In vitro dose response, six concentrations

Lab research poster

Q: What goes on a lab research poster?

The protocol with reagents and controls, one figure that carries the finding, replicate counts, and any negative results stated as results. This board adds an acknowledgement block naming the funder and the service that profiled the extract, which reviewers increasingly expect on the board itself.

Q: How do I show a dose response?

A line chart with concentration on the x axis and your response as a percentage of vehicle control, with the positive control as a second series on the same axes. This layout gives its hero figure most of the canvas width, which is exactly what a six point curve needs to be readable at a metre.

Q: Should error bars be SD or SEM?

Either is defensible; what matters is saying which. This board uses SD across four biological replicates and says so in the caption. SEM makes bars look tighter without adding information, so if you use it, print the n beside it and expect a reviewer to do the multiplication.

Q: Where do the reagents go?

In the methods protocol, one labelled entry each: cells with passage range, the extract with its vehicle concentration, and the controls. The vehicle detail matters most, and this board states that every well held 0.1 percent ethanol so the comparison is against vehicle, not against nothing.

Q: Can I show two experiments on this layout?

Not comfortably; the hero figure layout is built around one chart. If you have two experiments of equal weight, the diagonal split layout carries two figures of similar size, and the forty poster layouts include several with a second figure slot. Pick the layout for the shape of your evidence.

Q: Can I add the plate layout as an image?

No. Every figure on a poster layout is a chart with editable values; the few image figure slots that exist in the product cannot be filled yet. Describe the plate layout in a methods entry, as this board does with wells per dose and plates, and put the full layout behind the QR code.

A lab research poster earns trust with its controls, its replicate counts and its willingness to print the doses where nothing happened. This A0 portrait example gives one dose response line chart most of the canvas, states the null results at 5 and 10 micrograms per millilitre as findings, and keeps the positive control on the same axes.

Create a poster with OneCraftA0 Portrait, printed at 841 by 1189 millimetres

The whole board

The poster at full size, exactly as it prints. Every number, citation and caption on it was written for this example, so the layout is being judged on real content.

Extract of Corvin's sage slows HT-29 cell growth above 25 micrograms per millilitre but not below

M. Delacroix ¹, I. Petrov ¹, A. Whitcombe ²

1 Cell Biology Laboratory, Ashgrove Institute · 2 Ashgrove Analytical Services

Abstract

Plant extracts are forever reported to slow cancer cell growth, usually at one heroic dose with no controls worth the name. This study asks the narrower, more useful question: at what concentration does an ethanolic extract of Corvin’s sage start to slow the growth of HT-29 colon cancer cells, and how does the effect compare with a standard chemotherapy agent on the same plates? We exposed cells to six concentrations from 0 to 100 micrograms per millilitre for 72 hours, with four biological replicates of three technical replicates each, vehicle in every well, and 5-FU at 10 micromolar as the positive control. Viability was unchanged at 5 and 10 micrograms per millilitre, fell by 16 points at 25, and fell to 61 percent of control at 100. The fitted IC50 of 138 micrograms per millilitre (95% CI 112 to 171) sits above the highest dose tested, so the extract is measurably active and clearly weak: the negative result at low doses is stated on this board as a result, not hidden in a caption.

5-FU 10 micromolar

Extract (micrograms per mL)

Figure 1. Viability at 72 hours as a percentage of vehicle control, mean of 4 biological replicates, error bars SD. The flat series is 5-FU.

Source: Trial dataset, 2026.

METHODS

Cells. HT-29, passages 12 to 18, seeded at 5,000 per well in 96 well plates and left overnight to attach.

Extract. Ethanolic extract, filtered at 0.22 micrometres; vehicle held at 0.1 percent ethanol in every well including controls.

Controls. Vehicle only wells on every plate, 5-FU at 10 micromolar as positive control, and blank wells for background signal.

Replicates. 4 biological x 3 technical per concentration: 12 wells per dose, 72 across the 6 doses, on 4 independent plates.

Analysis. Resazurin viability at 72 hours; four parameter curve fit for IC50; one way ANOVA with Dunnett against vehicle.

REFERENCES

1.Delacroix M, Petrov I. Resazurin viability assays in adherent colon lines: a working protocol. Methods in Cell Practice 2024;16(3):201-214.

2.Whitcombe A, Delacroix M. Reporting IC50 estimates with confidence intervals from four parameter fits. Analytical Notes 2025;11(1):33-47.

3.Petrov I, Halloran J. Replicate structure and plate effects in 96 well dose response work. Laboratory Reports 2023;7(4):288-301.

Results

Viability did not change at 5 or 10 micrograms per millilitre (p = 0.71 and 0.44). At 25 it fell 16 points below vehicle control (p = 0.004), at 50 it fell 29 points, and at 100 it fell 39 points (p < 0.001). The fitted IC50 was 138 micrograms per millilitre (95% CI 112 to 171), above the highest concentration tested, so that estimate is an extrapolation beyond the data. On the same plates 5-FU held viability at 42 percent.

