Take the GATE BIOTECH MARKS SURVEY. An attempt to estimate the cut-off    
  • Welcome to Biotechnology Forums!
  • Contribution is the key to connections! Stay active and you'll benefit a lot!
  • Defeat the Difficulties!
Hello There, Guest! Login Register


Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
GATE BT-2017 Answer Key | Solutions Discussion
This is post no. 421 under the main topic.
45. 
Recessive traits are not supposed to show up in all generations. If X linked recessive were the answer, it is based on the chance factor of all the mothers being carriers. In that case, from first to second generation, there is a 50% chance , both the girls are carriers. One does not mate and the other mates to have two healthy children of both the sexes. This is dependent on high chance possibilities. Also, the affected boys of the second generation have no contribution whatsoever in making boys of third generation affected had it been x linked recessive. Therefore, the inheritance is from the mother to son and not a family or pedigree inheritance. Also, there is no evidence of the case not being Y linked. So, it should be only Y Linked.

49. The sum is there in Octave levenspiel PG 47 where the unit of k is in moles/l/min leading to the answer being 100. But since this question had a different unit of k and properly mentioned that the answer be specified in mins and not min/l , it should be multiplied with the volume of the reactor, I.e. 100l, making the answer to be 10000 mins.

These are my arguments. And, please report if you can include them while challenging the questions. I do not have a problem in paying a share of it. But personally, I am in a family trouble and would like to avoid the hassle as of now. This is a sincere request. Please respond. Thank you.
 
Reply
This is post no. 422 under the main topic.
(03-04-2017, 03:44 PM)Debasmita Wrote: 45. 
Recessive traits are not supposed to show up in all generations. If X linked recessive were the answer, it is based on the chance factor of all the mothers being carriers. In that case, from first to second generation, there is a 50% chance , both the girls are carriers. One does not mate and the other mates to have two healthy children of both the sexes. This is dependent on high chance possibilities. Also, the affected boys of the second generation have no contribution whatsoever in making boys of third generation affected had it been x linked recessive. Therefore, the inheritance is from the mother to son and not a family or pedigree inheritance. Also, there is no evidence of the case not being Y linked. So, it should be only Y Linked.

49. The sum is there in Octave levenspiel PG 47 where the unit of k is in moles/l/min leading to the answer being 100. But since this question had a different unit of k and properly mentioned that the answer be specified in mins and not min/l , it should be multiplied with the volume of the reactor, I.e. 100l, making the answer to be 10000 mins.

These are my arguments. And, please report if you can include them while challenging the questions. I do not have a problem in paying a share of it. But personally, I am in a family trouble and would like to avoid the hassle as of now. This is a sincere request. Please respond. Thank you.

I will add them to the argument list, still preparing a document, will file the challenge by tomorrow.
I am thinking of adding the snapshot of the standard symbols of pedigree chart from Genetics - a conceptual approach, by Benjamin a Pierce,
and snapshots of the nptel lecture video on pedigree analysis.
Can I do that?

Debasmita, for the zero order question can you please tell the edition of the levenspiel book and the exact page and question number, which you found.
I also have the levenspiel book, but i have 3rd edition and the i could not find the question there.

I am looking for more arguments to support my bid for the Cytokinesis question (18)
 
Reply
This is post no. 423 under the main topic.
Actually, a college professor mailed me that information about Levenspiel. I will mail him as to what exact edition and chapter he is referring to. But, I don't know if he will be able to reply within the weekend.

Also, I haven't attempted the cytokinesis question, and should not say anything regarding that. But, probably, colchicine acts by inhibiting spindle fibre formation is specifically mitotic inhibitor and cytokinesis occurs thereafter, so it might not be accepted. So, its better to look a bit deeper into that.
 
Reply
This is post no. 424 under the main topic.
(03-04-2017, 11:09 PM)Debasmita Wrote: Actually, a college professor mailed me that information about Levenspiel. I will mail him as to what exact edition and chapter he is referring to. But, I don't know if he will be able to reply within the weekend.

Also, I haven't attempted the cytokinesis question, and should not say anything regarding that. But, probably, colchicine acts by inhibiting spindle fibre formation is specifically mitotic inhibitor and cytokinesis occurs thereafter, so it might not be accepted. So, its better to look a bit deeper into that.
In case of some unicellular eukaryotes, Colchicine has been reported as inhibitor. Refers ncbi site.
 
Reply
This is post no. 425 under the main topic.
(03-04-2017, 05:15 PM)RahulK Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 03:44 PM)Debasmita Wrote: 45. 
Recessive traits are not supposed to show up in all generations. If X linked recessive were the answer, it is based on the chance factor of all the mothers being carriers. In that case, from first to second generation, there is a 50% chance , both the girls are carriers. One does not mate and the other mates to have two healthy children of both the sexes. This is dependent on high chance possibilities. Also, the affected boys of the second generation have no contribution whatsoever in making boys of third generation affected had it been x linked recessive. Therefore, the inheritance is from the mother to son and not a family or pedigree inheritance. Also, there is no evidence of the case not being Y linked. So, it should be only Y Linked.

49. The sum is there in Octave levenspiel PG 47 where the unit of k is in moles/l/min leading to the answer being 100. But since this question had a different unit of k and properly mentioned that the answer be specified in mins and not min/l , it should be multiplied with the volume of the reactor, I.e. 100l, making the answer to be 10000 mins.

