3 ms·
Ah, I see your idea, but codons aren't DNA- they are a higher level construct (only used in the context of transcribed and translated genes that code for protei
by dekhn 3y ago
Ah, I see your idea, but codons aren't DNA- they are a higher level construct (only used in the context of transcribed and translated genes that code for proteins).
Also, several of those codons aren't mapped to amino acides (stop codons) and the codons are re-used to code for the same amino acids, so it's really redundant compared to that.
DNA is a 2-bit code, with 4 symbols.
- thaumasiotes 3y agoWords are defined by the parser, not by the alphabet. Letters are what's defined by the alphabet. > Also, several of those codons aren't mapped to amino acides (stop codons) Yes, codons are the minimal units of the genetic code, which is why they're called "codons". > and the codons are re-used to code for the same amino acids, so it's really redundant Synonymous codons aren't redundant. They take different amounts of time to process, which affects the shape of the resulting protein.
- dekhn 3y agoDNA codes for a lot more than just genes... you're just conflating several unrelated concepts. For example, regulatory regions don't care about codons at all. If you're just saying "genes are defined in units of codons", no complaint. And the biophysics of synonymous codons are highly complex; in most cases, you can substitute them in and get the same exact protein function. There are lots of papers about corner cases in specific proteins, but it's still correct to say that synonymous codons code redundantly (this is a well-established fact of molecular biology).