Thread: Cytochrome c

can anyone tell me where i can find the amino acid sequence for cytochrome c? or just giving it to me here would work. i saw it in a book, so i know it's out there.

chemboy, I hope you won't take this as to disparaging a comment, but have you heard of google?
It took me all of thirty seconds to locate the following link: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1164701

The abstract of which is

The amino acid sequence of locust cytochrome c was determined, although the overlap between chymotryptic and tryptic peptides at residues tyrosine-97 and leucine-98 was not observed, owing to an anomalous tryptic break duplicating the chymotryptic digestion. The molecule consists of a single polypeptide chain of 107 residues, homologous with other mitochondrial cytochromes c. In common with other known insect cytochromes c, it possesses a non-acetylated, four-residue tail at the N-terminus relative to glycine-1 of the standard alignment. A molecular phylogeny for 17 species was constructed relating the cytochrome c molecules of Schistocerca gregaria and other invertebrates with those of representative taxonomic groups. Experimental details are given in a supplementary paper deposited as Supplementary Publication SUP 50077 (24 pages) at the British Library Lending Division, Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ, U.K., from whom copies can obtained on the terms indicated in Biochem. J. (1977) 161, 1.

and for which a full, free download of the paper is available, with the complete sequence included.

And all this by just typing the characters "amino acid sequence" cytochrome into google and hitting search. This paper was the first hit in there.

Now if you wanted the sequence for human cytochrome c, you should have said so. 8)
I'll give you a clue - Matsubara and Smith. 1962.

a note on this one: this also was not for hw. is it a terrible thing that i didn't try google first and just asked here? And i'm not being smart, that's a serious question. this is just a good source for info, so i tend to go here and kinda forget about googling stuff. this is more direct in a way.

Originally Posted by Chemboy

this is more direct in a way.

But Pubmed is a more correct way; information needs to be reliable.

Originally Posted by Chemboy

a note on this one: this also was not for hw. is it a terrible thing that i didn't try google first and just asked here? And i'm not being smart, that's a serious question. this is just a good source for info, so i tend to go here and kinda forget about googling stuff. this is more direct in a way.

I would say that the quality of answers on science forums is highly suspect. Some posters, while sounding authoratative, will post absolute bilge. The mods here try to police what is posted and correct the more glaring errors, but we have some very clear limits.

Again, on this site, there are some very knowledgeable posters who post good information. Often, it seems to me, that information has only been collected, or defined, specifically to answer a question. In other words, many posters, including myself, spend time and effort to gather information to answer those questions by googling.

As noted above I found the information you were looking for in less than one minute. It took me longer to compose and type the damned post. Why do it? 1: we like to help. 2: it provides a means of learning something new.

Why should you try googling directly? As Him said, to be able to ensure the reliability of what you find; also, to find serendipitous information you would otherwise miss. So how could you then use the forum - easy: ask for clarification of the ideas you have learned about, propose relationships between ideas that seem to be novel, etc.

ok, i understand that. thank you.