College Biology Help: Understanding Proteins & Translation Processes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronomer186
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Biology College
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the translation process in protein synthesis, specifically the differences in ribosome sizes between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, which are 70S and 80S, respectively. The "S" in these measurements stands for Svedbergs, a unit that indicates sedimentation rates during centrifugation. Understanding this concept is crucial for grasping ribosomal function in protein synthesis. The sedimentation rate reflects the size and density of the ribosomal subunits. This information is essential for students studying microbiology and cellular biology.
Astronomer186
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi,

In my Medical Microbiology class, the prof introduced the process of translation during protein synthesis. For prokaryotes: 70S, eukaryotes: 80S. Just a question...I know that "S" is a unit, but what type of unit is it called? In other words, what does the "S" stand for? If anyone can tell me, that'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is related to the size of the ribosomes in terms of protein subunits.

The S stands for Svedbergs. It is related to the sedimentation rate of the ribosomes in a centrifuge at high speed.

Hope that helps.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top