Slashdot Log In
Are 68 Molecules Enough To Understand Diseases?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Sep 08, 2008 03:35 PM
from the enter-the-peer-review dept.
from the enter-the-peer-review dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "A researcher from the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) claims that 68 molecules can explain the origins of many serious diseases. After reviewing findings from multiple disciplines, he 'realized that only 68 molecular building blocks are used to construct these four fundamental components of cells: the nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), proteins, glycans and lipids,' and he said that 'these 68 building blocks provide the structural basis for the molecular choreography that constitutes the entire life of a cell.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Synthetic Molecules Emulate Enzyme Behavior 58 comments
FiReaNGeL writes "Ohio State University chemists have created a synthetic catalyst that can fold its molecular structure into a specific shape for a specific job, similar to natural catalysts. In tests, the chemists caused the catalysts to twist one way or the other, either to form one chemical product or its mirror image. They confirmed the shape of the molecules at each step using techniques such as nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Being able to quickly produce a catalyst of a particular shape would be a boon for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries."
[+]
First DNA Molecule Constructed from Mostly Synthetic Components 188 comments
ScienceDaily is reporting that Japanese chemists have created the world's first DNA molecule comprised of almost entirely artificial components. The breakthrough could lead to advances in both medicine and technology, possibly utilizing the massive storage capacity of DNA. "In the new study, Masahiko Inouye and colleagues point out that scientists have tried for years to develop artificial versions of DNA in order to extend its amazing information storage capabilities. As the genetic blueprint of all life forms, DNA uses the same set of four basic building blocks, known as bases, to code for a variety of proteins used in cell functioning and development. Until now, scientists have only been able to craft DNA molecules with one or a few artificial parts, including certain bases."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Overkill (Score:5, Funny)
You should only need 42.
In other misrepresentations... (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, c'mon, there's only three of them, how difficult could it be?
Parent
So..... (Score:3, Insightful)
I love when 'cutting-edge research' is actually old information with a pretty new graph/picture/powerpoint slide/animation/etc.
Re:So..... (Score:4, Informative)
You have to admit, it is an awfully pretty picture: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2008/09-08MolecularBuildingBlocksBIG.jpg [ucsd.edu]
And I thought the write-up was fine. TFS focused on the '68 molecules' thing, which is nothing new. TFA just mentions that his research includes the illustration, but the thrust seems to be encouraging a focus on lipid and glycan research for disease control and steering away from our current tunnel vision of genetic research. Seems like a reasonable and interesting opinion considering that the lion's share of funding is going to the genetic researchers.
Parent
Are 2 Bits Enough To Understand Computers? (Score:5, Funny)
An AC on Slashdot claims that 2 bits can explain the origins of many serious computer viruses. After reviewing findings from multiple hosts, he 'realized that only 2 bits are used to construct these four fundamental components of computers: the processor (x86 and x86_64), memory, storage and network tubes,' and he said that 'these 2 building blocks provide the structural basis for the bitwise choreography that constitutes the entire life of a computer.
Re:Are 2 Bits Enough To Understand Computers? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, just kidding man. Mod parent insightful.
Parent
Only 68? Piece of cake! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, two of those 68 molecules are RNA and DNA. The other 66 should be cake for anyone who understands either one of them.
Obvious and boring (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's obvious - since these are the only components in cells, and they have all been known for years, how is this remotely interesting?
2. It's not really relevant - It's like me saying "100 elements are enough to understand disease" - yes, all biological processes may only involve 100, probably fewer, elements, but how the hell does that aid our understanding? It's the identities and actions of the resulting molecules and macromolecular complexes, not their components, which define their actions
3. If we're going to be anal it is far fewer molecules - The 4 bases of DNA and the proteins involved in their replication are all we need really to understand all disease processes, for it is from this template, and the proteins which they code for, that everything comes from. These 68 are all coded for in the DNA, even the DNA itself. One may wish to be a bit more anal and include mitochondrial DNA and proteins separately, as they are a separate genome technically.