Discussion

The effect is real, dose dependent and weak. At the top dose the extract leaves viability 19 points above what 5-FU achieves routinely, and the IC50 sits outside the tested range, so any potency claim rests on extrapolation. No normal colon line was run, so nothing here speaks to selectivity. The next run extends the range to 200 micrograms per millilitre and adds a normal line.

point fall in viability at 100 micrograms per mL

IC50 138 (95% CI 112 to 171), n = 4 x 3 per dose

CONCLUSION

The extract is active above 25 micrograms per mL, inactive below, and weaker than 5-FU.

No effect at 5 or 10 micrograms per mL

Viability 61 percent of control at the top dose

IC50 138, above the tested range

Next: a normal colon line and 200 micrograms per mL

Acknowledgements

Funded by the Ashgrove Institute early career grant scheme, award 2025/41. Chemical profiling of the extract was carried out by Ashgrove Analytical Services. Neither the funder nor the service had any role in the design, analysis or reporting of the study, and the authors declare no competing interests.

Block by block

What each block on the board is for, in the order a reader walks it.

Title band and authors: The title carries the whole finding including the negative half: the extract slows HT-29 cell growth above 25 micrograms per millilitre but not below. The analytical service that profiled the extract gets an affiliation, and the QR code links to the full curve fits.
Abstract: The abstract states the question as a threshold, not a yes or no: at what concentration does the effect start? It then answers with the numbers, no change at 5 or 10, a 16 point fall at 25, viability at 61 percent of control at 100, and an IC50 of 138 that sits above the tested range.
The dose response (Figure 1): One line chart owns the middle of the board: viability at six concentrations, with the 5-FU positive control as a flat second series at 42 percent. Keeping the control on the same axes makes the size of the extract effect visible without a second figure or any prose.
Methods: cells, extract, controls, replicates: Five labelled entries cover the cell line and passages, the extract and its vehicle at 0.1 percent ethanol in every well, the three controls, the replicate structure of 4 biological by 3 technical, 12 wells per dose and 72 across the six doses, and the analysis, a four parameter fit with Dunnett tests.
Results, including the negative ones: The results block leads with what did not happen: p values of 0.71 and 0.44 at the two lowest doses. Then the falls of 16, 29 and 39 points, and the IC50 of 138 micrograms per millilitre flagged as an extrapolation because it lies above the highest dose tested.
The key number: The stat block prints 39, the point fall in viability at the top dose, with the IC50 and its interval underneath. Choosing the observed fall rather than the extrapolated IC50 as the headline keeps the biggest number on the board inside the data.
Discussion and conclusion: The discussion sizes the finding honestly: real, dose dependent and weak, 19 points short of what 5-FU does routinely, with no normal cell line run and so nothing claimed about selectivity. The conclusion strip and four bullet points repeat only numbers that appear above.
Acknowledgement and references: The acknowledgement names the funder and the analytical service in one line each and states that neither had a role in design or analysis. The three references are invented for this fictional study, because the reference block is required on this layout; on your board, replace them with your sources.
How to adapt this board: Put your own doses on the x axis and your positive control in as the second series, flat or curved as it really behaved. State the replicate structure in one methods entry, keep the doses where nothing happened in the results text with their p values, and headline an observed number rather than a fitted one.

What makes this board work

The negative result is a sentence

The 5 and 10 microgram doses get their p values, 0.71 and 0.44, printed in the results block as findings, not blanks. A reader planning a follow up needs the floor as much as the ceiling.

The control is a line on the same chart

5-FU sits as a flat series at 42 percent on the dose response figure, so the gap between a real chemotherapy agent and the extract at its best dose, 19 points, is visible without a second figure.

Replicates are counted

The methods block prints 4 biological by 3 technical replicates, 12 wells per dose and 72 in total, and the stat detail repeats n = 4 x 3, so nobody has to ask what the error bars mean.

Questions people ask

What goes on a lab research poster?

The protocol with reagents and controls, one figure that carries the finding, replicate counts, and any negative results stated as results. This board adds an acknowledgement block naming the funder and the service that profiled the extract, which reviewers increasingly expect on the board itself.

How do I show a dose response?

A line chart with concentration on the x axis and your response as a percentage of vehicle control, with the positive control as a second series on the same axes. This layout gives its hero figure most of the canvas width, which is exactly what a six point curve needs to be readable at a metre.

Should error bars be SD or SEM?

Either is defensible; what matters is saying which. This board uses SD across four biological replicates and says so in the caption. SEM makes bars look tighter without adding information, so if you use it, print the n beside it and expect a reviewer to do the multiplication.

Where do the reagents go?

In the methods protocol, one labelled entry each: cells with passage range, the extract with its vehicle concentration, and the controls. The vehicle detail matters most, and this board states that every well held 0.1 percent ethanol so the comparison is against vehicle, not against nothing.

Can I show two experiments on this layout?

Not comfortably; the hero figure layout is built around one chart. If you have two experiments of equal weight, the diagonal split layout carries two figures of similar size, and the forty poster layouts include several with a second figure slot. Pick the layout for the shape of your evidence.

Can I add the plate layout as an image?

No. Every figure on a poster layout is a chart with editable values; the few image figure slots that exist in the product cannot be filled yet. Describe the plate layout in a methods entry, as this board does with wells per dose and plates, and put the full layout behind the QR code.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make my lab research poster

Sources

Written and checked by the OneCraft team. Last checked 2 September 2026.