Chemistry Experimental Molecular Weight higher than Literature Value

AI Thread Summary
The calculated molecular weight of alkaline phosphatase is reported as 100,000 g/mol, exceeding the literature value of 89,000 g/mol. Possible reasons for this discrepancy include the presence of EDTA, which could affect the enzyme's weight. Questions were raised about the purification method, particularly whether gel electrophoresis was used and if the product was fully dialyzed. The lack of detail regarding the molecular weight determination method limits further analysis. Understanding the purification process and potential contaminants is crucial for resolving the observed difference.
FlipStyle1308
Messages
264
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


I just purified alkaline phosphatase, and my calculated molecular weight is 100000 g/mol, while literature value is 89000 g/mol. According to how others in my lab did calculations, my calculations are performed correctly, so I am left to explain why my purification is higher than expected.

Homework Equations


N/A

The Attempt at a Solution


I was thinking that since alkaline phosphatase can be inhibited by EDTA, my "purified" enzyme contains some EDTA, making the molecular weight higher.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Did you purify it by gel electrophoresis? What was the supporting electrolyte? Did you completely dialyze your product?
 
You do not give any indication of what method used for getting the MW so what can anyone say?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top