In article <68jhe6$m0t$1 at news.usit.net>, defarr at use.usit.net (Dennis Farr)
wrote:
> In 1989, I gathered up information on the secondary structure of a few
proteins
> and the corresponding DNA code for those proteins, where I could find
both sets of
> data for a protein. I found around twenty proteins for which I had both
data sets.
>> I then checked the correlation between codon and secondary structure type for
> each amino acid that can be represented by multiple codons. (There are 21
amino
> acids and 64 codons.) I found significant correlation coefficients for
several
> cases.
In most organisms, the 64 codons specify 20 amino acids; additional
ones are generated by post-translational modifications.
It is well known that codon usage is biased, and this bias is not the
same for different taxonomic groups. Did you analysis assume equal codon
use?
Would you be willing to share a few details about the results that you
obtained? The proteins chosen for the analysis might also influence the
outcome.
snip
>> Caveats: I know the correlation I found is supposed to be impossible. I
do not
> propose a direction for the arrow from cause to effect for the correlation I
> found, if it holds up under additional scrutiny. I am a computer
programmer by
> trade, and a mathematician by training, not a molecular biologist.
Nothing is impossible.
snip
>
Pam Norton
--
Pamela A. Norton, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Medicine
Thomas Jefferson University
Philadelphia, PA 19107 p_norton at lac.jci.tju.edu
