3753 F-statistic: 12.42 on 1 and 18 DF, p-value: 0.002427

In this example, slope = 0.367 and the intercept = -8.618. The first new term we encounter is called Multiple R-squared (R²) — it’s also called the coefficient of determination. It’s the ratio of the sum of squares due to the regression to the total sums of squares. R² ranges from zero to 1, with a value of 1 indicating a perfect fit of the regression to the data.

We introduced in Chapter 17.1 . Interpretation of R² goes like this: If R² is close to zero, then the regression model does not explain much of the variation in the dependent variable; conversely, if R² is close to one, then the regression model explains a lot of the variation in the dependent variable.

Did you get the Answers?

Answer 1: Number of matings

Answer 2: Size of females

Interpreting the output

Recall that

then

From the output we see that R² was 0.408, which means that about 40% of the variation in numbers of matings may be explained by size of the females alone.

To complete the analysis get the ANOVA table for the regression.

Rcmdr: Models → Hypothesis tests → ANOVA table…

> Anova(RegModel.1, type="II") 
Anova Table (Type II tests) 
            Sum Sq   Df   F value      Pr(>F) 
Female      39.084    1    12.415    0.002427 ** 
Residuals   56.666   18 
--- 
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

With only one predictor (explanatory) variable, note that the regression test in the ANOVA is the same (has the same probability vs. the null hypothesis) as the test of the slope.

Test two slopes

A more general test of the null hypothesis involving the slope might be

H₀ : b₁ = b vs. H_A : b₁ ≠ b

where b can be any value, including zero. Again, t-test would then be used to conduct the test of the slope, where the t-test would have the form

where SE_b1-b2 is the standard error of the difference between the two regression coefficients. We saw something similar to this value back when we did a paired t-test. To obtain s_b1–_b2, we need the pooled residual mean square and the squared sums of the X values for each of our sample.

First, the pooled (hence the subscript p) residual mean square is calculated as

where resSS and resDF refer to residual sums of squares and residual degrees of freedom for the first (1) and second (2) regression equations.

Second, the standard error of the difference between regression coefficients (squared!!) is calculated as

where the subscript “1” and “2” refer to the X values from the first sample (eg, the body size values for the males) and the second sample (eg, the body size values for the females).

We can then use our t-test, with the degrees of freedom now

Alternatively, the t-test of two slopes can be written as

with again .

In this way, we can see a way to test any two slopes for equality. This would be useful if we wanted to compare two samples (eg, males and females) and wanted to see if the regressions were the same (eg, metabolic rate covaried with body mass in the same way — that is, the slope of the relationship was the same). This situation arises frequently in biology. For example, we might want to know if male and female birds have different mean field metabolic rates, in which case we might be tempted to use a one-way ANOVA or t-test (since one factor with two levels). However, if males and females also differ for body size, then any differences we might see in metabolic rate could be due to differences in metabolic rate or to differences in the covariable body size. The test is generally referred to as the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), which is the subject for Chapter 17.6. In brief, ANCOVA allows you to test for mean differences in traits like metabolic rate between two or more groups, but after first accounting for covariation due to another variable (eg, body size). However, ANCOVA makes the assumption that relationship between the covariable and the response variable is the same in the two groups. This is the same as saying that the regression slopes are the same. Let’s proceed to see how we can compare regression slopes, then move to a more general treatment in Chapter 17.6.

Example

For a sample of 13 tadpoles (Rana pipiens), hatched in the laboratory, oxygen consumption at rest was recorded with a YSI meter, model 51B, and a YSI oxygen – temperature probe (Yellow Spring Instruments Co., Yellow Springs, Ohio). Individual tadpoles were placed into a mason jar (volume 885 ml), with a magnetic stir bar housed in a slotted Petri dish glued to the bottom of the jar to gently stir the water. Water samples from the aquarium were used and petroleum jelly served as a sealant once the vessel had been fitted with the probe. Oxygen consumption was recorded in ppm and values (ml O₂ STP · hr^-1). The tadpoles were scored for developmental stage by Gosner’s (1960) criteria. The tadpoles ranged from Gosner stage 35 to 44.

The question we addressed: metamorphosis of Anuran tadpoles to adults (frogs) likely involves increased metabolic demands, demands that may exceed simple allometric predictions based on increase in body size during development. Thus, we predicted that mass-specific metabolic rate for metamorphic frogs would exceed mass-specific metabolism of pre-metamorphic frogs.

