dna size

AKB 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
> 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
> soluble.
> >3)what if the protein were made of nothing but a heavy aa like trp?  I
> ditto.
> >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?
> R
> --
> *** .sig removed for cleaning.  We apologize for any inconvenience ***

More information about the Cellbiol mailing list