But luciferase, according to the wiki article, "unlike fluorescent proteins, luciferases do not require an external light source, but do require addition of luciferin, the consumable substrate."
Really? Your source is a cartoon? Sorry, but I work with proven material, not a picture that you judge to be whatever you want. But be free to watch w/e cartoons you want. Not my problem.
You were proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt in multiple ways and your counter argument is that the image of the protein's structure is a computer rendering?
Did you think someone could snap a photo of a single protein molecule using a camera?
Either take the L or admit you're a disinfo shill.
Luciferase looks like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg/330px-PDB_1vpr_EBI.jpg which is clearly not graphene. It is a complicated folded protein structure.
Your paper shows that graphene can be made photoluminescent. According to this website photoluminescence is light emission after photo stimulation of a material. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/photoluminescence
But luciferase, according to the wiki article, "unlike fluorescent proteins, luciferases do not require an external light source, but do require addition of luciferin, the consumable substrate."
See this video for more help -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxlMFsw1OfY
Really? Your source is a cartoon? Sorry, but I work with proven material, not a picture that you judge to be whatever you want. But be free to watch w/e cartoons you want. Not my problem.
You were proven wrong beyond any reasonable doubt in multiple ways and your counter argument is that the image of the protein's structure is a computer rendering?
Did you think someone could snap a photo of a single protein molecule using a camera?
Either take the L or admit you're a disinfo shill.