Talk:Protein/Archive 1

message: Nutritionally, proteins come in two forms: complete proteins contain all eight of the essential amino acids while incomplete protein is missing at least one. The human body requires 14 other amino acids, which it can synthesize from the essential amino acids. Animal-derived foods contain all of those amino acids, while plant sources do not. That is why vegans must mix their protein sources. Ovo-lacto vegetarians usually do not have this problem, since egg's white and cow's milk contain all essential amino acids, as well as soy milk.
:If soy contains all esential amino acids, and the 14 other amino acids can be synthesized from the essential amino acids, then why do vegans need to "mix their protein sources?"
::68.22.248.146 09:31, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Different protein sources contain different mixes of amino acids. A mix of protein sources is the best way to ensure that the body  obtains the essential amino acids that it requires, and in sufficient quantity. Non-vegans usually have a sufficient mix without having to worry to much (but see Super Size Me). Physchim62 21:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vegan protein mixing

message: This article has a good, systematic description of proteins.  However, as this article should be interesting to the layman, we should start by indicating why proteins are important (nutrition and function in biology).  I'll get started on this.  -adam
:One can go too far with this kind of thinking. It might be that for most people mustangs are a kind of car, but that's not the subject with which I would want to begin a general article on mustangs. Actually, maybe it's a mistake to try to make an all-purpose protein article. How about a separate one called Protein (nutrition)?168... 19:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::I'm going to go ahead and do that (separate the content into two articles, one called Protein (biochemistry) and one called Protein (nutrition)) unless people strenuously object or I hear a good reason why not. 168... 02:46 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:::I see there is a nutrition section. It should not be listed first, but we can definately build it up. Science always comes first, as it defines the application. Tyciol 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a big mistake to give nutrition equal time with biochemistry and other, more important aspects of proteins discussed in this article.  To wit, the discussion in the intro about protein as it relates to nutrition stands out like a sore thumb, and it should be replaced with a disambiguation link. // Internet Esquire 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article appeal to layman, nutrition

message: Proteins differ from carbohydrates chiefly in that they contain much nitrogen and a little bit of sulfur, besides carbon, oxygen and hydrogen
:I'm not sure that I like this sentence.  It seems to infer that a protein is a carbohydrate with nitrogen and sulfur in the structure, which is of course patently wrong.  It also seems somewhat incomplete to compare Proteins to Carbohydrates without also comparing them to other bio-macromolecules such as lipids and nucleic acids.  Is anyone adamantly opposed to removal or replacement of this line?
Banks 22:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a junky sentence.  I would be happy to see it go. Josh Cherry 22:06, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proteins differ from Carbohydrates...

message: I added an English translation of the etymological quote near the bottom of the page. It was off the top of my head though, so I may have not quite hit the mark. It's at least approximately correct, but if anybody knows of a better translation, or can translate it better, please replace it. Jonathan Grynspan 02:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: English translation

message: Many people believe that boiling vegetables makes them lose nutrients.Wikipedia:Reference_desk#Boiling_veg
So does it somehow destroy the nutrients, or just leach the nutrients into the water?
Boiling water is not anywhere close to hot enough to destroy minerals (elements). But what about proteins?
*Some people tell me that while boiling water "denatures" proteins, but they curl right back up again after they cool off.
*Others claim that the heat destroys the nutritional value of some proteins.
Which is right?
Can humans actually use any protein directly? Or does the digestive system break all proteins down into individual amino acids, and then re-assemble those amino acids into human proteins? -DavidCary 07:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proteins are broken down to amino acids during digestion.  (Iiuc, some protein does make it through partially intact, which is how it can cause food allergies.)  Many proteins are denatured by boiling; some return spontaneously to the native conformation when cooled and others are denatured irreversibly.  (If egg albumin weren't irreversibly denatured, you couldn't hard-boil an egg.)  Extreme heat that scorches food will destroy protein entirely, of course. --dsws 02:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, denaturing proteins doesn't really matter, since they're digested and broken down (as denatured as you can get). The only risk would be if proteins could make it out of the stomach without being digested. Our body may be adapted to normal proteins, but not denatured proteins. That's the theory my psychiatrist offered when we discussed it, but I honestly don't know if they can even get out, or how proteins react in the body as opposed to amino acids. I'd assume if they could get there it would be pretty weird. Tyciol 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does boiling water affect proteins?

