Cloverlief wrote:Gliadin does have opiate properties. Of course you have to have .5 mg of gliadin (and that isn't all the gliadin used, btw, just the portion that became active) to make 1 nM of opiate that will actually bind to receptors.
Now I admit that I was a horrible chemist and remember little more than the composition of H2O (hell I have the periodic table on my shoes for easy reference), so I may be misunderstanding something here.
BTW, gliadin is part of the gluten.
Heavily refined wheat, aka, white wheat, is hell on everybody and should be used in moderation. It is like fruit juice - everything healthy about it has been removed and all that is left is the sugars.
Thanks for the reference.
Isn't it funny how biology and chemistry can be so close in scientific discipline and yet so different. I can't even have a conversation with biologists. It's like a totally foreign language.
Biologist love naming things, even if they have little or no mechanistic understanding of what they're naming.
Proteins confuse me. It's a single word that describes an endless array of huge molecules. I thought they would make more sense when protien crystallography came along. Nope.
Oxycodone (an opioid)
Even large peptides make sense, though a bit messy. Here's Nocicpetin.
Myoglobin crystal structure. Looks like something swept up off the floor next to a drill press.
Now the bit about Opioid Receptors made sense. That means somewhere in those taffy squiggles is an opiate functional group that chemically bonds to the squiggly gooey stuff in the brain that's reactive to opiate functional groups.
chemistry = science
biology = squiggly gooey stuff, and critters