M. Dohm unpublished results from my undergraduate days (1986!), you’ll find this simple data set at the bottom of this page (scroll or click here). For simplicity, we grouped all tadpoles between stages 35 and 38 as Stage I and all tadpoles between 39 and 44 as stage II. No tadpoles who completed metamorphosis were included in the dataset. It shouldn’t surprise you — with such a small sample size, the project lacked power to test the hypothesis, but many such studies, it’s worth looking at in the case anyway because the prevailing sentiment is that the metabolic cost of metamorphosis is significant — in other words, we expect a large effect size — and remains an ongoing research effort (see Burraco et al 2019).

You should confirm your self, but the slope of the regression equation of oxygen consumption (ml O₂/hour) on body mass (g) was 444.95 (with SE = 65.89). Plot of data shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Scatterplot of oxygen consumption by tadpoles (blue: Gosner developmental stage I [35 – 38]; red: Gosner developmental stage II [39 – 44]), vs body mass (g).

The project looked at whether metabolism as measured by oxygen consumption was consistent across two developmental stages. Metamorphosis in frogs and other amphibians represents profound reorganization of the organism as the tadpole moves from water to air. Thus, we would predict some cost as evidenced by change in metabolism associated with later stages of development. Figure 5 shows a box plot of tadpole oxygen consumption by Gosner (1960) developmental stage.

Figure 5. Boxplot of oxygen consumption by Gosner developmental stages (blue: stage I; red: stage 2).

Looking at Figure 4 we see a trend consistent with our prediction; developmental stage may be associated with increased metabolism. However, older tadpoles also tend to be larger, and the plot in Figure 4 does not account for that. Thus, body mass is a confounding variable in this example. There are several options for analysis here (eg, ANCOVA), but one way to view this is to compare the slopes for the two developmental stages. While this test does not compare the means, it does ask a related question: is there evidence of change in rate of oxygen consumption relative to body size between the two developmental stages? The assumption that the slopes are equal is a necessary step for conducting the ANCOVA, which we describe in Chapter 17.6.

So, divide the data set into two groups by developmental stage (12 tadpoles could be assigned to one of two developmental stages; one tadpole was at a lower Gosner stage than the others and so is dropped from the subset).

Gosner stage I (stages 35 – 39)

Body mass
1.76	109.41
1.88	329.06
1.95	82.35
2.13	198
2.26	607.7

Gosner stage II (stage 40 – 44)

Body mass
2.28	362.71
2.35	556.6
2.62	612.93
2.77	514.02
2.97	961.01
3.14	892.41
3.79	976.97

The slopes and standard errors were

Are the two slopes equal?

Looking at the table, we would say, no. slopes look different (750 vs 399.9). However, the errors are large and, given this is a small data set, we need to test statistically; are the slopes indistinguishable (Ho: b_I = b_II), where b_I is the slope for the Gosner Stage I subset and b_II is the slope for the Gosner Stage II subset?

To use our tests discussed above, we need sum of squared X values for Gosner Stage I and sum of squared for Gosner stage II results. We can get these from the ANOVA tables. Recall that after applying

ANOVA regression Gosner Stage I, R work

Anova(gosI.1, type="II")
Anova Table (Type II tests)

Response: VO2
            Sum Sq   Df    F value   Pr(>F)
Body.mass    89385    1     2.8461   0.1902
Residuals    94220    3

ANOVA regression Gosner Stage II

Anova(gosII.1, type="II")
Anova Table (Type II tests)

Response: VO2
             Sum Sq    Df   F value  Pr(>F) 
Body.mass    258398     1    12.935  0.0156 *
Residuals     99882     5 

Rcmdr: Models – Compare model coefficients..

compareCoefs(gosI.1, gosII.1)
Calls:
1: lm(formula = VO2 ~ Body.mass, data = gosI)
2: lm(formula = VO2 ~ Body.mass, data = gosII)

            Model 1    Model 2
(Intercept)   -1232       -441
SE              891        321

Body.mass       750        400
SE              445        111

SSgosnerI = 89385

SSgosnerII = 258398

We also need the residual Mean Squares (SSresid/DF resid) from the ANOVA tables

MSgosnerI = 94220/3 = 31406.67

MSgosnerII = 99882/5 = 19976.4

[under construction] Therefore, the pooled residual MS (s²_x.y)_p = nnn and the pooled SE of the difference s_b1-b2 = nnn using the formulas above.

