captainplanet97

I was wondering what the 'S' means when describing subunits? I am currently taking an immunology class and when reading about immunoglobulins it says that IgG's are monomers (7S immunoglobulins) and that IgM is a pentamer (19S immunoglobulin)? Also various other descriptions about enzyme structures describe things in term of a number followed by S. Another example is given below from the following site "In Eukaryotes, the co-efficient of ribosomes are 80s, of which is divided into 60s for the large, and 40s for the small subunit. The 60s contain 28s rRNA, with a small fragment that is attached noncovalently and can be released upon heating; a 5.8s, and a very small - 120 nucleated of 5sRNA" http://www.cs.stedwards.edu/chem/Chemistry/CHEM43/CHEM43/Ribosomes/Ribosome.HTML I can only assume the S stands for subunit or some other arbitrary designation. Anyone know for sure? Please no guesses, I hate it when people are unsure and just share their opinions about what it COULD be or tell you to read/look at some other resource rather than just giving a knowledgeable, straight up answer. Thanks for your time guys!

Which human diploid cell would you use for cloning? What genetic basis did you choose this cell for? Thanks a bunch guys my friend and I keep debating it. I personally think human neural stem cells, which he says I can't choose a stem cell so I just choose nerve cells from the CNS because they duplicate very slowly, if ever and thus have the lowest chance of getting a mutation.

Hey everyone I'm new here but I just had a crazy thought that I wanted to spitball with people who are well......smarter than my friends =) Anyways I was wondering: the general theory behind global warming is that CO2 generated from fossil fuels acts as a greenhouse gas which traps the energy generated by the sun in the form of heat, ultimately increasing our atmospheres average temperature(this is my understanding of it). So my idea is that perhaps the excess energy isn't coming from the sun and is instead a result of burning fossil fuels in the first place? It makes sense and really does a nice job(at least in my mind) of explaining the whole situation. Think about it this way: A)Fossil fuels are hydrocarbon chains which contain energy in the C-C bonds B)These fuels are pumped to the surface of the planet and combusted, releasing heat+CO2 C)Politically driven idiots see higher temperatures and higher concentrations of CO2, and assume that because of the correlation and CO2s ability to be a greenhouse gas that it is indeed trapping the suns heat While this does still leave the problem of getting off of fossil fuels untouched, I think that realizing that CO2 is just an indicator that lags behind temperature change is crucial to understanding climate change as opposed to thinking that higher CO2 precedes temperature increases. Because by this logic not only is global warming a limited phenomenon that is constrained by the amount of fossil fuels on the planet(and thus the amount of heat stored as chemical energy), but it also shows how perfectly able bodied scientists can have their results and public/professional opinions skewed by political interference(do you really think that after politicians jumped on the band wagon that the theory would be so heavy refined? Politicians aren't exactly the kind of people to admit to being wrong after all) Anyways this was just a thought. I'd love to hear people opinions on this because my friends aren't nearly as sciencey as I am. Oh yes and I apologize in advance for any trash talking =) Peace out nerds!