<p>this exam was just weird. like apparently last year there was a lot about human body systems, and not a lot about plants. but this year it's like the opposite.</p>
<p>elchert those are correct.</p>
<p>okay so on the first frq if for one of the bonds/ interactions i talked about the alpha helix andbeta pleated sheet and the seconday structure is that rigght? i'm not quite sure if that would be considered a bond or interaction??</p>
<p>I think they were thinking more along the lines of bonds like a disulfide bridge</p>
<p>In primary structure it's peptide bond, secondary structure is alpha helix and beta sheets, tertiary structure it can be disulfide bridges, hydrogen bonds, ionic bonds, or van der Waals interactions</p>
<p>do you guys think hydrophilic/hydrophobic interactions would work for tertiary and quarternary structure?</p>
<p>Haha, today I just randomly realized I screwed up part of the primary productivity question.</p>
<p>This test really frustrated me. i studied for weeks for this tests read cliffs 3 times and focused on certain subjects b/c they were "important" the test had nothing on it that they said was supposed to be on it</p>
<p>the first prompt was so detailed and specific. protein bonds?! i didn't even know protein HAD bonds except for peptide bonds!</p>
<p>well you could do protein interactions too... i thought that was easier.</p>
<p>For the first one i talked about hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonds (which to answer an earlier discussion, are what stabilize alpha helices and beta sheets, and so if you applied hydrogen bonds in that context your answer would be perfectly right), and disulfide bonds. There are many other answers, but those three were all very good answers to put down.</p>
<p>so what do you guys think the score breakdown is going to be? or rather, what do you guys think the criteria for each question/part will be to get full points?</p>
<p>I talked to the smartest girl in our class today for the first time after the test...and she made me feel like I got a 2. Were we supposed to mention a thermocline for the net primary productivity one, for the midsummer part? I had no idea that we did...and I messed up my protein/sickle cell pretty badly...I drew the diagram of my peptide bond wrong. ARGH...</p>
<p>@_@ dont know bout you guys but my free response was bullllll</p>
<p>To echo049:
I dont think we had to actually label the pond as thermocline, but common sense dictates that the water at the surface will be far warmer than water at the bottom.</p>
<p>uh.. for the protein question, I specifically stated what bond at what level in a protein. and yes, to the person who asked, hydrophobic interactions should work.. they are part of the tertiary structure.</p>
<p>I mentioned spring overturns.. so I'm sure that it wouldn't hurt if you labeled it thermocline?</p>
<p>Well, the question was asking how the graph's line would change...and thus energy production would go up above the thermocline of course, but below the thermocline, energy production would decrease...</p>
<p>Something like that, I think. I said both would increase. lol</p>
<p>What? The question, I believe, asked something to the effect that summer would have on the graph.</p>
<p>Yeah, but the graph was energy production versus depth, not temperature versus depth.</p>
<p>Do you think increased light, photosynthesis, and productivity would work for that question?</p>