8:37 You have the reaction, and result, wrong. The bond is formed between the 3' hydroxyl group of the top nucleotide, not the hydrogen of the 3' carbon. After the phosphodiester bond has formed, the 3' carbon of the top nucleotide should have a hydrogen remaining, but you show it having a hydroxyl group. And you show the carbon directly bonded to the phosphorus atom, but there is actually an oxygen atom between the carbon and the phosphorus.
26:37 It is not correct to say that the overall structure of a fully-functional protein is know as the quaternary structure. Many proteins are fully functional even though the have only a single polypeptide chain, so have a functional tertiary structure (and don't adopt a quaternary structure).
@ 12:54 you say that Erwin Chargaff found the ratio of a/t c/g "across many different species of organism". Does that mean many as in every species tested, or many as in only some of the species tested?
Drishty Kamboj so that protein can understand it. Because DNA and Proteins are in different “languages” and the ribosome translates the DNA language so Proteins can understand.
Great video, very informational, please add a place to donate money, I know these videos take alot of time to do. Keep up the good work double, I mean professor
Watson and Crick were in a race against the great two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Pauling thought that DNA had three strands, not two. We now know that when a cell divides, its DNA unwinds and the two strands separate from each other, and each strand goes into one of the "daughter cells." There are two daughter cells. Had Pauling been right, his triple-stranded DNA would have produced three daughter cells. Clearly, Pauling did not realize the connection between the number of strands and the number of daughter cells, and therefore did not realize that DNA replicates by separating the two strands. By the way, in organisms that have two parents, there are two chromosomes. In a sci-fi universe with three sexes, each cell would have three chromosomes. So there's one chromosome (one copy of the complete DNA molecule) for each parent, and one strand (one component of the DNA molecule) for each daughter cell. It took me a long time to figure this out. I wonder how Pauling thought the A-T and G-C pairing could have played into his three-strand model. Does not this pairing speak clearly of two strands? Apparently not.
21:36 Sickle-cell anemia is not advantageous. You are confusing a disease condition for an allele. Sickle cell anemia is a disease in people who are homozygous for the sickle cell allele: humans have 2 copies of the gene, and homozygotes have both of their versions as the mutated, sickle cell allele. That is not advantageous. A heterozygous person has one sickle cell allele and one "normal" allele: such people do not have the disease sickle cell anemia. They are carriers for the disease, but they don't have it. In regions where malaria is prevalent. 1) Being homozygous for the sickle cell allele would mean having the disease sickle cell anemia, which is bad. 2) Being homozygous for the "normal" allele means the person has none of the protection against malaria that the sickle cell allele provides, which is also bad for the person. 3) Being heterozygous provides the best of both worlds: the person does not have the disease sickle cell anemia, and does get some protection against malaria. This is the classic example of heterozygote advantage.
This is the clearest explanation I can find. It really helps that this has subtitles. I can share this to students in my Biology class.
thank for nailing it home. the best ever explanation of central dogma. hoping to understand more💪
this video is so perfect you are a great teacher
8:37 You have the reaction, and result, wrong. The bond is formed between the 3' hydroxyl group of the top nucleotide, not the hydrogen of the 3' carbon. After the phosphodiester bond has formed, the 3' carbon of the top nucleotide should have a hydrogen remaining, but you show it having a hydroxyl group. And you show the carbon directly bonded to the phosphorus atom, but there is actually an oxygen atom between the carbon and the phosphorus.
very nice explanation and also the animation, it helps me a lot to understand about the central dogma.
Best video awesome how everything is broken down
This is really helpful, thank you.
Very comprehensive info. Thanks a lot, sir!
11:05 DNA does not synthesize RNA. DNA is a passive molecule. It is a protein (RNA polymerase) that synthesizes RNA, using DNA as a template.
Best video on the central dogma of life I’ve ever seen 🤞🏾🤞🏾👍👍👍
Bravo 🙌🙌
Yes! Exactly what I needed to get this info to stick in my head. Fantastic! Thanks much.
