Biology What is the Relationship Between Km and V0 in the Michaelis-Menten Curve?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TytoAlba95
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The relationship between Km and V0 in the Michaelis-Menten curve is crucial for understanding enzyme kinetics. When substrate concentration [S] is less than Km, the reaction velocity (V0) increases linearly with [S], meaning that doubling [S] approximately doubles V0. However, when [S] exceeds Km, the increase in V0 becomes less than proportional due to a decrease in the slope of the curve. This distinction highlights the importance of Km in predicting enzyme behavior under varying substrate concentrations. Understanding these dynamics is essential for accurately interpreting enzyme kinetics.
TytoAlba95
Messages
132
Reaction score
19
Homework Statement
N.A
Relevant Equations
N.A
Capture.PNG

The relevant formua: V0= (Vmax x )/ (Km + )
From the question:
2(Vmax x 0.5)/ (Km + 0.5) = (Vmax x 1)/ (Km + 1)
=> 2(Vmax x 0.5)/ (Km + 0.5) = (Vmax x 1)/ (Km + 1)
=> 1 x (Km +1) = (Km + 0.5)

Where am I making the mistake?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a conceptual question that does not require any calculations to solve. Consider the shape of a general Michaelis-Menten curve (it may be helpful to draw one). In the region where [ S] < Km, if you double [ S] will the reaction velocity approximately double? In the region where [S] > Km, if you double [ S] will the reaction velocity approximately double?
 
Considering the general Michaelis-Menten curve, in the region where S < Km, the V0- relationship is linear, so yes the reaction velocity doubles as S approximately doubles.
It is not the same when S > Km, because the slope decreases, the rise of V0 with S will be less than double.
 
TytoAlba95 said:
Considering the general Michaelis-Menten curve, in the region where S < Km, the V0- relationship is linear, so yes the reaction velocity doubles as S approximately doubles.
It is not the same when S > Km, because the slope decreases, the rise of V0 with S will be less than double.

Yes, that is correct. With these principles in mind, this should lead you to the correct response.
 
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