At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
well human growth rate is calculated by adding 1 year for ever 12 month calander so 1+1 <<<<
How about bacterial growth rate?
well thats depends how quickly it incubates i guess
look up bactierial incubation rate
thats my best guess
First, I define growth as changes in cell number instead of cell size per unit time. To measure it, I'd pulse the growing organism with EdU or BrDU to label newly synthesised DNA. Then I'd measure the fluorescence intensity and compare it intensity of DAPI to calculate the mitotic status of each cell and build a differential model from that. Not a 9th grade answer.
thats 9th grade?
I only passed the 7th grade sorta
Good for you Calmchessplayer. I am impressed.
well, I AM impressed by blues. :D
Blues. That is an impressive answer. Thanks
So #cells (time t=t2) -#cells (time t=t1)/(t2-t1)
When did this, I built a differential model for cells cycling through multiple rounds of cell division. Then I extended the model put forward by Kimmel and Axelrood (1991) to get a discrete model. I found it a good read, worth it if you're doing work in the field. The purpose of doing this was to computationally identify a population of latent stem cells and to figure out what stimulated them. Is this for your real work - I assume you're a professional scientist - or general info?
Blues, this is for my own edification. So I figure you are an undergrad ? Grad student. This is impressive. Thanks for the info. Thanks for helping out on OpenStudy.
I am a scientist - a chemist. Now a days I try to get more peeps to stay in science!
I'm neither an undergraduate nor a graduate student. I am a university dropout, technically, but I am also good enough that I got a job as a "post doc." I specialize in NMR, protein structure determination and molecular dynamics, but I moonlight in other fields like signals processing, gene circuitry, computational ecology and anywhere I can use my Fourier skills. And on OpenStudy, which I think is the best thing since sliced bread.
What branch of chemistry are you in?
Blues, how cool. I trained as an NMR spectroscopist to do NMR of membrane glycolipods. Then did some protein NMR. Did some molecular dynamics. A lot of that was really in its infancy. So glad you like OpenStudy. I may call on you to give us a little publicity. Thanks for responding.
A while ago you asked about measuring cell growth in live organisms and I suggested labelling with EdU and DAPI. You thought the growth model would be something like [v(t1) - v(t2)] / delta(t). That it should be that simple! The problem is, to get the labels into cells you have to kill them so you can only obtain values for one time point. You have to set up a differential system for subpopulations of cells (based on mitotic status) and solve it as a boundary value problem. The BVP the straight forward part. The complicated part is quantifying the amount of fluorescent label in each nucleus. The tissue surrounding the cell and solution surrounding the sample absorb, refract and convolve the observed fluorescence intensities. Beer Lambert works only for cuvettes. Additionally, the EdU and the DAPI fluorescence affect each other and it's difficult to discern signals from spatially close nuclei. Quantification requires a Fourier system. After that, using the fluorescence subpopulations to define the mitotic subpopulations is not straight forward either as cells go through successive rounds of commitment and division. In my paper, I validated my model (as well as my computational procedure) by decomposing these "fast dividing" and "slow dividing" subpopulations and proving that they do actually correspond to different cell types in my model organism, which required another decomposition (deconvolution, in this case, not Fourier) technique. As a footnote, note that you have to simultaneously measure the apoptotic rate as well as the mitotic and commitment rates to make inferences about overall growth of the organism. That I might have left you with a wrong impression has been buggering me so here's the full answer. In a nut shell.