well, 90% of 3×10^6 is approx. 3×10^6 (nt, in AA it’s 3-times less), if this is in 3000 proteins, one protein has in average 1000 AAs
1.5% of 3×10^9 is approx. 4.5×10^7, if this is in 30 000 proteins, one protein has in average 1500 AAs

if you do more accurate calculations, the difference will be a little more

yeah, I see I wrote it, but didn’t calculate 😳 and the same for bacteria, so it will be approx. 300 and 500 AAs in average 😉

Never mind guys I am very weak in calculations and giving here a simple logic. 😀 Until we know the coding sequence its hard to assume the protein length. As we can easily calculate the number of amino acids easily but not the protein length. As in the coding sequence there will be many stop codons. So where is the stop codons present can’t be estimated and also along with the start condons respectively. Hence its not easy to estimate the size but the number of amino acids may present can be calculated.! 😉

Hope I’m correct. Am I? 💡

what(s the difference between protein length and number of amino acids?

Once a full ribosome assembles at the start codon, proceeds though translation and encounters a stop codon, that’s it — that is the end of the coding sequence. The ribosome leaves the mRNA and the sequence downstream of the stop is the 3′-UTR. So, you normally don’t find multiple stop codons within a coding sequence (though there are always exceptions; e.g. a "slippery" sequence can trigger translational frameshift and bring alternative stop codons in-frame).

Jack’s question gets to the core of this — protein length and # of amino acids are the same thing. Keep in mind too that the mature form of a protein might be digested by a protease to a smaller form than was originally translated. In that case, amino acids are clipped away (and with that, the polypeptide is shortened). Post-translational modifications like glycosylation can also affect protein mass, but I would not say that is a change in protein length — length refers to the number of amino acid residues in the polypeptide.

oooh got my conceptions correct. 🙂 thanks.! 🙂

i think you mean nucleotides not amino acids

no there wont, as explained following your original post but overlooked by you in your self congratulations. Are you a time waster? If not, then I kindly suggest you work on both your English writing and comprehension and I wish you good luck in these endeavours. False self-gratification is not going to help you, is why i point it out is all.

I don’t understand your english there, son

i am not sure if this is stated elsewhere but some proteins use multiple start codons (well one per polypeptide synthesised).

errrr, no, although one can use software to predict each genes amino acid primary sequence, this can be done from a cDNA clone quite accurately (not completely so), it is one of the most difficult problems in biology to predict what the exons used are without the cDNA sequence. In fact, this is one of the most powerful arguments to say there are an infinite number of genes, not 30,000, because a cell might always opt for a piece of DNA it has never used before (or not for a million years) that has lain idle and who is to say it is not entitled to do so- as such a relatively new protein is made, and thus it could be many distinguished professors reckonings be the old gene (after all a new exon whether 0.01% of the final protein (or even 0% if it is just used regulatorily) or 99.9% of it – ) using the new exon in combination with the old promoter some fraction of its ‘usual’ exons – yet if it is a different function why call it the same gene….perhaps gene in the sense of the 30,000 odd gene estimates should best be defined by the promoter , although defining these is just as debatable partly due to the plasticity of the requirements of the mRNA polymerases (promoter co-factors etc), and the fact that there are many pseudo-genes which object to the label pseudo!!

no , you werent. you must be human.