<p>51secondary structure of enzymes - hydrogen bonds
isn’t it covalent. I’m pretty positive b/c that’s why they are so hard to split … proteins…</p>
<p>hydrogen is between nucleotides bases.</p>
<p>If the addition of nitrogen didn’t really affect the growth of the plants, that means that there was already enough nitrogen in the soil to begin with, which means it was not limiting in the first place, compared to phosphorous, which, with the addition, allowed a greater amount of additional growth, meaning the phosphorous in the soil was limiting.</p>
<p>I think?</p>
<p>61oxidation reduction - gives electrons off to acceptros? i hope to god this one isnt ATP stuff, cuz i was debating between the two…</p>
<p>I’m 100% positive that it’s A: the relationship of electrons between the accepters and hydrogen or whatever</p>
<p>30,000…</p>
<p>yeah, i wasn’t sure what “single copy” meant?</p>
<p>ronlivs, I almost won’t argue with your farmer because I’m so happy that you confirmed my pie graph thing. But I’m not denying that the bull was heterozygous. It certainly was. However, the choice I put for what conclusion can be drawn is that the guarantee claim was unreasonable. How can you tell the genotype just by breeding a lot? You can’t ever tell if an animal is AA or Aa, so how can you tell what its offspring is?</p>
<p>If the claim was unreasonable, the farmer wasn’t CHEATED because the people he bought it from or whatever simply didn’t know better. I think CHEATED is way too strong a word, 'cause there is no way for them to have known the genotype when they made the guarantee.</p>
<p>I also put that the farmer was cheated…was that right?</p>
<p>sour- that’s wrong reasoning. The problem asked which nutrient is least effective to plant growth.
the chart showed the columns</p>
<p>control, nitrogen, phosphorous, both</p>
<p>both had highest while nitrogen was a little higher than control which shows that it’s the least effective since the plant grew a little more.</p>
<p>taxis= change in movement because of stimuli (such as food)
kinesis= change of behavior by stimuli</p>
<p>For the bull one, I first put that he was cheated, but then changed it to D because it just sounded too strong. Isn’t it true that it’s impossible to know the genotype just by selective breeding? But then again, that was a bad question imo. </p>
<p>If anyone took the May test, how did it compare? I thought this one was MUCH MUCH easier.</p>
<p>so we are sure that 30,000 genes correlate to 30,000 proteins? </p>
<p>…remember, RNA splicing can create protein variations after transcription</p>
<p>Cool. does anybody else agree with Mirage and me?</p>
<p>And hellobmw, you’re not right. The question asked which nutrient is the most limiting factor.</p>
<p>EDIT: Yes, 30,000 genes code for 30,000 proteins. The real definition of a gene is the amount of DNA that codes for one protein.</p>
<p>Yes it is 30,000 proteins possible. According to the one gene, one protein hypothesis, every gene corresponds to one specific protein.</p>
<p>so WHAT is the limiting factor?</p>
<p>nitrogen or phosphorus?</p>
<p>what do you mean most limiting factor, bog?</p>
<p>hrmm i think i read it wrong then … shiet.</p>
<p>and i agree with 30,000 genes codes 30,00 proteins… because each gene codes for a protein</p>
<p>Yes, it said the limiting factor, NOT which affected it the least. My reasoning is correct, (I hope) the limiting factor has to be the one that when it was added, it increases the growth more than a nutrient that wasn’t limiting, like nitrogen, since its amount was enough and extra addition was unnecesary.</p>
<p>So Phosphorous.</p>
<p>I also picked phosphorus as the limiting factor.</p>
<p>My reasoning was that adding phosphorus alone made more effect than adding nitrogen alone.</p>
<p>Thus, it “limited” more.</p>
<p>The oxidation reduction question, I put that electrons to acceptors/donors also. Anyone get different?</p>
<p>Because, ATP formation is not oxidation reduction, it’s through a H+ ion concentration difference.</p>
<p>yes sourapple, that’s definitely right. (i’m taking chemistry now)</p>
<p>61) oxidation reduction - gives electrons off to acceptros? i hope to god this one isnt ATP stuff, cuz i was debating between the two…</p>
<p>I’m 100% positive that it’s A: the relationship of electrons…</p>
<p>51) secondary structure of enzymes - hydrogen bonds
isn’t it covalent. I’m pretty positive b/c that’s why they are so hard to split … proteins…</p>
<p>hydrogen is between nucleotides bases.</p>
<p>discussion:
- can we have a clear answer with the interval… i put 20 b/c the population doubles in 40 hours. for some reason, i reasoned that it’s 20 b/c of that fact… lol</p>
<p>“The secondary protein structure is the specific geometric shape caused by intramolecular and intermolecular hydrogen bonding of amide groups. The geometry assumed by the protein chain is directly related to molecular geometry concepts of hybridization theory. Experimental evidence shows that the amide unit is a rigid planar structure.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/566secprotein.html[/url]”>http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/566secprotein.html</a></p>