The question is akin to the use of buffers to control the pH: on

The question is akin to the use of buffers to control the pH: on the one hand it may be sensible to leave the preparation of the buffer to a technician, but one still has to know what buffer is appropriate for a particular pH, and how one can check whether it does in fact supply the intended pH. It is important to realize also that most users use a commercial data-processing packages with their default options. So even if they offer the possibility of selecting a more appropriate weighting scheme than the default that is of little value if it is used straight out of the box. The popular program SigmaPlot (version 11.2) can

fit Michaelis–Menten data very easily, but if used in its selleck products default state it incorporates assumptions Obeticholic Acid ic50 that (1) The errors in the observed rates are subject to a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Extremely few studies have been made to check whether any of these assumptions are likely to be true,

and those studies are either old (Storer et al., 1975 and Askelöf et al., 1976) or very old (Lineweaver et al., 1934), and thus tell us rather little about error behaviour in modern conditions. The last assumption is very important, but it is also the easiest to check, for example with the use of residual plots. Tukey and McLauglin (1963) suggested many years ago that the “normal” distribution is actually so rare that it might be better be called the “pathological” distribution, going on to say that “the typical distribution of errors and fluctuations has a shape whose tails are longer than that of a Gaussian distribution”.

In practice deviations from the normal Anidulafungin (LY303366) distribution severe enough to produce substantial errors in estimated parameters are likely to be obvious in residual plots. For example, a clear outlier is easily recognized in a residual plot: once recognized, a careful experimenter must assess whether it reflects an unexpected failure of the assumed model, and undertake additional experiments to find out, or whether it reflects a mistake in carrying out the experiment, such as use of the wrong stock solution, or a numerical error such as omission of a decimal point when entering the data in the computer. However, not all deviations from normality are easy to recognize. Minor deviations will have a negligible effect on the parameter values estimated, but they may still have a major effect on the precision estimates. Of the other assumptions, the one most likely to create problems is the third, the assumption of uniform standard deviation, because at least some investigations (Storer et al., 1975 and Askelöf et al., 1976) suggest that a uniform coefficient of correlation will be likely to be closer to reality; this is relatively easy to incorporate into a fitting procedure, but only if one is aware that it needs to be done.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>