Biology Which method would be wrong to use for gene expression?

AI Thread Summary
In situ hybridization (ISH) is discussed as a suitable method for detecting mRNA transcripts of a gene, although there is confusion about its application to DNA detection. The argument is made that if ISH is deemed inappropriate, then immunohistochemistry, which detects protein rather than gene expression, could also be questioned. The distinction between detecting mRNA and protein production is emphasized, as a gene can be expressed without resulting in protein synthesis. The clarity of the original question regarding the appropriateness of ISH is critiqued. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of choosing the right method for gene expression analysis.
SpiceDice
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Which of the following techniques is not appropriate if you want to examine whether a gene is expressed in a
specific tissue?

Select one alternative:
in situ hybridization
immunohistochemistry
microarray
RNA-Seq
Relevant Equations
Non
I've been struggling, no matter what I try to do I can't come up with a solution. The answer is in situ, but in my mind it would work perfectly fine. The only thing we would do is just use an RNA probe complementary to the gene we are trying to detect and it should light up the moment the gene is expressed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree that in situ hybridization to detect the mRNA transcripts from the gene of interest would work. The one reason I could see why they might say that ISH is the wrong technique to use is if they are referring to DNA detection by ISH (but because ISH can be used to detect either DNA or RNA, the question is not well stated if that is the reasoning they intended).
 
But if we use that reasoning would immunohistochemistry also be wrong since it detect protein production and not actual gene expression. A gene can still be expressed but does not have to produce protein.
 
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