signal transduction?

[drcrowthorne]

Since people are really posting questions and answering them here, just wondering, when defining signal transduction, do we HAVE to say that it results in a response? Because the question asks: "What is signal transduction?", and my response was:

"Signal transduction is a cascade of amplifying reactions that are initiated as a result of a substance binding to a receptor. It involves relay molecules."

would this get the mark?

Cheers,

Drcrowthorne

[InsaneMcFries]

Yes, you MUST include that it results in a response in the cell.

I would also include that a signalling molecule binds to a specific receptor.

[APPLEhead]

I say, just write it. It won't hurt to write an extra three or four words, and besides, examiners are mean.

[APPLEhead]

Err, if the question says something like, 'Define signal transduction', don't mention anything about the receptor grabbing the ligand, because that's part of signal reception.

[InsaneMcFries]

You can say it, as long as you say something like "as a result of".

[APPLEhead]

In the TSFX booklet, it says that signal transduction does not involve the ligand binding to its specific receptor. That part is signal reception.

Basically, signal reception ---> signal transduction ---> cell's response.

[APPLEhead]

Oh wait, my last post contradicts my first post.

[APPLEhead]

Sorry for spamming

[InsaneMcFries]

Don't worry, that is correct, but if you do write about the signal, say that transduction is a RESULT of the signal, implying that it isn't part of transduction.

[Sapphire]

From the assessment report (2007, Q1 ciii.)
'Signal transduction refers to the series of event that occur after the receipt of a specific signal and which result in a response'.

They emphasised that the 'response' part was missing, so yeah, you should add it to your answer

'Many students failed to mention the generation of a response at the cellular level'

[spherelin]

my teacher told us to always include external signal.... but yueah