Now, we plug in the values I can get a t-test = (750 – 444.6)/nnn = nnn

The DF for this t-test are n1 + n2 – 4 = 4 + 6 – 4 = 6.

Using Table of Student’s t distribution (Appendix), I find the two-tailed critical value for t at alpha = 5% with DF = 6 is equal to 3.758. Since nn >> 3.758, we conclude that the two slopes are statistically different and P < 0.001 that the null hypothesis (Ho: b_w = b_all) was true. (edit: fix nn).

Questions

1. Write up three learning outcomes for this page. Hint: Point your favorite generative AI to this page and ask for help.

2. Metabolic rates like oxygen consumption over time are well-known examples of allometric relationships. That is, many biological variables (eg, is related as a · M^b, where M is body mass, b is scaling exponent (the slope!), and a is a constant (the intercept!)), and best evaluated on log-log scale. Redo the linear regression of  oxygen consumption vs. body mass for the tadpoles, but this time, apply log10-transform to VO2 and to Body.mass. For example

Data in this page, bird matings

Data in this page, Oxygen consumption, , of Anuran tadpoles

Gosner refers to Gosner (1960), who developed a criteria for judging metamorphosis staging.

Quiz Chapter 17.5

Testing regression coefficients

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Chapter 17 contents

• Introduction
• Simple Linear Regression
• Relationship between the slope and the correlation
• Estimation of linear regression coefficients
• OLS, RMA, and smoothing functions
• Testing regression coefficients
• ANCOVA – Analysis of covariance
• Regression model fit
• Assumptions and model diagnostics for Simple Linear Regression
• References and suggested readings (Ch17 & 18)

4.5 – Scatter plots

Introduction

Scatter plots, also called scatter diagrams, scatterplots, or XY plots, display associations between two quantitative, ratio-scaled variables. Each point in the graph is identified by two values: its X value and its Y value. The horizontal axis is used to display the dispersion of the X variable, while the vertical axis displays the dispersion of the Y variable.

The graphs we just looked at with Tufte’s examples Anscombe’s quartet data were scatter plots (Chapter 4 – How to report statistics).

Here’s another example of a scatter plot, data from Francis Galton, data contained in the R package HistData.

Figure 1. Scatterplot of mid-parent (vertical axis) and their adult children’s (horizontal axis) height, in inches. data from Galton’s 1885 paper, “Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature.” The red line is the linear regression fitted line, or “trend” line, which is interpreted in this case as the heritability of height.

The commands I used to make the plot in Figure 1 were

library(HistData)
data(GaltonFamilies, package="HistData")
attach(GaltonFamilies)

plot(childHeight~midparentHeight, xlab="Mid-parent height", ylab="Mean adult children's height", xlim=c(55, 80), ylim=c(55,80), cex=0.8, cex.axis=1.2, cex.lab=1.3, pch=c(19), data=GaltonFamilies)
abline(lm(childHeight~midparentHeight), col="red", lwd=2)

I forced the plot function to use the same range of values, set by providing values for xlim and ylim; the default values of the plot command picks a range of data that fits each variable independently. Thus, the default X axis values ranged from 64 to 76 and the Y variable values ranged from 55 to 80. This has the effect of shifting the data, reducing the amount of white space, which a naïve reading of Tufte would suggest is a good idea, but at the expense of allowing the reader to see what would be the main point of the graph: that the children are, on average, shorter than the parents, mean height = 67 vs. 69 inches, respectively. Therefore, Galton’s title begins with the word “regression,” as in the definition of regression as a “return to a former … state” (Oxford Dictionary).

For completeness, cex sets the size of the points (default = 1), and therefore cex.axis and cex.lab apply size changes to the axes and labels, respectively; pch refers to the graph elements or plotting characters, further discussed below (see Fig 8); lm() is a call to the linear model function; col refers to color.

Figure 2 shows the same plot, but without attention to the axis scales, and, more in keeping with Tufte’s principle of maximize data, minimize white space.

Figure 2. Same plot as Figure 1, but with default settings for axis scales.

Take a moment to compare the graphs in Figure 1 and 2. Setting the scales equal allows you to see that the mid-parent heights were less variable, between 65 and 75 inches, than the mean children height, which ranged from 55 to 80 inches.

And another example, Figure 3. This plot is from the ggplot2() function and was generated from within R Commander’s KMggplot2 plug-in.

