3 ms·
> relatively simple organic polymers Sure, they contain carbon backbones. But structurally that's about the only thing they have in common. Compare PU[0] and
by eojrgherkghj 8y ago
> relatively simple organic polymers
Sure, they contain carbon backbones. But structurally that's about the only thing they have in common.
Compare PU[0] and Teflon[1]. The former is marginally bio-degradeable. The latter boasts resistance to many otherwise extremely reactive substances.
[0] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Polyurethane.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Polyuret...
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Teflon_structure.PNG https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Teflon_s...
- klmr 8y ago> But structurally that's about the only thing they have in common. Sure, but it’s — at least in principle — enough: the whole point of my answer was to highlight that the same fundamental catalytic reaction can attack the bonds of the backbone without caring too much about the identity of the side chains/unit monomers. The main constraints then are sterical: the monomers of the polymer have to fit into the active site of the enzyme. This is by no means a given, but it’s not an insurmountable problem either. My point is, unlike the hypothetical, universal acid that dissolves everything from biopolymers over monoatomic crystal lattices to amorphous silicates, a plastic-eating enzyme doesn’t have to be universal. It can in fact be very specific. In fact, the cell has tons of such machinery. A good example is the ribosome, which manages to construct a peptide biopolymer by catalysing peptide bond formation regardless of amino acid side chain. And there’s a class of enzymes that do the inverse: proteases hydrolyse peptide bonds. This comes conceptually close to a universal plastic-eating enzyme.