Joe Marshall  <jmarshall@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
+---------------
| rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
| >     > (let ((acgt (vector 'a 'c 'g 't)))
| >         (loop for i below 200 collect (aref acgt (random 4))))
| >     (G T T C C G G C C G A C T G A A T T C A T T G T A C A G G C A C
| >      G T G A G C C C G C G C A C G G G G C T G G G A T T T G G A T G
| >      T A T A T A A T G G A G T C G G A T A G C G A C G T C C G A C C
| >      A C A A A T C T C C G C G G C G A C C T T A G A G A C T A T A G
| >      G A C G G T G G A T T A T T C T A A T T T A C G A C C G C A G T
| >      G T T G C C A T C T G C A G C A C C A A T C C G A A A A A G G C
| >      G G G T A T C G)
| >     > 
| > Hey, this DNA stuff is fun!!   ;-}  ;-}
| 
| Keep this man away from the gene-splicing equipment.
+---------------

So what *is* the probability that a random 200 base-pair sequence
encodes something biologically active? (...or even a viable virus?!?)  ;-}

I know, I know, they actually come in base-pair *triplets* [that is,
DNA is really base-64], so a 200 base-pair sequence isn't even valid.
And it needs special "start" & "stop" triplets at the beginning and end. 
[And if it's a virus, it's probably RNA, not DNA.]

But that said, what's the probability that a random *well-formed*
207 base-pair sequence encodes something biologically active (or viable)?


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607