tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4111782305190930044.post3599239747271165459..comments2023-10-19T04:59:08.088-07:00Comments on science buzz: Amazing! Bacteria have been cajoled into accepting two new letters into their genetic code! But what are those letters - in chemical terms?sciencebodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4111782305190930044.post-32949747715904588912014-05-08T05:25:52.359-07:002014-05-08T05:25:52.359-07:00Yours was my preferred explanation for hydrophobic...Yours was my preferred explanation for hydrophobic interactions in an aqueous medium, Paul - a squeezing out effect. That was until I was required to teach Nuffield A-Level Chemistry, where the emphasis was very much on the attractive forces between non-polar molecules that made them congregate. But on reflection I prefer your (and my original) version. Where I would (tentatively) differ is your reference to 'specific pairing'? Do we know that those 2 novel bases <i>specifically</i> pair, reminiscent of A-T or C-G hydrogen bonding? I was minded to assume that the two bases were merely compatible in a packing sense, i.e. with no steric hindrance, and through lacking polar substituents in the "wrong" positions that might create unfavourable electrostatic interactions.<br /><br />I'm always open to ideas where the organic chemistry is concerned, being a biochemist by training. sciencebodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12051016731274875332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4111782305190930044.post-67841744321682210402014-05-08T05:00:43.011-07:002014-05-08T05:00:43.011-07:00Hydrophobic bonding - isn't the main point tha...Hydrophobic bonding - isn't the main point that in a polar environment non-polar molecules get squeezed out and so end up together like oil droplets in water. Everything has London forces so that would not account for specific pairing. Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13475664960071838835noreply@blogger.com