Chemistry Differences in Structure of Steroid, Phospholipid & Fat Molecules

AI Thread Summary
Steroid molecules, phospholipids, and fat molecules differ primarily in their structural characteristics. Phospholipids are asymmetrical, featuring a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail, while steroids and fats are generally symmetrical. Steroids are classified as lipids, which simplifies their understanding in the context of biology. The discussion highlights the confusion some have regarding these concepts, especially for those with limited chemistry background. Understanding these differences is crucial for grasping lipid functions in biological systems.
domaap
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


what is the difference between a steroid molecule, phopholipid, and fat molecule?

Homework Equations


discuss the general difference in their structures

The Attempt at a Solution

phospholipids are asymetrical with a hydrophilic head and a hydrophobic tail
and the other two are symmetrical?

I'm completely lost coz I dropped chemistry after two weeks of it, and now it's come back to haunt me in biology
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Google Lipids.
 
MichaelXY said:
Google Lipids.

haha, thanks. i didnt know steroids was a lipid. cool. that makes things a bit easier
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

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...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

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...
View full post »

Similar threads

Chemistry Chemistry: Elements, Molecules and Bonds
Replies
1
Views
7K
Pursuing a PhD in Chemical Biology?
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry Molecular Biology (Molecular Chaperone Proteins)
Replies
2
Views
4K
Can I get my intro Bio problems checked?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Specific Heat and its relevance to Molecular Configuration
Replies
1
Views
5K
Other 2 years for MS Eng or Longer for MS Physics? Science Entrepreneur Qs
Replies
3
Views
2K
Programs Finish an Associates in Chemistry Degree?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Bayes again - how to interpret in vitro genotoxicity data
Replies
8
Views
2K
Studying Approaching My 10 Week "Summer" Study Plan
Replies
9
Views
3K
Chemistry Honors molecular biology homework help please
Replies
18
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top