Micromolar to Nanomolar Converter
Common Conversions
| µM | nM |
|---|---|
| 0.0001 | 0.1 |
| 0.0005 | 0.5 |
| 0.001 | 1 |
| 0.005 | 5 |
| 0.01 | 10 |
| 0.05 | 50 |
| 0.1 | 100 |
| 0.25 | 250 |
| 0.5 | 500 |
| 1 | 1000 |
| 5 | 5000 |
| 10 | 10000 |
Why this conversion matters in chemistry
Going from µM to nM is almost always a potency comparison in disguise. You have a working concentration in µM — the thing you added to the plate — and a published binding constant in nM — the thing you're comparing against. Multiplying the working concentration by 1000 to land in nM is how you answer the practical question: is this dose 10× my Kd, 100×, or off by three orders of magnitude? A 1 µM dose against a 5 nM binder means you're 200-fold over Kd, which is usually saturating. The arithmetic is the easy part. The translation matters more.
Formula
Worked Examples
A mid-range Ki written two different ways. Whichever unit a paper uses tends to reflect the author's native field as much as anything.
A tight binder. At this affinity most of the compound sits on the target rather than floating around in the buffer.
Common top dose on a screening plate — weak enough that a hit isn't guaranteed, strong enough that a real binder should show up.
Roughly the working concentration for a lot of hormones and growth factors in cell culture — active, but not so much that you're fighting receptor saturation.