message: It might be nice to have one page to bring together the whole mess: the CD listings, and the names like p52, and the names like hedgehog based on phenotypes of mutations with the capitalization and italicization conventions.  Obviously, the casual (non-technical) reader doesn't want to be deluged with this stuff in the basic protein article.--dsws 02:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That idea gets my vote :) How can we organise a community effort on protein naming nomenclature? EC is great for enzymes, but we need to extend it to non enzymatic proteins. Also TC works for transporter proteins.--Dan|(talk) 11:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make efforts to organize wikipedia coverage of proteins a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. --JWSchmidt 20:02, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate page for protein nomenclatures?

message: On 24 July, 202.63.115.2 made a large number of changes, primarily removing information from the article.  While I am specifically not arguing that this article is perfect, or even good, as it is now, I think changes of this magnitude should be discussed first.  I've reverted the changes for now, pending discussion.  Opinions?
Banks 19:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made by 202.63.115.2

message: I am new here and while I find the articles fascinating, I don't really understand it all.  I am exploring the world of Amino Acids and could use some feedback.  I recently went to a GNC store and asked if they carried a weight management/loss product that does not contain caffeine or stimulants and the manager recommended L-Ornithine and L-Arginine.  The facts about these two amino acids that he read aloud to me helped pursuade me to purchase them, but I still am not clear on how these two compounds can help me lose weight.  Can anyone help explain??  Please use 'simple terms' when responding as I am not at all educated in all of this 'stuff'.  Thanks!!
:It always puzzles me when I go to the drugstore and read ingredients on some bottles that sell for high prices. I saw "L-Proline" listed before and now you mention "L-Arginine".. The L- means Levorotary (see Chirality) and most naturally produced amino acids are L- (at least on Earth). So basically the pills just contain one specific type of regular amino acids. Ornithine seems to be related to Arginine through the Urea cycle. I'm not sure how they allow you to loose weight, maybe they make you pee more often? Looie 04:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with L-Ornithine and L-Arginine

message: Sorry MrBip, I couldn't find your comments anywhere, so I put the list back in, as I think an encyclopedia is the best place to develop a set of systematic protein names, a protein naming ontology and synonym dictionary. I know the List of proteins is very much a stub at the moment, but I know of no other way to 'get the ball rolling' if you know what I mean. I think as a community (biology / bioinformatics) we need a protein naming ontology, and in the abscence of any major funded project to develope one, wikipedia is an exelent place to stage this effort. Please let me know your thoughts, --Dan|(talk) 11:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan - Sorry for not explaining myself clearly. I was at work, and forgot to say something on the talk page. I left a few comments on the List of proteins talk page. Basically, I think a list of proteins is worthless - we need a "List of lists of proteins." Honestly, listing proteins would be like creating a "List of famous people" - something which could theoretically be useful, but is far too general to be practical if it were even 10% complete. There are searchable databases on the web, such as SwissProt and the PDB, which as essentially lists of every protein known. These databases are major collaborative efforts that require a community of bioinformaticists to maintain. I think we can let them do their job, and use Wikipedia as a place to describe the most important proteins, not develop a list of every known protein. Maybe this page needs to be archived? It's getting pretty long. Mr.Bip 15:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Mr.Bip, thanks for the comments. I like the idea outlined under talk, but I feel I must take you up on one point you made above. You said "These databases are major collaborative efforts", which is true, but not a single one of them defines an accepted protein nameing ontology. SwissProt is the best, but when you said "which as essentially lists of every protein known" you were correct, but missed a fundamental point, the protein lists in these databases are highly redundant,  with the same protein occuring in 1000's of organisms. What is missing is a convenient list of known properties and english description of 'the protein in general', which isn't maintained anywhere. The GO ontology is very good for 'function tagging' and automatic procesesing of protein sets, but having in plain text protein W does x, y and z in eukaryotes for reason p, q and s, while in bacteria a, b and c. Like a canned 'bio' for each of the (well) known proteins. You are right that we should group into higher level lists, but we do need a protein naming ontology, and it should be a community project, but perhaps for elswhere. --Dan|(talk) 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan - I agree with you - the SwissProt database is rather unwieldy for someone who just wants to know what "dystropin" is, or a protein like that. I'd be happy to try to tackle this ontology project with you. I think grouping proteins by their role in cellular processes would be a good place to start. We could also group proteins by function, so we could have a list of kinases, a list of motor proteins, etc. I'm sure this would take a loooong time, but you have to start somewhere, right? :) If you're interestedin talking about it sometime, leave a message on my talk page. Mr.Bip 22:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

text: We can organize wikipedia coverage of proteins a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. --JWSchmidt 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Proteins