Figure 3. Finishing times in minutes of 1278 runners by age and gender at the 2013 Jamba Juice Banana 5K in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi. Loess smoothing functions by groups of female (red) and male (blue) runners are plotted along with 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3 is a busy plot. Because there were so many data points, it is challenging to view any discernible pattern, unlike Figure 1 and 2 plots, which featured less data. Use of the loess smoothing function, a transformation of the data to reduce data “noise” to reveal a continuous function, helps reveal patterns in the data:

1. across most ages, men completed 5K faster than did females and
2. there was an inverse, nonlinear association between runner’s age and time to complete the 5K race.

Take a look at the X-axis. Some runners ages were reported as less than 5 years old (trace the points down to the axis to confirm), and yet many of these youngsters were completing the 5K race in less than 30 minutes. That’s 6-minute mile pace! What might be some explanations for how pre-schoolers could be running so fast?

Design criteria

As in all plotting, maximize information to background. Keep white space minimal and avoid distorting relationships. Some things to consider:

1. keep axes same length
2. do not connect the dots UNLESS you have a continuous function
3. do not draw a trend line UNLESS you are implying causation

Scatter plots in R

We have many options in R to generate scatter plots. We have already demonstrated use of plot() to make scatter plots. Here we introduce how to generate the plot in R Commander.

Rcmdr: Graphs → Scatterplot…

Rcmdr uses the scatterplot function from the car package. In recent versions of R Commander the available options for the scatterplot command are divided into two menu tabs, Data and Options, shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

Figure 4. First menu popup in R Commander Scatterplot command, Rcmdr ver. 2.2-3.

Select X and Y variables, choose Plot by groups if multiple grounds are included, eg, male, female, then click Options tab to complete.

Figure 5. Second menu popup in R Commander scatterplot command., Rcmdr ver. 2.2-3

Set graph options including axes labels and size of the points.

Here is another example using the default settings in scatterplot() function in the car package, now the default scatter plot command via R Commander (Fig. 4), along with the same graph, but modified to improve the look and usefulness of the graph (Fig. 6). The data set was Puromycin in the package datasets.

Figure 6. Default scatterplot, package car, from R Commander, version 2.2-4.

Grid lines in graphs should be avoided unless you intend to draw attention to values of particular data points. I prefer to position the figure legend within the frame of the graph, eg, the open are at the bottom right of the graph. Modified graph shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Modified scatterplot, same data from Figure 6

R commands used to make the scatter plot in Figure 7 were

scatterplot(rate~conc|state, col=c("blue", "red"), cex=1.5, pch=c(19,19), 
bty="n", reg=FALSE, grid=FALSE, legend.coords="bottomright")

A comment about graph elements in R

In some ways R is too rich in options for making graphs. There are the plot functions in the base package, there’s lattice and ggplot2 which provide many options for graphics, and more. The advice is to start slowly, for example taking advantage of the Figure 8 displays R’s plotting characters and the number you would invoke to retrieve that plotting character.

Figure 8. R plotting characters pch = 1 – 25 along with examples of color.

colors()

  [1] "white"                "aliceblue"            "antiquewhite" 

[655] "yellow3"              "yellow4"              "yellowgreen"  

There’s a lot more to R plotting. For example, you are not limited to just 25 possible characters. R can print any of the ASCII characters 32:127 or from the extended ASCII code 128:255. See Wikipedia to see the listing of ASCII characters.

In addition to pch, you can change the size of the plotting character with cex, color of the character with col for lines or outlines, and bg to change background color. lwd is used to set the character’s border thickness.

Here’s the R code used to generate the graph in Figure 8. Remember, any line beginning with # is a comment line, not an R command.

#create a vector with 26 numbers, from 0 to 25
stuff <-c(0:25)
plot(stuff, pch=c(32:58), cex = 2.5, col = c(1:26), 'xlab' = "pch number", 'ylab' = "Plotting character number")

Is it “scatter plot” or “scatterplot”?

Spelling matters, of course, and yet there are many words for which the correct spelling seems to be like “beauty,” it is “in the eye of the beholder” (Molly Bawn, 1878, by Margaret Hungerford). Scatter plot is one of these — is it one word or two, or is it something else entirely?

Scatter plot is one of these terms: you’ll find it spelled as “scatterplot” or as “scatter plot,” in the dictionary (eg, Oxford English dictionary), with no guidance to choose between them. And I’m not just talking about the differences between British and American English spelling traditions. 

Thus, in these situations as an author, you can turn to which of the spellings is in common use. I first looked at some of the statistics books on my shelves. I selected 14 (bio)statistics textbooks and checked the index and if present, chapters on graphics for term usage.

