abansal at concentric.net
Tue Sep 21 20:03:54 EST 1999
thanks. I understand what you're saying.
Richard P. Grant <r_grant at see.sig.for.address> wrote in message
news:r_grant-2109991601240001 at 192.168.0.84...
> 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
> >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
> >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
> >this method because since I want the *minimum* dna size, then why not
> >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