message: The current content of the nutrition section appears to be a thinly veiled treatise about "Why vegan diets aren't deficient in protein", probably the product of past contention.  I am neither pro nor anti-vegan, and I do believe the information presented is accurate.  But I question whether vegan polemics should occupy the entire body of nutritional information on protein.  It's re-enacting a debate rather than characterizing it, and we don't do that on Wikipedia.  I think some revision is in order, and I will get to work on it.  The Hokkaido Crow 16:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've performed the refactor.  Some of the information ended up in Veganism and some of it ended up in PDCAAS.The Hokkaido Crow 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing balance to nutrition section

message: I suggest that this article have a section called "references" with numbered citations and references using this method. We can start by trying to find references to support this:
:"Excess protein can cause problems as well, such as causing the immune system to overreact, liver dysfunction from increased toxic residues, bone loss due to increased acidity" --JWSchmidt 15:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References drive

message: I suggest this site as I research protein function and thought this site to be a very good reference especially for bioinformatics, (the biggest).
*Protein Research Home Protein research protocols, protein bioinformatics database, protein news, and protein research discussion.
:If someone take his time to investigate, he will see that you spammed more that 20 articles with a links to molecularstation.com . The most rediculos spamming was a link to abovementioned web site plesed on disambiguation page. The articles that got spammed include but not limited by: Transcription (genetics), Enhancer, Promoter, Mammalian embryogenesis, Stem cell line, Stem cell, Vergina Sun, Bioinformatics, Arabidopsis, Drosophila melanogaster, Caenorhabditis elegans, RNA interference, Small interfering RNA, Peptide mass fingerprinting, DNA, RNA, Protein, Proteomics, RT-PCR, Complementary DNA, Gene Ontology, DNA microarray, Splicing (genetics)
:And most of thouse links lead to simple links directories pages. Have fun. TestPilot 07:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protein research

message: I have severly trimmed the protein in nutrition section of the article which was basically being used as a platform to justify vegetarianism. I think an article on Protein in human nutrition might be a useful place for such discussion, but not in a general article on protein. --nixie 12:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Does anyone use the term "proteoses" anymore? --JWSchmidt 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proteoses

message: Bhulsepga, you have been editing this page a lot recently. Please check your edits for spelling and grammatical errors before submitting. Isopropyl 22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling/grammatical errors

message: I've divided up the nutrition into two parts to reflect the division of presentation, which I think is fine. Even so, I'm questionable about certain aspects attributed to proteins. It's a much-debated field, especially in health and athletic circles. Can we discuss how to better present these views in the article? Tyciol 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative health effects of certain proteins, amino acids, or excess protein?

message: Under the components and synthesis of protiens it is stated in the first paragraph that proteins are biopolymers built from 20 different L-alpha-amino acids. That gives the impression that all proteins made from the same 20 different amino acids. I thought it was only 20 for humans, who produced 12 and needs to take 8, while other organisms needed and have their proteins made with different amounts.  Pseudoanonymous 02:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See amino acid. There are twenty naturally occurring amino acids which are dictated by combinations of three DNA base pairs. Isopropyl 20:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to comment that the 20 amino acid number is somewhat outdated. I think selenocysteine and pyrollysine at least deserve a mention. The way it stands now, the number 20 seems like some sort of universal law, which it isn't. Peter Znamenskiy 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main point is that DNA only encodes for 20 aminoacids (at least in most organisms). Amino acids like hydroxyproline, or hydroxylysine are components of the collagen, the most abundant human protein, but these arise from psttranslational modifications, should we be discussing these like they are normal DNA encoded-aminoacids? Adenosine | Talk 01:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  20 Amino Acids 

message: What happens when proteins are cooked? (Like eggs for example.) Obviously they get hard, is that entirely because they "unravel" and intertwine? Or are there changes in the molecular makeup?
Also humans can't digest some foods (like potato) until they are cooked, is that also true for proteins? Or is it the revese, cooking damages the protein (in term of neutrition), but makes it more palatable? 71.199.123.24
:The nutritional quality of a protein comes from its amino acids. When you cook proteins you subject them to incredibly high amounts of energy; all the weaker bonds, such as hydrogen bonding and van der waal forces, are ripped apart and proteins lose most of their structure, 2°, 3°, and 4°. The primary structure would be fairly resistant to cooking. The amino acids should remain fairly stable, but too much heat, oxygen, etc. You  may be able to destroy them. Hope that's what helps... Adenosine | Talk 01:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooking proteins 