Table 1. Frequency of use of different terms for scatter plot in 14 (bio)statistics books currently on Mike’s shelves.

Not much help, basically, it is a tie between “scatter plot” and “scatterplot.”

Next, I searched six journals for the interval 1990 – 2016 for use of these terms. Results presented in Table 6 along with journal impact factor for 2014 and number of issues (Table 2).

Table 2. Impact factor and number of issues 1990 – 2016 for six science journals.

My methods? I used the journal’s online search functions for the various usage for scatter plot and the results are shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Usage of terms for X Y plots in research articles normalized to number of issues in six journals between 1990 and 2016.

The journals have different numbers of articles; I partially corrected for this by calculating the ratio number of articles with one of the terms divided by the number of issues for the interval 1990 – 2016. It would have been better to count all of the articles, but even I found that to be an excessive effort given the point I’m trying to make here.

Not much help there, although we can see a trend favoring “scatter plot” over any of the other options.

And finally, to completely work over the issue I present results from use of Google’s Ngram Viewer. Ngram Viewer allows you to search words in all of the texts that Google’s folks have scanned into digital form. I searched on the terms in texts between 1950 and 2015, and results are displayed in Figure 10 and Figure 11.

Figure 10. Results from Ngram Viewer for American English, “scatterplot” (blue), “scatter plot” (red), “scatter diagram” (green), “scattergram” (orange), and “XY plot” (purple).

And the same plot, but this time for British sources

Figure 11. Results from Ngram Viewer for British English. See Figure 10 for key.

Conclusion? It looks like “scatterplot” (blue line) is the preferred usage, but it is close. Except for “scattergram” and “XY plot,” which, apparently, are rarely used. After all of this, it looks like you’re free to make your choice between “scatterplot” or “scatter plot.” I will continue to use “scatter plot.”

Bland-Altman plot

Also known as Tukey mean-difference plot, the Bland-Altman plot is used to describe agreement between two ratio scale variables (Bland and Altman 1986, Giavarina 2015), for example agreement between two different methods used to measure the same samples.

Consider use of imageJ by two different observers to record number of pixels of a unit measure (1 cm) on a series of digital images — there’s subjectivity in drawing the lines (where to start, where to end) — do they agree?  Data set below. blandr package, blandr.draw function.

Figure 12. Bland-Altman plot of 1 cm unit measure in pixel number by imageJ from digital images by two independent observers. Purple central region is 95% CI. Lower and upper dashed horizontal lines represent bounds of “acceptable” agreement.

blandr.draw(Obs1, Obs2)

The plot makes it easy to identify questionable points, for example, the one point in upper right quadrant looks suspect.

Visualizing large data sets

Since the early 2000s, size of data sets in biology have increased dramatically, leaving many statistical graphics solutions ill-equipped to tell stories. The data scientists involved with the genomics and health care communities have introduced a number of useful visualizations. We introduce just two, the volcano plot (Fig 13) and the Manhattan-style plot (Fig 14).

Volcano plot

The volcano plot (Fig 13) is a common way to show events that differ between two groups of subjects (eg, p-values), and is common often provides to help visualize gene expression studies of an exposed group vs a control group (eg, fold changes). For the volcano plot, fold changes are reflected on horizontal axis, indicating how much the gene expression level has increased or decreased. The vertical axis typically represents the negative logarithm of the p-value (-logP), which indicates the statistical significance of the change.

Below is R code — with assistance from Gemini AI (Fall 2026) — for a set of five replicate simulated gene expression fold change data sets on stress test (NaCl, H₂O₂) on yeast grown on YPDA plates. Gene expression profiles were simulated for a set of  100 genes (oxidative pathway, DNA repair pathway); as noted, such studies typically include many more genes. 

Figure 13. Volcano plot, gene expression fold change on simulated stress test (NaCl, H₂O₂) yeast data sets, 100 genes (oxidative pathway, DNA repair pathway).

Inspecting the plots (Fig 13), we see a symmetric distribution: The overall distribution of genes is cleanly centered around a Log2 Fold Change (LFC) of zero. This mirrors a realistic transcriptomic profile where the vast majority of the background genome (shown in grey) remains stable, displaying only technical and biological noise. There is a distinct, asymmetrical shift toward positive fold changes among specific gene pathways (targeted activation). Genes belonging to the Oxidative Stress pathway (red) and DNA Repair pathway (blue) consistently surpass both the statistical threshold () and the biological threshold (). Additionally, we see evidence of synergistic effects: The simultaneous application of both stressors (“Both”) drives these pathways to their highest expression levels, pushing them into the top-right quadrant of the plots as highly significant, upregulated features.

