I think it means that I don't want to work in bioinformatics, if there's such ambiguity over what seems to be a basic term.
Does the term "residue" include the ex-amino acid components at the end of the protein?
The text is clear that it doesn't. The popup says that "a residue is a molecule from which a water molecule has been removed". But it's internally inconsistent, and the IUPAC definition says that it does include the ends.
I would follow the IUPAC Gold book definition. That is written by a committee that seeks exact wording. The other source seems a little sloppy with their definition.
As to whether you might consider working in the field of bioinformatics, I can only pass on a comment from a researcher in the field. She says that they are being "swamped with data". Lots of data, but a lack of computer nerds to work on it.
PS I also noticed the reference to post-translational modification in one of your comments. This is one of the factors that makes for the amazing variety in protein/enzyme functioning. Humans have about 20 000 genes to encode about 75 000 different enzymes, plus a multitude of structural, storage, hormonal, etc. proteins. So you can see that translation of the gene is only the beginning of the story; post-translational modifications are needed. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/posttransl... It's an unlimited area of study - one I stepped out of and wish I had stayed in. Of course, to make any sense of a complex system, one has to concentrate on a small part of it. Focus on what takes your interest (and you can get paid for).
Years ago I got the advice to not go into software development for science. The reasoning was that those companies are mostly run by people with PhDs who took 6 years to get their degree, and getting paid a pittance. These people find it hard to believe that a non-PhD software developer should be paid significantly more than a PhD.
I don't know if it's true, but when I see "Lots of data, but a lack of computer nerds to work on it." ... I read it as saying there's no money to hire those computer nerds.
The same person advised me that the software developers who go into science often do so for the love of the topic, and willing to be paid less. I don't think I can get that interested in bioinformatics.
I think it means that I don't want to work in bioinformatics, if there's such ambiguity over what seems to be a basic term.
Yes, biology is a mess of exceptions, "good enough" and "hey, it works". It does have its charm as well, though.
One of the first things I learned from that world is that if you ask a microbiologist if something is always the case, the answer will be "Yes" if it is true more than ~80% of the time.
Comments
Yes, I'm likely reading too much into it.
I think it means that I don't want to work in bioinformatics, if there's such ambiguity over what seems to be a basic term.
Does the term "residue" include the ex-amino acid components at the end of the protein?
The text is clear that it doesn't. The popup says that "a residue is a molecule from which a water molecule has been removed". But it's internally inconsistent, and the IUPAC definition says that it does include the ends.
I would follow the IUPAC Gold book definition. That is written by a committee that seeks exact wording. The other source seems a little sloppy with their definition.
As to whether you might consider working in the field of bioinformatics, I can only pass on a comment from a researcher in the field. She says that they are being "swamped with data". Lots of data, but a lack of computer nerds to work on it.
PS I also noticed the reference to post-translational modification in one of your comments. This is one of the factors that makes for the amazing variety in protein/enzyme functioning. Humans have about 20 000 genes to encode about 75 000 different enzymes, plus a multitude of structural, storage, hormonal, etc. proteins. So you can see that translation of the gene is only the beginning of the story; post-translational modifications are needed. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/posttransl... It's an unlimited area of study - one I stepped out of and wish I had stayed in. Of course, to make any sense of a complex system, one has to concentrate on a small part of it. Focus on what takes your interest (and you can get paid for).
Years ago I got the advice to not go into software development for science. The reasoning was that those companies are mostly run by people with PhDs who took 6 years to get their degree, and getting paid a pittance. These people find it hard to believe that a non-PhD software developer should be paid significantly more than a PhD.
I don't know if it's true, but when I see "Lots of data, but a lack of computer nerds to work on it." ... I read it as saying there's no money to hire those computer nerds.
The same person advised me that the software developers who go into science often do so for the love of the topic, and willing to be paid less. I don't think I can get that interested in bioinformatics.
Yes, biology is a mess of exceptions, "good enough" and "hey, it works". It does have its charm as well, though.
One of the first things I learned from that world is that if you ask a microbiologist if something is always the case, the answer will be "Yes" if it is true more than ~80% of the time.