These are my arguments. And, please report if you can include them while challenging the questions. I do not have a problem in paying a share of it. But personally, I am in a family trouble and would like to avoid the hassle as of now. This is a sincere request. Please respond. Thank you.

I will add them to the argument list, still preparing a document, will file the challenge by tomorrow.
I am thinking of adding the snapshot of the standard symbols of pedigree chart from Genetics - a conceptual approach, by Benjamin a Pierce,
and snapshots of the nptel lecture video on pedigree analysis.
Can I do that?

Debasmita, for the zero order question can you please tell the edition of the levenspiel book and the exact page and question number, which you found.
I also have the levenspiel book, but i have 3rd edition and the i could not find the question there.

I am looking for more arguments to support my bid for the Cytokinesis question (18)

yes Rahul u can and the debasmita explanation was also correct
 
Reply
This is post no. 426 under the main topic.
(03-05-2017, 01:40 AM)masthanbasha Wrote:
(03-04-2017, 05:15 PM)RahulK Wrote: I will add them to the argument list, still preparing a document, will file the challenge by tomorrow.
I am thinking of adding the snapshot of the standard symbols of pedigree chart from Genetics - a conceptual approach, by Benjamin a Pierce,
and snapshots of the nptel lecture video on pedigree analysis.
Can I do that?

Debasmita, for the zero order question can you please tell the edition of the levenspiel book and the exact page and question number, which you found.
I also have the levenspiel book, but i have 3rd edition and the i could not find the question there.

I am looking for more arguments to support my bid for the Cytokinesis question (18)

yes Rahul u can and the debasmita explanation was also correct

Actually the problem is that colchicine along with other options in question, Vinbalstine, nocodazole are all inhibitors of microtubule formation which inhibits mitosis, thus all three are mitotic inhibitors reported in Gerald karp book and other sources. Cytochalasin D in small concentrations inhibits the formation of actin filaments which directly inhibits the cytokinesis.


I have only a couple of research papers which have reported cytokinesis inhibition with colchicine, that might not be enough to support our challenge. Still I will give a try.
 
Reply
This is post no. 427 under the main topic.
(03-05-2017, 03:05 AM)RahulK Wrote:
(03-05-2017, 01:40 AM)masthanbasha Wrote: yes Rahul u can and the debasmita explanation was also correct

Actually the problem is that colchicine along with other options in question, Vinbalstine, nocodazole are all inhibitors of microtubule formation which inhibits mitosis, thus all three are mitotic inhibitors reported in Gerald karp book and other sources. Cytochalasin D in small concentrations inhibits the formation of actin filaments which directly inhibits the cytokinesis.


I have only a couple of research papers which have reported cytokinesis inhibition with colchicine, that might not be enough to support our challenge. Still I will give a try.
Cytochalisin is not "ONLY" inhibitor if reported in literature. Even one eukaryotic is evidence that cilchicin can "ALSO" be used. So in such cases either marks should be given to all or question cancel.
 
Reply
This is post no. 428 under the main topic.
(02-16-2017, 03:32 AM)SunilNagpal Wrote:
(02-15-2017, 05:36 PM)Akshay shinde Wrote: Sunil sir, what is your opinion on this question ?
I guess the confusion is at the word "free protein"... assuming that by free protein one refers to precipitated protein, then option C is correct. Otherwise, as a classical case, option A is right.

Moreover, are they expecting an assumption of progressive addition of ammonium sulphate? (that's another point to ponder)...

Sunil sir, can this queation be challenged. As the question  was not clear.(
 
Reply
This is post no. 429 under the main topic.
(03-04-2017, 11:09 PM)Debasmita Wrote: Actually, a college professor mailed me that information about Levenspiel. I will mail him as to what exact edition and chapter he is referring to. But, I don't know if he will be able to reply within the weekend.

Also, I haven't attempted the cytokinesis question, and should not say anything regarding that. But, probably, colchicine acts by inhibiting spindle fibre formation is specifically mitotic inhibitor and cytokinesis occurs thereafter, so it might not be accepted. So, its better to look a bit deeper into that.
Chemical reaction engineering 3rd edition by levenspiel.
 
Reply
This is post no. 430 under the main topic.
(03-05-2017, 05:29 AM)Akshay Wrote:
(02-16-2017, 03:32 AM)SunilNagpal Wrote: I guess the confusion is at the word "free protein"... assuming that by free protein one refers to precipitated protein, then option C is correct. Otherwise, as a classical case, option A is right.

Moreover, are they expecting an assumption of progressive addition of ammonium sulphate? (that's another point to ponder)...

Sunil sir, can this queation be challenged. As the question  was not clear.(
ya, me too considered it as precipitated protein (free protein ) and choose option C
 
Reply
  


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  GATE BT Results 2017 SunilNagpal 55 3,072 11 hours ago
Last Post: prakhyat
Star DBT BET ~ JRF/NET 2017 RESEARCH FELLOW sngm 29 2,882 03-21-2017, 07:00 PM
Last Post: kashyap.aluru
  Expected GATE score and percentile. codex 0 680 03-05-2017, 05:51 PM
Last Post: codex
  GATE BT 2017 SunilNagpal 18 7,726 02-14-2017, 01:40 AM
Last Post: sj26
  Do i am eligible to GATE BIOTECH EXAM kranthi 1 511 02-03-2017, 07:28 PM
Last Post: SunilNagpal



Browsing: 1 Guest(s)