What is the predicted distribution of modification states in antibodies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chembot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Distribution
chembot
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Antibodies are large proteins with 2 equal halves. After analysis in which we break apart the two halves, we find we have a modification at one location on 20% of the total protein. For the intact antibody, this modification can occur on both halves (2 per antibody) or only on one half (1 per antibody). If 0 = a half with no modification and + = a half with the modification, then what is the predicted distribution (% of total whole antibody) of the three modification states, 00, 0+, and ++? Our N is in moles (10 to the 23rd power) and therefore, assuming the 1st modification doesn't affect the 2nd occurring on the same antibody, I should be able to derive an almost exact result.

I have been using prob(+) = 0.2 and prob(0) = (1 - prob(+)) = 0.8, so
prob(00) = (0.8)*(0.8) = 0.64
prob(0,+) = (0.8)*(0.2) = 0.16 (*2 degeneracy = 0.32)
and prob(+,+) = (0.2)*(0.2) = 0.04

Am I correct? If so, what is the proper statistical description (i.e. fundamental distribution formula I can refer to)? If not, correct me please. I am not able to statistically explain (in a formula) the degeneracy (instead resorted to Mendel and basic genetics). I am hoping I am pretty close but would like to fill the logic gaps so I can explain properly to others.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are correct. The x 2 factor results from counting +- and -+ as the same.
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top