Talk:Primary structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction. |
||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of High-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
[edit] 'Primary sequence'
(moved from User talk:Martin Jambon) Thanks for contributing to the primary structure article, but I don't think the term "primary sequence" is really incorrect. At minimum, it's common enough that the Wikipedia article shouldn't describe it as incorrect without a source. Why do you dislike the term? Opabinia regalis 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean anything really and doesn't make things shorter (is it easier to pronounce than just "sequence"?). There is no such thing as a secondary sequence, so it sounds like nonsense to me each time I hear the term. It's a creative mix of "sequence" and "primary structure", which I believe has become popular with a number of people ignoring the meaning of "primary structure" (as opposed to secondary, tertiary, or quaternary structure), typically those who did not have a complete biology education - there are many of those people. Maybe I am wrong and there is some famous quote or historical event which lead to the widespread use of the term, I don't know.
- Now, some people use that term, this is why I haven't removed it, but at least a note that explains the possible origins of "primary sequence" would improve the article, I think. Anyway, I will not change the meaning of the words that people use, but I personally tend to think that people who use the term understand nothing of what they are talking about... --Martin 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- My guess would be awkwardness in calling what is basically a list of amino acids a "structure". I also hear it used sometimes to distinguish the protein from the DNA sequence, although since nucleic acids have secondary and tertiary structure too, it's not the most useful clarification. Can't think of any relevant historical event, though - IIRC the original coiner used parallel construction though. Opabinia regalis 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Maybe we should mention somewhere that "sequence" and "structure" in everyday jargon tend to replace the concepts of primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure. Therefore the term "primary structure", which is more bound to the notion of amino acid sequence than to geometric structure, is often replaced by "primary sequence", although there is no concept of "secondary sequence", and the term "sequence" alone should be sufficient. How does it sound? --Martin 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMO it's a relatively minor point that doesn't require lengthy explanation, especially at the level of the typical reader who needs to look up primary structure in the encyclopedia. I think a shorter comment like "Primary structure is less commonly termed primary sequence, although there is no parallel concept of secondary or tertiary sequence." would be simpler. What do you think? Opabinia regalis 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good! --Martin 04:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMO it's a relatively minor point that doesn't require lengthy explanation, especially at the level of the typical reader who needs to look up primary structure in the encyclopedia. I think a shorter comment like "Primary structure is less commonly termed primary sequence, although there is no parallel concept of secondary or tertiary sequence." would be simpler. What do you think? Opabinia regalis 01:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Maybe we should mention somewhere that "sequence" and "structure" in everyday jargon tend to replace the concepts of primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure. Therefore the term "primary structure", which is more bound to the notion of amino acid sequence than to geometric structure, is often replaced by "primary sequence", although there is no concept of "secondary sequence", and the term "sequence" alone should be sufficient. How does it sound? --Martin 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- My guess would be awkwardness in calling what is basically a list of amino acids a "structure". I also hear it used sometimes to distinguish the protein from the DNA sequence, although since nucleic acids have secondary and tertiary structure too, it's not the most useful clarification. Can't think of any relevant historical event, though - IIRC the original coiner used parallel construction though. Opabinia regalis 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
