I need to determine the age of something based on its half-life. I think I have the formula correct, but it's been a long-ass time since I had a math class...
The substance (a protein) has a half-life of 17 hours. I want to figure out how long it's been expressed based on the percent of the original amount of protein.
This is what I came up with:
y=[ln(x)/(-0.693)]*17
Does that look right? Putting in 50% = 17, and 25% = 34, etc. seems to work, but I just wanted to make sure.
where I is the initial concentration, x is the variable for the final concentration, and y is the time elapsed. Use this if you want to plot a graph with x and y axis.
That's exactly the same as mine, except that I use -(ln(2)). I'm pretty sure you need that, too, otherwise you'd end up with a negative time.
I dunno, though. Either way it tells me the info I need to know.
thanks
In that case, I misunderstood what you meant by I/x. What do you mean by the "variable for the final concentration"?
If my original expression intensity is 1.0*, and I'm trying to find out how long the protein has been expressed if its final intensity is 25% of the original, wouldn't I just use .25 as x?
I don't understand what my value for I/x should be.
edit: I/x should be 4, right? So it's the factor by which the original intensity is divided?
*this is a protein, so I'm measuring it in terms of how much fluorescence is given off....see the glowing pig thread
tnf wrote:i think i've done this same exact thing before...
I wouldn't doubt it... I'm measuring RAG2 expression via GFP intensity. It's just goofy coincidence that the glowing pig thread showed up today, too. :icon26:
Anyway, I was preparing for a presentation I'm giving tomorrow and I looked at one of my graphs and though, "Shit! That's not right!"
werldhed wrote:edit: I/x should be 4, right? So it's the factor by which the original intensity is divided?
yes, exactly. Since I > x all the time, you can't get a negative answer with ln(I/x). Looks like that was the problem.
Gotcha. Thanks.
All of my data is in percents already, so it's easier to just leave it the way I have it, instead of converting it back to a factor. As long as the results are the same, I'm good.
Cheers. :icon14:
I do research in immunology and cancer immunotherapy (technically I'm a grad student/research fellow right now).
It's all biology, but when when you're doing lab research, a lot of chemistry and physics comes into play.
Unfortunately, some of it I don't know (e.g. this stuff)
Yeah, but here we have 2 years of "pre-university" school, thats called "college", where we have to do one biology course. I wanted to go into engineering, but I've changed my mind since I don't want to do science anymore. Right now I have my mind set on actuary mathematics/finance
I've never seen that text, tnf. I've always just used the Cambell & Reece edition.
Did you work on a particular section, or were you all over the board?