R code — with assistance from Gemini AI (Fall 2026) — for yeast gene expression and volcano plots; graphs by base package only.

# ==============================================================================
# 1. SIMULATE 5 REASONABLE DATASETS WITH BIOLOGICAL & TECHNICAL NOISE
# ==============================================================================
set.seed(123) # New seed for realistic distribution

n_genes <- 100
n_datasets <- 5
groups <- c("Control", "Salt", "H2O2", "Both")
n_groups <- length(groups)

# Real-world experiment: each dataset has 3 biological replicates per group
n_reps_per_group <- 3

# Define gene pathways (15 oxidative stress, 15 DNA repair, 70 background/unchanged)
gene_ids <- paste0("Gene_", 1:n_genes)
pathways <- c(rep("Oxidative_Stress", 15), rep("DNA_Repair", 15), rep("Background", 70))

# Initialize a list to hold the 5 realistic datasets
datasets <- list()

for (d in 1:n_datasets) {

# 1. Establish a realistic base expression distribution across 100 genes
# Real data has high-expressing and low-expressing genes
base_expression <- rnorm(n_genes, mean = 7, sd = 2)

# Create a blank sample matrix: 100 genes x 12 samples (4 groups x 3 replicates)
sample_names <- paste0(rep(groups, each = n_reps_per_group), "_R", 1:n_reps_per_group)
expr_matrix <- matrix(0, nrow = n_genes, ncol = length(sample_names))
rownames(expr_matrix) <- gene_ids
colnames(expr_matrix) <- sample_names

# 2. Add realistic baseline biological variation to every sample
for (col_idx in 1:ncol(expr_matrix)) {
expr_matrix[, col_idx] <- base_expression + rnorm(n_genes, mean = 0, sd = 0.4)
}

# 3. Inject subtle, realistic treatment effects (not over-exaggerated)
for (i in 1:n_genes) {
# Every gene gets a tiny bit of random directional drift across groups (real-world noise)
drift <- rnorm(n_groups, mean = 0, sd = 0.15)

if (pathways[i] == "Oxidative_Stress") {
# Subtle upregulation in H2O2 and Both (mean fold change ~ 1.0 to 1.3)
drift[3] <- drift[3] + rnorm(1, mean = 1.1, sd = 0.2) # H2O2
drift[4] <- drift[4] + rnorm(1, mean = 1.3, sd = 0.2) # Both
} else if (pathways[i] == "DNA_Repair") {
# Subtle upregulation in Salt and Both (mean fold change ~ 0.8 to 1.2)
drift[2] <- drift[2] + rnorm(1, mean = 0.9, sd = 0.2) # Salt
drift[4] <- drift[4] + rnorm(1, mean = 1.2, sd = 0.2) # Both
}

# Apply the group drifts to the respective sample columns
for (g_idx in 1:n_groups) {
start_col <- (g_idx - 1) * n_reps_per_group + 1
end_col <- g_idx * n_reps_per_group
expr_matrix[i, start_col:end_col] <- expr_matrix[i, start_col:end_col] + drift[g_idx]
}
}

datasets[[d]] <- expr_matrix
}

# ==============================================================================
# 2. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS (Calculated directly from replicates)
# ==============================================================================
# We will compare the double stressor 'Both' vs 'Control' using real t-tests.
all_lfc <- matrix(0, nrow = n_genes, ncol = n_datasets)
all_pvals <- matrix(0, nrow = n_genes, ncol = n_datasets)
rownames(all_lfc) <- rownames(all_pvals) <- gene_ids

for (d in 1:n_datasets) {
mat <- datasets[[d]]

# Identify the columns for each group
control_cols <- grep("^Control_", colnames(mat))
both_cols <- grep("^Both_", colnames(mat))

for (i in 1:n_genes) {
control_vals <- mat[i, control_cols]
both_vals <- mat[i, both_cols]

# Real Log2 Fold Change (Difference of means since data is on log scale)
all_lfc[i, d] <- mean(both_vals) - mean(control_vals)

# Real Student's t-test
ttest_res <- t.test(both_vals, control_vals, var.equal = TRUE)
all_pvals[i, d] <- ttest_res$p.value
}
}

