Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:28:24 GMT
Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
>
>
>>A ribosome actually consist of a complex of proteins. So it's not just
>>"stuff".
>
>
> You mean, a complex of proteins isn't stuff? That is a whole new
> definition of "stuff" that I never knew. Do you have a wikopedia entry
> that I can look up somewhere that explains how proteins aren't stuff?
No need to get snide. You seemed to be saying that "ribosome" was a
substance, like nylon or grape jelly, when instead it's an object, like
a radio or a volvo. It's not a complex of proteins either; it's a
complex of proteins and RNA, in which the most important component is
RNA. In fact, a ribosome will function (though not as well) with all of
its proteins removed.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Kleuskes & Moos
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- References:
- universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Kleuskes & Moos
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith
- universality of codons to amino acids
- Prev by Date: Re: You know what I really love
- Next by Date: Re: You know what I really love
- Previous by thread: Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- Next by thread: Re: universality of codons to amino acids
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|