4. This is misleading. Not all constituents in the body are made from merely these building blocks. What about hydroxyapatite? This is an incredibly common molecule in our bones, but like so many other molecules in the body, it is a relatively simple organic molecule.
What a thoroughly boring and unenlightening piece.
Who submitted it? (was: Re:Obvious and boring) (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this make slashdot?
It was submitted by the Slashdot God of all Science Media, Roland Piquepaille, that's how.
Parent
Re:Obvious and boring (Score:5, Insightful)
1. It's obvious - since these are the only components in cells, and they have all been known for years, how is this remotely interesting?
It's interesting in that this is a nice summary of information that we've known for a while that has never been presented in so succinct a format.
2. It's not really relevant - It's like me saying "100 elements are enough to understand disease" - yes, all biological processes may only involve 100, probably fewer, elements, but how the hell does that aid our understanding? It's the identities and actions of the resulting molecules and macromolecular complexes, not their components, which define their actions
See below.
3. If we're going to be anal it is far fewer molecules - The 4 bases of DNA and the proteins involved in their replication are all we need really to understand all disease processes, for it is from this template, and the proteins which they code for, that everything comes from. These 68 are all coded for in the DNA, even the DNA itself. One may wish to be a bit more anal and include mitochondrial DNA and proteins separately, as they are a separate genome technically.
You either didn't read or understand the article correctly (and I suggest reading the original article in Nature Cell Biology; it's a very quick, high-level piece. As to your point, the molecules that compose RNA and DNA are only 8 of the building blocks he lists. The 20 amino acides that compose proteins (and the amino acids themselves are not encoded by DNA) make up another subgroup. Then you have your glycans and lipids as the other two main subgroups, again not encoded by DNA.
4. This is misleading. Not all constituents in the body are made from merely these building blocks. What about hydroxyapatite? This is an incredibly common molecule in our bones, but like so many other molecules in the body, it is a relatively simple organic molecule.
See above.
The whole point of Marth's paper is that there has been too much focus on genes and proteins as the origins of disease, and that the research into lipids and glycans that has been conducted hasn't been integrated well enough into the genetic research.
To that end, he put together a very nice chart listing the major constituents of a cell divided into four major groups, along with diagrams of where those molecules are found in the cell. His article is more of a commentary piece about how more integrative work needs to be done with a nice chart on how these pieces fit together. It's one I'll probably print out and hang on the wall, because I appreciate that it's simple and still conveys quite a bit of information.
Parent
Re:Obvious and boring (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of Marth's paper is that there has been too much focus on genes and proteins as the origins of disease, and that the research into lipids and glycans that has been conducted hasn't been integrated well enough into the genetic research.
A large part of that is due not to researchers prefering genes and proteins over the others, but limitations in our tools for probing them. There is quite a bit of research into lipids membranes, but the field is having trouble agreeing on some of the very basic mechanisms due to technical limitations. It's much harder to replicate lipids than it is to do so for DNA or proteins. DNA sequences you can have as much as you want by tomorrow using bacteria or PCR. Proteins you can get a cell type of your choice to express it and then harvest it (this becomes more difficult with certain proteins like transmembrane ones and becomes much more difficult with protein complexes). Those come out very pure and have been exhaustively troubleshot. Lipid purification methods are less developed.
I'm no expert in that, but it seems like a vicious cycle of no one purifies lipids because there hasn't been much work done to come up with a cheap and fast way of purifying lipids because no one purifies lipids. If anyone knows of a way to purify lipids for as cheap as you can DNA, let me know.
Furthermore, you can manipulate DNA or proteins much easier than you can lipids. A professor was telling me once that there were only two people in the world who knew how to effectively modify lipids to do spin-spin labeling (I think that's a way of determining the orientation of two mollecules) and to buy purified modified lipids was outrageously expensive. In proteins on the other hand, it's my understanding that any grad student could make and purify protiens for spin-spin.
And lipid biologists are having trouble with the very basics of their field as a consequence of limited tools. Lipid rafts are potentially one of the most important functions of lipids in the bilayer, but it's quite controversial as to whether they exist or not. I personally am not convinced that they do. The evidence in support seems to all be artificial examples of where they could get certain lipids to self-associate, but real-life examples have as far as I know either not been sufficiently proven or have been disproven.