# ==============================================================================
# 3. GENERATE REALISTIC VOLCANO PLOTS
# ==============================================================================
par(mfrow = c(2, 3), mar = c(4.5, 4.5, 2.5, 1.5))

lfc_threshold <- 1.0 
p_threshold <- 0.05

for (d in 1:n_datasets) {
lfc <- all_lfc[, d]
neg_log10_p <- -log10(all_pvals[, d])

col_vector <- rep("grey75", n_genes)

is_sig_up <- (lfc >= lfc_threshold) & (all_pvals[, d] <= p_threshold)
is_sig_down <- (lfc <= -lfc_threshold) & (all_pvals[, d] <= p_threshold)

col_vector[is_sig_up & pathways == "Oxidative_Stress"] <- "firebrick2"
col_vector[is_sig_up & pathways == "DNA_Repair"] <- "dodgerblue2"
col_vector[(is_sig_up | is_sig_down) & col_vector == "grey75"] <- "grey30"

plot(lfc, neg_log10_p,
col = col_vector,
pch = 19,
cex = 0.9,
xlab = expression(Log ~ Fold ~ Change),
ylab = expression(-Log ~ p - value),
main = paste("Dataset Replicate", d),
xlim = c(-2.5, 2.5), 
ylim = c(0, 5), 
font.main = 1)

abline(v = c(-lfc_threshold, lfc_threshold), col = "grey50", lty = 3)
abline(h = -log10(p_threshold), col = "grey50", lty = 3)

# Set the legend.
if (d == 1) {
legend("topleft", 
legend = c("Oxidative Stress (Up)", "DNA Repair (Up)", "Other Significant", "Not Significant"),
col = c("firebrick2", "dodgerblue2", "grey30", "grey75"), 
pch = 19, 
cex = 0.6,
box.lty = 0,
bg = "transparent")
}
}

# Reset layout parameters
par(mfrow = c(1, 1))

End R code.

About the simulation

1. Symmetric, Balanced Center: Most of the 100 genes (the 70 background genes) are strictly driven by standard biological and technical noise. This distributes them evenly around 0 on the X-axis, meaning you will naturally see negative fold changes alongside positive ones.
2. Realistic Effect Scales: True upregulations are dialed down to max out around to Fold Changes, mirroring standard biological responses on YPDA plates.
3. True T-Tests: Instead of faking p-values, each simulated dataset now contains 3 biological samples per group. The p-values are calculated dynamically using t.test(), generating a mathematically sound distribution pattern on the Y-axis.

Manhattan plot

A Manhattan plot (Fig 14) is a type of scatter plot used to display the statistical significance of large sets of data points simultaneously. Some feature of the experiment, for example location in the genome or sequential test identifiers, is displayed on the horizontal axis. Like the volcano plot (Fig 13), the vertical axis displays the statistical significance (eg, -log₁₀(p-value)).

Figure 14. Manhattan plot, gene expression fold change on simulated stress test (NaCl, H2O2) yeast data sets, 100 genes (oxidative pathway, DNA repair pathway).

Looking over the plots (Fig 14) we see evidence of pathway clustering: By arranging the 100 genes sequentially across three chromosomes, we see distinct localized peaks rather than a random distribution of significant points. We also see chromosome hotspots: Chromosome I (Oxidative Stress genes) and Chromosome II (DNA Repair genes) display pronounced vertical clusters that reliably break through the red significance line across all five experimental replicates. This simulates a real-world genomic architecture where functionally related gene clusters or operon-like structures respond in unison to environmental shifts.

Conversely, Chromosome III (Background genes, ie, baseline Control) remained entirely flat and well below the significance threshold, validating that the observed stress responses are highly specific and not an artifact of global transcriptional runaway.

R code — with assistance from Gemini AI (Fall 2026) —  for Manhattan plot.

# ==============================================================================
# 1. ASSIGN GEOMETRIC CHROMOSOME POSITIONS TO SIMULATED GENES
# ==============================================================================
# We will use the exact same 5 datasets generated in the previous step.
# To plot a Manhattan plot, every gene needs a Chromosome and a Base Pair (BP) position.

