![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There's a redirect from structural homology, protein to here, and I've got a feeling this is a misunderstanding! - that the two need to be differentiated! (Disambiguation page?)
My impression is that proteins are properly described as homologous if their structure and function(s) correspond/match/overlap, importantly, in a way that suggests/confirms that they share a common evolutionary origin . . and they'll be described as structurally homologous to point out similarity of structure alone.
Structural homology may be mentioned simply without opinion/commitment on (a) whether the proteins' functions correspond, and/or (b) whether the proteins have a shared origin. In other contexts there may be the thought that they don't, and at the extreme a writer may be saying that the agreement in structure is noteworthy because the proteins are not homologous in function and/or origin.
If I'm right the redirect is wrong and needs reversing.
The complication is if some writers sometimes use homologous when they mean only structurally homologous (ie "for short"). If this does happen, enough to matter, a disambiguation page is needed.
These are my impressions. Does anyone actually know? - please edit the article / undo the redirect and make a stub, as appropriate!
SquisherDa ( talk) 14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
There's a redirect from structural homology, protein to here, and I've got a feeling this is a misunderstanding! - that the two need to be differentiated! (Disambiguation page?)
My impression is that proteins are properly described as homologous if their structure and function(s) correspond/match/overlap, importantly, in a way that suggests/confirms that they share a common evolutionary origin . . and they'll be described as structurally homologous to point out similarity of structure alone.
Structural homology may be mentioned simply without opinion/commitment on (a) whether the proteins' functions correspond, and/or (b) whether the proteins have a shared origin. In other contexts there may be the thought that they don't, and at the extreme a writer may be saying that the agreement in structure is noteworthy because the proteins are not homologous in function and/or origin.
If I'm right the redirect is wrong and needs reversing.
The complication is if some writers sometimes use homologous when they mean only structurally homologous (ie "for short"). If this does happen, enough to matter, a disambiguation page is needed.
These are my impressions. Does anyone actually know? - please edit the article / undo the redirect and make a stub, as appropriate!
SquisherDa ( talk) 14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)