Would a consensus sequence form an active protein?

Jeffrey L Nauss naussjl at ucunix.san.uc.edu
Thu Mar 3 14:08:07 EST 1994


In article <Pine.3.85.9403021013.A28617-0100000 at fox.cce.usp.br> szeinfel at FOX.CCE.USP.BR (Rafael N Szeinfeld) writes:
>	Instead of making a "consensus sequence protein" making random
>mutations in one protein you'll have the same result. These brings the
>advantage that you have the 3d structure (of the protein before mutated) and 
>also that a lot of work was already done with random mutations.

Not exactly, what I had in mind.  The whole point of the consensus
sequence is that here is a sequence that is "in common" to a family of
similar proteins.  Any critical residues for activity and folding
should be accounted for in the consensus sequence.  But are they?
We'll never know unless someone tries the experiment.

The random mutations would have to be numerous and to get the same
level of information as I tried to explain above.  On the other hand,
perhaps mutations as directed by the consensus sequence could be
useful.

>	Ps. I sent this message yesterday but I had no replays.

Tried to send you a reply but the message bounced.
-- 
Jeff Nauss				Texas A&M Class of '77
Department of Chemistry			Gig 'em, Aggies!
University of Cincinnati



More information about the Proteins mailing list