message: Is there a good reason to have nutritional aspects discussed in two different parts of the article? ike9898 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I have cut excessive nutrition info from this article before, and it is expanding again. I have also previously recommended that to create room for more biologically relvant material, to remove questionable nutrition sceince and to prevent dull vegetarian edit wars tthat the nutrition stuff should be split off into a daughter article and mentioned here in summary style. --Peta 04:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The role of protein in human nutrition is out of place in an article about the larger role of protein in all living things.  A disambiguation link would make much more sense. // Internet Esquire 04:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Added:  After rewording the intro section on nutrition to include all animals rather than just humans, I finally figured out why the role of protein in human nutrition is so out of place in an article on biochemistry.  To wit, I looked up protein in a dictionary, and there were two definitions that were strikingly different:  One defined protein as a molecule that is important to biochemistry, and the other one defined protein as a sort of biological tissue that was rich in protein molecules.  As it stands right now, the protein article conflates these two definitions. // Internet Esquire 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If you query Google for "protein tissue," you will find quite a few references.  By way of comparison, consider the use of the term "earth" to refer to the planet Earth as well as to the soil on the surface of the planet.  While tangentially related, these are two very different things, and nutritionists are doing the same thing when they conflate dietary sources of protein with protein molecules. // Internet Esquire 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't exactly a "conflation"; one is made of the other. A summary of the role of protein in nutrition is appropriate here; however, it should be kept in general terms and especially should not include controversial or uncommon usage, since nutrition is an often-debated subject. Specifically I don't see much benefit in the usage of "protein tissue" here - Google seems to have a rather low number of hits for the phrase in the context of nutrition , while many hits for the phrase seem to be some variant of "...protein, tissue,..." . If you have references for the term in common usage, it would probably be best discussed in the nutrition article to keep this one general. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition 

message: Ongoing reorg in progress, comments appreciated. 
* Diversity section still needs cleanup. mostly better
* Separate section needed to summarize protein folding. Section exists, may need cleanup
* "Role of protein" section is lengthy and very redundant.
* Nutrition information needs cleanup and references. Nice, Peta
* History is way too stubby. getting better
* External linkfarm needs a trim.
Opabinia regalis 04:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a cool book, but one of the disadvantages of not working at a university is not having a good library to raid. Unless it's really good, Wikipedia articles are probably not quite enough inspiration to buy a copy :) Opabinia regalis 02:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellaneous to-dos 

message: Trimmed this text from the article as redundant, or at least misplaced. Duplicating here for easy reference. Opabinia regalis 06:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Role of protein" section 

message: I think the article might be more clear if it was in the following arrangement:
*Biochemisty (to replace Components and nomenclature)
*Synthesis (mabye a combination of biochemistry and synthesis would work too)
*Structure
**Folding
**Structure determination
*Function (merege regulation and diverstiy sections, also needs info on protein-protein interactions and a bit more on enzymes, divided into subsections as necessary. I'm not keen on the diversity section, the mass info could be moved to where proteins are first defined, it offers a structural classification (globular, filamentous and membrane) of proteins which would be more relevant in the structure section)
*Nutrition
*History
*Study
--Peta 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I agree that the diversity section isn't so great - just hadn't thought of a good place to put what's there. Classification should definitely go under structure. I'm not sure I'd put synthesis before structure, as the "what it is" aspect of the article seems like it should precede the "how it's made". I think study/methodology should go after function - keeping the molecular stuff separate from the more "macro" discussion of nutrition - but that may be the bias of someone who's not terribly interested in things that are bigger than cells. Opabinia regalis 05:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I dug up my old biochem book for comparison, and it's all kinds of messed up. Roughly primary structure > purification methods > gene expression and molecular cloning > secondary and tertiary structure, at which point I gave up on using it as inspiration. I have no objections to biochem (amino acids and such) > synthesis > structure > function, but I think the next section should be methodology, rather than shunting that to the end. With dietary uses of "protein" now split into its own article, I'd also like to see the nutrition section cover other organisms besides humans. Opabinia regalis 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had some time so I did some reordering and reorganization tonight. I left protein folding as a top-level section, since it's such a big research issue these days. Opabinia regalis 03:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I alluded to above, I think it's a mistake to give the role of protein in human nutrition equal time in an article that is essentially a technical exposition about biochemistry in all living creatures.  A disambiguation link at the beginning of the article, as was suggested years ago, would make much more sense. // Internet Esquire 04:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesnt get equal time, a small section is included in summary style since it is logical to expect that someone might come to this page loooking for info on protein and nutrition.--Peta 04:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The role of protein in human nutrition actually gets a great deal more than equal time in the protein article if you consider the fact that this article is not about human biochemistry but rather about the biochemistry of all living things. // Internet Esquire 05:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why OR and I were discussing rewritng the section to be about protein in nutrition in general.--Peta 05:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I don't see why the section should be limited to human nutrition.  Let's make it more general and leave the specifics of protein in human nutrion to the article of that name. ike9898 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sectioning