Holy crap, that was amazing.
wow . From a mathematical point of view we are engineered. Too beautiful, too perfect to be random just wow.
Best
26:37 It is not correct to say that the overall structure of a fully-functional protein is know as the quaternary structure. Many proteins are fully functional even though the have only a single polypeptide chain, so have a functional tertiary structure (and don't adopt a quaternary structure).
Great video. Pretty sure that is Barbara McClintock not Rosalind Franklin though.
I'm glad someone else noticed this. The image was put on the screen and immediately I thought, that's Barbara McClintock!
@ 12:54 you say that Erwin Chargaff found the ratio of a/t c/g "across many different species of organism". Does that mean many as in every species tested, or many as in only some of the species tested?
Soooo fine explanation!
👌👌👌
Very nice explanation.Thanks
Great presentation. Now I have a much better understanding. Thank you!
A great video, but seriously guys, why have you at 13.36 a picture of Barbara McClintock instead of Rosalind Franklin?
It's teach me a lot.. Thank u ♥
Really like the explanation.. good for new learners 😇😇😇
Thank you!
Make more videos this is fantastic
really excellent
.1 covelance then nist right?
Incredible information thanks
I enjoyed this explanation. Where can I find the next video mentioned at the end?
Informative 😊
Sir why is mrna modified before and after transcription
Drishty Kamboj so that protein can understand it. Because DNA and Proteins are in different “languages” and the ribosome translates the DNA language so Proteins can understand.
@@KattGamezz Thank you so much mam 💟💟❤❤
@@KattGamezz are schools colleges open in your country?
@@drishtykamboj5776 yes it opened in I india
@@balakrishnakale6667 yes. Sir now they are open
great video!
the sinless clean asset clarity is not false.
Great video, very informational, please add a place to donate money, I know these videos take alot of time to do. Keep up the good work double, I mean professor
Bravo!
thank you, great effort
Watson and Crick were in a race against the great two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling. Pauling thought that DNA had three strands, not two.
We now know that when a cell divides, its DNA unwinds and the two strands separate from each other, and each strand goes into one of the "daughter cells." There are two daughter cells. Had Pauling been right, his triple-stranded DNA would have produced three daughter cells. Clearly, Pauling did not realize the connection between the number of strands and the number of daughter cells, and therefore did not realize that DNA replicates by separating the two strands.
By the way, in organisms that have two parents, there are two chromosomes. In a sci-fi universe with three sexes, each cell would have three chromosomes. So there's one chromosome (one copy of the complete DNA molecule) for each parent, and one strand (one component of the DNA molecule) for each daughter cell. It took me a long time to figure this out.
I wonder how Pauling thought the A-T and G-C pairing could have played into his three-strand model. Does not this pairing speak clearly of two strands? Apparently not.
Subscribed. Thanks a lot.
Who writes the essay ?......I'd really like to know......
I create everything.
@@thebiologyprimer8529 fantastic profesor
Awesome
it so amazing
this is better than school 😂💔
👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻❤️❤️I really like it
Also is mRNA same as RNA
the nerd is delicate.
❤❤❤❤
21:36 Sickle-cell anemia is not advantageous. You are confusing a disease condition for an allele.
Sickle cell anemia is a disease in people who are homozygous for the sickle cell allele: humans have 2 copies of the gene, and homozygotes have both of their versions as the mutated, sickle cell allele. That is not advantageous. A heterozygous person has one sickle cell allele and one "normal" allele: such people do not have the disease sickle cell anemia. They are carriers for the disease, but they don't have it.
In regions where malaria is prevalent.
1) Being homozygous for the sickle cell allele would mean having the disease sickle cell anemia, which is bad.
2) Being homozygous for the "normal" allele means the person has none of the protection against malaria that the sickle cell allele provides, which is also bad for the person.
3) Being heterozygous provides the best of both worlds: the person does not have the disease sickle cell anemia, and does get some protection against malaria.
This is the classic example of heterozygote advantage.
ribi corp x 2
Very clear and informative.