# Assign chromosomes: 
# Chromosome 1: Genes 1-40 (Oxidative Stress pathway)
# Chromosome 2: Genes 41-80 (DNA Repair pathway)
# Chromosome 3: Genes 81-100 (Background/Control pathway)
chroms <- c(rep(1, 40), rep(2, 40), rep(3, 20))

# Assign incremental Base Pair positions along each chromosome
bp_positions <- c(seq(1000, 40000, length.out = 40), 
seq(1000, 40000, length.out = 40), 
seq(1000, 20000, length.out = 20))

# To make a continuous X-axis across multiple chromosomes, we calculate cumulative positions
chr_lengths <- c(45000, 45000, 25000)
chr_offsets <- c(0, cumsum(chr_lengths)[1:2])
coord_x <- bp_positions + chr_offsets[chroms]

# Calculate where the chromosome tick marks should sit on the X-axis (the midpoints)
chr_midpoints <- chr_offsets + (chr_lengths / 2)

# ==============================================================================
# 2. GENERATE MANHATTAN PLOTS FOR ALL 5 REPLICATES
# ==============================================================================
# Set up a clean 2x3 plotting grid to display all 5 replicates together
par(mfrow = c(2, 3), mar = c(4.5, 4.5, 2.5, 1.5))

# Standard scientific significance line (-log10(0.05) is ~1.3)
p_threshold <- 0.05
suggestive_line <- -log10(p_threshold)

for (d in 1:n_datasets) {
neg_log10_p <- -log10(all_pvals[, d])

# Alternating color scheme per chromosome to differentiate boundaries
# Chromosome 1 = Slate Blue, Chromosome 2 = Deep Blue, Chromosome 3 = Dark Grey
chr_colors <- c("lightslateblue", "steelblue4", "grey40")
col_vector <- chr_colors[chroms]

# Create the Manhattan plot grid
plot(coord_x, neg_log10_p,
col = col_vector,
pch = 19,
cex = 1.0,
xaxt = "n", # Suppress the standard numeric X-axis to draw custom Chromosome ticks
xlab = "Chromosome",
ylab = expression(-Log[10] ~ p - value),
main = paste("Dataset Replicate", d),
xlim = c(0, sum(chr_lengths)),
ylim = c(0, 5),
font.main = 1)

# Add the standard genome-wide significance horizontal threshold line
abline(h = suggestive_line, col = "firebrick3", lty = 2, lwd = 1.2)

# Draw the custom structural X-axis labeling the specific chromosomes
axis(1, at = chr_midpoints, labels = c("Chr I", "Chr II", "Chr III"))

# Add an explanatory legend to the first plot panel to map pathways to locations
if (d == 1) {
legend("topright", 
legend = c("Chr I (Oxidative Stress)", "Chr II (DNA Repair)", "Chr III (Background)"),
col = c("lightslateblue", "steelblue4", "grey40"), 
pch = 19, 
cex = 0.65,
box.lty = 0,
bg = "transparent")
}
}

# Reset layout parameters back to default single screen layout
par(mfrow = c(1, 1))

About the R code.

The Genomic Peaks: Because these simulated Oxidative Stress genes sit together on Chromosome I and DNA Repair genes sit on Chromosome II,  we see pronounced, beautiful vertical clusters extending upwards over the red significance line.

The Noise Flatline: Chromosome III hosts the background genes, creating a realistically flat landscape where points rarely cross the significance threshold.

Alternating Chromosome Tracks: Using the standard coordinate offset method, the data points stay organized left-to-right without overlapping.

Questions

1. Using our Comet assay data set (Table 1, Chapter 4.2), create scatter plots to show associations between tail length, tail percent, and olive moment. 
2. Explore different settings including size of points, amount of white area, and scale of the axes. Evaluate how these changes change the “story” told by the graph.

Quiz Chapter 4.5

Scatter plots

Start Quiz

Question

Confirm

✕

✓

Your answer:

Correct answer:

Next

Please wait..

↺

You got {{SCORE_CORRECT}} out of {{SCORE_TOTAL}}

Your Answers

Data sets

Number of pixels of 1 cm length from unit measure on ten digital images. Recorded by two independent observers, Obs1 and Obs2.

 Obs1, Obs2
171.026, 171.105
136.528, 138.521
148.084, 144.222
142.014, 140.057
150.213, 153.118
187.011, 195.092
168.760, 168.668
154.302 ,160.381
209.022, 209.876
240.067, 161.805

Gene expression

ccc

Chapter 4 contents

• Graphs and tables (How to report statistics)
• Bar (column) charts
• Histograms
• Box plot
• Mosaic plots
• Scatter plots
• Add a second Y axis
• Q-Q plot
• Ternary plots
• Heat maps
• Graph software
• References and suggested readings