message: I am satisfied that the role of protein in nutrition has been successfully exported to the separate article by that name with a wikisummary included in the main protein article.  However, it now seems that the content found in the nutrition section should properly follow the section on biosynthesis. // Internet Esquire 21:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad that you're satisfied with the separation of content. However, of all the places the nutrition section in this article could go, where you put it is extremely awkward - between biosynthesis and chemical synthesis, which are logically related, seriously disrupts the continuity of that section. There's also no reason anyone would expect to find nutrition information under a header labeled "synthesis". There may be a better place that its current position near the end, but interrupting the synthesis section isn't it. Peta, what do you think? Opabinia regalis 06:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nutrition section should be first.  It is context that the majority of people are thinking when they hear protein.  It is however quite inadquate, but I won't repeat all my comments from the peer review here.  My additional thought however are that the nutrition section is a summary of a daughter article which really focused on human nutrition which is somewhat problamatic.  I think the main point of the nutrition section on this page should be establishing that protein is notable topic in nutrition and explaining why.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 22:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's been some discussion of the over-emphasis on humans in the nutrition article, which you might be able to improve with your knowledge of agriculture. We can see what other people think, but I strongly disagree that nutrition should come first - this is and should be an article on proteins as molecules, which is undoubtedly the primary meaning of the term. In fact, I like its current position, as the article progresses from protein components to structure to usage. However, you're right that the nutrition section is a bit scraggly at the moment - I've moved the specifics of digestion to the daughter article and rearranged the text. I had at one point added the nutrition article to the disambig statement at the top - perhaps restoring that would help direct people looking for nutritional information to the right place? Opabinia regalis 00:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like the idea of having both a section and a note at top in general.  Maybe this article should lose the nutrition section altogether and the current daugthter article be re-named Protein (nutrition) ?  Then have the hatnote.  Although proteins in nutrition are still the same molecules it is in a way a different concept, or at level being treated at a different level.  The only problem I can see in overlap is if this article ever talk of the concept of synthesizing proteins specifically for animal consumptions.  I wish I could help more with the broading the nutrition article, but I never kept up with my original education and do not have the sources is on hand.  It is really a widespread problem here, and I hope to get on it in the future.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutrition redux 

message: I find this quite confusing. However, as I understand it, rate enhancement is kcat/kuncat and is a ratio between two first-order rate constants with no units. This ratio simply gives how much faster the catalytic reaction is than the uncatalysed reaction at Vmax. Catalytic proficiency on the other hand, is (kcat/Km)/kuncat and is a ratio between a second order and first order constant. The physical meaning of this ratio is less clear and seems to have something to do with the enzyme's affinity for the transition state. TimVickers 23:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have read the reference more thoroughly before I copied the data. The best of my knowledge is that kuncat/(kcat/km) is the "apparent dissociation constant" reflecting the collapse of the enzyme-transition state complex, so you must be right about its reciprocal as a measure of transition state affinity. I'm just never sure with experimental kinetics what physical process it is that's actually being measured. Opabinia regalis 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rate enhancement versus catalytic proficiency 

message: Can someone do an article on protein breakdown? As in how they're broken down to form amino acid pools to form other proteins? Tyciol 22:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protein breakdown

message: So that picture is completely wrong.  One gene can encode a single protein, a small RNA (i.e. microRNA) or multiple isoforms of a proteins.  The picture should be removed.
::It shows a common occurance, this is not incorrect, it is just not the complete picture. However, since this article deals with proteins, adding microRNAs, rRNAs or snoRNAs would be a distraction. TimVickers 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthesis Picture 

message: Are normal people meant to understand this?? Comment added by User:Plokt 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: Just thought you ought to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.98.12 (talk • contribs) 
You can either pronounce it deNATurAtion or DEnatURation. TimVickers 20:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't watched that video before, but wow, pronunciations are the least of its problems. I'm surprised it was made by a textbook company. Apparently amino acids polymerize spontaneously into proteins and the only type of secondary structure is a helix. Any objections to removing the link? Opabinia regalis 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The narrator of the 'Protein Denaturation' animation can't pronounce 'denaturation'