<p>Mutation is the basis for genetic drift. It makes sense…</p>
<p>Natural selection is a bit too vague lol.</p>
<p>I thought it was talking about the cellular level of genetic variation. I wrote about meiosis crossing over and random assortment of chromosomes.</p>
<p>Wait, for protein regulation, did it mean how is the synthesis of protein regulated, or how proteins regulate activity in the cell?</p>
<p>The questions says “Cells regulate both protein synthesis and protein activity. Discuss TWO mechanisms of protein regulation in eukaryotic cells.”</p>
<p>I wrote about enzymes and carrier proteins.</p>
<p>Writing about intros and all that would seem like a repeat of part a of that question.</p>
<p>I think it meant how the synthesis of proteins is regulated</p>
<p>line graphs aren’t always about time. a bell curve is often used to show A LOT of things, and not all of them are time.</p>
<p>a popular one is the graph showing enzyme activity as TEMPERATURE OR pH increases. it’s in campbell, and that’s not measuring time on the x-axis.</p>
<p>regardless, i think both bar or line would be accepted just as long as the bell curve is shown.</p>
<p>^I don’t think natural selection is too vague. I wrote about that and mutations. </p>
<p>Carrier proteins is not the best answer IMO. They pretty much affect cell conditions. The question was more getting at how active proteins are regulated. I said kinases and binding factors/enhances and stuff for the second.</p>
<p>I also think that bar is clearly the better graph. They may not take off for a line graph, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they did.</p>
<p>I think it’s talking about how cells regulate protein activity.</p>
<p>my friend wants to know if Negative feedback would have been an acceptable answer for the protein reg. question…i don’t know what to tell her, haha.</p>
<p>Umm. No. Line graphs.</p>
<p>You don’t know that at 18.5 degrees celsius there’s 4.6 fish.
That makes no sense.</p>
<p>It shows data that you don’t have.</p>
<p>Ah, really? When it said “Discuss TWO mechanisms of protein regulation in eukaryotic cells,” I thought it meant how proteins regulated in eukaryotic cells, which is reasonable, right?</p>
<p>Yes, negative feedback is an acceptable answer, as long as an explanation is provided. Just saying “negative feedback” probably won’t get full credit.</p>
<p>And, the sentence before the one you quoted pretty much didn’t leave much room for interpretation. Sure, your thinking may be reasonable, but it is not correct.</p>
<p>[Negative</a> feedback - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback]Negative”>Negative feedback - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>It says in the sentence before.
“Cells regulate both protein synthesis and protein activity”</p>
<p>I think regulation of proteins by cells is implied.</p>
<p>she said she talked about blood sugar levels and insulin…idk, that seems right to me.</p>
<p>Well, wouldn’t cells using enzymes (for reactions) and carrier proteins (for active transport) count as protein activity being regulated?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I did not read question 4 very thoroughly so I did not see the definition of central dogma, which I knew nothing about. Thus, I left that section blank-- epic fail on my part. </p>
<p>Is zooplankton-- guppy-- catfish-- shark at all in any way possible? 
For some reason I drew a huge blank at one of the easiest parts…</p>
<p>That’s pushing it lol.
Doesn’t insulin reduce blood glucose levels?
Glucose isn’t a protein lol.</p>
<p>Because the protein activity of the two things you mentioned is not regulating proteins. If you talked about phosphorylation of carrier proteins and/or allosteric inhibition/activition of enzymes, for example, that would have been acceptable.</p>
<p>And the problem with zooplankton is they are not a producer. I had the same thing, so :(</p>
<p>insulin’s a protein, so they might give her some credit…maybe, haha.</p>
<p>lol. and its not on a cellular level where it refers to “in eukaryotic cells”</p>