Bisekrankas  - 2019-07-29
neat
|
William Burns - 2019-07-29
Neat. Neat.
|
Binro the Heretic - 2019-07-29
It's the sound effects that make this.
|
Anaxagoras - 2019-07-29
Huh. Interesting.
Additional information, in case anybody cares: (one of my undergraduate degrees is in biochemistry)
Although the animation portrays proteins under construction as ever-growing strings of amino acids that kinda flop about as if they're long flexible strings, the actual 3-dimensional structure of proteins is determined by the sequence of amino acids. That is, there are very few acceptable orientations when any 2 peptides are joined. ("Peptide" is another name for "amino acid")
Thus, if you were to tell me the amino acid sequence for a given protein, then I would be able to tell you what its 3-dimensional structure *must* be. More accurately, I could tell you a set of 3-dimensional structures that are viable. Indeed, proteins often change between different viable structures depending on the need of the cell. In fact, the structural changes are often the mechanism by which a protein becomes "activated" or not.
|
Anaxagoras - 2019-07-29 Calculating the sets of viable structures for a protein with, say, 600 peptides is incredibly complicated, and requires advanced computer models. It's also that flexibility that makes proteins so damn useful for our living cellular machines.
Honestly, learning how almost all life functions are merely proteins interacting with other proteins to accomplish various tasks is pretty mindblowing.
|
|
Anaxagoras - 2019-07-30 That's awesome!
Also holy shit is my information out of date. I learned all that stuff like 20 years ago. Looks like advanced computer models doesn't quite mean what it used to.
|
gmol - 2019-07-31 Anax,
A "peptide" is a short chain of amino acid *residues*, "peptide" is not synonymous with "amino acid".
Ab initio methods are pretty neat and work way better than I think a lot of people predicted but:
"Thus, if you were to tell me the amino acid sequence for a given protein"
is really not true. We're still bad at predicting structures.
|
Anaxagoras - 2019-08-01 Sorry... I phrased it poorly. What I was trying to say was that a given amino acid sequence has a limited number of possible configurations, so if you give me the sequence, I could give you the set of possible 3-dimensional configurations. To find out what configuration the protein *actually* has, we'd have to empirically look at the protein in the wild, so to speak.
As for peptide... huh, wikipedia suggests you're right. Man, my chem knowledge is rusty. Thanks for the correction.
|
Marlon Brawndo - 2019-07-29
Awesome.
|
gravelstudios - 2019-07-30
oops, I didn't mean to submit the video with a time stamp in it. I wasn't paying attention to what I was doing. sorry. Please start from the beginning.
|
TeenerTot - 2019-07-30
Haha, muppets.
|
| Register or login To Post a Comment |
Reddit
Digg
Stumble
Facebook