I don't mean to demean lipid biologists, that work is far above my head and it is definitely an area that is far, far underdeveloped compared to the genes and protein research that I do. My hat is off to them.
Basically, we're focused on genes and proteins because you work with what you can. When the tools for lipid studies catch up to DNA and protein, you can expect lipids to catch up.
Parent
Re:Obvious and boring (Score:5, Informative)
Again, go back and look at the chart. He lists the 8 (not 5) nucleic acids involved in DNA and RNA:
Deoxyadenosine
Deoxycytidine,
Deoxyguanosine,
Deoxythymidine,
Adenosine,
Cytidine,
Guanosine,
Uridine
The first four nucleosides make up DNA, the last four RNA.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well done. In a 2-line post you managed both be an ass-hole and make an ass of yourself.
* Applause *
Some Context (Score:5, Informative)
This probably isn't a great article for Slashdot's front page. The original work referred to in the press release cited (and to be honest, the release overstates the original work to which it refers) is a piece of correspondence in a scientific journal of cell biology (Nature Cell Biology) from a cell biologist to fellow cell biologists calling for a more holistic approach to studying the origin of disease. It has a very specific target audience and a very specific message.
He states (correctly) that many people thought that decoding genetics would lead to understand the nature of disease, but that hasn't happened to the degree we thought it would. Rather, they (I'm not a cell biologist) need to look at the entire cell and all of the components of the cell, not just the genes and proteins.
To that end, he provides a very nice diagram that lists 4 major groups of organic molecules and shows at a high level how they fit together. It's a nice little reference piece for researchers and students and a nice reminder that the cell is a dynamic, complex body with many important components other than the genes and proteins that receive such a large amount of scrutiny.
Improved Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Researcher Proposes New Framework For Understanding Cells, Disease.
Researcher Jamey Marth, publishing recently in Nature Cell Biology, has organized 68 molecular building blocks into four categories and illustrated their roles within cells. Marth suggests that organizing these building blocks, much as chemists organize the periodic table, will "provide a conceptual framework for biology that has the potential to enhance education and research by promoting the integration of knowledge.". Roland Piquepaille [primidi.com] and Thomas Joseph [blogspot.com] offer commentary on their blogs.
Water (Score:4, Insightful)
Somehow he seems to have missed water, which is crucial to all life processes as we know them.
Re:How many were you expecting? (Score:5, Insightful)
And wow most of those Molecules are made up of Carbon. Without Carbon we will have no Diseases.
Sometimes going to deep in the problem causes you to overlook the obvious. For most Diseases it is about understanding how the elements function more then what they are made up of. (Sometimes knowing what they are made up help understand their function, but not always it depends on how they are arranged, just as DNA has the same molecules from one life form to an other their effect on the environment depending on their arrangement varies.
Parent
Re:How many were you expecting? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:How many were you expecting? (Score:4, Funny)
Solution:
Ban carbon compounds.
Sure, it means losing one element and we'd have to give up a few things - I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But picture it - A world without disease. So which is better - A world with carbon compounds and rampant disease or a world where we give up carbon compounds and rid the planet of all disease? You decide.
=P
Parent
Re:How many were you expecting? (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry for the self-reply, but I just realized the flaw in my logic and realized why my 'Ban carbon compounds' proposal won't fly...
There are carbon compounds in oil - No way the lobbyists are letting us get that through Washington... Oh well, I can dream.
Parent
Re:Obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
When he tried for 69, he blew it.
Parent
Re:woo (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:reductionism (Score:4, Funny)
Nonsense.
On a completely unrelated note, I've made an illustration with 5 essential parts of all buildings: nails, screws, wood, cement, and support beams. These 5 building blocks provide the structural basis for the architectural choreography that constitutes the entire structure of a building. These construction components may now hold the keys to uncovering the origins of many grievous architectural problems that continue to evade understanding.
Parent
Re:I've got 2 bits... (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed it for ya!
Parent