Sorry to come late to this discussion-
I think the actin and tubulin people already reverted "polymer"
to its etymological use- google "actin polymerization"
Another example of infinite polymers formed by domain swapping
(and the surprises you can get trying to engineer a molecular switch):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22245575
eab
Jacob Keller wrote:
> Okay, I wiki'd it, and according to them seems you're right: it says
> they are "typically connected by covalent chemical bonds." So either
> we revert to the etymological use of "polymer," or move onward to
> "myriomer!" (assuming the cross-bred "multimer" is out of the
> question!)
>
> JPK
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:37 AM, David Schuller<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On 06/18/12 11:17, Jacob Keller wrote:
>>>
>>> But anyway, what is
>>> wrong with calling her structures "polymers?" Is there a subtle
>>> covalent insinuation to "polymer?"
>>>
>> subtle? No, it's not subtle.
>>
>>
>> --
>> =======================================================================
>> All Things Serve the Beam
>> =======================================================================
>> David J. Schuller
>> modern man in a post-modern world
>> MacCHESS, Cornell University
>> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
|