Richard P. Grant
r_grant at see.sig.for.address
Tue Sep 21 10:00:07 EST 1999
In article <7s82aq$nuq at journal.concentric.net>, "AKB"
<abansal at concentric.net> wrote:
>1) why should I use the average aa weight - do most proteins have a somewhat
>even distribution of light and heavy aa?
Becuase it's an AVERAGE :_)
>2) what if this protein were made of nothing but gly (besides the beginning
>met). That could change the calculation
Yah, and it'd never fold . . . and if it did, it sure as heck wouldn't be
>3)what if the protein were made of nothing but a heavy aa like trp? I used
>this method because since I want the *minimum* dna size, then why not assume
>it is some weird protein with massive aa.
>However, I am not sure if this is the correct approach to take. Should I
>use method #1 (Richard's) or #3?
To be honest, it depends what you want. You could always assume that
they're all huge, and then that they're all tiny, and get a range.
Why are you doing this?
*** .sig removed for cleaning. We apologize for any inconvenience ***
More information about the Cellbiol