In article <4i9iod$nhe at nntp3.u.washington.edu>,
Mary K. Kuhner <mkkuhner at phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>labonnes at csc.albany.edu (S. LaBonne) writes:
>>Either I'm missing something badly here, or the other respondents to
>>this thread are. So here goes: your average Joe molecular biologist
>>is interested in G+C content mainly because it's directly related to
>>the thermal stability (melting point) of the DNA.
>>>Steve LaBonne ********************* (labonnes at cnsunix.albany.edu)
>>But your average Joe phylogeneticist is interested in nucleotide content
>because if you ignore it you may inappropriately group two taxa together
>because they have independently evolved towards the same non-standard
>nucleotide content. G+C is not the only possible issue here, though
>I do think it's the most likely to cause trouble.
Sorry, I should have made my point clearer. What I was suggesting is
that phylogeneticists may in some cases be reporting G+C content
simply out of force of habit, the habit being derived from the
considerations that I noted. I agree that this is not a good thing,
for precisely the reason you state.
--
Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opinions!
Steve LaBonne ********************* (labonnes at cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens
