Talk:Levinthal paradox
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 WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-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. |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Removed section
I have removed the following section. As it is now, it is completely incomprehensible, even to someone working in a related field:
"It has been argued that the paradox can be settled if one views each atom as independently computing in its neighbourhood; that is, the atoms compute in parallel whereas the theoretical calculation assumes a sequential search."
Kjaergaard 05:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hoax box
I removed hoax box. This is a genuine article, even though it might need to be rephrased... Kjaergaard 05:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The article makes no sense at all. Molecules don't perform searches, or calculate anything. Peter Grey 05:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- No they don't calculate anything, but to some extent it is true, that proteins search/sample conformation space during folding.... Kjaergaard 05:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be describing what one would intuitively expect any molecule to do. Perhaps the article should indicate what this behaviour is supposed to contrast with. Peter Grey 15:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- The references seem to be suggesting that the phenomenon is not an actual paradox, but "paradox" is simply a metaphor for contrasting a computationally intensive search with the behaviour of molecules under electromagnetic forces. Of course, the molecule does not have a conscious goal, and is not conducting a random search, so this is really a comparison of completely unrelated quantities. Or is there something missing from the story? Peter Grey 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the use of the word paradox, this particular subject has been known as Levinthal's paradox, and I guess we just have to stick with that name regardsless of whether we think it is a paradox or not. I think what might be missing is the historical dimension. The original ref. is from '69 and that was a time when a lot less was known about the nature of proteins. I think maybe from the general perception of how molecules behaved in '69, a random search was maybe not that silly proposition. Kjaergaard 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not true. Levinthal was well aware that they did not undergo a random search, since it was already known that proteins fold quickly. The question was how. he just demonstrated formally that folding couldn't be random. User:W Little
[edit] Puzzle
Levinthals paradox is not a puzzle. It is a thought experiment that leads to the assumption that proteins must fold via defined folding pathways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.21.28 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 May 2007
[edit] Call me slow by all means, but ...
what is the _paradox_? Midgley (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
the paradox is that if a protein would fold completly randomly, and try every possible position for a given amino acid, it would take many many years before it will find his correct fold. We know that a protein folds in not much more than a couple of seconds, so the folding proces can't be randomly. that is the paradox. Scientist can't figure out why a given AA sequens will become a given proteinstructure, and nature hasn't any problem at all with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.152.91 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
