Re: Why 64 codons?
- From: bdbryant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Bobby D. Bryant)
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 03:46:31 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, lamoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Larry Moran) wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2005 16:41:24 -0700,
> chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx <chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Frank Sullivan wrote:
>>> If only 20 amino acids are needed, then why 64 different codons? Why
>>> not have 25 codons instead (5 nucleotides + 2 per codon). Is there any
>>> physical reason why this would have been impossible, if a designer
>>> wanted to be a little more efficient about things and make his code a
>>> little easier to read?
>>
>> I would think that if you are working with a double-stranded molecule,
>> you might want an even number of codons. The rationale should be fairly
>> obvious. Don't ask me why RNA is limited that way, though. Check with
>> Larry Moran. He knows everything.
>
> There are four different bases; A, G, T, C. If your code consist of
> only two nucleotides then there are 16 possibilites. This isn't
> enough. A three nucleotide codon gives 64 possibilites. That's too
> much but there are no intermediate choices.
>
> There are at least 23 different amino acids and you need at least one
> stop codon.
23 _possible_ amino acids, or 23 actually used by biology AWKI?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why 64 codons?
- From: The Last Conformist
- Re: Why 64 codons?
- From: wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why 64 codons?
- References:
- Why 64 codons?
- From: Frank Sullivan
- Re: Why 64 codons?
- From: chris.linthompson@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: Why 64 codons?
- From: Larry Moran
- Why 64 codons?
- Prev by Date: Re: [OT] About that Iraqi constitution...
- Next by Date: Re: [OT] About that Iraqi constitution...
- Previous by thread: Re: Why 64 codons?
- Next by thread: Re: Why 64 codons?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|