| Quick navigation: | Home | Site Map || References | Biography || Copyright | Other copyright | Contact us | Advert | | |
Re: [ccp4bb] New human genome policy - please read. |
||
- Protein crystallographyMain steps:- Protein purification- Crystallisation Special:- Programs for crystallography- X-ray detectors Basic tutorials:- Chemistry- Protein - Peptide - Amino Acids Xtal community:- CCP4BB |
CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999Subject: Re: New human genome policy - please read. From: Kevin Cowtan cowtan {- at -} YSBL {- dot -} YORK {- dot -} AC {- dot -} UK Date: 2009-04-01 Why molecular weight? That's just arbitrary. There is a simple way of referring to proteins which avoids any ambiguity - by it's sequence. When referring to a protein, we should use its sequence as an identifier. No ambiguity. Now, I understand that some smart people in America are now solving proteins of more than a dozen aa in length. For these, quoting the whole sequence could be a bit long. Fortunately this is a solved problem: all we need to do is quote a CRC64 hash of the ascii representation of the protein sequence. This gives a name space big enough that we can name about 4 billion proteins before the probability of a name clash becomes significant. James Stroud wrote: > I think actually *naming* the proteins would be too extreme. Even the > current alpha-numeric system is overwrought. I liked it better when we > just called proteins "p75" or "p105". For instance, how many proteins in > the human genome are 75 kD, anyway? My guess is not enough to make the > situation ambiguous in any catastrophic way. CCP4bb navigationCCP4bb <-- 1999 <-- November 1999 <-- 30 November 1999 |
|
| ProteinCrystallography.org: Copyright 2006-2010 by Quid United Ltd |