Ace school

with brainly

  • Get help from millions of students
  • Learn from experts with step-by-step explanations
  • Level-up by helping others

A community for students.

DNA-meltingpoint determination

Thermodynamics
See more answers at brainly.com
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.

Join Brainly to access

this expert answer

SIGN UP FOR FREE
For a oligonucleotid with a self-complementary sequence when base pairing antiparallel, how could we relate the equilibrium constant with the meltingpoint temperature and total amount of nucleotid \(C_{T}\) @aaronq
hm have you taken a look at this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleic_acid_thermodynamics
Nope... and it sure say it straight forward.

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question

Other answers:

yeah, you should search it on google, a lot of interesting websites came up. I've, myself, never done this, but it sure is interesting.
except some of it's logic don't make since to me through their derivation.
I wish to derive the expression: \[\LARGE \frac{ 1 }{ T_{m} }=\frac{ R }{ \Delta H^\Theta } \ln(C_{T})+\frac{ \Delta S^\Theta }{ \Delta H^\Theta }\]
A lovely linear line.
And I bet you got to use the Van Hoff equation.
Thats on the page too, but it's written as the non-reciprocal form
What about the 2?
well they said they're assuming no partial binding states, \(T_m\) being defined as 1/2 of \(C_T\) being unhybridized, it makes sense that the total amount is divided by 2.
Wait for that sequence I use [A] = [B]
SO [AB]=2x[A}
yeah, that seems reasonable, but you have to take into account the definition of \(T_m\), where half is bound, half unbound
I just define it from the gibbs energy and say that K is meassured at the meltingpoint T_m. I guess?
hm so you're assuming that Gibbs doesn't change as a function of temp?
Hmmm well I was thinking about to use that: \[\LARGE \left( \frac{ \partial \ln(K) }{ \partial T } \right)_{p}=\frac{ \Delta H }{ RT^2 }\]
Assume that the change heat capacity is 0
seems reasonable :)
Okay I give it total new try from the van Holff equation \[\LARGE \left( \frac{ \partial \ln(K) }{ \partial T } \right)_{p}=\frac{ \Delta H }{ RT^2 }\] \[\Large \left( \frac{ \partial \ln(K) }{ \partial T } \right)_{p} = \frac{ \Delta H }{ RT^2 } \rightarrow \int\limits_{T}^{T _{M}} \partial \ln(K)=\int\limits_{T}^{T _{M}}\frac{ \Delta H }{ RT^2 }\partial T\] \[\Large \left[ \partial \ln(K) \right]_{T}^{T _{M}}=-\left[ \frac{ \Delta H }{ R }T^{-1} \right]_{T}^{T _{M}}\]
\[\Large \ln \left[ K(T _{M}) \right]-\ln \left[ K(T) \right]=-\frac{ \Delta H }{ R }T_{M}^{-1}+\frac{ \Delta H }{ R }T ^{-1}\]
@amistre64 can you evaluate if the integration is correct?
sorry, but i cant focus on that. occupied with finals this week and its messing up my concentration :/ That and id have to read up on it to make sure
Oh, well thanks for looking at it anyway, wish you the best of luck with your finals! :)
thnx :)
sithgiggles and a ton of others could prolly do it in thier sleep
Now that makes me just sad to hear.
|dw:1386772266680:dw| Lets look at the reaction: \[\LARGE \sf M+M \leftrightharpoons D\] with the belong equlibriumconstant: \[\Large K=\frac{ \left[ D \right] }{ \left[ M \right]^{2} }\] The total concentration most be: \[\Large C _{T}=[D]+2 \times [M]\] From the drawing we define the meltingpoint ( @aaronq as you suggested) \[\Large [M]=2 \times [D]=C _{T}/2\] \[\Large K(T _{M})=\frac{ [D] }{ [M]^{2} }=\frac{ C _{T}/4 }{ (C_{T}/2)^{2} }=\frac{ 1 }{ C _{T} }\]
Sorry it most be \[\Large C_{T}=2 \times [D]+[M]\]
that seems right, dude. Do you think writing the equation as \(D\rightleftharpoons M +M \) then using the \(K_D=\dfrac {[M]^2}{[D]}\) would make a difference?
I suppose, I only know that if you substitute the expression for the equilibrium constant into the evaluated integral you get to derive the equation I wanted. (I can upload the results if any interest)
yeah, out of pure curiosity, i'd like to see it!
Not mine (sorry I got to disappoint you all, but I did not write articles when I was 4 years old).
hahaha.. i'll give it a read later, thanks dude
what?
Here it is.
i think you made a small mistake in step 9, inside the bracket it should be \(ln(C^{-1}_T)-\dfrac{\Delta H\color{red}-T\Delta S-\Delta H }{RT}=-ln(C_T)+\dfrac{\Delta S}{R}\)
I've remember that minus sign? I started by multiplying into the bracket instead of evaluating it.
But I may have done a error
yeah, i think you missed it
I still think that this rewriting was awesome: \[\LARGE \ln[K(T)]=\frac{ \Delta G }{ RT }\]
except it is wrong.... I need a minus!
@aaronq there is the missing minus?
\(-\dfrac{R}{\Delta H}( ln(C^{-1}_T)-\dfrac{\Delta H-T\Delta S-\Delta H }{RT})\) distribute the minus \(-\dfrac{R}{\Delta H}( ln(C^{-1}_T)+\dfrac{-\Delta H+T\Delta S + \Delta H }{RT})\) \(-\dfrac{R}{\Delta H}( ln(C^{-1}_T)+\dfrac{T\Delta S}{RT})\) \(-\dfrac{R}{\Delta H}(- ln(C_T)+\dfrac{\Delta S}{R})\) \(\dfrac{R}{\Delta H}ln(C_T)-\dfrac{\Delta S}{\Delta H}\) (10)

Not the answer you are looking for?

Search for more explanations.

Ask your own question