However i read an older post suggesting that it should be E=1 + amplification efficiency%; ie.: 105% > 1+1.05 = 2.05.
Can anyone verify which is the correct one? If the latter is correct, why is it so?
Edited by hianghao, 20 June 2011 - 05:33 PM.
0
2 replies to this topic
#1
hianghao
-
- Active Members
-
- 100 posts
Veteran
0
Neutral
Neutral
Posted 20 June 2011 - 05:22 PM
In the calculation of relative quantification (Pfaffl 2001), the E value is replaced by E in what form? Lets say E=105%, in the formula we put E as 1.05 or 2.1? I think it should be 2.1 because if E is 100%, it'll be 1, and 1^x is always 1.
However i read an older post suggesting that it should be E=1 + amplification efficiency%; ie.: 105% > 1+1.05 = 2.05.
Can anyone verify which is the correct one? If the latter is correct, why is it so?
However i read an older post suggesting that it should be E=1 + amplification efficiency%; ie.: 105% > 1+1.05 = 2.05.
Can anyone verify which is the correct one? If the latter is correct, why is it so?
#2
Trof
-
- Global Moderators
-
- 941 posts
Brain on a stick
66
Excellent
Excellent
Posted 21 June 2011 - 02:57 AM
The last suggestion seems illogical to me. I would use 2.1.
Our country has a serious deficiency in lighthouses. I assume the main reason is that we have no sea.
I never trust anything that can't be doubted.
I never trust anything that can't be doubted.
#3
hianghao
-
- Active Members
-
- 100 posts
Veteran
0
Neutral
Neutral
Posted 21 June 2011 - 04:29 PM
Trof, on 21 June 2011 - 02:57 AM, said:
The last suggestion seems illogical to me. I would use 2.1.
http://www.protocol-...osts/12249.html
But today i found this
"There is some ambiguity in how people define efficiency. Some people say that if you copy 90% of your DNA in a cycle, so that you end up with 1.9 times as much, the efficiency is 1.9, and this is the definition that the Pfaffl equation uses."
http://pathmicro.med...altime-home.htm
Edited by hianghao, 21 June 2011 - 04:34 PM.
